Scooterotica

Ian Hepworth wrote:

ducksta wrote:the frustration is another product comming to market not fully researched, and left to the scooter fraternity (adam and co, well done)to put right.

Sorry but I can't let that go. The MB studs are a direct copy of P200 studs apart from being a little longer and the lengths of the threaded ends are different lengths.
They are not rolled. P200 studs aren't rolled in the proper sense of the word (as in the shank of the stud is smaller than the threaded part). The small block px125 etc ones are.

If you look back along this thread you will see people saying things like used the standard studs but it was still tight.
Even adam admits there are two kits from two different manufacturers that he often has problems with.

MB sell 100s if not 1000s of cylinder studs. They are one of our best selling items. It would follow then that we get loads and loads of complaints about based on the above - sorry but we don't. There have been literally a handful and when you ask what kit is being fitted it's always the same replies.

If people are damaging spigots then they are being heavy handed during builds - building an engine is engineering - the solution isn't to get the hammers out.

Direct copy but!!!! quote 1- (apart from being a little longer and the lengths of the threaded ends are different lengths), so they are not the same, quote 2 (building an engine is engineering), my issue is we not engineers so we want the kits and other bits to fit first time no re drilling welding fetling etc, not having a go at yourselfs just manufacturing in the scooter world in general.

I have to say this I have MB studs fitted in both an Imola and TS1 motors
and both barrels fit perfectly with NO tightness whatsoever. I had both these engines built for me by a highly respected engine builder and he fitted them along with several other MB upgraded products off his own back. Would he risk his reputation and good name fitting parts that would damage his builds? I thought I'd have a go at building this RB motor myself and naturally decided to fit MB studs to it as they are fine on my other motors. I do think it's strange that they are fine on two types of cylinders and not on another am I correct in thinking that the TS and Imola kits are manufactured by the same company? It looks like I'm now going to have to fit inferior engine studs to a pretty powerful engine which is not ideal. It would be interesting to see if any kits other than the RB are affected by tightness issues using MB studs. I like MB's stuff and customer service and IMHO I think they are the best out there others no doubt will disagree.

^^^... Ha, ha, ha... I didn't even mention MB and you're not the dealer that sold me fat studs that caused my problem, nor was it one of your kits. It may prove pretty funny that you guys have put your name into the hat (lol).

However, since we are now talking about your product (noting that MB products are some of the best around and often get my personal promotion/recommendation), do take the time to better inform us as to whether your studs fit into the 'fat' category that I am (100% correctly) discussing here?


1. If you measure the shaft diameter of one of your studs... is it the same diameter (or smaller) as an original Lambretta stud? If so, great and we're not talking about your studs here so back off and let us continue with a very accurate thread (no pun intended).

2. If it is a bigger diameter than an original Lambretta factory cylinder stud then you have quite rightly identified your studs as being part of the problem, and thanks for your honesty.


As has already been touched on in this thread, it is quite easy to take posts/emails/texts out of context and read more into comments that was actually intended. Rubbing people up the wrong way is not anyone's intention, nor having a go at any product that doesn't deserve it. As such, I've not mentioned any dealer or dealer's product specifically.

Ok, rather than getting my CV out to 'qualify' for comment, let's keep things simple and short, 100% accurately stating that: Any cylinder stud with a shaft diameter bigger than those originally fitted at the factory will reduce clearance between the stud and a cylinder's stud hole. This reduction in clearance may result in a kit being partially aligned by the stud/cylinder interference, rather than the spigot. This misalignment can result in side-loadings being applied to the cylinder and damage to the cylinder or casing may result.

People trying to argue this point before must understand that whilst the square peg goes in the square hole, the triangle goes in triangular hole and the cylinder normally goes in the round hole... unless the cylinder has been made too big for the set that you're playing with! [I'm obviously struggling to put this into simpler terms that people must be able to see is correct... this isn't an issue to be debated, it is as sure as night follows day!].

Mark/Ian... if you think any of the above is a pop at you, then you're wrong. I wasn't talking MB at any stage and I don't even have one of your studs to see whether 'the shoe fits'. However, if it does then I still stand by everything that I've stated 100%. I and others on here are here to help others identify and overcome problems that they are having, without bias (hopefully).

Adam

PS - Sorry that it has taken me so long to respond but I've been out at meetings until now

Who's studs are you talking about then? Bit less cloak and dagger please.

Whose does not matter... ANY/ALL that are bigger shaft diameter than standard are equally problematic.

bit harsh mb group

I've ordered some standard SIL studs now and if it's still a tight fit I know what I'll be blaming.

Thats really funny 897 words against straight cylinder studs and as we rightly stated in the first place it will be the casing or cylinder that is incorrect. Adam instead of sitting on the fence as usual, why don't you name and shame the studs that are crap instead of implying in a PC kind of way so the matter is cleared up and no one reading this post can assume that all straight length studs are incorrect. Doesn't that makes more sense, then every one is clear about what you are saying in your ramblings and there is no mistake for future cylinder fitting issues.

mark are u the new randell ? lol

MB group wrote:Thats really funny 897 words against straight cylinder studs and as we rightly stated in the first place it will be the casing or cylinder that is incorrect. Adam instead of sitting on the fence as usual, why don't you name and shame the studs that are crap instead of implying in a PC kind of way so the matter is cleared up and no one reading this post can assume that all straight length studs are incorrect. Doesn't that makes more sense, then every one is clear about what you are saying in your ramblings and there is no mistake for future cylinder fitting issues.

you want Adam to name and shame so you get more buisness is how i read into this, and to count the number of words is pathetic.=27 to save you time