Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Discussions on all aspects of the The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth during the Inter-War era and Second World War. Hosted by Andy H
User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Nov 2013 22:40

Nearly forgot...
One thing though, is that I think the reference to so many thousand "frozen" in VRDs refers to vehicles NOT sent to the continent. I have not seen the parks of reserve vehicles on the continent referred to as VRDs, rather they were Vehicle Parks belonging to Vehicle Companies which were part of AODs (Advanced [?] Ordnance Depots) RAOC. VRDs are a UK thing AFAIK.
So it's not 1,400 problem K5s....nor 3,000...it's 1,400 on the Continent PLUS 3,000 in UK VRDs 8O

4,500 vehicles...and more coming off the Austin lines every day.

I wonder if those were what were "frozen in V.R.Ds"...?

And let's not forget all the palleted spare motors...! 8O 8O 8O
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 18 Nov 2013 22:53

phylo_roadking wrote: However - that's NOT to say that the problem of heavily-worn rings on/caused by slack-fitting (from new) pistons wasn't contributed-to by the viscosity issue in 1944, well after the experiemntation period in 1942 for HD oils. The increased piston skirt clearance would indeed have thrown an extra factor into the equation of oil films and viscosities - as well as the more obvious issues of high-wearing, rectangular-edged rings and rocking pistons.
I kind of wonder if Austins tested the reduced-clearance piston skirt with M220 (which they would have kept for their civil programme) and it was all OK, and then when the set-up was introduced to HD30 problems emerged.

i.e. the more viscous M220 could build up a decent hydrodynamic layer even with the new piston design, but the HD30 couldn't.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 18 Nov 2013 23:26

I kind of wonder if Austins tested the reduced-clearance piston skirt with M220 (which they would have kept for their civil programme) and it was all OK, and then when the set-up was introduced to HD30 problems emerged.
Well...first of all - "M.220" was a War Office oil grade, whatever Austins would have used "commercially" wouldn't automatically have been the same or the same viscosity.

It would be interesting to find out though - IIRC the "Austin Sheerline" immediately-postwar luxury car, Austin's attempt to topple Bentley from the luxury limo market, was virtually the same motor as the K5 and K6 ;) It's details might be easier to turn up on t'Interweb.

Second - HD30 was "giving no problems" in the British motor industry's products since at least the end of 1943...according to the REME Staff History. Whatever happened....overheating???...BETWEEN then and May 1944 was what resulted in the increased-clearance piston skirt spec....and in turn, seven months or so later, led to the tapered rings in Lymalloy, marked "HD30" for one-way fitting.

So given that HD30 was in use in its WARTIME products since late 1942, I would have to question if they even bothered testing M.220!

The best candidates for the PRE- May '44 problem(s) are therefore at present MT 80 Pool.....known to cause overheating issues, plug fouling with lead deposits, and a range of other issues - and the "wading" kit, which led to overheating TOO...and it was the increased-clearance piston that was viewed as the cure for THAT that led to a number of problems including those we've been discussing just above about the HD30 ;)

As Tom said above - note the vastly-improved timeline for the events from May 1944 through to December 1944 that we now have after many years :D NOW we just have to add the details PRE-May 1944!
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 19 Nov 2013 00:59

phylo_roadking wrote: Second - HD30 was "giving no problems" in the British motor industry's products since at least the end of 1943...according to the REME Staff History. Whatever happened....overheating???...BETWEEN then and May 1944 was what resulted in the increased-clearance piston skirt spec....and in turn, seven months or so later, led to the tapered rings in Lymalloy, marked "HD30" for one-way fitting.
Well, if the rings were marked "HD30" this pretty much reveals that HD30 was the issue with the revised piston i.e. no other lub. oil that the engine could reasonably expect to meet was viewed as problematic. If M220 wasn't a general standard, but a War Office spec., I would therefore guess that if Austins did rig-test the revised piston, it would have been with "shop" lubricant and fuel i.e. a generic formula that they would have kept on-site.

