Lotus Elan and Lotus Elan Plus 2 Forums

Elanconvert wrote:thanks rohan.....[can't get 'max jax' in....1.9m headroom]

anyway, before my back reminded me quite sharply that I shouldn't be crawling under cars at the moment, the outside pad came out easily, but the inside one is still there....do I need to take off the spring.....?
fred

It's a long while since I did it but you may need to disconnect the handbrake activating rod to be able to swing the inner arm high enough.

It is supposed to be fixed with a cotter pin and R-clip, but in many cases those will have been lost long ago and a small bolt and Nyloc nut substituted.

ok..... thanks bill.......I'll wait until my back tells me it's ok .......
fred

Maximum height of a max jax is 1972mm I think - you should be able to find the extra 72mm or just don't go up to full height and drill another safety bar hole a little lower down. I had to place mine to avoid the roof beams and the top of the cylinders come within 30mm of the rood sheeting. I also need to cut a section out of one of the roof beams and replace it with the shallower steel beam so it does not hit the roof of the plus 2 at full lift !!

You should not need to remove anything else. The inner one needs a little more work to clear the actuating lever arm but it should come out ok.

cheers
Rohan

The MaxJax max height is 2261 mm to top of cylinder and the +2 roof is 60mm lower (calculated - I will check actual later) when using the standard pads. Edit. I can confirm that the actual and calculated are the same.

See Specifications here. http://www.maxjax.co.uk/specifications.aspx

The MaxJax is the best garage equipment I have recently purchased. A must at my age particularly with my dodgy back. I have drilled additional safety bar holes midpoint between the original holes.

Sorry off topic, but had to clarify the max height.

Thanks for the correction - I was doing it from memory -- reminds me to always check my facts

cheers
Rohan

right then.......my stupid back is still telling me in no uncertain terms that crawling under a car is not recommended just yet......so I have been doing some 'armchair engineering'......

I have been thinking about the the handbrake, and it seems there are two [connected, I believe] problems;
1. the handbrake is often ineffectual, unless adjusted to fine tolerances
2. pads wear out ridiculously quickly.

Taking no 2 first, in theory, pad wear should be negligible if the handbrake is used only as a parking brake, and the occasional 'hill start'. However, with the elan design, it seems that pad wear is inevitable as the pads will contact the moving disc under their own weight, i.e rotating about the hinge pin. This will happen even if the arms are held apart by a spring on the adjusting rod.
The two 'centralising pins/springs' which are 'supposed to keep the pads away from the disc are not really springs, since they are malleable, and are fairly easily bent. Since they are not tempered, when the hand brake is applied, they will simply bend back until the pads are contacting the disc, and stay there.
[This brings in problem 2, and the difficulty of adjusting the centralising pins so that they are just holding the pads off the disc.]
Therefore, my proposed solution is as shown
attachment=0]DSCF00011.JPG[/attachment
My first crude idea was the rubber tube [short piece cut from a vacuum advance connection tube] pushed on to the hook on the back of the pads. This would give a bit of 'spring' to the centralising pins to keep the pads off the discs
My next thought was that a more positive 'spring ' would be better. So I drilled a 4mm hole in the small area of the pad which is not covered by friction material, and inserted a M4 s/s screw and nut, with a suitable s/s spring. The screw will engage in a 4mm hole in the other [opposite] pad, running freely in it.

This will give a positive force keeping the pads apart, and allow fine adjustment.

What do you think guys?

Fred

Might work but would make fitting the pads a bit tricky.
The usual mod is to fit a spring over the actuating rod between the two levers........

yep, I thought about that....however, the screw can easily be fitted AFTER the pads are in place.......also, as Imentioned, the spring on the rod might keep the arms apart, but not necessarily the pads.....

When set up correcty there is not excessive wear on the pads.

The arms are best held apart by a spring on the adjusting rod.

The two 'centralising pins/springs' which are 'supposed to keep the pads " The lifters , need to be bent outwards each time you fit new pads; since the pad clearance is only 6-10 thou, they do not bend in significantly, except to cater for pad wear.

A spring on the adjusting rod will hold the arms apart and the lifters will hold the pads off the disk.

It works, hones!.



~~~
Later correction. the workshop manual says the pad clearance should be max 3 thou.

The lifters are known in the manuals as "Lining pad retaining finger" in the older manual or "Centrailising finger" in the later manual.

bill....I believe you!!!
It's just that the 'normal' way of setting up the lifters/clearances seems a bit hit & miss e.g. how far to bend the lifters.............
fred

Elanconvert wrote:bill....I believe you!!!
It's just that the 'normal' way of setting up the lifters/clearances seems a bit hit & miss e.g. how far to bend the lifters.............
fred

Going from memory, I bend them out until the angle is about 100 degrees.

In reality I just bend them out until "it feels right"


..... years & years of doing mechanical things ...

I don't think its critical how much you bend them as long as they are bent far enough to hold the new pads off the disks. When you connect up the tie rod and adjust the pads in they will bend as needed. They are deliberately made soft as they are needed to bend in as the pad wears and they only need have enough spring to pull the pads back a few thou. bend them right and adjust pads right and provided nothing is jamming and you don't have excessive disk run out they hold the pads off the disks and they don't wear.

cheers
Rohan

bill rohan........I appreciate your input......my position as a total newboy to elanland means that I have no experience of handbrakes [or anything else lotus for that matter!!] whatsoever, so I am going by the comments on here........
I am sure you are right, that it should not be too difficult to get the handbrake to work properly....my suggestion is that it might be easier to keep the pads off the discs more positively by means of a simple mod........
I noticed n my car that the inner pad [on the driver's side] was considerably more worn than the outer.......hence it would seem also important to keep the two lifters with exactly the same bend, as well as the correct spacng [btw, bill, where is the 100 deg measured from? from visual inspection of mine, the lifters are almost parallel, so I would have thought the angle between them would be around 10deg?]
fred

The 'vertical' is at right angles to the fixing hole part. the free end is at 100 degrees to the vertical part, i.e just a bit more than a right angle.

I'm with you, bill....so the angle between the lifters is 20deg approx...
on reassembly, I will measure the distance between the outer edges of the lifters when bolted in position, and make sure it is greater than the distance of disc+pads+2 spaces where the lifters go in the pad backing castings, while making sure that the lifters are bent by the same amount.........just as well I haven't got much else to do at the moment
fred