Deeply Pitted Metal Cosmetics

[4x4Founder]

Those of you with these old rigs certainly have knowledge of rust. Or soon get it! Fortunately, many of the parts used are heavy gauge materials so the rust damage is mostly cosmetic. I see some restored rigs where this metal is very smooth as if it's been filled and others where the parts have merely been painted and you can still see the pitting. I was wondering what those of you who fill the pitting do? I'm mostly taking about the hard parts here, like chassis runners, axle housings, suspension components, etc., not bodywork.

[Diana and Jackie]

The method used before fibreglass was lead plumbing solder, which if properly done will not fall out or off later.

 

The solder was, after application, smoothed down using conventional means.

 

D&J

 

 

Those of you with these old rigs certainly have knowledge of rust. Or soon get it! Fortunately, many of the parts used are heavy gauge materials so the rust damage is mostly cosmetic. I see some restored rigs where this metal is very smooth as if it's been filled and others where the parts have merely been painted and you can still see the pitting. I was wondering what those of you who fill the pitting do? I'm mostly taking about the hard parts here, like chassis runners, axle housings, suspension components, etc., not bodywork.

[ruxy]

Google on "Lead Loading" , for best results you need a special torch (burner) with a range of nozzels..

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/270943250840?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1438.l2649

Edited April 6, 2012 by ruxy
speling

[Richard Farrant]

The method used before fibreglass was lead plumbing solder, which if properly done will not fall out or off later.

 

The solder was, after application, smoothed down using conventional means.

 

D&J

 

It was even used when manufacuring car bodies to hide seams between body panels.

[4x4Founder]

But is that what you guys use? lead is pretty toxic stuff. Surely there are modern things that will do the job as well?

[Richard Farrant]

But is that what you guys use? lead is pretty toxic stuff. Surely there are modern things that will do the job as well?

 

Restoring old vehicles is usually done using original techniques and lead loading was one such. We still use lead for a lot of things, as with anything, take the neccessary precautions.

 

Just so you can see what it is all about, check this link;

Edited April 6, 2012 by Richard Farrant
added link

[ruxy]

You can still get sticks of body solder etc. but as stated - normally for better class repairs on older vehicles (top repairs avoid fillers & tube filler gun) where the steel is a bit thicker than modern car bodies. Roof gutters , wing seams , pin holes (best method to stop water penetration). Modern body technique is often to use spray putty if not heavy build.

 

Heavy sections such as chassis RSC's that have been shot-blast - no chance of water penetration through - just use polyester filler - to skim.

[Diana and Jackie]

Modern repairs using fibreglass, epoxy and silicon hold just as many dangers - probably more long term dangers than lead.

 

Having worked with a number of people actively involved in lead plumbing over 50 years I've yet to see anyone suffer from the effects, except a burn or two.

 

D&J

 

 

 

But is that what you guys use? lead is pretty toxic stuff. Surely there are modern things that will do the job as well?

[Richard Peskett]

A somewhat more complex question than it would seem !. Having been in the restoration business for almost 50 years and carried out restorations for private customers, national and international museums a wide range of opinion is forthcoming.

Pitting of metal components generally was not there when new but has come about as part of the vehicles life and history. First question are you restoring the vehicle to 'as new' standard or thoroughly overhauling and preventing further deterioration of its condition ?. Generally our policy is to shot or sand blast most major parts to eliminate rust and therefore further deterioration ( frames, axle casings, brackets and other general ironwork, NOT engines or gearboxes) and apply two coats red oxide asap. It is surprising what defects will be found once an item is blasted !. I also believe it is a great fallacy that these vehicles were perfect when new, evidence gathered over the years has proved to be far from it. Most vehicles built during wartime were built using much unskilled labour. If in blasting a hole appears it was not up to it and needs repairing. We use little filler, an exception being a contract with a major European manufacturer where in their museum the standard of appearance reflects the standard of their current products, hence every thing has to be to perfection, in doing this much of the vehicles originality can be lost. We then move into 'over restoration' or the vehicle even becoming a virtual replica. Cost and economics then come in, we restored the 1915 Daimler 'Y' type lorry for Ronald Harris, possibly one of the most original WW1 existant in the UK, about 80% of the woodwork we saved and conserved rather than replaced but the cost implications are about plus 75%. To summarise, if pitted but sound do not fill, its all part of the vehicles ongoing history and its a question of how much time , money etc. etc. you wish to spend on your project, but please do your research thoroughly, its a part of restoration that costs very little. I believe lead loading as filling started in the 1920s when construction methods of cars became quite different with more presswork and contours joining up hence the necessity for filling , I am sure if modern day fillers were available then they would have been used. Problems from hereon extend into obtaining correct fixings, steel sections ( todays metric is vastly different from our old imperial sizes) paints etc.

