SAAC Forum
The Cars => 1967 Shelby GT350/500 => Topic started by: Kent on April 12, 2019, 04:27:04 AM
-
Hello I need some help to verify what kind of parts I have and if they are original or reproductions and if they are correct for a 67 GT500 except the 427 rods etc I know the GT500 was always a 428 PI. Here are some pictures of it.
-
Intake
-
intake
-
intake
-
valve covers
-
valve covers
-
rods
-
oil pan
-
oil adapter and master cylinder
-
Brake Distribution Valve
-
steering coupler
-
The Master Cylinder and Brake Distribution Block look correct to me.
The valve cover with part of the bottom ridge machined off would seem to be correct too.
-
crankshaft is a 427 Steel crank. if you post pics of the passenger side valve cover we can tell you if thats real
-
Lemans rods w/ARP bolts.
-
As stated the crankshaft is the O.E.M. 427 steel unit, but also appears to have been polished excessively, so be sure to inspect it closely dimensionally before use.
As stated the rods are the "LeMans" rods, but appear to have had the balancing correction executed rather crudely (aka. Hack & Wack), so maybe a little cleanup work would be advised prior to use.
I am not able to state as to the correctness for the 1967 GT500, of the oil filter adapter, but I can state that it is not the preferred unit from an oil flow perspective, so if you are going to have a nonstandard engine configuration this would be an item, right or wrong that I would change. ;)
Scott.
-
Anyone know the value of a "good" standard 427 steel crank like that. Unusual to see in a 428 PI block. Will it even go in a 428 block?
-
Will it even go in a 428 block?
Yes, you will basically create a 406 FE engine. ;)
Scott.
-
I would be concerned with the crank and rods. There is a LOT of material removed from them. Is the crank standard, .010, .020, .030?
-Keith
-
They look fine to me.
-
They look fine to me.
Looks like a lot of pitting in those journals ….. guess he should measure it and the rods and post some results.
-
The valve covers are not original covers. They have the "bowtie" hole Vs. the round hole. They are cut for clearance of the master cylinder with power brakes. You have a set of reproductions. The intake is hard to identify without seeing the Ford engineering number or a view of the carburetor base mounting area. Obviously the 427 steel crank and the C6 LeMans aren't original to a Shelby. Who ever did the balance work on those rods did a very sloppy job. The entire pad is gone, which may make it difficult to balance with another assembly. The damper is not a 427 damper, it's a standard 68- up style. It looks to be an 8qt pan. Not enough to see if if it's a C8AX pan. There is also the factory ford 428 SCJ windage tray.
On the front intake runner that would face the passenger side of the vehicle there should be a Ford engineering number. If it's a Shelby is would be a C7ZX-9425-A. It looks like a hodge-podge of components. Nothing is original to a 1967 Shelby with the possible exception of the intake, pending identification and the number and the rag joint, which would be common to all two piece steering columns for the year.
-Keith
-
Who ever did the balance work on those rods did a very sloppy job. The entire pad is gone, which may make it difficult to balance with another assembly.
-Keith
Well, assuming you have eight rods, balanced as a set, then other than some betterment of the execution, one should be O.K. :)
Scott.
-
Well, as you know, Scott any change or piston necessitates a balance change for the rest of the assembly. There isn't much "meat on the bone" if you will on the rods. The Lemans rods usually have a ton of material on the balance pads.
-
Well, as you know, Scott any change or piston necessitates a balance change for the rest of the assembly.
My comment was solely concerned with the salvation prospects for the connecting rods, and since I am not inspecting all eight, in hand, my statements are in general terms, and yes, any some deviation in the "betterment" process would need to be rectified to a common resultant weight value among the eight rods as a set (as far as the rod big-ends, as relevant to my observation and comments).
