Another hole in frame question

Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration
Model T Ford Forum: Forum 2012: Another hole in frame question
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 03:52 am:

We were told (on this forum) a few years ago that the hole through the top of the frame for the hood clip was elongated in 1923 so that the hood clip could remain attached to the hood shelf when the hood shelf was removed from the frame.

I just accepted that as fact and since then have used the info to help date frames.

Now that I am preparing some drawings for the different holes that appeared in the frames of various years, I need to be reasonably sure of the facts. Is this documented anywhere?

or

can those of you with cars of that era have a look and tell me if your hood clip hole is circular or elongated.

hood clip hole


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Larry Smith on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 10:05 am:

They are.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Dan Treace, North FL on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 02:00 pm:

Gavin

This frame is May 1923, found chassis with original engine still in, 7,640,xxx.

The hole for the hood shelf clamp is round, not elongated.




Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Noel D. Chicoine, MD, Pierre, SD on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 02:23 pm:

I believe my April 1923 frame has round holes. I'll check this evening.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 03:18 pm:

Gavin:

I implore you to get your info directly from the archives as a first step. When folks in years past put Ts back together during restoration they typically started by finding the best frame they could find. I have a 1923 T - its excellent frame is definitely later vintage than early 1923 though the rest of the car appears fairly correct. If you make drawings and distribute them with dimensions and details taken from cars that have been found - you will cause more misinformation to circulate and we already have enough of that. If you make a CAD drawing that may be very nice thing to have but the information can still be inaccurate and the last place I look for any info is on actual cars. T parts interchange too easily and details get really muddled. In some cases we do not have archival info and are forced to use on-the-car measurements but how many of the T's out there can be for sure unchanged since built?? Unless a T has been in a family since new or has a known traceable legacy, it is no more valid when put together as a car as when it came from a swap meet as a "better" part to be used. The factory drawings for the frame are available at the Benson Research Center along with "record of change" information that then tells the entire history of the part changes that occurred during the years. Please use that as a source of your CAD drawings and then you will really have helped the cause. There are quite a few parts out there that have been reverse engineered and they are pretty easy to spot. Research is not about gathering information it is about gathering correct information and being able to sort out that info which is not correct regardless of how nice the car looks.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris on Tuesday, July 10, 2012 - 04:45 pm:

John,thank you for your advise.

My intention is to obtain the info from the archives but am hoping to narrow down the time frame first. I will not release the plans until I am sure that the drawings are as accurate as can be and even then only after getting a few respected Model T historians to review them.

Until I do have documentation, my plans will be clearly marked as having being "prepared from information obtained from a number of frames, not documented".

If a change is not documented, I will use a consensus of the information supplied and label that feature, eg "hood clip hole changed to be elongated circa 1923."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Noel D. Chicoine, MD, Pierre, SD on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 10:22 pm:

My April 1923 touring has been on the home ranch from 1926 until I got it about 15 years ago. It has a 1924 cast front axle and aftermarket front springs, along with a pre-1919 front spring holder/engine mount. Uncle John drove it to his 8th grade graduation in 1938. He doesn't recollect anything being done to the car after Grandpa Ludwig bought it. It has an elongate hole for the front spring clip.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 - 11:18 pm:

Thanks Noel,
and with the provenance is good information.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris (Napier, NZ) on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 09:30 pm:

Now have the info from the Benson Ford Research Center.
Release No. T-2914-Ar shows an entry dated 5-10-23 “changed holes for front hood clip from 15/32 dia. To 15/32 x 19/32 oblong."


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By John F. Regan on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:38 pm:

Gavin:

NOW THERE YOU GO! Good for you. Remember one thing about the "record of changes" or "releases" as they are often called. These dates are the dates that the drawing changed and are not the dates that the part began to appear on the production floor. That is very important to make sure your readers know. The time from drawing change to on-the-car change varied a bunch depending on how many of the older parts were on hand, the time frame of early production versus later when the quantity being built per month was tremendously different, the complexity of the change being made and the time to incorporate the change in the part, and finally whether the car was built at the factory or at a branch. Branches seemed to be dead last in line to get any changes being made.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Wednesday, September 26, 2012 - 10:47 pm:

And sometimes the drawing may not have been updated until AFTER the change was implemented. There seems to be a lot of "bring drawing up to date" notes.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris (Napier, NZ) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:16 am:

Thanks guys,

I already have "changes were phased in" on the drawings (not finished yet). This should cover any discrepancies.

And of course, every answer starts off another question. This change is dated 5-10-23 which I presume to be 10th of June 1923. Here in NZ it would be 5th of October 1923. Was it always so in the US? What other countries have dd/mm/yy our way?


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Ken Kopsky, Lytle TX on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:33 am:

The US uses both but dd/mm/yy is usually a military standard. Civilians use mm/dd/yy unless you work with computers. Then it's yy/mm/dd or yy/ddd or one of several others that don't resemble a date at all. :-)

And you wonder why it's so hard for us to convert to metric. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris (Napier, NZ) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 12:44 am:

Thanks Ken.....I think.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 10:58 am:

Gavin -- I believe the 10th of June is correct.


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Roger Karlsson, southern Sweden on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 11:07 am:

I'd say May? :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Mike Walker, NW AR on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 11:51 am:

Well, DUH!! I think you're right, Roger. Here in the US, it's too early in the day to actually think. :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Gavin Harris (Napier, NZ) on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 04:12 pm:

Oh sh-t!
shrink, shrink, very red face, etc. etc but LOL.

Thank you Roger, The 10th of May will now remain imprinted in my brain.

As I have said here before, that is one of the strengths of this forum, write something wrong and it will be corrected very quick.

Oh dear.... thank god it's Friday


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 04:59 pm:

It's Thursday, Gavin and you are right about things being corrected quickly! :-)


Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message  By Henry Petrino in Modesto, CA on Thursday, September 27, 2012 - 05:01 pm:

Oops! Now my face is red. Gavin, you sly dog, you are on the other side of the international date line form where I am. It is indeed Friday where you are!!!


Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.
Topics Last Day Last Week Tree View    Getting Started Formatting Troubleshooting Program Credits    New Messages Keyword Search Contact Moderators Edit Profile Administration