Forum: WHALER
  ContinuousWave
  Whaler
  Moderated Discussion Areas
  ContinuousWave: Whaler Repairs/Mods
  Montauk RPS linkage dimensions

Post New Topic  Post Reply
search | FAQ | profile | register | author help

Author Topic:   Montauk RPS linkage dimensions
gpj posted 06-11-2014 08:30 AM ET (US)   Profile for gpj   Send Email to gpj  
My 1975 Montauk reversible pilot seat has old-style legs without slots built into the legs to support the stainless steel swing arms. Instead, the swing arms were attached to the bottom of the seat using some sort of jury-rigged hinge block consisting of a three blocks of plywood screwed to the seat bottom (with a 1/16" of UHMWP between the bottom and the blocks to provide some clearance for the arm shafts), topped by a fourth block on top to keep the rails in place:

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae243/jsmith294/Cushions%20etc/ IMG_0789_zps289bce6c.jpg

In essence, the three bottom blocks provide slots for the pivot arm shafts and the fourth block functions as a cap.

I do not know if this design was original from the factory (I hope not) or a retrofit (the seat had been recovered). I do not like it. It is ugly and heavy. I plan to replace it with a much simpler design. Here is the prototype:


http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae243/jsmith294/Cushions%20etc/ IMG_0804_zpsf9d99f96.jpg

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae243/jsmith294/Cushions%20etc/ IMG_0787_zps4e8b98b5.jpg

The design consists of two 3" wide pieces of plywood clamped together with 15/16" holes drilled through along the interface for the shafts to pass through. I plan to use seal the supports with epoxy and lubricate them with paraffin (the stainless steel shafts showed some evidence of wear when I removed them).

That said, I have a very serious problem. I need to know the proper spacing for the holes in order for the seat to have the correct kinematic function. The RPS forms a simple four-bar linkage. The angle of the RPS seatback depends on the relative spacing between the two pivot arm shafts under the seat and the spacing between the pivot arm block attachment points. If the two spacings were equal, the seatback would not rotate as it was reversed; it would remain at a constant (presumably vertical) angle. Making the seatback pivot block spacing larger than the seat bottom shaft support spacing gives the seat back a slight backward angle when the seat is in the back (facing forward) position. This angle would be mirrored when the seat is reversed.

Comparing the spacings in my original seat shows that the pivot block spacing was indeed greater than the shaft support spacing:

http://i976.photobucket.com/albums/ae243/jsmith294/Cushions%20etc/ IMG_0790_zpse4523472.jpg

If the old were supports are original, I am set. I just reproduce the spacing when I drill the holes on my new supports. However, if the old supports are homebuilt with an incorrect spacing, that spacing will not give me the proper seatback motion.

I have no access to an original seat, or even a reproduction. I would be tremendously grateful if somebody could measure the spacing between the pivot arm shafts at the bottom of the your seat.

Thank you, and apologies for the long post.

Post New Topic  Post Reply
Hop to:


Contact Us | RETURN to ContinuousWave Top Page

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Freeware Version 2000
Purchase our Licensed Version- which adds many more features!
© Infopop Corporation (formerly Madrona Park, Inc.), 1998 - 2000.