And further, as my derogatory statement indicated, I am perhaps less then impressed with the corrective effort as presented (pictured rod big-end correction), and therefore would suspect accepting the entire reciprocating and/or revolving execution as being terribly accurate either, so even if the pistons were present, and all components applicable, I was indicating in my original statement that I would incur a proper "clean-up" and balancing endeavor, even with the associated costs, if I were intending to press these items into service. :)
Scott.
-
Scott:
There was no disagreement with your initial assessment. They were poorly done and there isn't much more that can be "skinned" off for further weight correction.
-Keith
-
Once a set of rods is weight matched , they don't need to change if the piston or crank is changed. While the big end grinding may not be eye appealing, the cap strength hasn't been compromised. I would be more concerned if they still had stock rod bolts. Reciprocating weight to rotating weight is commonly 50% but even that is often changed higher or lower in some applications. Reciprocating weight is tough to get exact as one never knows how much oil could be inside the wrist pin or hanging on the piston at any given time. Many builders are comfortable with + or - 10 grams ( for a set NOT individual variance) on a replacement set of pistons and not having to rebalance. I see this every day.
Randy
-
Kieth, I was not at odds with your statement either, just felt that perhaps I needed to expound further (aka. even more B.S. ::)) to be clear as to my intent, as it is not just you or I who may hopefully benefit. :)
Scott.
-
While the big end grinding may not be eye appealing, the cap strength hasn't been compromised. I would be more concerned if they still had stock rod bolts. Reciprocating weight to rotating weight is commonly 50% but even that is often changed higher or lower in some applications.
Randy
"May not be eye appealing", now that's being very courteous of you Randy :), but with my experience with the aircraft engine industry, they would absolutely blow a gasket if I handed that sort of workmanship to them (oh, and don't tell, because I'm not a certified FAA repair facility, but I have done some balancing work on a few aircraft examples, mostly for racing applications which are often categorized as "Experimental" which means all is O.K.); and as I do realize that that connecting rod may never be installed in anything that leaves the ground (for any duration anyway ::)), you would have to agree that it is less than ideal to be creating all of those stress risers via the grinding striations, particularly across the cap beam. :o
What, you don't like that scrawny shank, screwed-up, interference tread bolt? But another concern is the fact that many of the "Lemans"rods do not exhibit proper beam/cap location via the dowels, as excessive clearance is often present in the counter borings to dowel fitment. :(
And yes, adjusting the "bob-weight" values is often changed to greater or lesser sums, as in reality, nothing is balanced absolute (even the Earth wobbles). My favorite example are particularly the "Brit-Twins" bike guys, who provide specifications for reciprocating sums for their Nortons ,Triumphs, BSA's etc. varying from if I recall 48% to as much as 82%, as one must just accept it's going to vibrate, just at what R.P.M. do want the mirrors to be a blur and hands (and maybe not the only thing) go numb. :o
Scott.
-
Really, it's not fair to attempt to expect automotive application engines to exhibit the endurance capability of those within the aeronautical field, as if so, as you stated, they would prove in their terra firma environment uncompetitive for a number of reasons.
But I will say, that with my exposure to the light civilian aircraft rebuilding industry (e.g.: Continental, Lycoming, etc. all recips), I'm not impressed, and find that many, not all of coarse, automotive "performance"/"race" engine builders, not "rebuilders" in general, produce products consisting of much more accurate machine work and dimensional fitment. And I have found that due to the FAA limitations/controls involved in the refurbishment process, it seems to have embedded the mentality of: "that's the way we always do it, and always have", and unfortunately many of the individuals involved really don't seem to know why, or how the device actually works, but that well,..........it'll fly, it (most) always does. ???
This impression, opposite of my expectation, is some what unsettling to the point of my being perhaps somewhat trepidatious of the idea of flying in a single engine plane; my initial thoughts being: what kind of glide slope does this plane possess, and does the pilot have any experience at "dead-sticking" this model! :o
Boy, are we ever off topic! ::)
Scott.
