Dave W

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

15 Good

About Dave W

  • Rank
    Old Hand

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    North Yorkshire

Recent Profile Visitors

530 profile views
  1. He died in November last year. I'm sure there will be a topic on here from the time.
  2. A normal seal puller tool will do the job or, if you haven't got one of them it can normally be levered out using a screwdriver, spanner or small pry bar. There's plenty of room to get in around the pinion and get your levering tool between the pinion bearing and the back of the seal. Some people just over think these things !
  3. I can recommend the Koni Heavy Track, we fitted them on the front and rear of our 90 prior to our trip around Australia. We drove our very heavily loaded 90 16000 miles on a mix of tarmac and dirt roads including miles and miles and miles of washboard unsurfaced routes and a couple of desert crossings. I was so impressed with the way they worked and the way they stood up to the punishment that I bought a set for my competition vehicle when we got home. 3 years later we're still running the 90 on those same shock absorbers without any issues. Bear in mind you don't need the raid version that cost a fortune, just the heavy track version that cost around £80-£90 a pair. The only other brand I would consider would be the Bilsteins (assuming you don't want to go into coiler territory). They do have a tendency to be a bit harsh though.
  4. Thanks for the heads up, been meaning to buy another 200 piece set for a couple of years and never got around to it, couldn't resist with another £40 off the "normal" half price offer. Just snuck in before the 8pm cutoff
  5. The thing is that if you measure the current going into the first battery from the alternator and the second battery is connected then you're actually seeing the combined current going into both batteries. The only way to figure out how it's split between the two is to measure the current going through the solenoid/switch and that will give you the proportion of the current that is going into the second battery. If you have a volt meter, put the negative probe on the positive of the second battery and the positive probe on the positive of the first battery. Start the engine and, with the switch/solenoid open you should see a voltage of somewhere around 2 volts. When you close the switch/solenoid you should see that drop to 0 volts. If it does then it's connecting OK, if it doesn't then you have a high resistance connection so move the negative probe to each side of the solenoid terminal until you get 0 volts. If you get a different reading at each solenoid terminal then the solenoid is faulty, you should only see a 40mV drop at the most across the solenoid and that would be at 200 or more amps flowing through it. You can also simply measure the voltage across each battery and compare them but the advantage of the above method is that it's more likely to show up a high resistance connection.
  6. Are you getting any voltage change on the second battery when the solenoid is activated and the engine running ? Where are you measuring the current ?
  7. Forgot to add, when I fit these solenoids I always leave a bit of slack in the battery wires so that, should the need arise, the solenoid can be bypassed simply by moving a cable from one terminal to the other. I've never had one fail but if it does and you're in the middle of nowhere you never know when simply connecting the two batteries together will get you out of a bind.
  8. Yes, so to add in a second battery you just need a solenoid between the positive of the main battery and the positive of the second and you then trigger that by whatever means you want. I use an Albright HD solenoid between the batteries on mine and trigger it via an off-on-on switch where off isolates the two batteries, first on position is automatic triggered by the voltage on the first battery being above 13 volts and the second on position means it comes on with the ignition, allowing the auxiliary battery to help start the vehicle if required. The Albright solenoids are waterproof, extremely reliable and can carry a winch current - on my competition motor I use the HD versions to isolate both winches either via a switch on the dash or if I operate the kill switch for the engine. This is the HD version... https://www.devon4x4.com/albright-su280-isolator-250a.html This is the not so HD version which is fine for most uses... https://www.devon4x4.com/albright-hd-battery-isolator.html
  9. That would depend a lot on which engine you have but normally the charge goes directly form the alternator to the battery, normally via the starter motor terminal. It's not normally connected with the ignition in any way.
  10. I assumed, wrongly, it was Land Rover based I would still go down the route that it should be registered as a cargo carrying vehicle and the camper "pod" is simply cargo so it doesn't matter if it's present or not as it has no effect on the vehicle classification then. I can't see any reason to differentiate between having a camping pod on the back versus any other load you might be carrying.
