This site uses cookies! Learn More

This site uses cookies!

You can find a list of those cookies here: mysite.com/cookies

By continuing to use this site, you agree to allow us to store cookies on your computer. :)

Roy vd M.

Members
  • Content count

    753
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,458 Excellent

1 Follower

About Roy vd M.

  • Rank
    Obsessed Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Netherlands

Recent Profile Visitors

496 profile views
  1. Photo 22 shows the car during one of those test drives. Hopefully Olivier will be able to fetch a larger version of that picture from Centro Storico. It may be the oldest photo of all and might provide additional info and insight.
  2. While looking for interesting stuff for your cockpit work studies I think I found an answer to one question... water drainage of the Delage. See the second video below (in which I used my camera light), from 32 seconds. Edit: feel free to ignore the erotic noises. It was quite hard for me (using muscles I don't have) to make this video of reasonable quality while not touching the car.
  3. About the visibility of bolts and rivets on different distances, a comparison: Three close-up pictures Approximately 1 meter from car (compare with Photo 26) Some distance from car (compare with Photos 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 21, 28) Some more distance from car (compare with Photos 4, 25)
  4. Olivier I didn't see any drainage slots or other kind of holes. I can imagine there were none, or that a few holes were simply drilled at the lowest part of the floor, to the back so that at straight parts of the circuit the water would be allowed to escape the cockpit. That's the same (simple) system as used in a water collector, often seen between bonnet and windscreen of a normal car. If the Fiat used another, more elaborate, system just for rain... maybe we'll never know; but it would seem a bit labor-intensive to me. Beside that, perhaps the water would escape the cockpit in a more natural way, as mentioned by Robin before: through gaps in the floor; which might be the reason for the steering wheel screen. Those holes would in that case not only (fortunately) serve to let out water, but (unfortunately) also to let it in.
  5. I agree with Sam here, splendid attention to detail on the wheels. I guess you won't see those weights and the coiled wire being replicated on scale too often.
  6. Thanks @Pouln and @Schwarz-Brot for your elaborate reactions and advice. Ok I did not know that. Learning along the way In this instance I meant the cross-slide while I was trying to translate 'support', so I was wrong anyway; the part I had in my head was the carriage... I thought the English term for that was 'apron'. I have corrected my previous post correspondingly, thanks. Proxxon calls it 'quick exchange', I reckoned they were a bit overly enthusiastic in their terminology; I had seen a few quick-release systems in Youtube-vids. But if you say and if Proxxon says it's a quick exchange toolholder then it most probably is. I don't know what a non-quick-exchange-system would look like. True, and a good idea at that. It's simply a tapped hole: Unfortunately there's no info about that in the manual. That was my original plan and way, which I amended to get a better comparison, but thinking about it I must admit you're right. I'll prepare each spark plug in one go. Although It's not in principal my intention to change my own drawings / work methods for the purpose of easier comprehension by anyone but myself, and although if anyone wants to also build a 1/12th scale Delage and wants to follow my suggestions he'll probably find out what I mean in my step plan, I do agree with you that it might be easier not only for others but also for myself to use standardized plans. I'll remind myself of your advice and will look into that as soon as I will have mastered all other challenges in this build. Too many things to learn, too little time... Frankly I'm enjoying this lathe work too much
  7. Much more learning along to be done then, in this post I'll describe some more mental processes (a nice term for correcting errors). Thank you guys, I have left out this step in the hereunder steps and that seems to work fine. In future attempts I'll only use it when I think it will be necessary (cutting steel for example) or when it may be useful to achieve a smoother surface. Good advice as well, thank you. Per PM I also got the advice to use a specific left-cutting tool. That was also a useful heads-up. Great tips everyone. Unfortunately no quick exchange tool holder exists (ready-made) for this Proxxon machine as far as I'm aware. It's not too bad though, I have three tool holders that can be individually fixed in height. And the indexable tools all have the same height... that's a nice feat. Still I'll probably check out some (general purpose?) quick exchange systems, perhaps there's one I can use on my lathe. Thanks. It might help beginners because I'll describe the things I don't do correctly as well as the end results after several attempts. That might lead to a better understanding of the practical problems one could encounter. Thanks Poul. It's indeed the same material to put flowers and Christmas decorations in. I have never silver soldered before (that will be one of several 'new experiences' to be described in t his thread) but I don't think I'll try it on this stuff. I expect it would burn / pulverize immediately. Thanks Sam, it's my pleasure. And it also helps in directing my thoughts and trying to fetch solutions I must say. At one point when I was describing my method I found out -simply by describing it- that I made a mistake. 