Identification of F15 2WD?

[Grant Bowker]

I don't normally like to cast doubt on field measurements of original parts....but....
Parts list F15A-01 gives a length of 51-3/4 for part *C01Q-2275A (cable-hand brake-assembly),
Parts list F15-01 doesn't give a length for *C101W-2275,
Neither manual gives alternate numbers for earlier or later production.
The same part numbers and length notes appear in the earlier parts lists that cover all models.
I'm puzzled as when I was shortening a pair of *C01Q-2275B cables (originally 86 inches long) to recreate *C01Q-2275A cables for the 15cwt GS trailer I thought the measurements needed to be nearer those Jacques gave than the "official" version.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Grant,

I agree, field measurements can be misleading however it all depends on where you are taking the measurements from versus what the guy putting together the parts manual measures, or the second or third hand measurements he receives.

My measurements were taken from the ends of the outer conduit at the end of the larger diameter sleeves. In the case of the inner cable, the measurements were from the outer end of the ball to the end of the threaded rod on the equalizer side. If someone only measured the exposed cable a different result would be obtained.

The cables were NOS, perfect shape, never kinked, and I compared both cables and obtained the same results. When installed, everything worked perfectly as intended.

If you think about it, the only critical measurement is the difference between the inner cable and outer conduit. The conduit could be 2, 4, 6 inches longer but as long as the inner cable is 12-1/2" longer the system will work just fine.

The parts manual is a great source of info but as I have found out there are a number of inconsistencies throughout. Looks like you may have found the same thing in regard to the specified measurement with your trailer cables.

In using a parts manual, one must keep an open mind and accept that it may not be gospel.

Cheers,

[Ganmain Tony]

Grant and Jacques,

My sincere thanks to you both. Very, very helpful discussion.

I will have another crack tomorrow and get back with my findings.

Sent an email to LWD parts. Hopefully they will get back to me as well.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

Glad to be of some help.

Just as a final thought on the subject; assuming 12-1/2" is the difference in the lengths for both F15 and F15-A cables the only other thing that could affect the cable pulling on the brake shoes would be the position of the Support- Brake Conduit, part Nos. 01T 2501 (right side) and 01T 2502 (left side) in the case of a F15-A. I am assuming the F15 truck uses the same part but that could be a wrong assumption.

If these are bent, or modified, the distance to the equalizer arms will be different to the designed length perhaps causing the inner cable to be "pulled" even when when the handbrake lever is fully off.

I have attached a photo of the setup of the handbrake equalizer and the conduit supports on my F15-A which may help you and others.

Cheers,

[Ganmain Tony]

How about this to throw a spanner in the works.

Cable is 43 and 1/2 inches long.

Outer conduit is 33 inches long.

Interesting to note the outer conduit length is identical to the old ones I pulled out.

The inner cable appears to be slightly longer though on the old cables. It is a bit difficult to tell because both cables had snapped at the end that attaches to the equalizer arms.

[Jacques Reed]

Hi Tony,

That sure does- throw a spanner in the works that is.
With your conduits being 6-3/4" shorter than mine it must be a bit of a stretch between the backing plates and the conduit supports.

I enclosed photos of original handbrake cable routing on my F15-A parts truck. There is reasonable amount of slack to allow for suspension movement. I am certain the crossmember where the equalizer is fitted is in the same position on both F15 and F15-A trucks so the distances to the backing plates should be identical. I know this the hard way- In my earlier naïve days I bought a dodgied up F15-A that had been converted from an F15.

The other surprise is look what I found! A handbrake cable to spring bracket had slipped down to the backing plate. I've had the truck 3 months but hadn't seen it. Of interest is that it seems to be of thinner gauge steel which may be as Grant Bowker pointed out in an earlier post there was a C01Q 2279A bracket and a later replacement C01Q 2279B.
I used a bracket remnant attached to a spring of a 1944 built truck to get the thickness. This thinner bracket is on a 1943 built truck. Perhaps they found in service the thinner gauge one broke early from fatigue and reissued the part in a thicker gauge steel hence the A and B versions.

Cheers

[Jacques Reed]

Originally Posted by Jacques Reed

Hi Tony,

I used a bracket remnant attached to a spring of a 1944 built truck to get the thickness. This thinner bracket is on a 1943 built truck. Perhaps they found in service the thinner gauge one broke early from fatigue and reissued the part in a thicker gauge steel hence the A and B versions.

Cheers

Slight correction:

Yesterday I removed the brake cable bracket remnant of the end attached to the 1943 truck spring and I notice it was folded over doubling the thickness. I looked more closely again at the 1944 remnant and it too had been folded at the spring end and therefore that bracket was the same thickness as the 1943 bracket.

On that basis anyone recreating this bracket could make it from 16 gauge steel with the length of the fold over exactly 1". I can also confirm the spring bolt hole is 13/32" diameter and the clamp bolt hole is 9/32" diameter. the center of the spring bolt hole is 1/2" from the end and the center of the clamp bolt hole is 3/8" from the end. the flat end at the clamp area is 3/4" long. With Tony's 3-1/4" BC of the holes and 3/4" wide steel that should be enough info for anyone to replicate it.

This means my suggestion that there was a thickness difference between the A and B part is not necessarily correct so whatever is the difference is still yet to be determined.

Cheers

[Ganmain Tony]

Originally Posted by Jacques Reed

Hi Tony,

That sure does- throw a spanner in the works that is.
With your conduits being 6-3/4" shorter than mine it must be a bit of a stretch between the backing plates and the conduit supports.

Cheers

Looking closely, you are spot on Jacques. If I attempt to shorten the conduit, odd's are Im going to hit the inner cable. Plus I am only going to get another inch or so and that aint going to be enough.

The NOS cables Ive got cant be the right ones. Be interesting to know what they are off. Must be some thing from the era.

If anyone does have some I would be interested to hear from you.

Have looked up MACs. They have a 46 inch cable 21C 2275. Im going to give them a go.