Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NIPPY DOOR OPENING.
#1
Hi All, may I first wish everyone involved with this site a very happy new year.
Would like to enquire if there is any written measurements of the Nippy door opening , for example if the door was taken off what gap should you have, top middle and bottom.
Wonder if someone with good door alignment  could measure thiers. I need to determine a car I may look at with view of buying, has sag or worn hinges. Any help would be appreciated.
With warm regards
Rob
Reply
#2
Rob,

Jon has just uploaded to the Nippy site a set of measurements Arie Roest made (n.b. in cm) before restoring his car, they might be of interest.

I think it will be immediately obvious if the doors don't fit; the question then is whether the hinges have dropped (in which case gently lifting them may rectify any gap) or the sills have failed, or both.
Reply
#3
This is the door on my 1934 Type 65, which I assume is the same as the Nippy.
Measuring in a straight line between the frames gives: 
Top - 22.5"
Bottom - 28.5"

Colin


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
   
Reply
#4
Thank you Both Just the info I was looking for, particularly measurement Colin. Hope its just nice new hinges that are needed. love that door fit in the pic, would be happy with that. Rob
Reply
#5
Remember Rob that if a car has been restored, all these measurements could be slightly different.. although perhaps it's more likely for the door to stay 'as was' as it was one of the few areas which didn't rot! I've got some of Bill Sheehan's notes here on some of the factory plans. these are ambiguous, but I've got:
width of doorways 21"
"22.5 at top?"
"28.5 at floor level"
which chime nicely with Colin's findings. It would be good if we had other findings and I can put them on the Nippy site. The other measurement that is crucial (to wheel centring in the wheelarch) is the horizontal distance between door hinge line and rear wing at its narrowest point. As this IS an area that rots out, it's often wrong, or at least different from the road test car and factory plan dimensions...
65/Nippy archive: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
SWB Saloons: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
Reply
#6
Hi Jon

The gap on mine from door line to mudguard is 3".

I have often wondered if mine is right as the wheels do sit forward in the arches. If the arch was positioned 1.5" further forward the wheels would be centered. On mine the wheel arches line up with the back of the body.
Not sure what is "correct", but I'm not about to move mine anyway!

Colin


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
       
Reply
#7
best not to get too obsessed over it like I did...! But worth re-reading this [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register] if you ever have to sort one out that plainly needs repair.
Assuming Austin wanted rear wings central to axle because thats what the 1933 plan suggests (but didnt actually properly achieve it until the later Nippies, when the wings changed subtly) the only other option after "that" panel being smaller is the body moving forward.. so you can assess that in relation to the starting handle nose piece, steering wheel gap and so on.     You can see here the 1933 test car image, admittedly from a poor angle. That panel is narrow, but even then, the finished wings weren't of a radius to allow the 65 to be visually as per drawn plan.     By 1936, they were!
65/Nippy archive: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
SWB Saloons: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
Reply
#8
(11-01-2019, 01:22 PM)JonE Wrote: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register] if you ever have to sort one out that plainly needs repair.
Assuming Austin wanted rear wings central to axle because thats what the 1933 plan suggests (but didnt actually properly achieve it until the later Nippies, when the wings changed subtly) the only other option after "that" panel being smaller is the body moving forward.. so you can assess that in relation to the starting handle nose piece, steering wheel gap and so on. You can see here the 1933 test car image, admittedly from a poor angle. That panel is narrow, but even then, the finished wings weren't of a radius to allow the 65 to be visually as per drawn plan. By 1936, they were!

The rear wings are in a different position from side to side, one is further back than the other, don't know how they managed to do that
Reply
#9
which images zeto? (The two above are entirely different cars - 65 from early 1933 and later Nippy with tighter radius rear wings from 1936)
65/Nippy archive: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
SWB Saloons: [Only registered and activated users can see the links Click here to register]
Reply
#10
There are distinct differences in the B pillars between the red car and the white car in the photos posted. The white car has a much narrower vertical part between the hinges and rear wing, but more importantly the horizontal part rearwards of the door opening appears shorter and the upsweep looks to be more acute. As has been said unless yoy know for certain that the car hasnt been restored then its all anecdotal.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)