My guess then is that HD30 worked fine with the original piston design, in which the skirt helped distribute a workable hydrodynamic layer, but with the removal of the skirt, oil distribution was less even, or subjected to shearing, causing friction and wear to the compression rings, resulting in the reported combustion issues. The new piston rings were brought in as a belt-and-braces solution, with the tapered compression rings acting as additional "scrapers" to improve oil distribution within the cylinder, and the improved material reducing the rate of wear should oil distribution still be less than ideal.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 02:06

My guess then is that HD30 worked fine with the original piston design,...
Before the "wading" kit was fitted, perhaps - given that the K5 seems to have given sterling service through late 1942 and 1943!
The new piston rings were brought in as a belt-and-braces solution, with the tapered compression rings acting as additional "scrapers" to improve oil distribution within the cylinder, and the improved material reducing the rate of wear should oil distribution still be less than ideal.
It's also...something the War Office would have been happy with...a CHEAP solution using a minimal amount of re-spec'd parts ;)

The note that the rings could be used in the existing pistons to get "frozen" vehicles back on the road would hint broadly to me that ring wear was perceived as the problem in the cylinders that was sidelineing the K5s...the pistons themselves seem, in the estimation of the D.M.E. and the panel of people at those meetings, to have been fine and pretty unworn?

Depending of course on the amount of valve/valve guide wear too! :P But THAT issue could be dealt with from existing spares stock - once the base problem was sorted ;)
If M220 wasn't a general standard, but a War Office spec., I would therefore guess that if Austins did rig-test the revised piston, it would have been with "shop" lubricant and fuel i.e. a generic formula that they would have kept on-site
This I would doubt; given that Austins had been, along with the rest of the industry, ORDERED to use the HD grades two years previously....and only HD grades were used in their military products from then on...remember the January 1946 issues with the MoS and their car engines destined for the War Office?...I can't really see them testing with anything other than HD30 when producing/testing those "revised" pistons in May....that's if they did any, at all...

If anything - the fact that they only came up with the new piston spec "at the last minute", less than a month before D-Day...I would venture a similarly "last minute" lack of testing, or a too-short testing period ;)

I mean - now that we can see it all end-to-end, problem-wise it really does look like "out of the frying pan and into the fire", doesn't it? :D



(Remember that the new three-groove pistons for their car engines were subjected to so much testing in 1946 that the MoS started complaining about no cars being delivered yet! Was this Austin's reaction to an earlier mistake on their part...perhaps? :wink:)
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 19 Nov 2013 12:25

phylo_roadking wrote: This I would doubt; given that Austins had been, along with the rest of the industry, ORDERED to use the HD grades two years previously....and only HD grades were used in their military products from then on...remember the January 1946 issues with the MoS and their car engines destined for the War Office?...I can't really see them testing with anything other than HD30 when producing/testing those "revised" pistons in May....that's if they did any, at all...

If anything - the fact that they only came up with the new piston spec "at the last minute", less than a month before D-Day...I would venture a similarly "last minute" lack of testing, or a too-short testing period ;)
Well, if the HD30 had been used for nearly two years before the new piston design was implemented, then the notion that HD30 might present a problem wouldn't have been immediately obvious, so if they did do any testing prior to putting the new design piston in service, the urgency might have meant just a few cursory rig tests were conducted using whatever lubricant was available. There were certainly no extensive tests using HD30, otherwise the problem would most likely have come to light.

Once the problem did manifest, there would have been investigatory testing, and again, the HD30 may not have been the immediately obvious culprit. That it WAS specifically the culprit is evidenced by the revised piston rings being marked "HD30" which in turn suggests that these rings may not have been appropriate for other lubricants. This is evident with the Jan '46 MoS correspondence regarding the Austin cars, where the Austin technical people state that for use with HD30, the pistons would require additional scraper rings i.e. in Austin's opinion HD30 needs extra measures for better hydrodynamic distribution in-cylinder.