-
Scott ,
There are all kinds of horror stories when it comes to balancing practices. WELDING plates and chunks of steel to counterweights? SURE. Body grinder to reduce weight on the throws SURE Two piece welded together "custom" rods SURE There will always be hacks who do "creative" engine building.
You are right about LeMans rods not 'staying round" on the big end , it was not one of their strong points. The tri lobe bolts were terrible and popped heads often after simply being torqued down. We used the C7OE rod bolt back then and i switch them to an SPS CARR bolt now. This only slightly helps the "pinching bearings" problem. Why these rods are so highly praised is beyond me now that the aftermarket has superior quality H beams available. I understand being a purist and that's cool , but aftermarket rods certainly reduce "oil pan failures".
"Balancing" as you have mentioned is subject to interpretation . Balancing to 1/4 gram is no smoother than one balanced to 2 or 3 grams. To be "in perfect balance" EVERY cylinder would have to make the exact same power , have the exact same compression , etc. IMHO that is impossible.
Randy
-
Personally, maybe less than ideal, but I always thought the "boxed" 392 rods back in the day was pretty cool, along with the added (welded on) center counter weight on the 427 cranks; and the 391 FT cranks one had to weld plates to as the counter weights were cut down as compared to the 427's :)
My personal winner, for the most pieces of heavy metal stuffed into a single crankshaft, after I couldn't convince the "engine builder" that his creation was going to take way to much metal to be viable, if even possible, was 23 pieces! 8)
Ah, the good old days of hot-rodding,...........well, maybe not always? ::)
Scott.
-
I think part of the LeMans rods' lasting appeal is their name. It just sounds cool.
If they merely had a part number, and weren't as good as today's rods, most people would've probably moved on.
-
Hello, back from holidays, sorry. So the valve covers are original or not to a 67 Shelby GT500? I think they should be correct. For the 427 parts they came out of a 427 engine just some days ago and the engine did 462 hp on the dyno and worked great, I only dissassembled it to do some changes to it for more hp.
So GT500 correct are
Brake parts
Rag Joint
Valve Covers? 1 said yes 1 said no
-
The intake has no c7zx number but it has a fomoco logo and I know my shelby gt500 has the number on the intake and the same logo, anybody knows why the number is missing on this item but it has a fomoco logo? All repros I know dont have a fomoco logo. Part Identification really makes me crazy sometimes I have 3 or 4 of the same parts but they all vary a bit.To find out what is wrong/right can go crazy then.
-
Got it the 427 block came from a 67 Fairlane.
-
The medium riser dual four did not have a part number on it . That is correct along with it having the "block style" Ford logo.
-
Ok so it is 1967 Shelby GT500 correct?
-
Ok so it is 1967 Shelby GT500 correct?
The C7ZX intake is the accepted intake for a '67 GT500 . It was made specifically for the '67 428 combination. The medium riser "could" have sealing issues at the bottom of the port on the "GT 390" head that was used on the GT500 engine.
Randy
-
Randy, so it not uncommon to have an air leak at the bottom of the ports that pull drain back oil underneath the ports in the valley into the intake runners with the C7ZX intake ? As you know, the heads have the taller 2.34 low riser port.
-Keith
-
I would like to know why this intake has the fomoco stamp/logo but not the C7zx number on it the runner is blank. So where all GT500´s without that number but with a fomoco logo on the intake or whats the deal? And the oil filter adapter should be also right for GT500 yes? That one came from one as the most of the other parts.
-
So correct and original for 1967 GT500 are
Valve Covers
Oil Filter Adapter
Rag Joint
Brake Parts
Intake
anyone can verify?
-
Randy, so it not uncommon to have an air leak at the bottom of the ports that pull drain back oil underneath the ports in the valley into the intake runners with the C7ZX intake ? As you know, the heads have the taller 2.34 low riser port.
