discomikey

i have a third type of series door lock, they seem to be what i would call "semi anti burst" or anti burst MK1... they are a spring loaded sliding plate that latches over a "post" like so: these have barrels on both doors, internal locks too on both doors IIRC they were used on defender safari doors up till i would guess about 300Tdi maybe 200Tdi era.

the idea with the twin leading shoe backing plate and drum would be to use 2X double acting slaves from standard series rear drums, therefore single leading shoe on both service (as standard) and handbrake. obviously this requires tinkering to work out what fits regarding cylinders, shoes and drums, etc, and efficiencies also have to be well above MOT minimum. i like to have good brakes, i dont like to "just pass" the MOT as i feel brakes are the single most important thing on the vehicle.

yes! (barring the steering guard!)

James, in a word, yes, and no... i would love an X brake, i would also love to support Si in his business especially because he is a fellow forum member, and they are great products. but at £170, its quite an investment for a 20 year old student. i wont say its "expensive" as being an engineer i know how much time, development and thought has gone into this, and i also appreciate the materials used and processes required to manufacture such a solution. I currently couldnt afford that but the cost of a hydraulic handbrake system could be comparatively low, and just as efficient.

i always used the crank pulley starter technique... works every time. in my younger inexperienced years, the first one i ever did, i put the breaker bar up against the chassis rail, and held it in place so it didnt slap against the chassis using a bungee cord.... i put it on the LH chassis rail and needless to say, i needed new underwear when i heard the massive bang of the breaker bar swinging round and smacking the other chassis rail!!!!! never made that mistake once after that!

the problem i see with it is that in order to do this correctly i need to either do one of the following... tee the handbrake master into the rear brake circuit which means: tapping into service brake system:could be frowned upon even if done to the best of practises although it does mean simplicity, and you can buy special "inline" master cylinders for just this type of thing(and fiddle brakes). also prolonged pressure on the slaves could cause them to leak over a period of time, leaky handbrake seals, an inconvenience and bad enough, but leaky service brake slaves is a very bad thing IMO utilising stage one v8 front twin leading shoe backing plates, maybe using 2x single leading shoe rear mastersprobably wont just work that easy but if so it keeps the handbrake completely separate to the service brakes. just as a note more to stop the safety hacking more than anything... i am a very mindful person and any system i think up, or may try will be thorougly thought through, with safety and optimum operation top of the list. just like my disk brake conversion, i want to keep as much as standard LR as possible. standard service brakes with a secondary system is my ideal, for obvious safety and liability reasons. secondly, i do tell my insurance, and all my conversions (disks, engine) have engineers reports which i show my insurance regardless of whether they ask for them!

So, i know full well that to have a hydraulic handbrake system is illegal. these seem popular with my generation of "drift kings" (or tw*ts as i like to call them) BUT can it be used legally? used for a sensible application? basically im fed up of having to turn the engine off in order to ensure it doesent run away on steep slopes or lesser ones when towing if you retain the origional handbrake setup, is it illegal to have a second, better handbrake too? i.e. hydraulic handbrake fitted to the rear drums? i can sort my handbrake to pass the MOT, but it never lasts. the linkage is well out and i always have problems with it and alignment. my thoughts are, do i have a crappy handbrake that i have to keep fixing to make it hold the vehicle, or do i have 2 systems, one which is guaranteed to work properly, and one that will make it legal. and before you say, i can and would still use the origional handbrake too, just to make sure that if it does run off. the stock handbrake was applied, not left off.. thoughts good idea or bad idea?

the great thing about this is, if you fail to break the taper using your trusty hammer, just hit it with a bigger hammer. it has never failed on me and is so so quick! on the subject of track rod ends, unthreading siezed ends from the track rod.. clamp track rod in the vice (dont clamp the split end section) undo the clamp, use a ring ended spanner and put the ring over the taper and use this as leverage to unwind it. if it is too siezed get 2 hammers, find the splits, and sharp blow simultaneously on each of the splits. then a sharp blow down the shaft from the track rod end. i have never had to use heat on (this style of) TRE yet because of this technique

you drive a series?

