Re: I'm completely glueless

mrbadger · Post by **mrbadger** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 5:28 pm

Well, I don't know if anybody will pay any attention to the poor old Badger but, back in the olden days when I was restoring lots of T-cars, I used a variety of glues on TD and TF bodies but NEVER any glue at all on TC bodies! Why? So they could FLEX. A TC chassis, and body, actually move around quite a bit and if you don't believe me, try driving your TC diagonally up a gas station curb-cut and watch the crack at the front of the doors and at the rear of the bonnet where it meets the scuttle. I mean, it MOVES. TD and TF chassis are quite rigid and you can use any kind of glue you like the smell of but a TC or earlier, just a very good fit and wood screws thank you. I used to apply Cuprinol to the finished tub before attaching the tin with proper panel pins - not nails. You can use any kind of space age goop you want but this Badger believes the old ways are, more often than not, still the best.

Charles Hill · Post by **Charles Hill** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 7:56 pm

Wonder of wonders, I actually find myself totally in agreement with Badger. TCs flex too much to be solidly glued together. FWIW, Morgans were/are assembled with hide glue on the joints from the information I've seen about the Morgan works. When I was restoring my +4 years ago, I didn't see much evidence of the glue. Maybe the glue was more of an aid for assembly to help hold the sticks together till the sheet metal was tacked on. Don't have the +4 any more, but thats another story. Regards, Charles Hill

Jack Stehr · Post by **Jack Stehr** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 8:49 pm

Ditto, glueless. When I assembled my tub a couple of years ago using Craig Seabrook's wood I only used #10 flat head slotted screws to secure the joints. I received the same advice that The Badger and Terry have stated already, that is the TC body was meant to flex. In addition, during the construction process you may want to move a piece slightly, especially when fitting the doors and the sheet metal. This would be much more difficult if the joints were glued. Another argument for glueless construction is the difficulty that would be encountered if a rotten or broken wooden member had to be replaced later. Now, I just need to finish my restoration so I can experience the joy of my body flexing. Jack Stehr Piedmont, CA

Roger Furneaux · Post by **Roger Furneaux** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 2:17 am

Good advice from the Badger Sett - I'm pleased to see we agree on this, viz my reply off-list:

>If you are talking about the wood joints, don't glue them - the chassis is

so flexible that the tub has to move about as well. Rolls Royce coachbuilders used to put thin leather between wood sections to stop any squeaking. another thing, do NOT use brass screws, they are too weak, and even zinc plated steel gets corroded by the acids in the wood - use Stainless Steel, you should have no trouble getting them. ocTagonally Roger Badger wrote:

>Well, >I don't know if anybody will pay any attention to the poor old Badger >but, back in the olden days when I was restoring lots of T-cars, I used >a variety of glues on TD and TF bodies but NEVER any glue at all on TC >bodies! Why? So they could FLEX. A TC chassis, and body, actually >move around quite a bit and if you don't believe me, try driving your TC >diagonally up a gas station curb-cut and watch the crack at the front of >the doors and at the rear of the bonnet where it meets the scuttle. I >mean, it MOVES. TD and TF chassis are quite rigid and you can use any >kind of glue you like the smell of but a TC or earlier, just a very good >fit and wood screws thank you. I used to apply Cuprinol to the finished >tub before attaching the tin with proper panel pins - not nails. >You can use any kind of space age goop you want but this Badger believes >the old ways are, more often than not, still the best.

seabrook@en.com · Post by **seabrook@en.com** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 10:15 pm

Dear Jack & Group, Not wanting to get blasted into cyberspace by mrbadger, we will not give our opinion about glueing coachwork on line. If interested, please contact me off line. Craig Seabrook Fred Kuntz Whitworth Shop Coachbuilders Jack Stehr wrote:

> > Ditto, glueless. When I assembled my tub a couple of years ago using Craig > Seabrook's wood I only used #10 flat head slotted screws to secure the > joints. I received the same advice that The Badger and Terry have stated > already, that is the TC body was meant to flex. In addition, during the > construction process you may want to move a piece slightly, especially when > fitting the doors and the sheet metal. This would be much more difficult if > the joints were glued. Another argument for glueless construction is the > difficulty that would be encountered if a rotten or broken wooden member had > to be replaced later. Now, I just need to finish my restoration so I can > experience the joy of my body flexing. > > Jack Stehr > Piedmont, CA > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

Mark McCombs · Post by **Mark McCombs** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 4:42 am

The technology was there, if the factory intended on glued joints. One need look no futher than the mosquito bomber. I think we can say that they werent glued, but then was it cost cutting or flexure? What about the other coachbuilders, did any of the higher quality ever glue? Mark TC8126

----- Original Message ----- From: seabrook@en.com> To: "Jack Stehr" mgtcmd@pacbell.net> Cc: mg-tabc@yahoogroups.com> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2001 1:16 AM Subject: Re: [mg-tabc] I'm completely glueless > Dear Jack & Group, > Not wanting to get blasted into cyberspace by mrbadger, we will not > give our opinion about glueing coachwork on line. If interested, please > contact me off line. > > Craig Seabrook > Fred Kuntz > Whitworth Shop > Coachbuilders > > Jack Stehr wrote: > > > > Ditto, glueless. When I assembled my tub a couple of years ago using Craig > > Seabrook's wood I only used #10 flat head slotted screws to secure the > > joints. I received the same advice that The Badger and Terry have stated > > already, that is the TC body was meant to flex. In addition, during the > > construction process you may want to move a piece slightly, especially when > > fitting the doors and the sheet metal. This would be much more difficult if > > the joints were glued. Another argument for glueless construction is the > > difficulty that would be encountered if a rotten or broken wooden member had > > to be replaced later. Now, I just need to finish my restoration so I can > > experience the joy of my body flexing. > > > > Jack Stehr > > Piedmont, CA > > > > > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > > >

joecurto@aol.com · Post by **joecurto@aol.com** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 6:04 am

Gee-Whiz Craig I am sure Badger would respect your expertise in the area of coachbuilding, and I suspect the group might be interested in your opinions, Share it if you will. Curto

Wilsons Sandbox