-Keith
Keith the C7ZX manifold was made to match the 14 bolt 390Gt heads is what I was saying. Using a 427 medium riser intake ( with it's shorter port openings) on the 14 bolt 390 Gt heads "could" cause a sealing issue at the bottom of the manifold. The same could be said for the '67 "W" code single four medium riser intake often mistaken for a PI ( which WOULD work with the 390 heads). Bottom line , dedicated medium riser intakes fit medium riser heads. C7ZX and PIs fit the others except HR and TP heads. That's what I'm saying.
-
I would like to know why this intake has the fomoco stamp/logo but not the C7zx number on it the runner is blank. So where all GT500´s without that number but with a fomoco logo on the intake or whats the deal? And the oil filter adapter should be also right for GT500 yes? That one came from one as the most of the other parts.
I believe as stated by Randy previously, the later F.E. 8V aluminum intake (not a 427 L.R. which at least one version did not present a number in the casting but does have the FoMoCo, but perhaps in the oval vs the rectangular version) bare without the C7ZX number is generally attributed to the 427 M.R. as installed in the Fairlanes & Comets (O.E.M. on Cobras ever?). And yes, it would appear that the C7ZX version, is a modified version of the 427 M.R. intake (either the no number or the C7AE version), and was cast with the intent of insuring compatibility for gasket sealing on the taller inlet port versions of the F.E., as the exterior cast perimeter in the vertical dimension, although not an exact sum, averages approximately .100" - .150" greater.
Generally in my observations, the as cast port configurations of the intake and cylinder head at the familiar flanges are not so exacting as cast or so different dimensionally between the two engines (M.R. vs. taller port F.E.'s) as to restrict interchangeability from one to another for sealing (with reasonable gasket selection), but does present poor alignment in both the vertical and horizontal planes of the inlet port to point of discouraging the practice, if one is concerned with proper transition. But, since the castings do present significant variance in accuracy, and one is truly mixing unintended products, and injecting the variable of the sealing gasket selected, then yes, one could experience sealing issues; so one would be advised to look twice at the relationship before declaring a happy marriage.
Also, I made a reference as to use of the oil filter adapter previously. ;)
Scott.
-
So correct and original for 1967 GT500 are
Valve Covers
Oil Filter Adapter
Rag Joint
Brake Parts
Intake
anyone can verify?
I would like to see the passenger side valve cover shot that shows the PCV opening (without rubber grommet ) before making a judgement. Oil filter adapter is correct,rag joint is typical,Master and distribution block look typical, Intake is not correct for a 67 GT500
-
Thanks Bob I waited for your thoughts, the other valve cover has the round hole I dont have a picture now but will forward it. So why is the intake not right because of the missing number? Had all 67 GT500´s the number on the intake? I´m not 100% sure but I would say this intake was on the GT500 since day 1 from what I know about the history of it.
-
Kent ,
The '67 GT500 had the C7ZX numbered manifold. That is the only manifold correct for the car. The manifold without the part number is for the 427 Medium riser engine . In 'this case" the 427 manifold will only seal correctly on the 427MR head it was designed for. Mixing parts between a 427 and a 428 isn't always a good.When Ford engineers developed a particular engine , it was built to that specific list of parts . NO substitution was possible. The engine assembly line was "stocked" with the parts necessary to build the exact specification engine. It was FAR different than a modern machine shop environment. Youtube has some very enlightening period videos from the '60s that show how the engine assembly line ran.
Randy
-
Randy: I spoke to Art Francis at length about this and to my recollection the '67 Medium Riser with no ford number and the C7ZX were both medium riser port configuration. If you want to know about about all the port configurations, mis-match, power output I would suggest Jay Brown's book which runs the all on the dyno for comparison.
http://www.mustangandfords.com/news/1705-book-review-the-great-fe-intake-comparo/
-
Thanks Bob I waited for your thoughts, the other valve cover has the round hole I dont have a picture now but will forward it. So why is the intake not right because of the missing number? Had all 67 GT500´s the number on the intake? I´m not 100% sure but I would say this intake was on the GT500 since day 1 from what I know about the history of it.