  11. You can get it reclassified as a motor home if you meet the requirements. It doesn't effect the class (N1/M1) but for vans that would otherwise have to drive at the lower speed limits it allows them to drive at car speed limits. I'm in the process of converting my VW van into a camper van and as soon as I meet the requirements I'll be applying to have it registered as a motor home so I can legally drive it faster. It also means you can get cheaper insurance as motor homes are generally cheaper to insure than a panel van. The requirements are all laid out on the DVLA web site, 2 hob cooker, sink, bed, seating area with fixed table are the main ones. Converting a vehicle into a motorhome - Gov.uk That said for a Land Rover, where you're already exempt from the N1 speed limits due to it's 4x4 classification, there's little to be gained by having it registered as a motor home. Having a demountable camper doesn't change the vehicle any more than putting a pallet in the back would, it's basically just "cargo".
  12. Since we started our club we've had only one proposal to change the rules regarding eligibility and that was originally to do with tyre patterns and that was expanded during the proposal process to include tyre sizes. A number of us had been competing in Ireland for a number of years and noticed that the use of 35 inch Simex and similar, often larger, tyres was making it impossible for anyone without that size of tyres to move around the sites. even the marshals for the competition were using 35 inch Simex so when we turned up for the second year on 32 inch tyres we were pretty much stuffed as most of the tracks were impassable. We'd also seen similar effects on one of the UK sites we were using at the time which was being overused for pay and play between our annual trial there. Despite the land owners best efforts to keep plowing up and levelling the ruts that were being caused we were struggling to get vehicles around the site and didn't want to get involved in an "arms race" of tyre sizes. In the end, when the proposal went to the AGM, it was discussed at length and a unanimous decision led to the proposal being dropped for a number of reasons although it was decided that we should monitor all the sites we still use and reconsider if our use of them is not sustainable in the long term due to either over aggressive tyres or large tyres. As has already been mentioned here, the trials competitions in particular tend to penalise large tyres anyway and none of the sites we now use have pay and play on them so currently none of the sites we use have seen any deterioration. I strongly believe that, government interference aside, for the uk off road scene to continue all users and organisers need to consider the impact they are having on the land and what they can do to help the land owner manage the land and keep the sport sustainable.
  13. Essentially the ALRC are trying to allow their clubs to do now what the none ALRC LR clubs have been doing for 20 years, just not as inclusive and still irrelevant to the future of UK off roading. Perhaps I should point out that the Yorkshire Off Road Club are holding a trial this weekend (and once every month) and have done for just under 20 years now where any marque and model are welcome and we don't care what engine, gearbox, mods, axles or even tyre sizes you're running. As long as your vehicle can comply with MSA trials regulations and is driven to the site you can compete. You don't even need to have a winch or roll cage to compete in our challenge events. The vast majority of the vehicles competing are Land Rovers and none of us that drive them have ever felt that we can't compete on equal terms with other marques. We only have 4 classes, 2 for leaf sprung and 2 for coil sprung and nobody worries about what modifications the other competitors in their class may or may not have, we just enjoy the competition and the craic regardless of who made what part or how many rivets are holding a particular body panel on. The future of UK off roading isn't just Land Rover, Land Rover themselves have put the block on that one so if we want a thriving UK off road scene we can't put on Land Rover blinkers and exclude the other marques.
  14. Sounds familiar, I've not once regretted leaving the ARC although we had to form our own club as, at the time, there wasn't a good alternative for trials, especially RTV style events. I have spoken to the MSA about the scrutineering problem (cross country committee primarily) and I know there's been some internal discussion about either fast tracking or dropping some of the requirements to be come an MSA Scrutineer, particularly for cross country. Not sure what, if anything, will come out of it though... the MSA moves in mysterious ways ! There have been a number of suggestions that the MSA require an MSA accredited scrutineer to be used for a number of events (challenge at least) but it's always had to be shelved simply because there aren't enough to come close to covering all the events. They've also had problems trying to get current scrutineers to agree to train new ones and that, added with the current requirement to scrutineer events outside your particular area of motor sport has been a stumbling block. We have a couple of people who would be prime candidates for MSA Scrutineers (mechanics who are qualified MOT testers with years of experience scrutineering in cross country and competing in cross country and rally) but neither of them want to put the time into attending events that they have no interest in so they can then scrutineer at cross country events. Maybe they should ask the clubs to put forward suitably qualified candidates and put them through a testing process rather than having to go through a mini apprenticeship. Then set up a cross country scrutineer training scheme that uses this new scrutineers to train up new ones. It wouldn't fix the problem for all areas of motor sport but at least cross country would pave the way and maybe other areas could follow suit.