So the timeline seems to be that the British motor industry is ordered to use HD30 and responds with trepidation. There are a few issues here and there, but the K5 seems to accept HD30 reasonably well, possibly because the skirt provides adequate hydrodynamic distribution of the oil - but Austins don't know that the skirt is providing this function, all they know is that there are no major issues.

Then they are asked to provide a wading spec. using higher octane MT80, and either test problems or general concerns about heat expansion of the piston lead them to reduce the clearance of the piston skirt. This new design is either introduced without testing, or subjected to only the rudimentary tests that urgency will allow. Problems then emerge in service, and there must have been some comparative tests using HD30 and other lubricating oils (M220 or whatever the "civil" spec. was), and it is revealed HD30 does indeed create problems for the new piston design. They therefore specify a new set of rings that are specifically for use with HD30 only, and are marked as such.

Austins then come away with the learning that any future applications that require operation with HD30 are potentially problematic for their existing designs of engine, and therefore institute a thorough test regime with redesigns where necessary before clearing them for use with this lubricant.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 15:41

This is evident with the Jan '46 MoS correspondence regarding the Austin cars, where the Austin technical people state that for use with HD30, the pistons would require additional scraper rings
It required a scraper ring full stop; according to Austin's reply to the MoS, prior to this there wasn't any on their four-cylinder car engine pistons at all.
the urgency might have meant just a few cursory rig tests were conducted using whatever lubricant was available. There were certainly no extensive tests using HD30, otherwise the problem would most likely have come to light.
We don't know that there were no or cursory tests yet, that's what we still need to establish. If there were tests, I doubt that they'd be done with anything other than HD30 - think the D.M.E. would let them away with that? :P

Once againe we're starting from the position of knowing what was done (they hoped!) to eradicate a problem; we don't know the cause of the problem, the definition of the problem apart from "overheating", or the (various?) steps along the way to identifying that an increased-clearance piston skirt would supposedly eradicate it.
Then they are asked to provide a wading spec. using higher octane MT80,....
What we DON'T know is if those two requirements came together ;)
...and either test problems or general concerns about heat expansion of the piston lead them to reduce the clearance of the piston skirt.
However - we DO know more about this aspect. These trucks were specifically "recalled" to have the new pistons fitted; they had already been issued and in use and waterproofed....the waterproofing having to to be done again by REME after the pistons were fitted.

So that would read as if something more...impactful....than testing problems or general concerns had occured? And the clock was DEFINTELY counting! At this point I can understand if testing of the new increased-clearance piston turns out to have been less than thorough! :P
Problems then emerge in service, and there must have been some comparative tests using HD30 and other lubricating oils (M220 or whatever the "civil" spec. was), and it is revealed HD30 does indeed create problems for the new piston design. They therefore specify a new set of rings that are specifically for use with HD30 only, and are marked as such.
I wouldn't assume...given the military mind, it was the D.M.E. War Office driving the problem by then...that the "HD30" mark on the rings meant anything more than it had been "tested for compatibility with HD30" - that being the oil specified for use in the K5! I doubt that the urgent resolution of the problem gave them time for anything other than testing in the specific application of K5 fitment at that point...

Also remember that any benchtesting before fitting in the three trial vehicles the D.M.E. mentions wouldn't have been done by Austins anyway - it would have been done by Wellworthys! The rings were THEIR proprietary product :wink:

One other consideration - I don't know HOW Austins marked the outside of their spares' packaging...especially products supplied by a third party and re-packaged by Austins...but the "HD30"-marked pistons would have been destined for K6s too...!

