A Tale of Two Dorts (1920 & 1921)

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

Here is a long shot idea. Ford Model T u-joints use a combination of square male and female splines. I wonder if the square spline dimensions are similar, then perhaps parts from two T u-joint could be modified to fit the Dort.

 

Ford T u-joints are two halves are held together with riveted rings. This allows the two sides to come apart and then you could mix and match the parts to build one with two female square splines.

 

Used junk u-joints are common and can be used to experiment with. Good originals can also be found, but they also make new ones too. Just note, I think that they are hardened before assembly so that they last for a while. If you try to machine the parts you may need some good tools to do it.

 

Good luck with the Dort projects.

 

Jeff

[Nate Dort]

 

17 minutes ago, nsbrassnut said:

Here is a long shot idea.

Thanks for the idea Jeff. I started a separate thread about the u-joint. I think I may have pieced something together from some off-the-shelf farm/industrial PTO-type joint components. I'll know more once they arrive later this week. Based on my measurements, I think I'll just need to shim the transmission output shaft to make up the 0.050" difference between the existing 0.825" shaft and the new 0.875" square bore.

[Nate Dort]

New u-joint parts arrived. On first glance, it looked like it might work. I figured I might have to cut a couple inches off the driveshaft slip yoke to get the overall length the same, and then shim the shaft gap on the transmission side, but when I looked at how this all went together, I realized that my new transmission-side yoke wasn't going to work.

 

 

 

 

 

Not long enough to seat properly against the transmission bearing when the shaft end nut is tightened, and too large in diameter to fit within the output mounting bracket hole.

I ordered a longer yoke for the transmission side, then I'll have it cut to length and turned down to match the outer diameter of the original so it fits in the mounting bracket hole and the felt seal can do its job. Either way, I'll be going to a sealed bearing on the transmission, so oil seepage won't be as much of an issue.

[Nate Dort]

Started tackling the cone clutch relining project while I wait for the new u-joint yoke to arrive. Got a sheet of veg tanned leather from ebay, about 0.2" thick. Backed out all of the spring-loaded pressure nub things to get the cone surface flat and made a template from some heavy paper.

 

 

Traced and cut out the leather with a utility knife.

 

 

Marked the ends where I needed to have about 3" of overlap so I could taper the thickness. Make sure the rougher side faces out towards the flywheel.

 

 

Started skiving the leather with a straight-edge razor in one of those holders like you would use to scrape paint off glass, but that was way too slow.

 

 

Bought a $6 skiving knife and it worked OK for a little bit, but wouldn't hold an edge long enough to make it practical. So I got out the belt sander and finished the tapering that way. Probably should have started with that, as it only took a few minutes and came out much cleaner.

Double-checked the fitment over the clutch. I marked about 1/4" more overlap (reduced the diameter) than the dry-fit so that I would ensure it was tight over the clutch.

 

Applied some contact cement, DAP weldwood in this case, because it's readily available in smaller containers and was recommended on some leathercrafting forums. Didn't want to spring for a can of Barge that I would never use again. Took a few coats to get it where it wasn't just soaking in.

 

 

Lined it up, then clamped it for a few minutes with some scrap wood to make sure it had good contact.

 

 

It was bonded really well at this point, couldn't pull it apart as hard as I tried.

 

The one thing I didn't do, but crossed my mind as soon as I fit it back on the clutch, was that I didn't make sure the orientation of the overlap corresponded to the direction of rotation, i.e. I didn't want the clutch to rotate into the overlapped edge. It was late though and I didn't feel like figuring it out, so I'll double-check that again before I start riveting it to the clutch. Maybe it doesn't matter.

[human-potato_hybrid]

On 10/13/2023 at 9:29 AM, Nate Dort said:

I didn't want the clutch to rotate into the overlapped edge. It was late though and I didn't feel like figuring it out, so I'll double-check that again before I start riveting it to the clutch. Maybe it doesn't matter.

Personally, I would definitely check that it's not doing that. Good catch.

[Nate Dort]

Riveting the leather turned out to be a bit more tedious than I envisioned.

