Tony Brooks

I wonder if it is an electric fuel pump. The only other solenoid I would expect would be a stop solenoid, but neither should be under the engine. Still, lets hope RCR are correct this time.

Basically, you adjust the valve clearances when the cam follower is on the back of the cam. Cams are normally shaped like a section cut down through the centre of an egg. The back of the cam is the end with the larger diameter. In this position, the valve clearance will be ta its maximum. Whatever method of setting the engine to the correct position you use, it will be designed to set the cam follower on the back of the cam. Note, there are cams that are more rounded than egg shaped, and these are normally adjusted with the engine running. As far as I know, it is mainly General Motors companies that do/did this, so certainly not most UK engines. My method works because the heel of the cam is 180 degrees of rotation around from the peak, so set the valve fully down means the cam follower is on the peak. The question then is, "how do you know when the cam shaft has turned through 180 degrees". That is easy because the cam shaft turns at half engine speed so if the crankshaft is turned through 360 degrees (one full turn) the cam shaft will have turned through 180 degrees, so the cam follower will now be on the back of the cam. Although I will always say follow the manufacturer's instructions, the Gardner method seems a bit complicated, but it seems clear enough to me. It is still designed to get the cam follower on the back of the cam. Don't worry about which stroke, just get the follower on the back of the cam. Both valves will be closed around TDC compression As both are at a very similar position and the back of the cams have a number of degrees of rotation where they do not lift the follower, it allows you to use piston pairs on an engine with an even number of cylinders and this is what I think is confusing you. Using piston pairs that is not possible on your engine, you would set the non-adjusting piston pair to be around TDC between exhaust and inlet stroke. That puts the adjusting cylinder at BDC

As there are specific instructions, then I agree, but I am still unclear where the 0.254 something came from, certainly not your manual extract, and it is about a quarter of an inch. Not likely for setting valve clearances. The method I described will meet the Gardner requirement of having the piston at the top of the compression stroke, almost certainly within the TDC ineffective crank angle.

Totally agree. I understand that the crew on I Frances (the "narrowboat" that crossed the Atlantic) said never again because of the discomfort and the fact they went backwards for much of the time.

What are you asking, because I can't see where you tell us what you are trying to do. Adjust the valve clearances? Set the injector pump timing? But why you would need to do that for just a head change, I don't know. Something else? Assuming you mean valve clearances, the way I would do it on any three-cylinder engine is: Turn the engine until one valve is fully down, and use a bot of chalk or crayon to put a witness mark on the front pulley or flywheel. Align it with any engine feature that is convenient. Turn the engine one complete turn until the witness mark realigns. Adjust the clearance on that valve. Rub out mark and repeat for the other valves.

I know roping together is not the same, but did that chap who took a full length pair to the Black Sea by water all the way get into a spot of trouble doing this. Not sure if it was in the channel, but I know he sunk one on the Rhine. I suspect the stresses in the bolts and struts if needed would be very great in a side swell, so again he needs a naval architect.

I think the only one that comes close is a specific model of the Freeman 23 (not sure about the 23) but that is only 23ft long with a beam of 7 feet so may jam in some narrow locks. Typically, they had a small Ford petrol engine. I doubt it would do 10 knots, and I would not fancy being in a rough sea with it.

Be aware a boat built to narrowboat dimensions crossed the Atlantic (I Francis, I think) so have a Google for that. A slightly modified boat destined for a GU hire fleet did a number of seagoing voyages, one to the Scilly Isles I think. (Ocean Princess, I think) The owner of Lee Sanitation had a modified narrowboat that did a number of costal and cross channel voyages.(NB Progress) It has been reported here that pilots on the Severn and Wash have expressed surprise at how well standard narrowboats ride the sea. None of this is intended to say any old narrowboat will do, but it shows it is perfectly possible in narrowboat dimensions. I am not sure current battery technology is up to an electrically powered sea boat, especially as the power required tends to increase by the square of the speed. I think that you need to consult a Naval Architect and work out how you will get the documentation for the Recreational Craft Regulations. Since about 1998 there are rules about building and fitting out new boats. If I were planning this, I would want to ensure that the ballast is securely held in place because with a narrow beam it is likely to roll badly and the last thing you want is the ballast shifting.

Yes, but I am sure that you can find a non-Bukh switch to do the job. It is likely to be cheaper, but note few have a "turn anticlockwise to stop" position and no glow plug position between ignition on and start. However, if all you can get is one with a glow plug position, there is no reason not to use it and ignore the glow position. If needs must you could even fit a separate stop button, but it all depends upon costs.

The lamps are definitely getting power, and I agree with Nick that a short between the switch terminals is one possibility. Another is that the ignition switch has developed an internal short. However, on my DV36 the key became so worn that if you were not careful you could take it out when only partially turned back to the OFF position from either stop or ignition on position, so make sure it definitely is in the OFF position. Those two lights are the only ones that should come on with the ignition on and the temperature gauge should also "kick" as the ignition is turned on with a cold engine. This has nothing to do with the shoreline.