For information - things had got rather complicated on the lube front by then ;) Every time a new application appeared or a new grade or specification was needed that existing ones didn't cover - a new oil grade was brewed :lol: By the winter of 1944-45 there were 361 different grades of oil and grease in use in the armed forces of the United States, Canada and Great Britain! 8O Over the winter, after problems were experienced with there being too many varying grades...the Staff History notes that when the temperatures plummeted, REME dutifully changed lubes to suit the ambient temperatures - but sudden spikes in temerature THEN rendered these less than effective!...there were also fears that frequent changes attempting to react to all the changes would result in mixing compounded and hypoid oils if crankcases, gearboxes etc. weren't fully drained during each change - a Joint Associated Services Lubricant Panel was set up and they managed to get the number of lubricants in use down from 361 to...118! :lol: For example - 68 different types of grease were withdrawn from service...
Last edited by phylo_roadking on 19 Nov 2013 16:28, edited 1 time in total.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

Aber
Member
Posts: 851
Joined: 05 Jan 2010 21:43

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Aber » 19 Nov 2013 16:10

a Joint Associated Services Lubricant Panel was set up
:lol:

When in doubt, form a committee.

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 19 Nov 2013 17:26

phylo_roadking wrote: We don't know that there were no or cursory tests yet, that's what we still need to establish. If there were tests, I doubt that they'd be done with anything other than HD30 - think the D.M.E. would let them away with that? :P
Yes, absolutely. It is highly unusual for a customer to specify how an engine manufacturer's tests are conducted, and to request the results of those tests. It is the proprietary information of the engine manufacturer. It is worth noting that with the later cars, Austin took it on their own back to request if HD30 was to be used, and conduct tests as to its suitability - there was no official instruction to do so. Having spent a decade testing engines in proper test cells in a proper factory I can inform you that conformity tests for new parts are usually done on "shop" fuel and "shop" oil unless a particular concern is anticipated with a certain fuel or oil.
phylo_roadking wrote: I wouldn't assume...given the military mind, it was the D.M.E. War Office driving the problem by then...that the "HD30" mark on the rings meant anything more than it had been "tested for compatibility with HD30" - that being the oil specified for use in the K5! I doubt that the urgent resolution of the problem gave them time for anything other than testing in the specific application of K5 fitment at that point...

Also remember that any benchtesting before fitting in the three trial vehicles the D.M.E. mentions wouldn't have been done by Austins anyway - it would have been done by Wellworthys! The rings were THEIR proprietary product :wink:
My assumption here is that testing had to be done to ascertain the cause of the problem, and the best way to identify if the problem was linked to HD30 was to run the application with a different lubricating oil. This would not have been a task of Herculean magnitude, after all. Certainly, they could have got Wellworthy's to provide what that company considered were suitable rings for that application, and then tested them in-situ without identifying the exact cause, but in that case there would have been no particular reason to mark the rings with "HD30" - because you don't generally mark piston rings with appropriate lubricant grades.

Also, the assumption that Wellworthy's would have "bench tested" the rings is irrelevant (whatever "bench testing" means - it isn't a professional term). The final sign-off of an engine assembly with new components has to be done by the engine manufacturer. The component supplier can test them with whatever rig they like to verify their own quality criteria, but no engine manufacturer is going to say "you say these work fine? OK we'll take your word on that." If Austin didn't test the Wellworthy rings prior to their implementation, then to all intents and purposes they were untested.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 18:22

Also, the assumption that Wellworthy's would have "bench tested" the rings is irrelevant (whatever "bench testing" means - it isn't a professional term).
Well - runniing a test rig or engine on a bench? It is indeed used in SOME professions relevant to the discussions; in this period, oil refineries were using "bench engines" to test octane ratings, for example...
It is highly unusual for a customer to specify how an engine manufacturer's tests are conducted, and to request the results of those tests. It is the proprietary information of the engine manufacturer.
However - remember that this was during WWII....when the "men from the Ministry" had a FAR greater say over how factories conducted their affairs with respect to their products; they controlled labour and skills allocation, raw materials allocation and a whole host of other factors.
It is worth noting that with the later cars, Austin took it on their own back to request if HD30 was to be used, and conduct tests as to its suitability - there was no official instruction to do so.
But I wonder exactly WHAT made them ask this...??? :idea: :wink: A previous formative experience??? After all, Wellworthy's products would have to have been PAID FOR...think the War Office was going to stomp up? :lol: The problem was Austin's - "The manufacturer offered..." the revised piston rings in 1944...
My assumption here is that testing had to be done to ascertain the cause of the problem, and the best way to identify if the problem was linked to HD30 was to run the application with a different lubricating oil.
Once again - I'm not sure TIME permitted much experimentation...as opposed to testing a solution for the symptoms of the fault....it being the symptoms that were affecting K5 engines. The problem is ramping up through September - and yet Wellworthy's have suitable rings ready to fit into K5s in early/mid October! Given that the War Office mandated a month's on-the-road testing of the revised rings....I wonder how quickly the underlaying problem was identified?