 

I drilled through the leather into the existing rivet holes. There was no consistency to the hole placement, just eyeballed by whoever assembled it the first time. Took my time lining up the drill bit from the leather side so I could get the holes centered. The alternative was to just drill new holes through the leather and metal simultaneously, but I didn't want a bunch of extra holes in it. I then created recesses with a forstner bit, and a slight tapered countersink in the center with an angled deburring bit, to follow the taper on the rivets.

 

I needed something solid to fit against the rivet heads while I hammered the washers over the shafts, so I screwed a hex-head bolt into a chunk of scrap wood to create a simple fixture.

 

 

I had the kids help hold the assembly vertically over the fixture while I attempted to seat the washers with the seating tool.

 

 

I couldn't get enough clearance inside the clutch to get a good whack on the side of the tool. I was basically just banging the thing into my left hand. So I downed 12 oz of brain lubricant and came up with the idea of turning an old C-clamp into a makeshift press. I drilled a hole through the face of it to fit over the rivet shaft, then I could tighten it down over the washer to press it into place. Also had to remove the flexy pivot face from the threaded shaft so it would be a small enough diameter to contact the rivet head without mashing the leather around the countersink.

 

 

 

 

 

I cut off the excess shaft with some diagonal cutters, then peened it over with a ball-peen hammer as best I could, considering the awkward angle to get down in the corners. I used the high-precision fixture to set the rivet faces against to keep them from popping out as I peened them.

 

Then I trimmed the excess leather.

 

 

 

I adjusted the spring-loaded plungers to where I could see that they were just pushing out the leather, then reinstalled the retaining wires through the castle nuts and split shafts.

 

It didn't take much neatsfoot oil to saturate the leather. I'll keep checking it over the next few days to see if it needs more.

 

 

3 hours ago, human-potato_hybrid said:

Personally, I would definitely check that it's not doing that. Good catch.

I had a 50/50 shot and got lucky, but I confirmed that it's oriented the correct way based on engine rotation.

[JV Puleo]

You should double check this but I seem to remember reading that the leather goes on with the smooth side out.

[Nate Dort]

2 minutes ago, JV Puleo said:

You should double check this but I seem to remember reading that the leather goes on with the smooth side out.

I definitely did double-check this before cutting. The Dyke's manual specifically says to put the rough side out. Putting the smooth side out makes it too grabby, from what I've read.

 

[JV Puleo]

Good. I'm relieved for your sake. I'm a long way from having to do that but I do remember that one way made the clutch grab too much. This is what comes from reading engineering books late at night. Nice job too!

 

That modified c-clamp was a really good idea. I'm going to make one!

Edited October 16, 2023 by JV Puleo (see edit history)

[JV Puleo]

I think a lot of the bad reputation cone clutches have comes from them being out of balance and/or the clearance where the spin is too great so they don't go in straight. I'd check that very carefully and perhaps bush the center of the clutch so you have a running clearance of .002 to .003. Some very good cars had cones clutches, including the Silver Ghost RR but they were very well made with a lot of attention to getting them to run perfectly straight.

[Nate Dort]

12 minutes ago, JV Puleo said:

perhaps bush the center of the clutch so you have a running clearance of .002 to .003.

Definitely need to check that. The existing bronze bushing doesn't look too worn, but I do want to confirm clearance.

 

I think this thing was balanced somewhat from the factory. That's the only explanation I can come up with for this extra bulge/dome thing on the rear surface.

 

[JV Puleo]

It would have been statically balanced, which is the best that could have been done at the time. I would have it dynamically balanced which is much better but the machines that do it weren't invented until the 30s. Anyone that dynamically balances flywheels should be able to do it but you may have to make a fixture of some sort to hold it.

 

Expensive cars often had a clutch that was machined all over. That came very close to dynamic balancing as long as the metal was of a consistent density.

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

I hope that you can solve the U-joint fit issue OK. Just wanted to pass along a note. I measured up a Ford T u-joint in my junk pile. The square spline is 0.875".

 

One difference thought, the Ford joint is intended to run enclosed in the torque tube with grease. The u-joint parts run steel on steel.

 

I think your Dort one appears to run open in the air. If you did use a T type U-joint it would need regular oiling for it to last. So you current plant is likely the better one.

 

Just watch how you shim the spline. It will need to be evenly shimmed to stay centered to avoid the driveshaft running off center and vibrating.

