Talk:Triumph TR7 Sprint

Rewrite

Rewriting this article at User:Graham.Fountain/TR7 Sprint/rewrite. Nearly done. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham.Fountain (talk • contribs) 19:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Page updated from User:Graham.Fountain/TR7 Sprint/rewrite on 28th April, 2013.Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Brakes?

What were the brakes on the TR7 Sprint / TR8?

AFAIR, the TR7 (and Dolomite Sprint) brakes were fairly puny two piston calipers with small solid disks. Not far from the Triumph Herald setup. The factory TR8 though used a setup also used by Rover and the long wheelbase Ford Transit, of four pot calipers and vented disks. This became a fairly popular after-market conversion, as the spares (if bought for, or taken from, a LWB Transit) were cheaper than BL's pricing. Certainly a tuned TR7 was definitely lacking in repeated braking ability, even when compared to that other brake-fade prone clubbie rallycar of the period, the Fiat 124.

What was the brake setup on the TR7 Sprint? Did it still have the small brakes or did it get the vented disks? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

The brakes on the TR7 were smallish two pot callipers, the same as the old HA Viva albeit with a servo, and thin unvented disks. They are okay as long as everything in the system is working well, though the fail rate on the servos is not good. They were, it is true, prone to fading if over used.

The standard brakes on the TR8 were larger two pot callipers with much thicker disks than the TR7 that had a grove around the edge and were unvented.

I have been told that these large 2 pot callipers were developed from the Stag’s, and as they take the same pads, that seems reasonable.

The callipers on the TR7 Sprint were exactly the same as the two pot callipers from the TR8. However, the disks were thinner than those on the TR8, without the grove round the edge, still unvented, but still thicker than the TR7's. I suppose the thinner disks are more prone to fade than the TR8's, but I can't say I noticed that.

I can find references for most of this from Piggott or Knowles. The unreferenceable bit is that the TR8's callipers were developed from the Stag’s and that the solid disks had a grove around the edge. But you can check the groovy information with Rick, Steve, or Simon at S&S Preparations (01706 874 874).

While I am positive that the TR8’s standard callipers were 2 pot and the disks unvented, there could be some confusion because a very common upgrade for the TR7s and TR7 V8s is to fit the big Princess callipers, which are 4 pot ones, and, I understand, can take vented rotors from, I believe, the Ford Crapi 2.8 with a hub adaptor. Another would be to fit the callipers from the 2.8, but I’ve never done that one. I believe these Princess callipers take the same pads as the Ford Transit, but it's been a long time since I did a set, and I might be wrong about that.

Having, in effect, said the princess 4 pot callipers fit, I suspect I should also caveat that by saying that there is a potential problem with them if just fitted without modifications and used with the thin TR7 disk. This is because some of the pad will overhang the disk and the disk is not more than twice the pad material thick. Hence, when they wear enough, the unworn bits of the pads meet, and the breaking can become rather more exciting, in the sence of making you wonder if you'll stop in time. So it’s essential to plug and re-drill the mounting holes to move the calliper nearer the hub by about 5 mm (doing one hole on each calliper works). I also seem to remember that these 4 pot callipers do not fit under the early TR7's steel wheels, but again, it's been some time.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:01, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, well the only TR8s I've seen were factory-built, but had Tony Pond sitting in them, or were home-built and used the Transit parts. Maybe the "works" cars were different from the "factory" cars. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've given the details for the production TR8s, US (both FI and carb) and UK specs. The parts are still listed by RimmerBros: original TR8 callipers as part numbers AAU7960 and AAU7961 at [1] and [2] - definitely 2 pot - and the disks to fit as p.n. TKC3157 at [3] – definitely unvented, and with the grove round the edge. The pads are, as I remembered, the same as Stag ones, so it must be the big princess that takes the same pads as the Trannie.

Rimmers are no help w.r.t. the Sprint, but Piggott corroborates the callipers were the same as TR8's and my Sprint came with the original disks still on it - thinner than the 8's but thicker than the 7's. I've discussed this with other owners, and there's been no dissent I can remember.

As far as I know, the works cars had light alloy AP racing 4 pot ones.

Since the big Princess used the same pads as the Trannie, it's possible the Trannie's callipers will fit, with or without the same mods. But if so, I would have thought it would be more widely known, as the big Princess was only available in scrappers' yards for a limited period, and Trannies are everywhere. Graham.Fountain | Talk 19:04, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Note though that this isn't "Transit" brakes, it's LWB Transit. The long-wheelbase Transit had a greater weight capacity, twin wheels on the rear and so had wheels with greater offset, allowing space for a heftier front brake setup. As Ford didn't have suitable parts of their own, these were a buy-in (Lockheed, I think). 4 pots, but an iron caliper. The Rover SD1 did something similar, the Vitesse had the 4 pots, the straight-sixes didn't, but I can't remember what the base 3.5 V8 had. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I've trawled around and still can't find anything on the net about fitting LWB Transit brakes to the TR7/8s. Are these LWB brakes liable to be easier or harder to get than the Princess ones, which are becoming fairly rare these days?