Or if it was at all? - I get the feeling from the D.M.E. meeting minutes that the revised rings were accepted more for their wear-resistant properties rather than their oil-distributing ones!
The final sign-off of an engine assembly with new components has to be done by the engine manufacturer. The component supplier can test them with whatever rig they like to verify their own quality criteria, but no engine manufacturer is going to say "you say these work fine? OK we'll take your word on that." If Austin didn't test the Wellworthy rings prior to their implementation, then to all intents and purposes they were untested.
That being the case - when was all this done??? The only testing we KNOW about is the three K5s fitted with the new rings that were put on the road in October - less than a month from K5s still coming into REME workshosp with problems, and REME trying all sorts of other "fixes" to keep them on the road...

One possibility is of course a decision that we haven't seen yet between Austins and the D.M.E. - the decision TO try out the new rings in the three K5s....the one that was already ongoing when that meeting we DO know about was held and minuted. There may have been an agreement between Austins and the War Office to regard this three-vehicle test as satisfactory testing for Wellworthy's products...

After all - as I referred to briefly away up the thread now - the various ministries cutting short testing times and regimes to get new items into service wasn't unknown in WWII - the Air Ministry did it with a whole four-engine bomber, for example...
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 18:34

Anyway - last night I opened a new thread on HMVF asking about PRE-D-Day problems with the K5...

...and this afternoon Richard Farrant came back with a VERY interesting reply! I've asked him for any more available information on the subject, but HE'S aware of the "PRE-May" problem being one that was indeed "resolved" by increasing the piston skirt clearance...but the problem was actually in the OTHER half of the equation! 8O

Here's what he said on HMVF...
When on the landing craft prior to disembarking the engines would be run up to ensure they are warm and running well, as soon as they were immersed the water would instantly bring the cylinder block temperature down, yet the pistons would retain a certain amount of heat at that moment and with normal clearance would tend to seize, this is why more clearance was given. Nothing to do with allowing the piston to expand more, it was the block contracting that was the concern. This problem may well have come to light in the weeks before D-Day with all the wading practise going on across the country with the vehicles.
And of course, therefore....as the K5s began INSTEAD to accumulate lots of road miles running evenly at convoy speeds, and cylinder blocks heated and expanded normally as they would do....THEN we got all our previously-discussed problems ;)


(I can't help thinking again that Austins - AND the War Office - spent a lot of time dealing with the destructive symptoms/consequences of the various problems, rather than dealing with the root causes...)
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 19:02

Just has a thought :idea: A few minutes ago I posted up THIS...
(I can't help thinking again that Austins - AND the War Office - spent a lot of time dealing with the destructive symptoms/consequences of the various problems, rather than dealing with the root causes...)
I've just realised it's more true than I thought; if Austins and the War Office had REALLY realised what the root cause of the POST-D-Day problem was....they'd have just fitted the K5s with "old", PRE-May '44 spec pistons! 8O The problem at heart being wading and changes associated with that - why didn't they just REVERT to the pre-wading spec in the field...six "old" pistons and the "standard" rings, the kind fitted to every K5 built BEFORE the "wading spec"...even in the Western Desert...and get on with the job of supporting the L of C?