 

Good Luck

 

Jeff

[Nate Dort]

@nsbrassnut, thanks for the input. Good to know about the T joint, might be able to make that work if my cobbled-together plan doesn't come to fruition.

 

Good point about the shims. I did think about that, and I now have some 0.025" stainless shim stock that will go around all 4 sides of the square spline.

 

I have a coworker who apparently has a decent machine shop setup at home, so I'm in talks to get him to turn down and cut the transmission yoke for me.

[Nate Dort]

Started dismantling the transmission. This is a Mechanics brand 3-speed.

 

First step was to degrease, so I soaked it in simple green for a few days, then blasted it with the pressure washer to get all the caked-on crud off the surface.

Then I upgraded to heavy duty engine degreaser spray to get as much sludge out of the gearbox as I could, and a chisel to get the rest off the surface. This was a 4 or 5 day process. I eventually got it good enough that I didn't feel like I needed a shower after touching it.

 

I moved it to the basement floor for disassembly. I drove out the output bearing from the inside using a mallet and blunt-end cold chisel, a bunch of heat, and some penetrating fluid. This allows you to remove the output shaft and the two sliding gears. The output shaft mates with a bronze bushing inside the main drive gear at the front.

 

 

 

Then I struggled with pulling off the square input spline from the shaft. It's held on by two keys after removing a nut & washer. Took a couple days of heat and fluid to get it to start budging with my two-jaw puller.

 

 

 

This allows you to remove the input bearing cover (held on by 3 bolts) which exposes a ridged retaining ring that appears to be pressed onto the shaft. Behind (and possibly between the ring and the shaft) that ring is a thin steel shim/washer/bushing thing with a couple of small tabs, one of which was bent down into one of the retaining ring ridges.

 

 

Still not sure how to get this ring off the shaft. I've tried lots of heat and a chisel behind the ring and it doesn't want to budge. I can get the whole input shaft assembly, including the bearing, to move if I drive the shaft into the gearbox with a mallet, but the bearing won't clear the large front gear on the layshaft. So my plan is to drive out the layshaft, remove those secondary gears, then drive the input shaft and bearing assembly into the gearbox to get it out. Then I can work on getting the input shaft disassembled on the bench.

Edited October 20, 2023 by Nate Dort (see edit history)

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

Hope this catches you in time. Please don't press on that bushing. The appearance and the use of a locking tab are screaming to me that its a threaded adjustment collar. It appears much like a water pump packing nut and some types of front wheel bearing adjustment nut.

 

I strongly suspect that the bushing is threaded in and uses spacer washers to adjust the position and/or fit of the shaft bearing in the housing or the overall position of the shaft relative to the rest of the assembly. The locking tab would be used to prevent it from turning and loosening up in service.

 

Try finding one of those double end wrenches or single "hook" wrench similar to those usually used for water pump packing nuts. It was probably designed for a special wrench just for that operation. You could also make one from a section of pipe or tube of the right diameter, then cut sections out of the tube leaving two high spots opposite one another that fit into the slots. And make it long enough to extend past the end of the shaft so that you can then drill two holes in the tube and add a bar through them to give you a T handle. That way you can apply the torque more evenly to loosen and remove the collar.

 

Again, good luck with the project. Lots of us are watching over your shoulder with interest.

[nsbrassnut]

Additional thought.

 

Part of why I'm thinking this way. If this is the input shaft its in direct line with the output shaft, but they are actually two separate shafts that have to meet somewhere in between. And then to make sure that the two shafts fit and don't wobbly, there would have to be a way to adjust the fit of the two.

 

If you are lucking enough to find a sectional drawing of the transmission somewhere it might help show what I'm trying to describe.

[Nate Dort]

Jeff, you did catch me in time and I think your thought process makes sense. I was thinking it might be threaded based on the locking tab and the slots around the perimeter, but then I wasn't sure because there's a slot in the shaft that kinda looks like a woodruff key would fit into under the bushing.

 

I'll see if I can fashion some sort of tool to see if it really does unscrew. 

Edited October 20, 2023 by Nate Dort (see edit history)

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

Well I found something that may be of interest in my files. I'm a fan of the Canadian Grey Dort which use the Dort mechanicals. So when I see something reasonable I try to pick it up. I knew that I had an owner's manual from the early '20s in the file. While looking for that I found that I also have a copy of one of the Grey Dort parts books, dated March 1923.

