Incredibly stupid brake pipe flare

Sorry, I can?t help but I am curious.

I?ve never seem that kind of fitting. Is there a make / brand ? Or every the make of car?

As Dave P has no doubt worked out already, this is another Roller (Silver Spirit). I'm just wondering if they've used Citroen pattern pipes in this instance, as they did buy a lot of Citroen hydraulic technology for incorporation into the RR fleet. Daft decision if you ask me. Jaguar were able to do all this, with a superior ride quality/standard of refinement IMO, without all this complex hyraulic BS.

Please excuse me quoting myself. I just had a thought about the above and tried searching for Citroen brake pipe bits. I think I may be on to something....

Who'd have thought a Spirit would have anything safety-related in common with a 2CV!!?

It does look like a union designed for higher pressure than a 'normal' brake union.

AutoMec make and sell brake pipe kits for various cars in either copper or kunifer. I'd contact them, as they likely have the correct flaring tool.

I'll give 'em a try Dave, thanks. I'm not sure about a flaring tool, though. I'd have thought the only way to form a bulge like that is through forcing hydraulic fluid into the pipe with a concave bulge in a surrounding die. That would require a setup a bit more involved than a typical flaring tool.

Thank you.

I?ve never worked on either a RR or a Citroen.

I confess, I had considered buying a classic RR but I had a lay down under I got over the urge. Nice to have etc but ?.

;-)

You would need to seal both ends of the pipe and prevent the whole length deforming using that method- otherwise you could get a bulge anywhere.

Some kind of clamp which holds the pipe behind where the bulge will be but has a bulge form in it. A second part forces the pipe on the free end back, against the held section. The outer form stops the end flaring but the pipe can go back into the bulge area.

A second operation may be require to finish the end.

As I recall, when making ordinary brake pipes by hand, one of the flares needs two steps. I?ve not made one for decades but still have a Sykes and Pickavant tool in the garage. I should put it on EBay.

Only a guess, but if a rod went down the inside, and the pipe is clamped onto that rod, you could push the end to form that flare inside a former.

I ran an S1 Bentley for several years. Apart from things being obviously heavy on such a large car, it was pretty DIY friendly. I even re-lined the brake shoes myself. Given the costs of new shoes.

Unlike many other cars, many things did seem to be designed to be fixed, rather than just replaced.

What was the ride like? I'd often thought about getting a S1 Cloud - before they went to that stupid V8 engine etc in the later variants. But I like a soft ride and Bentley don't really do that. Well ,so they say.

That wasn't just Bentleys; it was the norm in pretty much all cars back then.

Ride was pretty good even for a live rear axle car. But in main because of the large crossply tyres. Which had a short life. Radials ruin the ride - same as on early Shadows. The 6 cylinder was silky smooth, but a tendency to eat exhaust valves if driven hard. The V8 isn't as smooth at idle, but pretty bomb proof.

I know several people who own older Bentleys, Rolls Royces, etc and, like you find them fun, even easy to maintain. Since my stroke, I only do basic things. I certainly avoid anything involving heavy work under cars.

Where I live there's no option but to roll up one's sleeves and get on with it. There simply isn't the expertise in my neck of the woods. The hydraulic system on the later RRs and Bentleys is complex and very expensive to fix if it goes wrong. So preventative maintenance pays off!

I would still take a straight six any day of the week. If that Bentley lump blew up, the obvious thing to do would be to install a Jag 4.2 XKE engine in its place and just weld the Bentley rocker covers over the Jag ones.Sorted. ;-)

You've obviously not driven an S1 Bentley. The overhead inlet, side exhaust 4.9 litre low comression engine produced enormous torque just above idle. Totally different concept from the XK engine.

Maybe a totally different concept - and from a different era, but ...

Most engines were low compression out of necessity, because of the low grade "pool" petrol available.

Also, I was told some years ago that at one time, vehicle tax calculations were dependent on "piston surface area" - which (in the days of flat top pistons) I suppose means the bore.

If thats true, then engine designers may have been guided down the road of "overstroking" as a means of buying some displacement, and the side effects of increased gas velocity and torque would have been welcome.

For comparison purposes, the original 3.4 XK clocks in at 1.27:1 stroke / bore and the Bentley is 1.2:1

Theres doubtless a load of other variables in the equation too - for example there may have been little incentive to produce high revving oversquare engines without suitable valve springs to keep them going.

The S1 engine was basically a development of a pre-war design. But the days of 'pool' petrol were long over when it came out. 5 Star was available during its production run.

The old RAC HP rating. Although I doubt Bentley owners were too concerned about taxation. And the Ford 105E was introduced during the S1 production run.

The S1 engine would idle reliably at 175 rpm. Peak revs only about 4000. Very restful way of proceeding. ;-) It wasn't actually that thirsty either. My early XJ6 LWB 4.2 auto got the prize as the thirstiest car I've ever owned.

I dont understand the relevance of that at all.

Your posts prompted me to look up S1s. Honest John is listing several for sale, between £19k and £490k.