Kent, the C7ZX is the intake made for the 67 GT500. It is the one used when the engines were assembled at the engine plant. The C7Zx intake is the one considered concours correct for the 67 GT500. If you want to believe otherwise then that is your prerogative. It just will not be the same opinion that others in the Shelby community have.
-
Keith what is it specifically that makes you think I don't know? Send it in a PM so as not to dilute this thread any further.
Randy
-
Randy: I spoke to Art Francis at length about this and to my recollection the '67 Medium Riser with no ford number and the C7ZX were both medium riser port configuration.
I believe as stated by Randy previously, the later F.E. 8V aluminum intake (not L.R.) bare without the C7ZX number is generally attributed to the 427 M.R. as installed in the Fairlanes & Comets. And yes, it would appear that the C7ZX version, is a modified version of the 427 M.R. intake (either the no number or the C7AE version), and was cast with the intent of insuring compatibility for gasket sealing on the taller inlet port versions of the F.E., as the exterior cast perimeter in the vertical dimension, although not an exact sum, averages approximately .100" - .150" greater.
Please note that the dimensional values stated in my previous post are not fictitious, they are as observed, as I have the three versions that I listed in hand.
And again, I have witnessed plenty of examples of "Sidewinders" particularly, but also "Tunnel Wedges", and the no numbered 8V M.R. intake being discussed here, attached to non Medium Riser heads, and also the reverse of the M.R. 427 engine having been slid under the 428 intakes perhaps intended to disguise its' presents, verses the convenience of what one just happen to have, with success. But as Randy and I have stated, just because it can be made to work (perhaps with certain shortcomings) doesn't make it right nor correct. ;)
Also, please be aware that I wish that any comments on my part are not perceived as hostile, solely to be of assistance. :)
Scott.
-
Ok so its right that the Intake with no numbers was used on the 427 fairlane from factory but not on the 67 GT500 with the 428PI, correct?
-
Your manifold is NOT for a 1967 GT500. They all have the C7ZX, I have an early vehicle, yet it maintains the C7ZX. I have never seen a GT500 less the engineering information on the runner.
As for the Shelby intake being different port wise, it isn't from the same year no-ford engineering number 427 dual quad MR offering.
-Keith
-
Ok so its right that the Intake with no numbers was used on the 427 fairlane from factory but not on the 67 GT500 with the 428PI, correct?
Correct.
-
As for the Shelby intake being different port wise, it isn't from the same year no-ford engineering number 427 dual quad MR offering.
-Keith
Please note that the dimensional values stated in my previous post are not fictitious, they are as observed, as I have the three versions that I listed in hand.
Scott.
Umm? ???
Scott.
-
My original 67 Fairlane medium riser intake has casting c7ae-a.
-
I do not recall if there is any significant difference other than the number being present or not in this instance of the "No Number" vs' the C7AE units.
May I inquire as to your statement of the C7AE unit being "original" to your car, how do you know, and I'm not disputing such, just interested; for example you owned the car since new, or? :)
Scott.
-
Scott, I sold my 427 Fairlane intake. They were both the same dimensionally intake port wise.. There was nothing but the square Ford between the runners, no engineering number, just a firing order. No Shelbys used the unmarked intake and wouldn't be original to a Shelby. Bob Gaines addressed this before as well. Not my opinion, but fact. I measured them in with both intakes in hand.
-Keith
-
And in the FE Forum some people say that the 427 Fairlane´s didnt had the number only the fomoco logo.
-
It's the same manifold. One is just made specifically for the Shelby application.
-
Exactly Doug. The ports were dimensionally the same as well. Agreed. I had one until about two years ago. There isn't a lot of "meat" left at the bottom of the port with the 2.34 tall intake runners when using this manifold on non- med riser port sizes.
Keith
-
I would think that they should be of approximately the same dollar value. The 427 part may be more valuable since it seems to be scarcer? There is no "book" on part values. Asking prices are not necessarily what they sell for but those transactions are private and you can't write a spread sheet on values or recent sales.