44. I chose to follow the difficult path and try to replicate the original spark plugs. See here the drawing. Whereas the currently installed spark plugs would not be very difficult to make, about as complex as the previous cooling liquid coupling, making the authentic spark plugs will be a much more demanding task. The green markings on the drawing 'inside' the spark plug, are the diameters of the several 'rings parts' of spark plugs. For example, the top piece has a diameter of 0,6mm. The 'disk' underneath has a diameter of 1,2mm. The large hex has a maximal diameter of 3,2mm. et cetera. This is all scale-true, so everything is 12 times larger in reality. Or so I thought at the time... The green markings to the left of the spark plugs are the distances, measured from the plug's top. For example, the start of the first 'disk' on top (1,2mm. in diameter) is at 0,45mm. from the top. The end of the visible part of the spark plug is at 5,37mm. The blue dotted lines are just guidelines, used to mark positions and to measure in an easy way. There are more horizontal guidelines than markings, because sometimes the cutting tool has to start or end at a different position, because of the shape of the cutting tool. For example take a look at position 3,68mm. There are two horizontal guidelines. The lower line runs parallel to the top of the largest hex; the top line is the position where the cutting tool should be positioned, if I went further down the cutting tool would damage the hex. Using another cutting tool, the intermediary length is turned off. The purple markings are not important here, these were used for measuring the cooling ilquid coupling-part. 45. Five different cutting tools will be used (among which 'my own'), the cutting tools will have to moved to several positions and at the 20th step the cross-slide will have to be rotated to 84 degrees, in order to turn off a taper. In the hereunder overview the names of the cutting tools are coloured. If anyone needs a translation I'll be happy to provide it, although this is not the step plan I'll eventually use. This will be a useful exercise in working consistently, because these spark plugs will have to be made in eight specimens. Of course they will have to look as identical as possible. In total there are 22 steps to make one spark plug (in this schedule). I am excited to execute this step plan. Hopefully it's correct... 62. A few hours later. The step plan doesn't seam to leave the battleground quite intact. 63. The first result.64. I decided to keep the spark plug attached to its 'sprue' for awhile. On the hereunder cropped image you can see its contours. Apologies for the bad picture quality, but the part is very small (3mm. x 5mm.) and it shines quite a bit, so that it's not easy to photograph well. On the next photo the part is 19 times as large as in reality. 65. And a vid. 68. But life is not always kind (even in micro-scale). One of the most entertaining aspects of my topics seems to be, looking at them as if I were an outsider, to read about my errors. Aren't we all ramp tourists to a certain extent? Well, the errors are about to be described! I started work on my second spark plug, hoping to get them similar in shape. Diameters are not so difficult... this should be 3,20 millimeter in diameter which is spot on in this example, but I'll also accept 3 or 4 hundreds of a millimeter off. 69. The hand wheel receives some graffiti as well. 70. See here the two spark plugs. They don't match at all and the large hex was way too thin... I tried to correct it by using pliers (pressing force) but it had little use. How is this possible? Well I found out that in my step plan I didn't take into account the gear wheel clearance of the lathe. If I move the cross slide 3,0mm. to the left, according to the handwheel, that will be in fact 3 millimeters if the gear wheels are in the correct position. However if I will then turn the handwheel in the other direction, again 3,0mm., the cutting tool was in reality moved only 2,9mm. That's caused by the clearance of the gear wheels driving the cross slide. Therefore it's very important, in each single step of the step plan, to decide where to start the cut... from the left side or from the right side. That's what went wrong here. 71. I changed the step plan integrally. Different cutting tools, strict turning directions, fewer cutting tool changes, calculations of cuts that will speed up the process. In the first step plan there were 14 tool changes, now only 2. Rather