Safe fitting of JATE rings

[Gromit]

Morning all,

I've taken the JATE rings off my old 110 and fitted them to the front of the TD5. The rings are (at a guess) about 5mm wider total than the chassis.

I've also got another set for the rear, and there's a much bigger gap. I haven't measured it, but at a guess it's > 10mm total.

Given that having the ring wider than the chassis rail imposes much more of a bending force on the bolt, how much is acceptable? Would packing the gap help or no?

Cheers!

[mpb]

Morning all,

I've taken the JATE rings off my old 110 and fitted them to the front of the TD5. The rings are (at a guess) about 5mm wider total than the chassis.

I've also got another set for the rear, and there's a much bigger gap. I haven't measured it, but at a guess it's > 10mm total.

Given that having the ring wider than the chassis rail imposes much more of a bending force on the bolt, how much is acceptable? Would packing the gap help or no?

Cheers!

Use the lashing eye to pack the JATE ring out so it fits snugly to the chassis.

[Dave W]

Technically speaking you shouldn't use JATE rings on the back without reinforcing the chassis first. The material thickness used for the chassis doesn't have a high enough bearing rating when used with that size of bolt and has the potential of ripping the chassis. That's why the front is double thickness at that point.

I've not looked on a TD5 chassis but you should check that the chassis is reinforced on both sides on the front, if they are genuine JATE rings then there shouldn't be a significant gap at the front unless the reinforcement plates are missing.

If you do use rings that are too wide I'd add some washers to give an even gap on each side, better to have a small gap at each side than a large gap at one side.

[Gromit]

Thanks for the replies. I'll check out the reinforcing front and rear.

The reason I'm using Jates at the back in the first place is because the TD5 cross member isn't strong enough for recovery with a NATO hitch, without more modification than I'm prepared to do at the moment.

[Les Henson]

If the gap is 10mm, then fit a crush tube inside the chassis, then a 5mm plate welded on either side as well. You'll be strengthening the chassis to cope with potential load and getting the jate ring to fit snugly.

Les.

[errol209]

If the gap is 10mm, then fit a crush tube inside the chassis, then a 5mm plate welded on either side as well. You'll be strengthening the chassis to cope with potential load and getting the jate ring to fit snugly.

Les.

I'm With Les (that ought to be a t-shirt!) on this. For many good reasons (like fatigue, getting the f**cker out later, etc.) you don't want to subject the M10 bolt to bending, so the JATE ring should be flush up to solid chassis both sides. You want the bolt to work in shear only - washers won't stop the bolt bending.

[western]

PaulMc has this on his website, an extract from the military 110 parts book.

http://defender110.nightmail.ru/Extracts/JATE%20Rings.jpg

it mentions spacers but doesn't show them.

[PaulMc]

PaulMc has this on his website, an extract from the military 110 parts book.

http://defender110.nightmail.ru/Extracts/JATE%20Rings.jpg

it mentions spacers but doesn't show them.

It does - Spacer WC110061L QTY 4

Which are M10 Form C Washers - inside diameter M10, outside diameter 24mm, thickness 2mm

The link that you've given to my 'website' may cause problems for some

My AVS flags it up as an 'Attack Site' - although, I've never had any problems with it

(it was fine when I originally set it up, I think it may have changed hands )

Anyway, here's a clickable thumb of the page extract (hosted on PhotoBucket )

.

[Les Henson]

A spacer either side would be preferable to a pack of washers, but a crush tube is still required - whichever you use. You would still have weak points with a spacer, but not as many as using washers. Considering the reduced strength of the TD5 chassis against the earlier models - strengthening it with plate would be a wiser choice in my opinion.

Les.

[PaulMc]

A spacer either side would be preferable to a pack of washers, but a crush tube is still required - whichever you use. You would still have weak points with a spacer, but not as many as using washers. Considering the reduced strength of the TD5 chassis against the earlier models - strengthening it with plate would be a wiser choice in my opinion.

Les.

I'm not too familiar with all the changes to the TD5 chassis (except for the 'tinfoil' rear crossmember with it's thread inserts)

The page from the Military Parts Book is for 1986/87 Military models, external comparison of which, with my 1989 110's chassis revealed no great differences.

I have seen a Military chassis cut open and, although the JATE Ring holes are not tubed, the chassis does have a stiffening scroll (sort of 'S') welded between the vertical inside faces of the chassis at this point.

The spacing washers are used at the rear of the vehicle - one washer per side for each JATE Ring, to make up for the difference in chassis width between the front and the rear of the chassis rails (the front has the thickness of the jacking point, welded to each side of the chassis rail), if you need more washers than this, then your not using proper JATE Rings - RRC3237

.

[western]

It does - Spacer WC110061L QTY 4

Which are M10 Form C Washers - inside diameter M10, outside diameter 24mm, thickness 2mm

The link that you've given to my 'website' may cause problems for some

My AVS flags it up as an 'Attack Site' - although, I've never had any problems with it

(it was fine when I originally set it up, I think it may have changed hands )

Anyway, here's a clickable thumb of the page extract (hosted on PhotoBucket )

.

What I should have said was it doesn't show them in the diagram, only in the list of parts.

haven't had any issues with my genuine RRC3237 Jate rings, been used lots of times.