 

And it includes some illustrations.  :^)

 

It mentions two different transmissions, likely depending on the year, one with the speedo drive from the transmission and one with the speedo drive on a front wheel. Don't know it makes much difference to the gear case parts.

 

Here is the section on the transmission.

[Nate Dort]

That's good info, thanks Jeff. I have a similar 1920 parts list, but without illustrations.

 

I did finally get everything out of the transmission case this evening. Still not sure about the input shaft and that (maybe threaded) front bushing. I'm not seeing any indication that it's threaded. You'd think there be some sign of threads on the shaft. I may try cutting off the bearing with a dremel to see what's going on.

 

On the plus side, the bearing numbers match the info in the parts list above. 207 and 305 sizes. The front one is marked E19, maybe a date code of May 1919?

 

 

 

[Mike "Hubbie" Stearns]

The big question is are the bearing still available?  Mike

[Nate Dort]

8 hours ago, Mike "Hubbie" Stearns said:

The big question is are the bearing still available?  Mike

I found some new ones on ebay that seem to match the dimensions of the ones I have. 

 

NSK 2305-2RSTNG

SKF 2207-E2RS1TN9

 

Both are sealed, self-aligning double-row ball bearings. The originals were open and relied on felt seals and paper gaskets to keep the oil from leaking, with predictably mediocre results.

I've read where people remove just the inner seal on the new bearings to allow the gearbox oil to lubricate, but still keep it from going through completely.

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

Good to see that the bearing and stub shaft came out OK.

 

That's leading me to another idea of what might be there. There is a bearing mounting system that used  adapter/locking sleeves to mount the bearing on a shaft and lock it in place. I ran across this mounting system when researching bearing refit options for one of my other antiques with an odd obsolete bearing.

 

This could be one of those cases. This style mounting system uses a thin tapered inner sleeve and a locking nut on one side. Tightening the locking nut locks the bearing in position so that it won't move on the shaft. Its a method used sometimes where the designer didn't want to use an interference press fit.

 

A like to one modern example made by SKF.

 

https://www.skf.com/sg/products/rolling-bearings/accessories/adapter-sleeves

 

The Grey Dort parts book appears to call it a 11-B-309 drive shaft lock nut and 11-B-311 drive shaft lock nut washer. It may still be just a regular threaded locking ring to help keep the bearing in place on the shaft. But the drawing is not clear enough to see just where the threads are that the nut is winding on.

 

I agree that you would expect to see the start of the thread. But it may be possible that it doesn't go quite to the edge of the nut and isn't easily seen.

 

Either way, it might be an idea to try to hold the shaft some way that won't mark it, then find an appropriate wrench and try winding the nut off. It may help save the bearing.

 

As others have noted, I wouldn't cut the bearing until I was sure that a replacement was actually available in my hand. Some of these old bearings are now made of "unobtanium" and you want to save any that are good for reuse.

 

I also tried a google bearing search. Based on the parts book, one bearing New Departure 207 appeared to come right up (with the seals), but the other New Departure 305 comes up with non New Departure alternates (also with the seals). Be sure to check the dimensions carefully. although for us, most bearing dimensions were standards in the early 'teens allowing many to be matched up with modern ones. But some used special imperial (inch vs metric) dimensions and were special to automotive use. Such as many front wheel bearings. Those ones can be a lot more difficult to find modern replacements.

 

Good luck.

[nsbrassnut]

Follow up. After looking at the pictures again it does appear that there is something between the inside of the nut and the actual shaft. Perhaps the end of a threaded adapter sleeve? And with a gap where the woodruff key slot is.

[nsbrassnut]

 

I still may be way off, but just in case. Here is some generic information on the bearing mounting method although the examples are bearings mounted on line shafts. The principles are the same if its a taper bore bearing mounted using an adapter sleeve and nut.

 

https://www.ntnglobal.com/en/products/catalog/pdf/9011E.pdf

 

See pages 43 and 47 for installation and removal recommendations for bearings mounted with adapter sleeves and locking nuts.

[human-potato_hybrid]

16 hours ago, Nate Dort said:

I've read where people remove just the inner seal on the new bearings to allow the gearbox oil to lubricate, but still keep it from going through completely.