Personally - to me it looks as if no matter what effects the problem was having on 21st Army Group or not...Austins and the D.M.E. were certainly panicking about it! :P Heads were not clear???
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 19 Nov 2013 19:22

phylo_roadking wrote: However - remember that this was during WWII....when the "men from the Ministry" had a FAR greater say over how factories conducted their affairs with respect to their products; they controlled labour and skills allocation, raw materials allocation and a whole host of other factors.
And dictating test procedures for every manufacturer? I'd be amazed, amazed if anyone could provide evidence that this was happening.
phylo_roadking wrote: But I wonder exactly WHAT made them ask this...??? :idea: :wink: A previous formative experience??? After all, Wellworthy's products would have to have been PAID FOR...think the War Office was going to stomp up? :lol: The problem was Austin's - "The manufacturer offered..." the revised piston rings in 1944...
Well, the previous formative experience obviously hadn't had any influence on how the authorities interacted with Austins, which is the point I was making. Also, you appear to be confirming that it was Austins that provided the new Wellworthy rings, and not Wellworthy themselves.
phylo_roadking wrote: Once again - I'm not sure TIME permitted much experimentation...as opposed to testing a solution for the symptoms of the fault....it being the symptoms that were affecting K5 engines. The problem is ramping up through September - and yet Wellworthy's have suitable rings ready to fit into K5s in early/mid October! Given that the War Office mandated a month's on-the-road testing of the revised rings....I wonder how quickly the underlaying problem was identified?
Let's look at the REME test again:
This vehicle had been fitted with new standard pistons and rings. It was also fitted with two re-built exhaust valves, one modified Bedford exhaust valve and three re-faced standard Austin exhaust valves.

The vehicle was driven over normal roads, including two fairly steep gradients. For the first 300 miles the performance was good. The first sign of roughness occurred at 350 miles and this grew steadily worse until, at 480 miles, two cylinders began to miss badly. At the conclusion of the run, reasonable compression could be felt on all six cylinders.
So the problem was fully manifested at 480 miles. Given a reasonable average of 40mph during the test run, then this test took 12 hours to conduct. 12 hours! That's bugger all. I used to conduct 1000 hour tests as a matter of course. We had engines running for weeks! Yet, you could have detected an improvement in this case after only running the engine for a handful of hours. It would have been EASY to find the cause of the problem. It would have been the EASIEST ENGINEERING JOB OF ALL TIME to investigate.

And Austin didn't have time to conduct a particularly arduous....oooooh.......let's say 72 hour test prior to issuing the new piston design? I bet they did, almost certainly one that lasted far longer. I bet they didn't use HD30 during it, though.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

User avatar
phylo_roadking
Member
Posts: 17487
Joined: 30 Apr 2006 23:31
Location: Belfast

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by phylo_roadking » 19 Nov 2013 20:08

And dictating test procedures for every manufacturer? I'd be amazed, amazed if anyone could provide evidence that this was happening.
Actually, it was normal for the War Office, or Air Ministry or whatever ministry was concerned, to establish minimum requirements for testing etc.. All that Covenanter testing? Who dictated that - LMSR....or the War Office? The Lancaster's three-prototype minimum-mileage testing regime? Avro...or the Air Ministry....

And after all we can see that the D.M.E. was the one dictating the test regime for the revised ring spec in October 1944.
Well, the previous formative experience obviously hadn't had any influence on how the authorities interacted with Austins, which is the point I was making.


