date of first production coupled brakes?

[JonE]

I've got notes suggesting a coupe chassis with 4 wheel coupled brakes went to Longbridge Experimental dept (and stayed there for a year before going to sales) - chassis 108474.

Wyatt also lists prototype B1-301 as first short chassis new body with 4 coupled brakes - that equates to around 107400. And that the first saloons came in around 112000.

We know that developmental TT cars (1929, so presumably c. 80-100,000-ish chassis) had coupled brakes but what actual evidence is there, photographic or otherwise, for cars earlier than 112000? Were the first production EA Sports still uncoupled, or indeed is there proof that they were not?

[Steve Jones]

Were the first production EA Sports still uncoupled, or indeed is there proof that they were not?

A question I pondered over at the turn of the year. The result, from someone who knows his subject rather than from any specific documentation, was that all EA Sports had coupled brakes. 

Await comments with interest. 

Steve

[Mike Costigan]

The first batch of EA Ulsters were 107778-107782, so they were produced after the first coupled-braked chassis.

[JonE]

Ok, but what are you inferring, Mike - that they definitely were? One prototype single car was listed previously.
Presumably one or two of the first run probably exist - have they the evidence?

[Malcolm Parker]

My Ulster Rep is chassis 108020 and it has uncoupled brakes.  When I was putting it together with a dropped front axle I realised that it wouldn't work with the uncoupled brakes, one of the  reasons it is on standard touring suspension.

[Henry Harris]

107778-107782 were not the first batch of EA's. 
B-9756 and B-9757 are still with us and possibly one or two earlier cars.
We looked after B-9757 in the 1980's and I can confirm that it had coupled brakes and the correct chassis.

[JonE]

Excellent thanks - physical proof but some practical insight too!
Malcolm, does that mean that there isn't an appropriate routing because of radius arms, or? Can you elucidate for the less initiated?

---

some handy notes from Dave Martin too, from the B1 ledger...

B1 4314 ch 111441, saloon chassis, coupled brakes, built 19th May 1930.

Between B1 4551 and B1 5051 three van chassis with coupled brakes.

1st RG fabric saloon for export, coupled brakes, B1 4791, ch 111918, built 27th May 1930.

From B1 5751, ch 112878, built 30th June 1930 "All cars to be fitted with coupled brakes unless otherwise specified".

[Malcolm Parker]

Yes, JonE.  I could not come up with a satisfactory way of routing the brake cables when I tried to fit the dropped sports axle onto the standard uncoupled brake chassis.  I did not want to change the standard brake cross-shaft which for all its faults is very simple and light.
I toyed with fitting Bowdenex front brakes but in the end I used a standard touring front axle and spring with one leaf removed.  This, in conjunction with the Ulster spec rear springs, has resulted in a good set-up for the bumpy North Yorkshire roads I use the car on.

[Howard Wright]

Hi Malcolm

I’m just trying to set up a dropped axle and un-coupled brakes.  Like you I was a bit concerned about cable routing.  However now the axle is on the car the cables seem to work OK.  I have about an 3/4” of vertical clearance between the cable and chassis. The only slight problem are the adjusters on the brake cables that are quite close to the radius arms on full lock.  I’m swapping the cables for the non adjustable type which I hope should give about 3/8” lateral clearance.  I am using long levers.

I would be very interested to know exactly where the routing problem was on your car. Any further comments gratefully received.

Cheers

Howard

[Malcolm Parker]

Howard, I think the problem was more serious on my car as I was using a front spring with some negative camber with the dropped axle, so the front end was very low.  It is a while since but I recall that the front brake cable, which was of the non-adjustable type, was binding on the radius arms.