Further to my recent post Newnes Cranks enquiring about possible use of, in effect, just one ball bearing for crank front...

I have now seen the Austin Seven Companion. Some time ago I was loaned (by Lester Reeder, noted as maker of two piece alloy heads, builder of a successful Special, and long term owner and campaigner of the NZ Rubber Duck, and builder of a succession of thoroughly modern sports racers)a copy of the preceeding book so was familiar with the topic. It is one on which Lester would have had very informed opinion, but he is sadly now deceased.

The Companion does not address the question asked. However, as Seven ownership is not now primarily for the impecunious, and the 1960s spirit of mechanical curiosity is less universal, I guess the topic is now not worth pursuing.

I am dubious of some of the notions in the Companion. It was considered that constrained bearings reduce crank flexing. But for the small deflections involved, it is hard to imagine the bearings or housings having significant effect.

From 1940 to late 1950s my father, who did not tolerate rough running or retarded spark, used to replace the rear or all bearings about each 2 years, 6,000 to 10,000 miles! He had observed that the two spot bearings were noisier. The Seven engine is clearly very sensitive to any bearing radial clearance. I doubt if endfloat contributes much to the harshness. If a preloaded ac pair stays quiet longer it is probably due the postponed radial clearance.

(Bearing life in later years, with extensive main road running and the current additive oils, was enormously extended)

Bob Culver

Location: Auckland