I see quite a few C7ZX manifolds for sale on ebay. I rarely see the 427 part.
Sell one. Buy the other. There is a solution.
Show the 427 part in Concours with a '67 GT500, get a points deduction.
The engines were both assembled by Ford. Ford assigned the parts to either engine. The argument, if there is one, is with Ford.
The question has been answered several times here in this thread. Is there still an outstanding question? Not to me.
-
C7ZX-67 GT 500
Intake with no Numbers- 66 427 fairlane
C7AE-67 427 Fairlane.
-
I'll see if I can obtain a copy of the original Ford blueprints for the two manifolds. These were probably engineered with XE numbers since they were production based manifolds and those prints are a bit tougher to obtain. While several of my retired Ford engineer friends have passed on , the information can still be had with the help of those who haven't.
Randy
-
C7ZX-67 GT 500
Intake with no Numbers- 66 427 fairlane
C7AE-67 427 Fairlane.
I agree with your outline, but is reasonable to believe that perhaps the "No-Numbers" unit may also have appeared on early '67's until the C7AE units appearing later in the production cycle; as this "story" has been presented to me previously? ???
And no, I wasn't there (on assembly line in 1967), so this is not a statement of fact on my part, just always asking of anyone who maybe knows. :)
Scott.
Oh, don't forget the Comet guys, even as few as there are. ;)
-
Can somebody verfiy this? Was it maybe the change in april/may where several parts changed on the 1967?
-
Maybe Dave or Bob have an answer on that?
-
Can somebody verfiy this? Was it maybe the change in april/may where several parts changed on the 1967?
I've been around this for 50 years and I can't ever remember anyone mentioning a 427 intake on any production '67 GT500 instead of the C7ZX manifold?
There were never mentions of a production line shortage, etc.
So many of these cars had checkered pasts and have been brought back from the dead that it is more likely that at some point a car was parted out and a new owner did their best at finding "the best available parts".
When they bottomed out price wise, it wasn't unusual to find one for sale for $500 to $800.
Finding a C7ZX intake is actually one of the easier parts to find as opposed to things like a date coded block, a thermostat housing or even a bell.
-
C7ZX-67 GT 500
Intake with no Numbers- 66 427 fairlane
C7AE-67 427 Fairlane.
I agree with your outline, but is reasonable to believe that perhaps the "No-Numbers" unit may also have appeared on early '67's until the C7AE units appearing later in the production cycle; as this "story" has been presented to me previously? ???
Scott.
Sorry, as I may have created some confusion, as I was not clear in my statement; I was referring to the relationship of the "No-Number" & the "C7AE" intakes as installed on the Fairlanes.
And I am not at odds with the belief that the C7ZX intake was developed for the 428 engine for the '67 Shelby's, obviously with the modification of the casting (hence the different casting number) to provide the appropriate gasket sealing surface area. :)
Scott.
-
Can somebody verfiy this? Was it maybe the change in april/may where several parts changed on the 1967?
I believe J427 was talking about a change in Fairlane production and not Shelby. 67 GT500's used the C7ZX intake.
-
Was there some kind of a space/time continuum that happened which crossed over 427 Fairlanes into Shelby discussions? Wow. Talk about me being out of sync and confused? I'm going to push the reset button. Maybe that will help me some? :o
-
Was there some kind of a space/time continuum that happened which crossed over 427 Fairlanes into Shelby discussions? Wow. Talk about me being out of sync and confused? I'm going to push the reset button. Maybe that will help me some? :o
Please allow me to perhaps be of some assistance. From the original poster of this thread:
Hello I need some help to verify what kind of parts I have and if they are original.....................
Also, thread subject title: "I found parts and don't know exactly what they are...................
