Jackal

Please say you had the top on at least.

How big are each of your collections? How often do you get out for a stick?

I'm okay with that. The shop I'm in is not that great, but its a place to get some work done. The electrics should be started once the weather turns for the better a bit. I forgot to mention that I still need to plumb a return line for the coolant reservoir. I have a feedline from the top of the thermostat to the coolant reservoir. I need to find a good place to plumb the bottom line of the coolant reservoir to. The elbow that houses the thermostat has a second to bung in that I'm not using. I was thinking of plumbing the bottom line out of the reservoir to the bung on the elbow. This should allow flow around the thermostat, through the reservoir.

It's getting there. Next up, all the remaining wiring. I need to install the horn button, check the turn signals, headlights, and all the gauges. I need to build a small bracket for the hall sensor I'll be using for the speedo, and see why the alternator is not charging. After that the scuttle goes on, and the brakes get bled. The list is longer than that, but it is getting shorter.

First attempt at posting a video from Photobucket, and first video of one of the first times my girl has idled. She's idling a bit high, but she hadn't warmed up, and she hasn't had a tune yet. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/th_Headers_zpsb05d32f4.jpg Look, No leaks!!!

Just as a small aside, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Canada Canada has a rich military history. She has been involved in almost every war the USA was involved in and a few the USA wasn't. In WWII for instance, we assisted Britan and France a week after they declared war, and only ten days after the invasion of Poland. Last year was the 200 year memorial of the war of 1812 for instance. That was the only time the USA and what became Canada were at war with eachother. It became a defining moment for our nation, in much the same way the Civil war was for the USA. I think you'll find that Canadians are very proud of their war time efforts.

I think your garage would make for a great read. I am excited to see what else you may have planned for it as well. If you decide to post there, be sure to copy the link here please.

^^ That's Gorgeous!!

I can put you in contact with the Canadian supplier of Birkin's too if you like. http://www.texasmotorworks7.com/vehicles

True, but there isn't the same drive for citizens to go arming themselves in Canada. I don't even hear it as a topic of discussion.

Not always so. There are many hidden agenda's that you and I would disagree with here in Canada.

Firstly, thanks for the clarification. I hear the self defenses discussion point often. It seems so foreign to most Canadians I suppose. It seems like the General Public is always afraid for their lives down south, in that at any moment a crazed lunatic will need gunning down. I feel sorry for folks that feel that way, because the general feeling where I live is that it is a safe place where gun violence is generally not feared. I notice the change in feeling when I go to the States. Does the cycle not perpetuate itself though. Everyone who snaps looks normal enough at sometime. By allowing less restriction on folks having guns, aren't we really just arming the ones that have the potencial to snap?

It seems a bit excessive though doesn't it? There are 7 billion people on the planet currently and possible that 107,602,000,000 people have been born since recorded time (Source: Population Reference Bureau estimates.) A list of fourty people doesn't seem like theres one born every minute. Certainly not enough to require a citizens militia in the worlds most powerful military power. A question about weapons and technology came to mind and I'd like to pose it to the group, and I really would like to hear some honest answers. I personally consider fully automatic weapons excessive but I am curious for those that don't, is there a limit that you would consider restrictions needed? As an example if an incindiary or some form of toxic ammunition was invented, would there be a need to restrict them in your opinions? Is there an upper limit to what you feel the public should be allowed to carry? I currently don't know where the restrictions begin in the United States and that is why I ask.

I appreciate that. Thank you. I understand the Constitution, the reasoning behind it, and the current interpretations. I also realize that the Constitution has been amended many times, even as recently as 1992. I am simply stating that my opinion is that fully automatic weapons are not necessary in either defence or sport. Again, I do sympathize with your situation, and completely understand that you want to protect your family. I respect that, and feel the same way. I am familiar with guns, (living in the wild west of Canada lol) but I feel that I would be less effective defending my family with a fully automatic weapon, than one of more precision. The military train extensively to be effective with machine guns. I fear that many folks that own machine guns are not trained to the point of being effective, or safe. Youtube is full of these instances.