If they are prelubricated double sealed I would just keep them like that. The bearing grease and gearbox oil aren't optimal for the other. We use packed or sealed bearings at my job and they have an extremely long life. Honestly, I doubt it even matters.

[Nate Dort]

Success!

 

I put the sub-shaft in the vice, with an old leather glove as a pad, and tried the assumption that the ridged retainer was a threaded nut. Didn't move after a couple whacks, so I thought it was worth a shot to try spinning it the other way. It started moving after the second hit, and uncrewed easily by hand after that.

 

What we were seeing between the nut and the shaft was the start of the first (reverse) thread. The tabbed retainer washer was between the nut and the bearing surface. I flipped the assembly over in the vice and tapped the shaft a few times to drive it out of the bearing.

 

There's a thin metal washer on the opposite side of the bearing, between the bearing and gear. It's actually perforated with slots about 1/4" away from the ID, probably to allow lubrication of the bearing. This one was pretty worn and and a little mangled around the OD from my hamfisted removal process, so I tapped it flat again on the anvil portion of my bench vise. I'll try to see if I can find something similar as a new replacement.

 

I also re-flattened the tabbed retainer washer on the anvil. It's about 3x thicker than the gear-side washer.

 

So, if anybody else reads this in the future, be aware that the retainer nut is left-hand threaded.

 

Next step is to measure the clearance on the bronze bushing inside this gear. It may need replacement based on the amount of play I felt between the two shafts when was still assembled, but maybe that amount of slop is there for a reason. I don't have a clearance spec to go by.

I'm also going to dress all of the gear teeth slightly with a file, as there are a few that have some sharp galling due to missed shifts. I don't have the budget to get all new gears machined, so I'll clean these up the best I can and run it. 

 

BTW, there's a stamp on the gear-end of the shaft. 11 19 and then a stacked Mechanics MMC symbol. I'm guessing 11 19 is for the 11th week (March) of 1919.

 

 

 

[nsbrassnut]

Hi Nate

 

Good to hear that the bearing came off OK in the end.

 

Just a thought. Those old thin metal bent tab lock washers are known to crack from bending the tab a couple times. It can help reduce the chance of cracking the next time if you anneal the bent tabs to help relieve the stress from work hardening.

 

It's easy to do. Hopefully I get it right here. Just heat the washer, focusing mainly on the bent tab, to a dull to medium red glow. Hold for 20-30 seconds then let it air cool until cold. A propane torch should be enough to heat the thin metal washer to red hot. That should help reduce the chance of the tab cracking the next time it's bent again.

 

Or even better, next time use the tab that hasn't been bent (if there is one) or make a new one when you have some time.

 

Drive Safe

 

Jeff

[r1lark]

This is a great thread!! I love seeing how these older vehicles were engineered and assembled.

Edited October 28, 2023 by r1lark
spelling (see edit history)

[Nate Dort]

Cleaned up the gears and shafts in the ultrasonic cleaner. Made it much easier to see/feel how much wear there was. This thing must have run for a while with dirty oil.

 

Layshaft is pretty ridged from wear and missing a couple small chunks on the bottom side in the middle, due to rust. Luckily, that part doesn't contact either of the bronze bushings, there's a gap in the middle.

 

 

Same story with the reverse gear and its shaft, though not quite as bad.

 

 

Main and sub-shaft surfaces are pretty worn, with a lot of slop and some bell-ended wear on the bronze bushing

 

 

The plan is to find a local machine shop that can turn the main shaft down slightly to remove the ridges, then replace all of the bushings. I can't turn the layshaft and reverse shaft down, because they're interference-fit to the casing, so I'll just polish the contact surface and flip them 180 degrees to get a fresh shaft surface.

 

I also need to do a bit more degreasing in the gearbox case, then a derusting soak in molasses before I paint it. 

Edited October 30, 2023 by Nate Dort (see edit history)

[Nate Dort]

Took a bit of a break while waiting for the machine shop to finish working on the transmission parts. But they did an excellent job, and the parts dropped right in. Clearances were spot-on.

I also had them modify the new u-joint yoke to match the old footprint.

I put the shafts in the deep freezer and heated the new bearings gently in the oven and they dropped on without too much persuasion.