than 5 cutting tools used, the new step plan only uses two, each on one tool holder so that i won't have to change them all the time. Also I won't have to reestablish the zero (cutting starting point). It will save a lot of time, the accuracy level will improve and more detail will become visible. All too good to be true? It seems to be but still... I have faith in this new step plan. 72. I USED to have faith in the new step plan. A lathe is absolutely merciless and at step 9 I had written down some wrong values. A reminder to always stay aware and keep thinking!! Now I can start over, again . I thought I had to turn off 0,2mm. three times so i started the first cut... and that appeared to be 0,05mm. too far right away. Turns out (no pun) that I copied a bit of text to a non-corresponding step... But hey I'll patiently start over . And I still have a bit of faith in the new step plan, no worries.... 73. ... although also this time the step plan didn't survive all cutting activities. 74. But this time there were fortunately no mistakes in turning, providing a result that is clearly better than the first specimen. All details are now distinguishable and the proportions are in correspondence with the drawing. Consistently taking into account the gear clearance pays off and provides a feeling of increased assuredness. Milling the hexes yet has to be done; I decided to put that on hold until I'd have finalized a second spark plug specimen. As they are now, they can be ideally compared to one another. 75. The markings om my 'used' version of Drawing 6 will probably become more clear if I'll show the intended results per processed step. The position of the spark plug (on its side) is equal to its position in the lathe as long as it's mounted there. I left out those steps that don't influence the spark plug visually.Step 2: turning diameter of 3,2mm., from 0 to 12,5mm. Step 3: facing, determining right hand zero (=for turning from right to left).Step 4: turning diameter 2,5mm., from 0 to 3,68mm. Step 6: turning diameter 1,8mm., from 0 to 3,12mm. Step 9: turning diameter 1,5mm., from 1,8 to 3,12mm. Step 10: cutting 0,1mm. groove, top (=right hand side) of large hex. Step 11: cutting 0,1mm. groove, 2,29mm. distance. Step 12: cutting 0,1mm. groove; 1,9mm. distance. Step 13: turning diameter 2,7mm., from 4,54mm. to 7,5mm. Step 14: turning diameter 1,9mm., from 5,5mm. to 12,5mm. Step 15: cutting off edges of top large hex and top small hex. Step 16: turning diameter 1,2mm., from 0mm. to 1,01mm. Step 17: cutting 0,1mm. groove, at 0,94mm. distance. Step 18: turning diameter 0,6mm., from 0mm. to 0,45mm. Step 20: turning a taper of 84 degrees from top of small hex, distance of 0,53mm. Step 21: milling small hex. Step 22: milling large hex. End result: Again my own end result, before milling the hexes: 76. On video it looks like this: 77. To my eyes these match reasonably. A single minor error (the top part of the spark plug isn't equal). I'm not sure how this could have happened and which one of both would be correct. But well it doesn't matter that much anyway, the reason for which I'll explain now. It came to my attention that the spark plugs should not be 3,2 in max. diameter, but approximately 2,4mm. This mistake was made by misinterpreting Drawing 6 (see opening post). That drawing says how tall, long and wide the engine is... but it does not say where all those ends are (=from where to where the measurements have to be made). Anyway, no worries, I'll start over. This time I will try something different. The new spark plugs will be that small and my home-made cutting tool is that sharp, that it's probably possible to turn the spark plugs using only that home-made cutting tool. It will then have to be repositioned twice. A summary of the step plan: 1. Turning from right all the way to the left, whereby I will follow the contours (left side of the cutting side is perpendicular to the work piece). 2. Again turning from right all the way to the left, to get a smoother finish. I'll use exactly the same profile plan as at step 1. 3. Turning from left all the way to the right (right side of the cutting side is perpendicular to the workpiece). 4. Again turning from left all the way to the right. 5. Cutting the tapered bit (current step 20). So far for the theory... now only to be executed in practice. If it works I'll get an even more accurate and uniform end result. I tested this a bit already and it looks like it's feasible... only the tiny diameter at the spark plug's top end (0,4mm.) will have to be cut after the larger diameter (0,8mm.) in order to prevent the top bit from being thrown into space and beyond. 78. I secured the cross slide (that's usually unnecessary) and checked the clearance of the handwheel. It appears to be, approximately, 0,13mm. That's an average, because the clearance will differ depending on how I'll use that handwheel, depth of cut, feed etc. 80. All of a sudden I had a sensation of 'eureka' and I realized how to accurately measure the size of the spark plugs... I know the diameter of one cilinder (55,8mm.) and I also know the diameter of the spark plug's thread (18mm.) and the aperture (8mm.). I only did not realize that I could use these data. Now I do. I've since then measured several drawings and end up with maximum spark plug diameters between 2,4mm. and 2,5mm. That would mean that a spark plug key of approximately 26mm. would fit. A question to you guys: does anyone of you happens to have any idea of that size (spark plug key of 26mm.) was used on spark plugs of around 1925-198? Anyway the spark plug will be approximately 75% the size of the already finished specimens. Total build time: 18h. Total measurements study: 26h.