It visibly did - the MoS wasn't prepared to give Austins an inch! :lol:
Also, you appear to be confirming that it was Austins that provided the new Wellworthy rings, and not Wellworthy themselves.
Wellworthy weren't under the Austin umbrella, Austins would have had to buy them from Wellworthy, just as Rolls Royce had to buy theirs from them...
The first sign of roughness occurred at 350 miles and this grew steadily worse until, at 480 miles, two cylinders began to miss badly. At the conclusion of the run, reasonable compression could be felt on all six cylinders.
So the problem was fully manifested at 480 miles.
No - the valve problem was fully maifest after 450 miles - the rings were ok, "reasonable compression could be felt on all six cylinders"
Given a reasonable average of 40mph during the test run, then this test took 12 hours to conduct. 12 hours!
...for a test of several makeshift repairs come up with by REME in Normandy - that took how long for the first valve issues to show themselves again? :wink:
And Austin didn't have time to conduct a particularly arduous....oooooh.......let's say 72 hour test prior to issuing the new piston design? I bet they did, almost certainly one that lasted far longer.
In January 1946 they conducted a four-week trial on new pistons, remember; but for the PRE-May '44 problem we don't know yet when the seizure issue manifested itself....nor how long Austins were given to fix the problem and have vehicles repaired and re-issued before D-Day ;)
I bet they didn't use HD30 during it, though.
If there was any testing done IN British Army K5 4x4s, it would have been tests done using HD30 - because that is what those trucks had been running on for two years past.
Twenty years ago we had Johnny Cash, Bob Hope and Steve Jobs. Now we have no Cash, no Hope and no Jobs....
Lord, please keep Kevin Bacon alive...

User avatar
Don Juan
Member
Posts: 595
Joined: 23 Sep 2013 10:12

Re: Unserviceable Lorries - Jul - Sep 44

Post by Don Juan » 19 Nov 2013 20:56

phylo_roadking wrote: Actually, it was normal for the War Office, or Air Ministry or whatever ministry was concerned, to establish minimum requirements for testing etc.. All that Covenanter testing? Who dictated that - LMSR....or the War Office? The Lancaster's three-prototype minimum-mileage testing regime? Avro...or the Air Ministry....
If you could provide me with evidence that Austins were using War Office or MoS defined test procedures, dictating test fuels, oils etc., I will then take you seriously on this.
phylo_roadking wrote: It visibly did - the MoS wasn't prepared to give Austins an inch! :lol:
Yes they really appear to have given Austins a mild telling off for the lateness of their deliveries.
phylo_roadking wrote: Wellworthy weren't under the Austin umbrella, Austins would have had to buy them from Wellworthy, just as Rolls Royce had to buy theirs from them...
Where did I suggest that Wellworthy were under the Austin umbrella? When an engine manufacturer presents a design solution to a problem with their engine to the end customer, they don't send the component supplier as their representative, or foreground the role of the component supplier in solving the problem, or even if possible mention them. They just say "look what we've come up with" and pretend as much as possible that the solution is either theirs entirely, or mostly thought of by them. The customer, generally, doesn't care where it has come from, as long as it works.
phylo_roadking wrote: No - the valve problem was fully maifest after 450 miles - the rings were ok, "reasonable compression could be felt on all six cylinders"
But the valve problem was due to contamination of the lubricant due to ingestion of blowby, was it not? Even if the rings were giving reasonable compression, they were still not performing their task properly.
phylo_roadking wrote: ...for a test of several makeshift repairs come up with by REME in Normandy - that took how long for the first valve issues to show themselves again? :wink:
My understanding is that these weren't so much makeshift repairs as an attempt to utilise various field modifications to overcome the issue. It may be true that they were less successful than the original valve design, but this is the only test we have, so we don't know that for sure. That said, the vehicles must have had notably poor endurance for them to have been frozen at depots.

Besides, Austins would have had a significant number of test beds (I would conservatively guess at least 20 for their engineering department alone) where they could have increased loading to accelerate testing, while testing multiple causes and possible solutions simultaneously, so however long it took to test engines in the field, it could have been done much quicker by the manufacturer themselves if this was a priority.
phylo_roadking wrote: If there was any testing done IN British Army K5 4x4s, it would have been tests done using HD30 - because that is what those trucks had been running on for two years past.
I would guess that any putative test was conducted on a test bed with a dynamometer mimicking the load. That's just a guess though.
"The demonstration, as a demonstration, was a failure. The sunshield would not fit the tank. Altogether it was rather typically Middle Easty."
- 7th Armoured Brigade War Diary, 30th August 1941

Return to “The United Kingdom & its Empire and Commonwealth 1919-45”