Handbrake Compensator Differences.
1 Attachment(s)
I don't know if anyone has ever noticed this but I did today for the first time, I've done one for the ZT and I have quite a few in my odds and sods, I noticed a difference and so I lined up these three to show what I mean. The length of the rod is not uniform on any of them, the longest one will of course eat into the adjustment ability of the cable. I've picked a really short one for my car and I'm posting this as a heads up to avoid losing adjustment on the cables. I wonder who supplied them and why they were accepted when they're all so different, it explains a lot of handbrake issues as so many of these things are basically rubbish.
|
The compensators have been stretched on both of the ZTs I have had, they start like the one on the left and end up like the one on the right, which is why you often end up out of adjustment, plus they spring as well which is why it is often difficult to get the handbrake to hold.
I converted both of mine to stainless steel shackle which is easy enough to do as I had a spare one. The D link is only a few of quid on Ebay and you just knock the pin out and change the link over and peen the pin back over. https://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/for...424915d8a8.jpg |
Not my point.
Quote:
|
The point is they aren't made in differing lengths Mike - they stretch as mentioned. :}
The more they are used the longer they get. I welded mine up, and then fitted a Mini compensator to Mrs Noc's 75. |
Not so.
Quote:
|
post a picture of all three in a line (left to right) but with the photo taken from the side.
macafee2 |
It's a long time since I looked at this, but IMO, the 'U-rod' doesn't stretch, but it's the location of the bend that creeps. The repetitively applied tension on the rod 'pulls' it around the pin. Compare the stretched compensator (left below) against new and it's clear that the first stage of failure is the opening up of the U-bend. This can only hapen if the rod is being forced around the pin. The rod becomes mis-shaped, so instead of being parallel, the two arms open out to the maximum angle possible within the confines of the 'case'. This reduces the rigidity enough for the rod eventually to get pulled around the bend until the increased compensator length prevents handbrake adjustment.
Sorry about the size of this image, I simply copy/pasted it from a 2011 thread http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/a...cableclamp.jpg This explanation is proven by the fact that the very first method of fixing the problem was to simply weld a link across the ends of the rod. This stopped the 'stretching'. The substitution of the welding fix by using the steel shackle is mechanicaly identical. The two ends are anchored in place, so the effective length of the compensator remains fixed. TC |
Here you are.
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
As you can clearly see, the bend marks are in the same places but the lengths of the compensators differ, it's not a big problem really but one I for one am aware of for future reference. |
As TC said the bend creeps over time. This gives the appearance that the compensator has stretched.When you reach the limit for tightening the front cable nut and have to replace the compensator it can only be because something has elongated - it didn't leave the factory with the nut tightened too far down.
If you look at TC's photo you can see that the free rod end after the bend has moved up, which is what you would expect as the bend creeps round. . |
The design was poor anyway, disregarding the 'stretching'. The compensator has a small lateral movement so is limited when compensating for unequal adjustments of the rear shoes. The Mini one has lots of sideways movement so is the most desirable.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:21. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd