Big Jim

I have an old rover one like this ( ebay 131738912500 [a dirty one this]) mounted on a plate from the battery clamp. A 13lb cap on the rad, with a 2lb cap on the header tank, just to assist it to go back to the rad on cooling. works for me!

I can only repeat what Ian has just said, if your tyre goes down at speed suddenly, gunge will not solve it, You either need a spare (but please don't change an O/S wheel on the motorway, or you need to get recovered and then sort it out at a garage. Gunge will also ruin your tyre, At best it's only at "get you home" thing, once home you'll need to get a new tyre. Only 44 more shifts to do then I retire, have already started to work on the Hood to get it back on the road.

Mine http://nw.rhocar.org/spare%20wheel%20carriers.htm

That is a mark 3 monocoque car, made prior to the SVA & IVA probably. Some DVLA offices registered them as Sierra, but there was a point a few years ago that if you had one registered like this, you had to apply to the DVLA to have it changed to ROBIN HOOD 2 seater sports. You had to prove that it had been on the road prior to the SVA and you got a new log book. It might now be a problem, they may require it to go through a IVA test. I would make a phone call to the DVLA before I bought it. (With details of the vehicle etc)

Just tap them round with a hammer & centre punch, they'll go. Obviously fit new ones afterwards.

Hi Peter, mine will come back out of the garage next year when I retire ( 7 months + 18 days!) a few little jobs to do on it first, MOT etc then it'll get used again regularly. That looks like the Cortina based one. and yes, it would be pre lit

Come on guys, there is no such model as an S7, They were "Monocoque" chassis cars. Tricky tried to call his first ones S7, but Caterham took him to court to stop him using the *7*. They were monocoque Robin Hoods; Triumph Dolomite based, Ford Cortina based, then the series 1, series 2, mark 3, mark 3A, all using mainly sierra Donor parts, with a good few "one offs" as mixtures along the way. Then there was a gap as the SVA test reared it's head, and the monocoque cars were a long way from being able to pass it. After a year or so, the 2B sliding pillock came along, then it came along with wishbones, the 2B plus was nothing more than the 2B (wishbones) but with a box of bits - thrown in, allegedly so you wouldn't need to strip a doner car, ie; seats ,wheels, gauges etc, The superspec with the Rover internals was also produced at Rover prices. Then came along the Lightweight, a pop-riveted aluminium engineering disaster, lots of problems. Tricky then sold the business, and it became Robin Hood Sports cars, the new owners soon realising the inbuilt problems with the kits, so completely redesigned the chassis etc, i now believe it's as good a kit as many of the "Higher thought about" 7 type kits out there., well done to them. ALL Robin Hood kits, especially the early monocoque ones, and even the 2B's suffered from in-built design flaws in one way or another, a good builder / owner will work hard to sort these out, and there are many good cars, including early monocoque ones, out there that owners should rightly be proud of., but it as has already been mentioned in an earlier post, running a kitcar is not like running a standard Eurobox, you will soon learn how to fix it's problems, or it will cost you a lot, then of course there's alway UPGRADEITOUS, a VERY infectious ailment........................

Why this website will not let me edit my own post is beyond me! won't let me upload piccys. gRRRRRRRRRRR!

Your panels produce electricity during sunny/daylight periods and the meter that is attached to the panels will record how much they've produced, this is what you get paid for. Meanwhile, whilst your panels are producing electricity, you're not using a certain amount of electricity from the grid (depending on how sunny it is0 so your household will use the electricity from the panels BEFORE it starts to use electricity from the grid, this will obviously decrease the amount of electricity that you will need to pay for each month. I have solar panels (should have got them years ago!) and NORWEB put one of the smart meters in prior to having the panels (not related, just that the meter was getting on a bit) I can now see just how much electricity that i'm having to pay for at any one time. I'm presently on the PC, with the washer on, lights on, fridge, freezer etc running, and various TV's etc on standby, The panels are presently producing 1.58kw (has been up to 3.8kw when really sunny) and it's costing me nothing.

It needs camber adjustment spacers, do a search on the forum and you'll probably find out who makes them. (I used to do, but left engineering some 10 years ago so long longer have the means)

If you read all the stories about this incident, it sounds like the call taker that took the initial call either didn't pass it on for deployment of a police patrol, either because they took another important call without first completing this one, then forgetting about it, (pressure, short-staffed, who knows!) or misunderstood what the initial caller meant and that it's something of no real interest. I read the call was something like "there's a car off the motorway" NOT, "There's a car GONE off the motorway" The call taker may have thought (Incorrectly) 'Ah, there's just some youths messing about in a car on land at the side of the motorway' we'll wait for any further calls before deploying a patrol. OR, The patrol could easily have been deployed to a wrong location initially and found nothing, as the majority of drivers have no idea just where they are on a motorway. (85% of locations that come into the police on 999 for on the motorway are usually incorrect, often by a long way!) I feel very sorry for the call taker, and obviously for the affected families of the motorists

This site keeps telling me that I don't have permission to edit my posts, so this is additional to above! The bore of the Westfield MC is 0.7" and they are hard to get hold of, they were also fitted to the mark 3 cortina (no servo) the girling part number is 74660152 (see photo)

The Westfield master cylinder has twin feed, ie a split reservoir front / back

It's not the pads and discs that's your problem, it's because the servo has been removed, you will need to exert MUCH more force to get anything like the same braking effort that a servo assisted set-up with the same master cylinder would give, I doubt you could even if you can manage that. When I fitted the VX engine to my hood many years ago, I tried with just the Sierra master cylinder without the servo, certainly not happy, then I was recommended to try the VW Mk2 Golf master cylinder, slightly better but not fantastic, although I did use this for a good number of years until finally I'd had enough and wanted better. I thought that, well, Westfields ran a system without a servo in some of their models and they didn't have problems, so I researched just which master cylinder they used when no servo, although I can't remember the part number of it now, it's the same one that was fitted to Morgans, and would you believe, Reliant Regals.(Both models didn't run servo's) I managed to get hold of a second-hand one, fitted a new seal kit to it, and BINGO!! excellent brakes now at long last! don't waste your time messing with pads & discs, they're more than up to stopping a car that's only a third of the weight of the original Sierra, it's the Master cylinder that you need to change.