I understand that in 1791 a militia was needed to protect the United states from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government. I find this curious as an outsider looking in. It is without debate that the largest military force on the planet is the United States. The next three largest military forces combined strength is still less than that of the United States. The US has first strike capabilities on any other country in the world. There is absolutely no reason that a citizens militia will ever be of use again. The government of the United States is not exactly what I would call a tyrannical force, and I certainly hope that a citizens militia would not be needed there either. It is curious though, that the public generally give up civil liberties if favour of the governments protection. All but the guns. This is where I wholeheartedly disagree with your technology statement. Wars are won through communication and the ability to do so without the other side knowing what's going on. The public generally agrees that civil liberties need to be sacraficed for security, but if you need to defend yourself from a tyrranical government that you have sacraficed secure communication to, how would a civil militia stand a chance?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Even as a Canadian, I am very aware of the American constitution. I understand that a 222 year old document protects your right to bear arms. At the time though, guns were not exactly as they are now. There was only one model of cartridge loading rifle, and handguns were also very primitive. The technology of the time was not considering the future abilities of weapons, and their ability to mow down a crowd of people. I personally believe you should have the right to own a weapon; we do in Canada. I just believe restrictions need to be placed on the types of weapons. Guns in 1791 WOULD ...be made by a gunsmith. ...have rudimentary rifling. ...be single-shot weapons. ...be loaded through the muzzle. ...fire by means of a flintlock. Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798) ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835) ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810) ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885) ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842) ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890) I sympathize with your situation, and understand how the proximity to an event such as this can make everyone a little on edge. Protecting your family should be a priority, I guess I just feel bad that you feel so strongly that you have to be ready to do so all the time. I don't live with the fear that someone will burst in shooting up the joint at any moment. I didn't think your previous comments were harsh, I just stated that they didn't contribute to an intellegent debate. Saying things like "I'M READY TO KILL AND BE KILLED! i WILL TAKE MY CHANCE." and ".....your choice is to rot & cry the rest of your life - call my gun evil when i kill the evil man..." tend to sound a little crazy themselves.

I'm afraid it's these type of comments (both) that detract from both sides of an intellegent debate.

I want to preface this with; This is just my opinion based on reading and listening to both sides of the issue for years, and my opinion will be partially based on my geographical location. This is a complex issue that can't be simply sorted out through an internet debate, and hating on people’s ideas accomplishes nothing. Sharing opinions and ideas will broaden everyone’s understanding of the situation and hopefully lead to solutions. One can argue the point that the law only affects those who abide by it, and in Canada we saw that first hand, as even law abiding citizens didn’t register their long arm when the law required it. If someone wants to commit a crime like the ones we have seen on the news recently, they will with any weapon, a gun, a bomb, or other. James Holmes intended on taking out investigators with traps set in his apartment long after he was incarcerated or dead. There is also the point that using a gun as a threatening device has avoided more violence than it has created. The second amendment also states that in the United States you have the right to bear arms against foreign invasion, and a fascist government, although not exactly in those words. To every debate there is another side. The fact that those law abiding citizens may not care for the weapon the way it needs to be (gun locks as example), and that it becomes generally more accessible to those who may not be so law abiding. No other handheld weapon is as efficient at dispatching life, which makes it inherently more dangerous than someone choosing to use a knife, or a car to run someone down. Using a gun as a threatening device to avoid trouble only works if the other party doesn’t have a gun, and without gun control eventually everyone will have one. What you have then is a standoff with the possibility that a family member is in the line of fire. As for foreign invasion, I believe there has only ever been one loss the US has suffered on home turf, and I don't believe it will ever happen again. Let’s just also come to terms with the fact that people in general are not getting smarter, and to phrase it as a question; Are we all comfortable with the lowest common denominator being armed with machine guns? My personal opinion is that more strict gun control can help, but is not the only solution. Here in Canada we have more strict gun control than in the US, but we also have similar shootings that occur. The crimes that gun control help mitigate, are the spontaneous "got mad, grabbed nearest gun" type of crimes, because the availability for said weapon would be more restricted. Further to that, I feel the need for a fully automatic weapon is simply not necessary for any sport, and limiting these weapons in particular also limits someone grabbing the nearest machine gun, and dispatching people quicker than any other handheld device can. I feel that more proactively identifying, and getting help to those that may commit these horrible acts is needed as well. In many instances there are cries for help before a horrible atrocity is committed. These are the crimes that gun control would not help. I know it sounds a little odd (overly liberal, bleeding heart), but in three of the largest shootings in Canada, there were identifiable signs that the person was heading towards this act. The Concordia shooting for instance, Dr. Valery Fabrikant had a few instances where threatening behavior went without investigation, and that investigation had the potential to avoid four deaths. I feel that we need to be able to identify the signs that someone is heading for a mental break, and offer the assistance they need to get well. Generally I see us as a whole, avoiding anything we directly interpret as a cry for help because we don’t want to get involved in something that can make us feel uncomfortable. As I stated, I feel there are no easy answers to this challenge, but I feel it is getting worse. As the economic climate continues to decline, and people feel more lost or desperate, there will be more on the verge of a mental collapse.

