original 27-29 seamed cutout-to-terminal box conduits difference?

[frank55a]

I have 2 original 27-29 seamed cutout-to-terminal box conduits and they are different. While the judging standards is not specific they seem to indicate they all should be same. Both conduits are the same in all respects except for the hole for the wire from the starter switch to the terminal box. The first conduit appears to match the description in the Judging Standards. However, the second seamed conduit except the hole which is much smaller than the first one and basically round with no reinforcing is the same as the first conduit. While the second conduit has a repair on either side of the hole the length wise ends adjacent to the hole appear to be untouched, specifically no repair. Upon close examination showing a much smaller hole and no sign of a reinforcement, I tend to think it is an earlier version of the conduit. Perhaps with the smaller hole it was too difficult and time consuming to run the wires, therefore the hole was elongated and made larger and thereby in doing so weakened the area around the hole so the reinforcing plate was added. The first picture is of the first conduit, the last 2 pictures show the differences in the holes, and the pictures in between are all the second conduit.

Does anyone have any knowledge regarding this difference?

[vern hodgson]

Looks like homemade??

[frank55a]

Originally Posted by vern hodgson

Looks like homemade??

While it was repaired, it is not home made. As stated except for the hole it is the same as the other conduit in all respects.

[Jim Mason]

A-14406 ws drawn 9/27 and obsoleted with out change in 1/30.

[Gary Karr]

If both conduits have seamed tubes, they are originals. The different one has a bad repair job.

[frank55a]

Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)

Originally Posted by Jim Mason

A-14406 ws drawn 9/27 and obsoleted with out change in 1/30.

Jim,


Thank you. Your response prompted me to check my drawings and I was surprised to find that I do have a copy of A-14406-A1. This however is an assembly drawing and shows the various components of the assembly, I would not expect it to necessarily show design specifics, notes, and/or changes unless components were added or deleted or major changes in the component took place. The drawing does not show the size or detail the design of the hole. This drawing was apparently initially drawn/approved 9/23/27. Then there was apparently some revision 9/27/27, the next change as you stated was 1/30/30 when it was obsoleted.


The more important drawing however is A-14575-A1 which is the steal tubing design. This drawing was also initially drawn/approved 9/23/27, however it underwent several revisions, 10/1/27, 11/16/27, 9/9/29 and 9/27/29 before it too was obsoleted on 1/30/30.


I do not have the drawings or letters that would show what the initial design of the conduit on 9/23/27 or what changes were made 10/1/27, 11/16/27, and 9/9/29. The drawing I have is he 9/27/29 and it does clearly show the hole as 1/4" x 3/4" with the reinforcing.


As I understand production could lag drawing approval dates anywhere from 4-12 weeks, therefore if initially the hole was smaller and then changed to the larger design by the 10/1/27 or 11/16/27 revision it is possible that the 27 and very early 28s had the smaller hole in the conduit.


This question can only be answered if someone can do the research to find the 9/23/27, 10/1/27 and 11/16/27 revisions to A-14575-A1 determine what the initial design was and what changes were made.


Thanks again for the clue.

[frank55a]

Originally Posted by Gary Karr

If both conduits have seamed tubes, they are originals. The different one has a bad repair job.

Gary,


I could accept your conclusion, except how do you explain looking at the two conduits next to each other. The poor repair is on either side of the hole but looking at the lengthwise ends of the hole there is no evidence of a repair especially nearing where the limits of hole should be, if it was repaired. Specifically, considering visually the poor repair on the sides I would think the poor repair would also extend into the untouched lengthwise areas which it does not.

[Steve Plucker]

Originally Posted by frank55a

Jim,


Thank you. Your response prompted me to check my drawings and I was surprised to find that I do have a copy of A-14406-A1. This however is an assembly drawing and shows the various components of the assembly, I would not expect it to necessarily show design specifics, notes, and/or changes unless components were added or deleted or major changes in the component took place. The drawing does not show the size or detail the design of the hole. This drawing was apparently initially drawn/approved 9/23/27. Then there was apparently some revision 9/27/27, the next change as you stated was 1/30/30 when it was obsoleted.


The more important drawing however is A-14575-A1 which is the steal tubing design. This drawing was also initially drawn/approved 9/23/27, however it underwent several revisions, 10/1/27, 11/16/27, 9/9/29 and 9/27/29 before it too was obsoleted on 1/30/30.


I do not have the drawings or letters that would show what the initial design of the conduit on 9/23/27 or what changes were made 10/1/27, 11/16/27, and 9/9/29. The drawing I have is he 9/27/29 and it does clearly show the hole as 1/4" x 3/4" with the reinforcing.


As I understand production could lag drawing approval dates anywhere from 4-12 weeks, therefore if initially the hole was smaller and then changed to the larger design by the 10/1/27 or 11/16/27 revision it is possible that the 27 and very early 28s had the smaller hole in the conduit.


This question can only be answered if someone can do the research to find the 9/23/27, 10/1/27 and 11/16/27 revisions to A-14575-A1 determine what the initial design was and what changes were made.


Thanks again for the clue.

In stead of beating yourself around the bush Frank, if I were you, get the necessary forms from the Ford Archives, write down all the necessary Drawings and Part Releases needed, pay the money for the items needed, and then see what all this entails yourself.

I would start off cheap first and just get the Part Release for A-14575 and A-14575-A1.

Usually parts start off as A-14575 as this did...Ford added the "-A1" to the part number on 09/27/29. HMmmmm?

OR you can ask pertanint questions to the archives and for a nominal fee they will do the research for you...might not tell you everything.

You must remember...and I am sure you know...even though it does not say it specifically...this part must be an "Assembly"???...the tube itself plus the little part, or reinforcement, that was put into the hole to prevent chaffing of the wire...So, the question is...just what is that part number and when was it added???? if in fact it does exist!

When you leave it up for somebody else to do the research for you...you are still left with all sorts of questions...trust me on that one.

Pluck