My right rear wheel spokes were really loose, about half of them jiggled quite a lot. So I decided to respoke the wheel. Taking it apart, I found quite a number of shims that somebody else had put in both between the base of the spokes and we did the tennons when I got the wheels.
I bought 12 new spokes from Lang's (mainly because they were cheaper than the other parts houses). I laid them out on the floor to see if they'd fit nicely and it seemed everything looked good...I built my press from John Regan's drawings, stained the spokes nice and pressed them. This is when I discovered a problem...
Now what to do? So I put a couple of the old shims I took out from the wheel back into my nice new wheel, painted them so you'd have to get real close to notice (one was .030 to .035 and the other was .010), I really hated having to do that to my nice new wheel, but I'm pretty sure that gap would've been worse with nothing in it.
Now I've seen some really complex ways to drill those hub bolt holes, but I opted for something simple...an old spoke, milled down to fit over the hub and positioned over the hole and clamped to drill the hole with.
Funny thing is, it actually worked out really well, lol.
Has anybody else had problems with spokes from Lang's? Well, next time I'm buying for Stutzman!
I re-did a wheel several years ago with excellent results, but I don't remember who I got the spokes from. Sorry.
The real reason for my post was to say I like your drill guide idea. If I ever have to do another one, I'm gonna give that a try.
Hi Martin, where have you been? We miss the great drawings.
Sort of on subject. There was a member who used to be picked up on safety inspections and warned about his loose spoke wheels. Finally they gave him a final warning - "next year if you turn up with these wheels you will not be able to do the tour"
He had new spokes fitted and was allowed to enter the tour.
One of the wheels collapsed before the week s end!!!
I have done three Wheels with spokes (21") no issues.
oops! that should read spokes from Langs
Do you have Kelsey-Hayes wheels? Ford wheels are 20 3/4" inside diameter while the Kelsey-Hayes wheels are 20 13/16". If you used Ford spokes in a Kelsey-Hayes wheel you could have the problem you are describing. Just a thought.
Could be that spokes were not dry enough and shrank more after being turned. I figure on 1/6th on thickness and 1/8 on width when cutting 1 1/2 x 1 3/4 hickory blanks at 10 to 11 % moisture. In my area with our climate they will hold their own at that. KGB
Peter, They'd be really hard pressed to find my shims, they really look pretty close to the color of the spokes. I then took it over some really rough roads around here (lots of rocks and divots) and then did some speeding and sudden stopping (well sudden stopping in a Model T is debatable, I meant using low and the hand brake and finally the pedal to work the tail light) and they held really well.
As for drawings, how's this one?
Since I had it apart I thought what the hell, lol.
And this one is just to round out my headlight collection.
Mike, I thought of that too, and when I compared my old spokes to the new ones they seemed the same...but I didn't really sit down and measure them, just a visual inspection. I know my tires rim is Kelsey-Hayes, because it says that right on the lug mount, as for the wheel, I'm not sure, How would I find out is it marked on them someplace?
You have to measure the inside diameter of the wheel. It works best to measure when the spokes are out, but can be done with them in. They are not marked.
Kind of hard to tell visually, there is only 1/32" difference between Ford and Kelsey-Hayes.
You do nice work. On your headlight, the burner assembly is 90 degrees off.
: ^ )
Keith, the burner is the little "Y" shaped piece right? The light I saw had it setting this way
I would think you'd want the broadest flame you could get, turning it would make it more narrow. Unless that's how you focus it...by turning it to narrow the beam? I don't know, my car is a 22.
In the picture above of the light I believe the "Y" shaped burner is positioned 90 degrees off. The flame comes out the little holes you can see on the side. As it sits now the flame will be aimed (from the back side holes) at the mirror glass and will heat a spot and probably crack the mirror. Might also crack the lens in front also. Common mistake that is made. Others may chime in on this issue.
Dennis, thanks, ok that makes sense, I'll make that change. On the car above, that "burner" is actually faux...it's hiding halogen bulbs, in a high temp plastic that he tea stained to look like burner stone. But I took it for the actual position of the burner.
That's a cool way to hide the Halogen bulb. Faked me out! Thanks for all the great drawings you do and share.
as Dennis said, burner should be this way.
I don't like the Halogen bulbs, the gas light have something mystic.
By the way, great drawings.
I can't see the faux burner/halogen bulb.
Keith, the burner IS the faux halogen bulb, molded the his casing from the actual burner that was in it, that's why it was turned wrong.
I talked with him for quite a while he used to work for J.B Nethercutt. You should've seen his sidelights, they were LED and he hid his wiring really cleverly too
Notice how the top of the bracket looks rounded...is a small tube molded and fitted to the top of the bracket, that's how he ran his wiring for his side lights.
If you didn't know what you were looking for you would never notice it at all.
Here's the revised drawing of the headlight...
You really have to measure the ID of the fellow to determine the right size spoke. The spokes are actually dimensioned to be oversize to allow for some "crush" when they are assembled. Once assembled they will be slightly shorter. So the original spokes will be slightly smaller than the specification on the drawing, and should also be shorter then the new spokes due to this crush. As stated there is only 1/32" difference in the length of the spokes which is not much. The amount of crush could be that much.
