|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
12-28-2015, 09:46 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lakewood, Colorado
Posts: 158
|
Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Section 2 page 6 of the RG & JS discusses the position of the ground strap bolt in relation to the battery and cross member. The text reads "the bolt head was located on the battery side of the cross member".
The accompanying picture in the Standards appears to show the opposite. I did a search but couldn't find the answer. Which way should it be for a judged car ? Thanks, Ray |
12-28-2015, 10:58 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Bolt head faces the battery. That's how I view the picture.
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
12-28-2015, 11:05 PM | #3 |
BANNED
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Bucks County, PA
Posts: 11,454
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
I agree with Tom the pic looks correct
|
12-28-2015, 11:08 PM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Eureka, California
Posts: 1,716
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Bolt head faces the battery. No question in that regard.
|
12-28-2015, 11:10 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Notice the orientation of the old and new design bolts. The "socket" wrench in on the nut and the open end is on the bolt head. Looks OK.
__________________
What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity - intellect and resources - to do some thing about them. - Henry Ford II |
12-28-2015, 11:11 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northport, NY
Posts: 1,597
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
|
12-28-2015, 11:40 PM | #7 |
BANNED
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: East Central Iowa
Posts: 1,275
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
I also think I see a lock washer under the bolt head..
Larry
__________________
Good enough.. Isn't. |
12-29-2015, 12:48 AM | #8 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lakewood, Colorado
Posts: 158
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
I agree that the big picture shows the two bolt heads facing the battery, I guess I was looking more at the fine detail. Not sure where the standards committee pulled the diagram from, but it looks to me like the bolt head is facing the cross member in that diagram.
I think I can see a flat and lock washer facing the battery. I know I am being too anal, but just saying. Anyway, thanks for answering my question and I will face the head to the battery. Ray |
12-29-2015, 01:05 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Nope, don't worry keep them questions coming!
__________________
What's right about America is that although we have a mess of problems, we have great capacity - intellect and resources - to do some thing about them. - Henry Ford II |
12-29-2015, 02:20 AM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 27,582
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
I just looked up the bolt in my 1931 Parts Price List, and yes, it does list a lock washer and flat washer.
Another thread didn't pass the inspection of the one star general. I think he's actually a drill sergeant masquerading as a one star general. Last edited by Tom Wesenberg; 12-29-2015 at 02:30 AM. |
12-29-2015, 11:01 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Windy City
Posts: 2,919
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Upon close inspection I agree with Arcieri's description in post #8. The drawing definitely shows the socket half-cocked off the hex bolt head and on the outside a flat, then split washer followed by a hex nut.
This makes me wonder whether the change was made to facilitate faster assembly, as a hex can be engaged easier and with more orientations than a single pair of flats, or if the change was to replace a more expensive specialty fastener with a stock bolt. Perhaps both? Notwithstanding the drawing, it goes in with the head on the outside for fine-point. That does not, of course, mean that every single one that went down the assembly line was put in the same way. I wonder how many original battery cases got dinged by backwards bolts infringing upon the free clearance. |
12-29-2015, 11:14 AM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 913
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
The drawing is from the service bulletins
|
12-29-2015, 11:29 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 611
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Jim, to clarify this, Bolt, washer? (or not) battery strap, frame cross member, lockwasher, and nut?
|
12-29-2015, 01:07 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 2,950
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
If you can see in the picture it is explained how to install.
.. Last edited by Joop; 12-29-2015 at 01:14 PM. |
04-15-2016, 08:03 PM | #15 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lakewood, Colorado
Posts: 158
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Would like to revisit this one more time as I am getting ready to install the battery for a judged car.
We have established that the bolt head faces the battery per the RG&JS. Now, how do the flat washer and lock nut figure in this installation?? The picture, which is from the service bulletins (which we mostly accept as fact) shows a flat washer and a lock washer on the battery side of the frame rail. Is this what the judges accept as correct? Or is the picture incorrect in the service bulletins? Should the flat washer and lock washer be on the side of the frame rail opposite the battery behind the nut like we see on about 99% of the usual bolt-nut installations? Thanks Ray |
04-15-2016, 08:43 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,868
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Quote:
Last edited by RonC; 04-15-2016 at 09:08 PM. |
|
04-15-2016, 08:48 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lakewood, Colorado
Posts: 158
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Thanks Ron (and Joop) looks like I will install it that way. Just seemed different than what I was used to.
Ray |
04-15-2016, 09:07 PM | #18 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Rhode Island
Posts: 1,868
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
|
04-16-2016, 11:58 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: FRESNO, CA
Posts: 12,560
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
"Maybe" the Judges will be too FAT to scoot under your car to check it????
I LOVE that wrench! Can they be bought in a SET? Do they "ratchet"? WHY is the Dog LAFFIN'???? Bill Odd
__________________
"THE ASSISTANT GURU OF STUFF" |
04-16-2016, 12:25 PM | #20 |
Senior Member
|
Re: Possible discrepancy in Judging Standards
Read post 14, makes it pretty clear and good. Take your time. What year is the car your getting ready for Fine Point?
__________________
Mark Maron Ill., Region MARC & MAFCA MARC JSC Member MAFFI Trustee National Facebook Admin. https://www.facebook.com/groups/MARC.group/ A7191-Sport Coupe 29 Roadster 29-Town Sedan 29-Original Special Coupe |
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|