Singer Owner May/June 2008

Roadster Repairs

Ashley Crossland

I enclose in this article some Roadsters from the 2nd ever Singer National Day at Ryton in 1968, as above. Are any still around?

Oh dear. I seemed to have stirred up a right hornet's nest by stating that whilst twin carburettors are nice if you already have them, there's no real need to bother with them on a 4AD Roadster. Please don't shoot the messenger, but those people who are upset after spending a lifetime in an elusive search for a twin carb manifold should have asked me first whether or not it was going to be worth it! So for all the people who have told me I am talking a bit of twaddle and twin carbs must obviously be better, how do I prove it without a load of test equipment?

Well, I thought that I might turn to the Road Test Reports in the motoring press of the day to see if they could help out. I've done a careful trawl of the "Motor" and surprisingly I can't find them ever having tested a twin carb 4AD Roadster. Luckily for us however, the "Autocar" has printed a reliable road test on a single carb Roadster and one later on a twin carb 4AD Roadster. If anyone wants to double check these figures, both Road Tests are to be found in the Brooklands Books compilation of Singer Sports Cars that many will have. The single carb car road test was published on 26 Sept 1951, the twin carb one on 10 Sept 1954.

So, up to 50 mph, the single carb car was faster, not much in it at 60 mph, and only a smidgen difference in the top speed. Of course, the back axle ratio will have an influence on this, and note that there was no 0-70mph time given for the single carb car. So I think the evidence will give some comfort to owners of single carb cars that whilst twin carburettors are nice if you already have them, there's no need to bother with them otherwise. Twin carbs do have benefits, but speed is not really one of them. Clearly this is only an observation on SM Roadster evidence, and I make no claims for other cars.

So, I'm glad to have got that one cleared up for the benefit of Mr. "You'll never convince me". Now to report on the progress made with the current back garden car.

I've done a bit more woodwork, using the off-cuts of ash that I had from cutting out the sole plates. These new bits form part of the frame round the rear seat pan with the rear bit of wood with the cutout that goes over the hump of the diff. All got a splash of exterior varnish. More on the seat pan itself later.

Meanwhile over the weekend of 9 Mar I was zooming in on fitting some of the front steering components. Obviously there's no point in messing with the steering column until the scuttle is in place for it to hang on. I checked over the steering box and there was nothing much wrong with it, so I cut out a new paper gasket for the cover, which also needed some 5/16" BSF bolts. I thought these might have been Unified threads with it being a "bought-out" part, but apparently they were BSF. I part filled the box with grease. The steering box hangs on a 3/4" tube that mounts between the chassis sides. I found some 3/4" washers to take up the end float that there is both between the steering box and the chassis side, and also between the idler gear and the chassis side. These packing washers are necessary to stop these bits floating about.

Still on the subject of threads, these side bolts were again the 20 TPI that we've seen previously on several ifs steering parts. I never fully resolved whether the 20 TPI threads were Unified or Whitworth form, but the patent for the ifs suspension was held by General Motors, Detroit, British Patent Number being GB449798. General Motors patented this in 1935, even though it was to be some time later when the suspension system appeared on Singers. The Roadster brass nameplate says that Singers licensed the use of the front anti-roll bar, although certain aspects of the patent drawings look very similar to the Roadster set-up, and I suppose there could have been 20TPI Unified threads carried over on drawings from the USA. Or they could have been 20TPI BS Cycle threads from Singer's past. Must get one of the threads on a shadowgraph sometime to try and clear up this point.

Saturday 15th March gave me time to try assembling the steering box onto the cross-shaft. This is where you could do with an extra pair of hands, but somehow I managed it alone. I found that you had to have the steering box on its mounting boss before putting that and the idler gear on the cross-tube, all with their respective steering drop arms on before you offer it up between the chassis rails and bolt it through the frame, sandwiching it all in place with the 3/4" washers to take up all the end float. Not forgetting the new tab washers that you have made, and it helped to support the steering column from the garage roof with some string. Take a gulp of breath to get all that right! Then I fixed the steering column to the scuttle, and put on a steering wheel. Not a proper Singer steering wheel yet, but one off a Triumph Spitfire married up to an "Astrali" boss that came in a box saying MGB and Midget. (This tip that an MGB steering wheel boss apparently fits the 4AB and 4AD Roadster might be worth remembering for future.) Then I found some track rod ends to carry on with the next day. Many years ago I had put some Quinton Hazel QR 20 `s in stock for a rainy day. These track rod ends used to come as a pair of left hand and right hand threaded parts in a box, but later were sold separately. For a while it looks like for identification, the RH ones were in a plastic bag sealed with a Red tape, and they have the grease nipple is in the base. (Notice the letter in the colour that acts as a clue to the thread.) The LH ones were sealed with a bit of blue tape, and the grease nipple is in the side. This information might come in handy when you go rummaging at an autojumble. The boxes give the cross-ref Leyland 7H 3753 and they can be found on some Austin models. It's also worth remembering that new lock nuts do not come with the track rod ends, so take care of the old ones, for which I have sourced left hand and right hand 3/8" BSP steel nuts. Believe me it's easier not to loose or damage the nuts in the first place.

Easter holidays came and I was anxious to put the long weekend to good use and make the rear seat pan. This would let me see how easy it was to bend long lengths of the sheet metal that I had. Mind you, it was a bit late to find out now, as I had already bought the sheet metal! However, you tend to be limited to what you can bend at home, and the finish you can expect, i.e. it has to be small in size (more or less the width and depth of the vice jaws), and it gets covered in vice and hammer marks. That's because, the usual way to make things at home is by putting the bit in a vice, tightening it up hard, and then bashing it over with a big hammer. You can extend your prowess by acquiring some angle iron to effectively widen the width of the vice jaws, and use some "G" clamps to help with the grip over the extra length. My bits of angle were "bed iron" from an old single bed that was being dismantled, but they don't seem to make beds like that any more. And bed iron doesn't have serrations on its faces so when you are gripping metal, you don't leave unsightly vice marks. Suffice to say that my rear seat pan was bent with angle iron, "G" clamps and a vice, but I would say that a fold of 3" is about as much as you would want to do on 1.25mm thick sheet. With a big hammer of course. The "pan" is still to finish off with a hemispherical bit of metal to form the hump over the differential. I don't know how I'm going to do this - I might have to look out for an old "pan" lid or a wok or something. That's the least of my worries. However, the photo shows a real seat pan and one that I will give myself 9 out of 10 for effort, and 10 out of 10 for satisfaction. The corners are still to weld up on the new pan, but you get the idea.