I flipped the stationary layshafts 180 to get a fresh surface for the gears to ride on, then installed them with some Loctite 648 retaining compound to hopefully prevent leaks at the interference fit to the casing.

 

 

Cut some stainless shims to go around the square output shaft to take up the space in the new yoke, and replaced the felt that goes around the yoke.

 

 

Also cleaned up the clutch release shafts and got that reassembled:

 

 

I cut new gaskets for all of the mating surfaces and reassembled as much as I could. Next on the to-do list is replace the felt surface inside the throwout bearing / clutch collar. It was pretty mangled and full of dried grease.

 

 

I'm also trying to come up with a replacement for the ~5" flexible metal grease tube that connects the external grease cup to the clutch collar. The old one had been cut at some point. I think I'll have a workable solution using a short rubber tube, and I can convert the grease cup to a zerk fitting. Just waiting for parts to arrive.

 

Edited December 20, 2023 by Nate Dort (see edit history)

[Nate Dort]

I saw a small crack in the handbrake ratchet tooth thing that mounts on the side of the transmission, so I flexed it slightly to see how bad the crack was and it broke instantly. It's also missing a tooth. So, looks like I'm going to be drawing up a new one in CAD and seeing if I can get some quotes on having a couple machined. I need one for the '21 anyway, as its teeth are nearly rounded off.

 

Unfortunately, the '18 parts car doesn't use a handbrake, so I can't scavenge one from that transmission.

 

[Nate Dort]

I think my grease tube idea may actually work.

I found a 5 inch "grease fitting relocation kit" at Lock N Lube and used a 1/8" NPT to 1/4" NPT M/F adapter bushing to get it connected to the clutch collar.

I was planning on doing the same on the original threaded flange where the external grease cup mounted, but after stacking the adapters, the new hose was just too long to get in there without damaging it. A 3.5" hose would have done it.

So I made a new external mounting bracket for the zerk fitting out of an electrical conduit clamp. Left enough slack in the hose so the bearing can slide its full range.

 

 

I also created a 3D model of the broken parking brake ratchet in Fusion 360. Got a couple of online quotes. Best price and quickest turnaround was to have it SLM printed out of maraging steel and then hardened. Curious to see how well that works, I've never had anything 3D printed in metal before.

 

 

[Bloo]

Could probably be welded? A new hardened part would be nice though.

[Nate Dort]

2 hours ago, Bloo said:

Could probably be welded? A new hardened part would be nice though.

It's cast iron, so welding is tricky. That missing tooth bothers me too. 

 

I mean $70 each for a couple new ones isn't bad. 

[Bloo]

Oh it's cast? I didn't realize. That does complicate things. Are you sure that's a missing tooth? it looks intentional. Ya, not bad on the price.

 

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by Bloo (see edit history)

[Laughing Coyote]

Looks like a detent or stop to hold the lever to keep it from engaging. Just my thought.

[Nate Dort]

It's at the farthest end of the travel, at the last position, where the most stress would be on it due to the brake spring tension. I already looked at the one on my other vehicle and it has a tooth there. 

 

EDIT: Here's a better photo of that last tooth area. You can see the rough patch were the tooth would have been. It's a break, not a cleanly machined area.

 

 

Also, just for posterity, the break at the crack. Pretty obvious how little material was still holding the two halves together. It was ~90% cracked for a long time.

 

Edited December 24, 2023 by Nate Dort (see edit history)

[Nate Dort]

On 12/23/2023 at 3:09 PM, Nate Dort said:

Curious to see how well that works, I've never had anything 3D printed in metal before.

New parts arrived today, and I have to say that I'm pleasantly surprised with the quality. They look like they'll work just fine. I don't think I could have had anything made locally in 6 days (over Christmas, no less) for the ~$150 I paid for the pair.

 

[Mr. Don]

Wow! That was a great turn around!

 

Laser-cut, Waterjet or sintered? I have some small experience with all, and I have a bias towards the Waterjet, but then again, there is a manufacturer, Czinger, whose whole intent is to use only state of the art, (Science), manufacturing techniques. and our Fab guys, and Engineers, think that's the only way to go. -these particular designs are extremely organic and not at all like anything that has ever been imagined before.

 

I guess I'll stay tuned!

 

Happy New Year!

 

 

Edited December 30, 2023 by Mr. Don (see edit history)