|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
03-18-2019, 10:45 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Mebane NC
Posts: 2,355
|
Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
Took my shift lever and forks to a machine shop to have the wear points welded up. Got them back and it looks like the ball is .472 and the forks are .480 and .483. I know the official numbers are .490 and .493-.5. The fit between them is good, no binding, but I wanted to check with you folks to see if I need to worry. Is there a reason the ball needs to be .490 or is it enough that it's smooth and round and fits the forks cleanly?
|
03-19-2019, 12:13 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Walla Walla, WA
Posts: 1,045
|
Re: Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
Quote:
Look at it this way. Strive for absolute, but at the end of the day, getting it as close as you have it, I would probably call it good. You don't want the shifter to be so sloppy that it gets stuck in between gears or that it pops out of gear while you are driving down the road. You also want to put back enough metal to allow for future wear. That being said, many a shifter after 90 or so years are still going strong with lots of wear. How far off were they originally? |
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|
03-19-2019, 01:57 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Mebane NC
Posts: 2,355
|
Re: Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
I didn't measure at the time, I actually just got digital calipers while it was in the shop. But I think what happened is the ball is mostly the same size, just rounded off, while the forks have been built up to fit the ball. Wear was noticeable on the forks more than the ball when I disassembled the tower. The original symptom was difficulty getting into 2nd and 3rd gear.
|
03-19-2019, 07:49 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Cow Hampshire
Posts: 4,188
|
Re: Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
Hard way to fix it. Would have been easier (cheaper?) to build up the ball to beyond the groove wear on the forks, make it round, and then mill out the forks to fit the ball.
I think it will work but will be "sloppy." You have up to 0.010 slop whereas the original fit was more like 0.003 - which is consistent in machining circles as a "sliding" fit. I would give it a try. If that doesn't work bring only the ball back and have them build that up leaving the forks the size they are. The problem for the machinist is in making the ball "consistent" at different angular approaches: the forks stay planer, the ball approaches the forks at differing angles. If the machining is not "round" then the ball jams in the slot at the end of the travel. Joe K
__________________
Shudda kept the horse. |
03-19-2019, 08:46 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Mebane NC
Posts: 2,355
|
Re: Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
Thanks, I'll install it this weekend and then report back. It'll be an improvement over what I had and that's the only reference point I know.
|
03-19-2019, 01:12 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Oregon
Posts: 1,375
|
Re: Shift lever and fork size - absolute or relative?
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements)
|
|
|
Sponsored Links (Register now to hide all advertisements) |
|