Richard Peskett.

[Tony B]

Restoratinon V Conservation. Phil and I are going through this discussion at the moment on his new Wolsey. There is a nsty pit, going through in pin holes on the bonnet. I suspect ten years of a guano siting on it. Is there any technique that can re bind paint? The top coat has almost seperated from the undercoat. A complete respray is the obvious, but as Richard says, It is ongoing history.

[TooTallMike]

This is a question I have been asking myself with regard to my Autocar restoration over the last couple of years and I have decided that parts will be blasted and then just re-painted unless their condition renders them unfit for service in which case they will be repaired or replaced. For example there is some corrosion of the chassis rails but they are largely uncompromised, however I have cut out and replaced a few sections which were too bad to be structurally sound. I agree with the sentiment that corrosion can be part of the vehicle's history, but so are the civilian modifications which I have gone to great pains to delete. Am I a hypocrite for this...?

 

I am a huge fan of 'preserved' rather than 'restored' vehicles, but this is frequently not possible for a vehicle that may have sat unloved for decades. The decision is ultimately for the owner as they alone know how what they want to achieve and what they intend to do with the finished article. I am always pleased when I see or hear of an owner 'leaving a dent in' because it had that dent in a photo dredged up from thirty years prior.

 

As Richard suggests, most military vehicles were far from our modern idea of 'perfect' when issued because they were assembled hastily by unskilled personnel under huge pressure and in poor conditions. Paint overspray was common and stencils were not ruler straight!

 

- MG

[cosrec]

also post war vehicles were not by any means built to the standards we expect . when i took the recovery gear of a leyland martian i found many examples of miss drilled holes in chassis even down to a broken 1/2" drill bit still wedged in the hole were a bolt was supposed to go covered over by the rear roller that diverted the winch rope to the front of the vehicle. my view of how far you go is if its not affecting its structural integrity and its your vehicles its your call paper over or make right

[TooTallMike]

Safety first, all other considerations are secondary. (Unless it's a gate guardian or a static museum piece)

 

- MG

[Richard Peskett]

I totally agree with the last two contributors, Mike has done exactly what we have always done in the past, replace only as really necessary, there is a subtle difference with a military vehicle as to leaving the deterioration of age but correct in removing civillian modifications. A major exception to this is the high survival rate of the A.E.C. 'Matador' , most now being preserved in their final civilian form. At the end of the day it is down to the owner / restorer but also it is most important to record what has been done in the restoration, all our jobs go with a comprehensive work report which we sincerely hope stays with the vehicle for future reference, nevertheless I fear that with most individual / private restorers this is not the case. Again I reiterate the importance of research, it costs no more to get a restoration right than completely wrong. Nothing new with the broken drill bit , recently restoring the bodywork of a 1910 Maudslay car we found similar broken off in some applied beading with a 'new' hole drilled alongside, a totally original car there was no doubt it had been there since 1910 !.

Richard Peskett.

[Roy Larkin]

Again I reiterate the importance of research, it costs no more to get a restoration right than completely wrong. Richard Peskett.

 

As somebody who has only previously dabbled in restoration many years ago and now has no intention of doing so ever again, I hesitate to butt in on this thread.

 

I do agree entirely with Richard's comment about research, but that research can I believe muddy what are already muddy waters still further. Let me indulge in 2 hypothetical examples to illustrate.

 

Let's assume I have just bought a Ford T to be restored as a WW1 ambulance. There are enough photographs of exteriors and interiors and articles to provide the restorer with enough information to produce a very passable example, so it shouldn't be a problem. However, all the information readily available relates to the vehicle when new! The problem is they only lasted a few weeks in service before the modifications started and No.1 MAC workshops effectively redesigned the cab and body and converted theirs and other MAC's Fords to that new design. Photographs don't exist, only written descriptions in 1 MAC's War Diary. Do I produce what is perceived as a Ford ambulance, or what it became in service, or something in-between as it evolved? 1 MAC workshops also acted in assessing any modifications dreamed up by other companies and approved them or not, and designed an interior heating system, so should those also be included?