  15. Sadly neither of my Land Rovers can take part in ALRC events under the current regulations and I'm still not sure if one of them is allowed to compete under "class Q". One of them definitely isn't but the other is under the spirit of the regulation but not in the way it is written. Sorry if that's being difficult, again, but i don't throw away money at club membership only to find that your interpretation isn't the same as the local scrutineer's interpretation. I've trialled both of them at events this year outside the ALRC without any issues and they are both Land Rover Defenders. I looked at an "inter club" event that an ALRC club was organising but they couldn't confirm what regulations they were running under and I basically would have to find out when I turned up if I could compete or not. Your "history" of the ARC/ALRC is a bit naive as you missed out what happened before the current regulations were put in place. Relocation cones and cranked trailing arms, among many other modifications, were not only allowed but they were allowed in standard classes too. I, like many others, was forced to leave the ALRC because of the changes that made our Land Rovers no longer comply to regulations. At that time a number of clubs left the ARC over the issue and many others, including ours, were formed so we could continue to compete in our Land Rovers as they were rather than spending money and time to make them "more Land Rover". Most of those who were forced out were RTV competitors by the way, the "party line" from the ALRC being that we could continue to compete if we did CCVs but not RTVs. It was all to do with the complete rewrite of the regulations which, up to then, had focussed on what you couldn't do so, if it wasn't "not allowed" it was allowed. The regulations were all changed so that any modification not specifically allowed in the regulations was no longer allowed. CCVs and Comp. Safari competitors got away with it because of the log book system but RTV had no "grandfather rights" so vehicles were banned overnight. At the time we (as an ALRC club) pushed for a special class that would allow the vehicles to continue to compete but it was basically as welcome as a turd in a swimming pool. One member of the ALRC committee actually said "If you don't like the rules then leave", so we did. So, essentially you agree it's badly worded and needs rewriting, that's progress at least. It's not up to me to write regulations for a national club, that club should not need outside help if it considers itself worthy of being such a thing. I'm simply "being difficult" by pointing out the difference between what you say it means and what it actually says because I have no idea if my vehicles comply or not and I'm not sure if the local ALRC scrutineer will interpret it in the way you have. I admire your enthusiasm in promoting the ALRC but you should learn to be less defensive and take a step back. Your sole input on "the future of UK off roading" has been to suggest that the ALRC introducing a regulation that might allow vehicles they banned 20 years ago from competing (taking your very loose interpretation of the new regulation). I don't see that as much of a step forward, just a case of trying to fix the mistakes of the past. Fair enough, with a bit of rewording it would be a step forward for the ALRC but not for the UK off road community as a whole. There are many UK events held each month by clubs outside the ALRC, many of which have much larger entries than the ALRC events simply because they are inclusive rather than exclusive. i just don't see how an insular, inward looking, club like the ALRC could put itself forward as the future of uk off roading when the majority of off road 4x4s now and in the future don't have a Land Rover badge on them anywhere. The ALRC can claim to be the biggest Land Rover marque club by way of it's weird membership structure but realistically that's not likely to be the majority of competitors in the future, I'm not even sure it could be said that it's the majority of the competitors now. I'm not even sure that the ALRC can claim to represent the majority of Land Rover clubs in the UK. At one time "The National" was featured in the magazines and was as much a part of the annual calendar as, say, Billing. These days I couldn't even tell you where it was held because, outside the ALRC community it's pretty much a none event. So much so that we've even stopped avoiding having events on the same weekend because it actually makes no difference to our turnouts these days. There are 5 clubs that run monthly off road trials in our area, only one of them is an ALRC club and they normally have the lowest turnout of all the clubs so only represent, at most, 20% of the competitors in this area and I'm not including in that the specialist clubs like NORC that mainly run comp. safaris with the occasional trial.