Also, the spokes are wood and they will change dimension due to humidity. So if they are in Maine in the middle of winter they are going to be slightly smaller than they will be in Alabama in the middle of summer.
David, last night I went and measure my other wheels rim...it's a Kelsey-Hayes, which leads to think that the one I just put together is also. Since I shimmed this wheel I put together, will it hold up or should I figure on re-spoking it again?
I just noticed an error in my part numbering on the wheel drawing...
There are slots the bottom of a gas lamp where the burner assembly base bolts. To focus the gas lamps is assembly is moved forward or backward along the slots.
Here is a picture of the bottom of a lamp:
I really like the faux burner. Could you put me in contact with the creator?
: ^ )
If I understand you correctly you used your Low Pedal to stop your T. That's a sure way to crack your weak cast iron transmission drum.
Dave, I hit the pedal, but it's pretty much ineffectual (trans needs new bands) backed off on the throttle and pulled the hand brake a tad to slow enough to use the engine in low to slow down enough to use the hand brake in earnest, then applied the pedal just for the tail light (didn't want somebody rear ending me). I didn't go from 40 to low, that's just too much strain on things that are older than I am, lol. I wanted to apply some torque on those rear wheels to see how well the spokes were seated...they're still tight, so I guess everything is ok. Now that I know they're Kelsey-Hayes, I'm probably going to have to re-spoke it anyway.
Since wheels are so important, I have always trusted the respoking of my wheels to a KNOWN, firm that has a reputation for doing excellent work. Haven't ever had a problem for doing this.
There is certainly nothing wrong with sending them off to a wheelwright, but there is nothing wrong with doing it yourself, if you are willing and able.
Larry, I prefer doing things myself for a couple of reasons, 1) It gives me an opportunity to KNOW what's in my car, since I bought everything and installed it myself. 2) It also provides me with fairly accurate parts placement and size for my drawings...I intend to try and draw this whole car, one assembly/sub-assembly at a time, just for the fun of doing it.
Martin, you should compile all your drawings in book form and sell them. I'd have absolutely no reason to even own a Mac's catalog after buying your book.
Hal, Mac's catalog has some good drawings in it...although I'm not keen on their over use of diametric axis (which is probably why they colorize them and also saving space in their catalog than for actual assembly clarity). I lean more to isometric to acute isometric and occasionally diametric (if warranted), I think you get a better sense of the assembly that way.
You'll notice I only use Snyder's and Lang's part numbers, although Steve Jelf tells me I should use Fords numbers and as soon as I get that book (or books) I'll switch to them.
Great exploded drawings! Bruce McCalley reviewed many of the available Ford Price List of Parts books and compiled their information into an easily searchable PDF file format. He described the parts listing as: “A compilation of the entire contents of over 65 Ford parts books published between 1908 and late 1927. Every part, price, and description is included along with all illustrations in the original books. In addition there are thousands of factory numbers and their descriptions in both numerical and alphabetical order.” It also includes the information on parts that were listed in one of the Canadian price list – those are marked with a “c.” And it includes the “factory number” associated with the parts. From his introduction to the price list of parts Bruce states,
“As a rule, Ford used the factory numbers for
identification at the factory, and these are the
numbers that appear on the parts (if they are
numbered at all). The “part number” in the parts
books might be the same as a factory number part
alone, or an assembly of several factory numbers.
For example, the front axle spindle arm (2696) is an
assembly of factory numbers 270 and 255. [The
spindle body is 270 and the bushing 225 (part
That is one of six major parts of his "Model T Comprehensive Encyclopedia" that he produced. Another major part you would find helpful is his “Model T Encyclopedia” which shows photos of the cars and parts by years. It is more up to date than the printed version [which is available from the club at: http://modeltstore.myshopify.com/collections/frontpage/products/model-t-ford-the -car-that-changed-the-world as well as the vendors]. See: http://www.mtfca.com/encyclo/mccalley.htm for a summary of the six major books and resources on the two CD set. For ordering a copy of the “Model T Comprehensive Encyclopedia” 2 CD set please see: http://www.mtfca.com/discus/messages/331880/333725.html?1357665853
Again your illustrations are fantastic.
Hap l9l5 cut off
Martin: So nice to have you back doing your famous illustrations. I enjoy them and have missed seeing them. Thanks again. Bill
Nice drawings, but I have a question.
Kelsey Hayes? I thought it was either Kelsey or Hayes and the two are not the same. Kelsey bought Hayes in 1927 me thinks. Dan
You could be right Dan, I wouldn't know. The parts houses list the spokes as Kelsey-Hayes though and I suppose that's only to distinguish them from the typical Ford spoke which, I came to understand as being 1/32 shorter (my tires demountable rims have the word "Hayes" on the lug flanges). Which therein probably lays my problem (too bad they didn't mark the damn wheels someplace)...I bought typical Ford spokes rather than the Kelsey-Hayes. Even so, I think for any future spoke buying I'll get them from Stutzman.