 

Unable to find a Ford, I am lucky enough to aquire a fully restored 1914 Daimler, Wolseley or similar which will provide the ideal basis for an ambulance body. I take it to a restorer and the first thing I want doing to this perfect chassis is to plate it full length down the offside and then 2 different thickness plates of different length on the nearside and I want them rivetted, not welded and am not too fussed if the cutting and fitting isn't particularly tidy, indeed better if not tidy. I can already hear the gasps of horror, but the first chassis were plated within weeks of arriving in France and there was a Routine Order requiring all ambulances to have their chassis plated whether they needed it or not, because if they didn't they soon would. The plating was done by the workshops of each company who relied on locally sourced materials, hence the different size plates etc - they could only use what they could get their hands on. Now, having persuaded the restorer that there is an authentic reason for wrecking a perfectly sound chassis, I demand that steel discs are cut and welded to the wheel rims to cover the beautifully restored wire wheel spokes. More raised eyebrows I would guess. Again, No.1 MAC workshops cut hundreds of discs for their own use and for other workshops as it became routine procedure to simply weld discs to wire wheels to strengthen them. And I want big ugly chunks of metal rivetted to the engine mounts, a few flanges stuck here and there on the axles and stub axles before you even start on the body. I end up not with a pristine circa 1914 motor car with an ambulance body but something that looks a mess. But I do have a circa 1915/16 ambulance that worked and not a pristine 1914 example that didn't work for very long. Is there any merit in reproducing a vehicle that didn't in reality survive very long? Isn't it better to produce a vehicle that shows the modifications that were required to make it work reliably?

 

Modifying vehicles began in 1914 and continued through to 1918 and beyond. Different workshops found different solutions and the availability of raw materials often dictated the solutions were always different. Manufacturers were directed to make modifications, sometimes against their will. A Daimler representative was summoned to the Western Front to see for himself the number of Daimlers that were unfit for use as Daimler didn't believe the war office demands for spares and modifications, as were Thornycroft and Vauxhall representatives.

 

War work proved a far harder taskmaster than civilian work, so using the manufacturer's specifications and drawings doesn't guarantee a faithful war time vehicle.

 

So, should the restorer take their research to the levels of ASC company war records and spend hours in the hope that a modification is described in more detail than 'the rear brake linkages were modified to prevent them breaking'? I don't think so, better the restorer does what he does best, but let that be recognised as what it is and not be troubled with the detail because a war time vehicle restored as the maker intended will be very different to the same vehicle after the army have had it for a few years.

[4x4Founder]

I'm with most of you regarding over-restoration. When I think "restored" I think back to original condition. If that meant brush painting, so be it. As it rolled off the assembly line or as it was used in service.

 

I also don't personally mind seeing the effects of age on a truck. Nothing delights me more than to see a functional, original unrestored survivor... flaws and all. If I can stand see that in the mirror shaving, or next to me in bed, why not in a truck?

 

So many people on the commercial side of this, both buyers and sellers, however, want to create some artificial perfect world where the paint on an axle housing exceed the quality of the the original coachwork. I can appreciate the craftsmanship involved and think that's an individual choice for the owner to make.... BUT... too many of those people have a tendency to sneer and look down upon "lesser" vehicles and their owners who choose a more honest and historic path. That spills over into judging at shows, where originality plays second fiddle to all this artificial perfection.

 

I know a restorer here that researched for YEARS the proper way to restore prototype and prestandardized jeeps. The first ones he did for paying customers were exact reproductions of how they rolled off the line... flaws and all (all the flaws were carefully researched by having studied so many of the surviving vehciels and photos!). The high pitched whining from the customers soon put paid to the practice and he eventually had to develop a workmanship standard that met customer requirements but it chafed him personally that they were not necessarily the historical ones.

 

Anyway, I was just wondering mostly about the mechanical aspects of doing it. I have since conferred with a fellow nearby that restores old farm tractors. On a particularly pitted casting, he just uses as much filler primer as he thinks it will carry and calls it good. After a coating of red oxide or zinc chromate (whatever passes for that these days of course).

 

Never thought my simple question would generate such an interesting side topic on restoration ethics!

[Richard Peskett]

Roy's hyperthetical remarks really do not produce any positive answers, in the Daimler car situation if bought to my workshop I would refuse to undertake the work on a moral standing if the car was complete and original , if it was chassis /running units only situation would other options be considered. You may think the originality of military vehicles is somewhat 'muddy waters' , wait until you enter the world of London Buses, you have not started yet !. Time to draw a line under this one - enough said.

Richard Peskett.

[Tony B]

The difrence bettween military vehicles and 'Classic' cars, is the Military vehicles were built with thing in mind. Keep the men in action alive! They are and always should be a well built tool. There built to work not feed egos. The best fun I've had with my Dodge was when we have been doing support work for events, you call, we haul! :-D

[ruxy]

The difference between military and classic cars , or should I say the better classic cars that exist within a parallel universe.

 

If you followed the recent Stanley Mann , court of appeal case (Blower Bentley "reconstructed" around parts of a genuine chassis)..

 

When you have 5 min. spare to read this lot :-

 

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2010/2444.html

 

Then you will know what chassis cosmetics is all about..

Edited April 10, 2012 by ruxy
speling of Bently