I really like the garage transformation. It looks like it deserves a thread of its own. Have you posted on GarageJournal.com before?

I thought I'd try the only compressed air I had, and it worked pretty well. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1712_zps54558c4e.jpg The seal looks to be in good condition, but that may be expected as I haven't had the confirmed problem with this cylinder (clutch). The Brake cylinders are a slightly smaller bore, but are assembled the same as the larger clutch cylinder. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1720_zps233e1fe0.jpg Cleaning out the cylinder case and shining a light down it shows that it is pretty good condition. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1718_zps3d7d93a4.jpg I'll pull out the other two cylinders and have a look at them tomorrow.

In the link in your signature the clutch brake in the pictures has a similar layout to my Girling cylinders. Instead of a remote reservoir though, the reservoir is on the cylinder case and fed into the case behind the outlet to the brake lines. http://www.who-sells-it.com/cy/bat-inc-4088/formula-ford-parts-20165/page-19-fullsize.html http://www.rallyshop.it/index.php?main_page=index&manufacturers_id=20&sort=4a&language=en http://usa7s.com/vb/showthread.php?t=7047

There was a time I would agree with you, as the layout seems a little counter intuitive. After researching the Girling brake cylinders a bit I have been able to confirm that they are indeed assembled correctly.

Knocking the list down one by one. Brakes are next. As mentioned before, I'm not getting pressure to them. I have the brakes set up the same as every other Birkin does, but the fluid burps into the reservoir instead of getting forced to the caliper. I think the seals may be gone, and they need a rebuild. When I opened up the clutch cylinder though, there really didn't seem to be much to rebuild. The outlet on the top left goes to the brakes, and the one at the rear comes from the reservoir. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1703_zpsfc9bfa28.jpg There are no seals/valving at the bottom of the ports, and when I removed the drive pin, the cylinder didn't come out. I found out here: https://www.pegasusautoracing.com/pdfs/GirlingMasterCylinderRebuilding.pdf that a little compressed air may be needed. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1705_zps552e25a4.jpg http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1709_zpsfd8f5a83.jpg

I managed to get the 1/4 inch I needed by widening the holes for both the Muffler to isolator, and isolator to hanger joints. This should allow me to keep the pressure on the collector from the muffler. I found that one of the riv-nuts I was using to support the hangar didn't seat correctly though, and it popped out while I was removing the bracket for drilling. I'll need to paint the hangar bracket and get a new riv-nut in the chassis, but beyond that I just need to charge the battery up, and give the car a start to test the fit. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1701_zpse9793b78.jpg Here's just a shot or two on how the car looks in its new home for the next few months. http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1664_zps446726f1.jpg http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l294/nivaguy/IMG_1667_zpsb5b3a46f.jpg

Yes, that's what I mean. There is a tab on the side of the muffler, and I was hoping that I could just widen the hole, but the gusset that supports the tab is in the way. I'll weld on a longer tab, and gusset it up on the other side. I'll leave the tap long enough to have it adjustable.