I put one in mine years ago, after being a passengers as mutley drove it once, Not a nice ride when you're slipping forward every time the brakes are applied. http://www.carbuilde...minium-footrest

Yep! Definitely going senile! but it seems that Maplin no longer list them now.

Thanks for that, I've ordered one, but if I could find one in the UK, i'll get one from there as well.

Ok folk, for those that can remember me, I'm getting the car ready to go back on the road for next year when I retire. one or two jobs to do first, one being the battery isolator switch that I had, basically, I Broke it! Doh! I don't want to mess about fitting some other switch and having to rewire etc. I'd just like to put a new one of these back on, but I can't find where I got it from. Anyone out there know who stocks these?

You also need to check just what ends you have on yours, some had "eye" type ends, but others had the threaded rod type. Be aware that if you get springs that are too wide, they'll not fit as they're very close to the bodywork. Whilst you're under there, check the piece of angle iron that the spring connects to, and is bolted to the rear end on the squared top of the monocoque "chassis" this will eventually twist and tear out of the "chassis" if not strengthened.

I believe this will be one of Richards "Specials" the front suspension top part looks to be partly Triumph, but the bottom arm is completely different, that looks to be one of Richards fabrications. With you saying that it has a live axle, it then has to be either Dolomite, or Cortina, certainly not Sierra. although it has a ford engine in it now. You'd need to find out what rear axle is has in, Triumph or Ford. The wheels look like Triumph. That front suspension is not one of the "Mass produced" kits, the main tub is similar to the ones fitted to the early monocoques, as it has the very wide chassis "box sections" Chassis number is a complete red herring, in those days, a builder could make up his own chassis number, and so long as when DVLA came to register it, there wasn't another vehicle already registered with that number, bingo!, you got it. Check out the log book, see if there's any clues there.

The DGAS set up correctly will give you a better drive than twin 40's, it will also give you better fuel figures . Bike carbs look and sound good, and are much better than twin webbers but will cost you a bit for a manifold etc, and rolling road session to get them tuned. I've had 40's on a Pinto, they lasted 1 month then I took them off and fitted a good DGAS.

If they're the ford hoses fitted, then check out these part numbers. http://nw.rhocar.org/parts.htm

The mark 3/3A was not designed with the SVA test in mind, it was just the latest version of the monocoque kit that RS had been producing in different forms throughout the years. In fact he stopped making 7 type kits for over a year or more when the starting date of the SVA became officially known, the rumour mill was that he wouldn't be carrying on with 7's at all, but we all know that turned out to be incorrect. The kit that was designed for the SVA was the 2B with sliding pillars. With the mark 3 / 3A there are more than the usual sharp edges to contend with, plus as has already been mentioned the roll bar needs to be 2" dia, with the seatbelt mountings fitted to an extra bar welded across between the legs of it. It also needs to be mounted better to the tub. Seat mountings need to be looked at, usually a framework needs to be made for the seats to mount through to. Normally they just bolt through the floor, this is not adequate. Fuel tank filler, windscreen surround, windscreen mounts, demisters, are all problem areas as is clipping up the brake pipes & wiring isn't as easy on these. The supplied silencer isn't up to the job. These points off the top of my head at the monment. Then there's the normal problems with the 3/3A monocoques, the suspension mountings both front & rear are not strong enough, Fuel tank mounting is poor (as are some of the tanks) the bulkhead to sides will crack after a few months of use, as will the corners where the front suspension box section joints the sides. The anti-roll bar from the Sierra is far too strong for the car, there are a number of methods to alter this, but you will also need to brace across the engine bay shoud you remove it. If it has the famous Zimmerman shock absorbers, throw them in the bin, do not fit them!

There was very little difference with the mark 3 and the 3A. Basically the 3A was the same kit, but with all the "extras" included, ie. it had a set of escort clocks that you needed to "modify", I think there was a set of alloys as well. Mine is a mark 3 and it had the bumper, yet I know of a 3A that didn't have the front bumper. A lot depended on what RS decided to include in the kits at the time.

I expect that it's not the springs that are the problem but the offset of the wheels. I believe that Ford had their own particular offset, the original wheels being used by RH in the "design" etc of the rear wings, and should tuck up inside the arches on full travel. Now if after-market wheels have been used, the offset will be close, but not the same, and the wheels probably sticking out a little further than originally designed. If on the other hand you do have the original Ford steel wheels still fitted and they're catching, first check that no wheel spacers are fitted, if none and it's still a problem then maybe your springs have gone weak, a new set of standard springs would bring things back to the correct height, or heavier duty ones from an estate model.(Not recommended as the suspension is on the hard side as it is) As Snapperpaul says, an alternative solution is to go with coil-over shockers, but then you may need to experiment with spring poundage to get a comfortable ride. Also remember that anyone giving you details of what they have fitted to a 2B is irrelevant to your car.