Sometimes one must return to the beginning for answers. :)
But, yes I apologize, I did waver and allowed a Fairlane inquiry in the course. Just thought I could sneak it in there and nobody would notice, but-nooo! OK, my Bad!!! I promise I won't do it again! Please not twenty lashes! :-[
Scott.
-
Was there some kind of a space/time continuum that happened which crossed over 427 Fairlanes into Shelby discussions? Wow. Talk about me being out of sync and confused? I'm going to push the reset button. Maybe that will help me some? :o
Please allow me to perhaps be of some assistance. From the original poster of this thread:
Hello I need some help to verify what kind of parts I have and if they are original.....................
Also, thread subject title: "I found parts and don't know exactly what they are...................
Sometimes one must return to the beginning for answers. :)
But, yes I apologize, I did waver and allowed a Fairlane inquiry in the course. Just thought I could sneak it in there and nobody would notice, but-nooo! OK, my Bad!!! I promise I won't do it again! Please not twenty lashes! :-[
Scott.
It's OK. No harm done. Just old timers like me get confused easily. I keep tying my shoes but the right one keeps coming undone? See. Confusion.
As Commander Spock is fond of saying, "there are always possibilities".
Post pictures. Pictures help. Even if they don't, they are fun to look at? ;D
-
Just old timers like me get confused easily. I keep tying my shoes but the right one keeps coming undone? See. Confusion.
It's those dog-gone Chinese shoe laces, defective crap, cause I have the same problem, ............... and I know it's not me, cause I never had such trouble with my old Keds! :o
Scott.
-
Just old timers like me get confused easily. I keep tying my shoes but the right one keeps coming undone? See. Confusion.
It's those dog-gone Chinese shoe laces, defective crap, cause I have the same problem, ............... and I know it's not me, cause I never had such trouble with my old Keds! :o
Scott.
But it's only the right one?
-
Do you also tend to walk in circles? ::)
Scott.
You don't need to answer if you don't want to, ...........it's O.K.. :)
-
No but I tend to turn to the right? ::)
-
Must be your short right leg. LMAO
-
No but I tend to turn to the right? ::)
O.K.,........ then next time when tying your right shoe lace, start the lay and follow thru with the opposite lead of the left lace in the knotting process; this to offset the torsional and centrifugal loads imparted due to the turning motion. ???
Note that this process, although reversed, as generally they're turning left, is also handy for your lace-up diving shoes, particularly for the "roundy-round" race drivers! ;)
Now, I do have some reservations as to the effectiveness of the process on full moon events, particularly at high tide, as the increased gravitational effect may nullify the increased frictional values intended due to the directional reversals being attempted in the complex geometric formation of the knot! :o
Scott.
Just trying to help! ::)
-
No but I tend to turn to the right? ::)
O.K.,........ then next time when tying your right shoe lace, start the lay and follow thru with the opposite lead of the left lace in the knotting process; this to offset the torsional and centrifugal loads imparted due to the turning motion. ???
Note that this process, although reversed, as generally they're turning left, is also handy for your lace-up diving shoes, particularly for the "roundy-round" race drivers! ;)
Now, I do have some reservations as to the effectiveness of the process on full moon events, particularly at high tide, as the increased gravitational effect may nullify the increased frictional values intended due to the directional reversals being attempted in the complex geometric formation of the knot! :o
Scott.
Just trying to help! ::)
I don't remember the events surrounding full moons. At high tide, I bail out the basement.
-
And to think, at one point it was difficult to cross over from a Shelby discussion to one littered with Fairlane inquires, now we've ventured into macrame and water obstacles! :o
They said it would happen, just I'd hoped not so soon,...........I think we're lost! ???
Scott.
-
And to think, at one point it was difficult to cross over from a Shelby discussion to one littered with Fairlane inquires, now we've ventured into macrame and water obstacles! :o
They said it would happen, just I'd hoped not so soon,...........I think we're lost! ???
Scott.
Not you, just me. I'm still trying to figure out what macrame is? Isn't he president of france?