  8. Simply beautiful Dan, that's a lot of detail work!
  9. I must admit I hadn't thought of that before. Olivier, good idea?
  10. The problem is that I would have loved to dive into those archives, even better together with Olivier. But I have the (perhaps overly suspicious) idea that if Olivier and I met there, in front of the archive, and would enter the building, the first person we'd meet is Massimo (my contact at Centro Storico) and he'd say "wait a minute, what are you doing there" and both of us would be refused admittance. I know it is probably paranoid but you can probably imagine the idea. If it weren't for that, even out of pure curiosity would I have bought the plane ticket already; I can be very impulsive at times.
  11. It's not much different from what I did initially: First I called, very friendly, then I sent an e-mail, very friendly, then some e-mails back and forth, very friendly, meanwhile two telephone calls, very friendly. That was the periode 14th of November 2016 until the 4th of January 2017. I think there were about six mails to, five mails from and three phone calls in total, each written with the utmost respect. See here, under 'Fiat Centro Storico'. Only one month later did I have this e-mail correspondence. If the tone is a bit dispirited, that would be because first they expected to get back to me half December, then half January, but they just didn't do so. And in my view even this e-mail correspondence wasn't unfriendly if you read carefully. So I really don't know the reason for the difference in treatment. The only thing I can now imagine is that in my first e-mail of November 2016 I mentioned the names Protar and Italeri, possibly setting off alarm bells for Centro Storico (I know that for sure) and legal department (I don't know that for sure) who were at the same time reviewing their copyright and archive admittance policies. I can imagine that, for example somewhere in January, they finalized those policies but they are still unsure about their contractual relationship with Protar / Italeri, keeping me out for that reason while allowing access to other. Whether this is the truth or not, for me this is a lesson learned: in similar situations (if they will occur) I will never again mention a kit maker's name when looking for access of a brand-owned archive. On the other hand, if also the admittance policy has not been reestablished yet, and Olivier would merely be lucky to not talk to my contact at Centro Storico (who is different guy) but someone 'fresh', then it would not be a good idea to confront them with my previous request before Olivier has visited the archive... for the simple reason to let sleeping dogs lie. First it's important to enter 'the treasure room' (I still have plenty of reason to believe there are more photos and other sources of info to be found... for example, Photo 28 can probably be found in a higher resolution, but I also think there is a photo of the interior) and discover what is there.
  12. I am flabbergasted... I'll await your visit and, afterwards, will contact Centro Storico myself about why they have been keeping me waiting for four months now and there is no problem to have you enter the archive after one mail. I am equally astounded as happy for you Olivier. I wish you luck, hopefully you will find stuff there.
  13. I think the second might be, as you say, a home-made four jaw (four bolt) independent 'chuck'. The third thing is, I think, another chuck. It could be a home-made holder for a cutting saw. Not a bad idea! If you want to cut a 1m. long piece of brass or aluminium into workable parts of 10cm. each, you'll need something to cut them with. I guess the previous owner found a cutting saw blade with four holes where the bolts are (or he drilled them himself). Edit: another possibility of #3 is that of a manually driven thread cutter, to be mounted on the tailstock. That only applies if it fits the corresponding thread cutting disks. I mean these:
  14. @Robin Lous in case you want to base yourself on the Delage, here's the best picture of the gearstick I found in my own collection. It seems your drawing is quite correct (mind the double nut), but I guess it's never a bad thing to have more reference material.
  15. With polarizing I meant, having people favor your own part by comparing it to Pocher's part, and having people depreciate Pocher's part by comparing it to your part. It's an unnecessarily difficult way of saying "what a great job and what a difference it makes".