Probably all pretty awkward these days. Brembo is easiest, as they recognise they're selling into the aftermarket market, so they'll talk sense to you. The Transit thing was late '70s / early '80s, just because Transits were plentiful. If you need seal kits to rebuild calipers (there are some stretch bolts and magic O rings if you ever split the caliper) then you go to a Landrover dealer. Triumph say it's impossible to split calipers outside a remanufacturer, Landie just call it a regular service task and sell the bits. Same calipers, same seals. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:21, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Use of SJW rally cars

I attest that I was the source of this statement: "Although the SJW TR7V8 rally cars began life as TR7 Sprints, the rally cars were scratch built using bodies taken off the line and prepared by Safety Devices. So only the registration numbers from the sprints were used." I was given this information, in a telephone conversation, by Bill Price, who had been manager of the competitions dept. at Abingdon at the time these cars were used, and therefore should have known exactly what happened. This conversation occurred in 1990 or 91 when I was researching the provenance of VVC 697S and lasted for something like an hour (don't ask what the phone bill was that quarter). He also said that the actual press cars would have been sold off as rolling shells. As I remember, the reason he gave for not using the cars themselves was to do with problems welding in the roll cage in cars completed with their insulation and sound deadening, and DVLA not allowing them to register scratch built cars; hence, they took shells off the line, before they were finished, and used the documentation from the 4 press cars.

Whilst it is possible that Mr Price was being less than honest in what he said, for reasons I am unaware of, I have no reason to believe this. He was also extremely frank regarding the practices of BL in rallying at the time, stating that they went with "two sets of number plates and tax discs and a truck/lorry load of cars" and stated to the effect that anyone who links a particular body shell with a specific event is making a mistake. I don't remember his precise words on the last issue, and don't think I could exactly reproduce them here if I did. He also said that there was one rally where, after replacing a damaged car with a new one, they put the wrong number plates on it, and ran with two cars with the same registration numbers. Again, I don't remember the precise words, or if he said which event this was, etc.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 15:59, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Catagory: Veichles introduced in 1977 or Catagory: Cars...

I don't know if this article belongs in the category vehicles introduced in 1977 or the category cars..., or both. I had a quick look and there seems to be little if any obvious logic to which categories other cars are in. However, the TR7 and TR8 are in category vehicles, so I reverted the change made so the TR7 Sprint is the same. But I don't know it's right. Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Obviously it's a car. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Those other articles still need to be placed in the category Cars...and like Andy Dingley said, it is obviously a car. Everything which is not a car (think of trucks, buses etc.) need to be in the category Vehicles. Coldbolt (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a car and a car is a vehicle. I reverted because it was consistent with the TR7 and TR8. However, all the TRs are listed in a category vehicles introduced in their specific year. And, from what I've seen, pretty much all the Triumphs are listed in the relevant vehicle category. I also went and looked at the beamers, and from what I see they are all listed in category vehicles introduced in xxxx. But there are other cars in the categories cars introduced in xxxx. Whether they are consistently in the car categories or some are in the vehicle categories or some are in both, I invite you to go find out.

As to the categories vehicles introduced in xxxx being for "Everything which is not a car" - you just made that one up as you went along. Even the most cursory research will show that there are subcategories for several other types of vehicle as well, and some of those vehicles are also listed as vehicles and some in their type category. So it seems clear that this issue is a complete mess, which probably reflects its importance in the grand scheme of things, i.e. almost but not quite none.

So if you're going for consistency, you've a shed load of work to get on with - I can only imagine the "fun" you are going to have editing all the BMW pages for e.g.

If you're not going for consistency, you're just cherry picking.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 18:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a long task and I salute the editors who have taken it upon themselves. Their task would be easier were it not for being reverted by others, presumably just in case the TR7 is later recognised as a sub-species of "ship". Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

And I would say to you who are making these changes that your task would be easier if you indicated what you are doing. In this case, there wasn't even an edit summary in explanation of the change. If you're getting reverted, surely it's obvious that your being misunderstood. It surprises me not at all that what you are doing will not be known to all editors. And a little understanding of that would go a long way I'm sure: obviously, you'll often be reverted if you take this kind of approach. So why not, when making the change, add a boilerplate note on the talk page about why, possibly with a link to whatever jumpstarted the process? Such a note would have undoubtedly avoided all this.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 21:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's a boilerplate population of a newly-created cat. Not rocket science. If you're puzzled by it, look at the rest of their recent contribs - that makes it obvious. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)