That is my view as well, but if the brokers' trade body advises not to sell such boats, it would be a brave or foolish company who did so. And I think that is what some here are choosing to conflate with "the seller". Doing so just confuses the issues, and maybe that is what they intend to do. You are calling Alan and myself liars, so it is you that need to prove your assertion. If you do not, I trust that you are aware that you have broken the forum rules. You just want to fling mad at your selection of members while declining to prove your assertions.

This seems to be another problem area. If the boat had full pre-revison RCD documentation ad had had no major alterations, then I don't think there would be a problem. I also don't think that just fitting solar panels or changing one CE marked cooker for another would count as a major alteration. I can see a problem (which I think the lady who posted a while ago had) with a pre-revision self fit out boat that never needed to comply with the RCD, so had no documents. As I see it all she has left if she can't find a broker to handle it, is a private sale to someone who does nor care about the RCR/RCD, even if it is at a discounted price. I think it is a mess produced by legislators who have absolutely no comprehension of UK inland boating and have had no reason to review their work.

An "in scope boat" is any boat that is supposed to comply with the RCD/RCR as they stand at this time. That is it, nothing else. What this is all about now is what makes it an "in scope boat" and that is where there is argument and disagreements. I am secure in my mind that there have been cases, some posted on here, where a post construction assessment certificate has been demanded. I am sure that if you were more interested in finding the truth, rather than justifying what you think, you could do a search and find them. You and the others who seem to be promoting the idea that RCD/RCR documentation is not important look to me like all you are doing is sticking your head under the sand. You and others asking for specific names could always try contacting a few brokers asking about selling a modern boat without the documentation. Then you and they can list those that refuse and those that accept such boats. The problem in both cases seem to have come about with the latest revision that seems to have brought (note seems) more boats into scope, e.g. self fit out boats that were exempt, or boats post 1998 that have been fitted with any non CE marked engines - be they vintage, non CE marked second-hand. or weird one off imports. I agree that nobody seems to have defined exactly what an in scope boat now is, but I don't see how we can be sure until there is some case law, and at the present rate of prosecutions that seems to be an exceptionally long wait. It is all very unsatisfactory, but as things stand I do not think it responsible (not aimed at your posts) to suggest that not having the correct documentation will never cause any problems when selling.

I agree, it looks like a grey area. As I said, insufficient case law to clarify the situation, but the BMF, who presumably consulted experts in the field, seem to suggest they are distributors. However, does that mean Apollo Duck etc. are also distributors as defined. They publish adverts and I think allow videos of boats. In the context of this discussion, I don't think it matters what the regulations may or may not say, what matters is the interpretation the BMF has advised their members, and it would seem that they think the brokers are distributors as defined by regulations - correct or incorrect.

I suggest that you CAREFULLY read my posts on this subject. I only ADVISE (you do know what that means, I assume) that buying an in scope boat without the full RCD/RCR paperwork may cause problems later on. Whereas your "advice" along with others seems to be that it there are no risks associated with buying an in scope boat without the relevant paperwork. You will also note that earlier in this topic I pointed out that a private sale would be one way around the broker problem. If you can read AND understand you will also grasp that I do not state things as definite, but do state as a possibility.

That would be nice for those wishing to sell, but might equally put a regulatory spotlight on the named brokers. If what Alan has posted is correct, then I think we could conclude brokers who are not members of the BMF or associated organisations would be the ones to look for. This in no way is intended to suggest what Alan has posted about it is incorrect, I simply don't know, but to my mind it seems likely.

I am sure that we have had a post from a lady who had had a broker demand the boat be certified, although she did not name them, and after an earlier exchange on this topic I had a PM or email from someone confirming that is the case. I don't think that we get much further, saying that unless the brokers are named this is all a mirage.

The size of the inlet manifold connection will be determined by the engine manufacturer in relation to the air flow required, so there will be a relationship between connection size and required air flow. Another point s that K&N main market is petrol engines, that when tuned, have peak revs of over 6000 rpm. Few, if any, boat type diesels will rev at much over 4000 rpm, so the maximum air volume required will be less on our types of diesels. I suspect the OP may have a BMC 1.5 engine, so there is a good chance he could fit anything from a BMC B series engine, the MG specialists may be able to help, but the exhaust manifold cum header tank may get on the way.

I agree on both counts, Alan's and the ambiguity. I think the problem is that there is not sufficient case law to clarify exactly what the regulations mean in practice, so people (the brokers) are erring on the side of caution. We can discuss this ad nauseam and try to find excuses for why the regulations may or may not apply, but it is clear that right now brokers are refusing to handle boats and no matter what any individuals may think and say that is a fact people wanting to sell via a broker must face. It is of no help to them trying to pick holes in the regulations and their applicability.