ahh so yet more poor LR related design haha i thought it was just my tunnel being "out"

okay, so i guess we will. what i was trying to put across was if the engine had in effect at peak, enough torque to break something. the effect of a higher gearing further down will increase stress on the components further up. remembering that an engine only produces more torque when it is required, and the engine labours. i.e. torque curve diagrams are plotted when there is a load applied to the engine. if no/less load is applied, there is no/less stress. think like when you change down, the engine has an easier time working, imagine if that gearbox was at the tail end. the effective change down would still mean the engine has an easier time, requiring less of its total torque output. the same as changing down in a gearbox, the less required torque to pull the same load, means the less torque applied through the drivetrain from the point of gearing reduction back up to the engine. so if that gear reduction was in the hubs, everything has an easier time. its exactly the reason why taller tyres break more shafts and diffs and gearboxes than smaller tyres.

for mating the engine to the gearbox.... you can get them close, you've lined up the splines on the input shaft with the clutch but it still wont go. turn the engine over by hand whilst leaning on it to put pressure towards the gearbox. the turning action will slowly work out any alignment issues and if the engine is at an angle to the gearbox it will work them straight without damaging either clutch, input shaft, spigot bush or bearings. if this doesent work after maybe 10 turns. fit bolts between the two NOT to screw them together, but to hold them as close as they already are. then refit the clutch slave cylinder, press the clutch down whilst getting a mate to turn the engine over by hand. this will centralise the clutch if your clutch alignment was out that little bit too much. the gearbox and engine should then literally fall together. if not then repeat the first step. if your gearbox is light enough to lift, then grab the output shaft, put it in 4th or 5th, then rotate the output shaft whilst moving the back of the gearbox in a circular motion. struggling to line up the holes of the bellhousing with the flywheel housing bolt holes? fit 3 or 4 studs long enough to engage with the bellhousing before the clutch and input shaft engage. then make sure the weight of the gearbox is taken by jack/you/hoist, and line up the studs, push on, line up the shaft and clutch, and push home. replace studs with usual bolts/studs. edit: the confident mechanic may use the starter motor (engine disabled) ONLY if they are sure no damage will occur. which saves having a mate handy to help.

biggin quarry?

I beg to differ, The effect of different sized wheels, or ratio diffs, or in fact reduction hubs will affect the amount of internal stress on anything upstream of it in relation to its torque output. i.e. with reduction hub gearing of 30%, everything upstream, i.e. shafts, diff, xfer box, overdrive, gearbox etc etc, will have a 30% lower internal torque than if the same overall torque output was achieved with standard hubs. so if you were towing up a hill and lets say required 100nm of wheel torque, and you were in say, 4th hi for example, with standard gearing, that torque would be X amount on the gearbox. if you were towing up the same hill with the same required 100nm of wheel torque, and you were in 4th with 30% reduction hubs, that torque in the gearbox would be X amount -30% effectively lowering the stress on the gearbox. which is exactly why tractor brakes are inboard of the reduction hubs. as a result the braking effort required to stop the tractor is much less. requiring smaller brakes and less cost, more serviceability etc etc also a smaller lighter duty transmission is required.

thats what i meant i think. ill search for a photo tomorrow when im back on my laptop.

the problem with taxing when needed and getting a refund is that its a minimum of a month payment, so if i want to get tax for 3 seperate weekends over the year i have to pay for 3 months in effect. along with the more expensice weekend insurance would make it as cheap to insure and tax for the full year haha

this was my fear, im looking into the legalities of having it insured on the farm policy, as i have a daily driver, this wouldnt be classed as "fronting" IIRC and as it was already insured as business use for the farm under my name before it is actually used as a farm truck for towing, farm work and all sorts of rural duties. then ill just tax it all year round so i or dad can just jump in it without worrying about paperwork

heatshrink is a clever idea indeed!

sounds like it could be quite smart. mine has this problem of the tunnel being hard up against the side of the lever, thus eating through any insulation/matting/gaitors inbetween the two. im sure a decent hammer should sort it but i never get round to fixing it.

ball joint splitting.. the trusty hammer. keep the nut on the end of the thread, smack the steering arm on the end hard and sharply with a lump hammer, the nut protects the thread, the taper breaks free and the boot isnt damaged like it would with a "pickle fork" type splitter its quicker than using a puller too. i suspect 90% of us on here knew this one though!

isnt there something to do with spacer rings too? ashcrofts would be the place to contact i guess

the idea of temporary insurance is quite common, but Brian has been off the road for a while for some TLC and i have insured myself on a Chevy as a temporary daily driver whilst i am working in coventry (security, fuel and mileage reasons) and as a resuly Brian is uninsured, and now because of the (kind of) recent law, i can't keep him taxed without insurance. how do i go about temporarily insuring him for a weekend here and there without the hassle and added cost of taxing him (minimum for a month) every time? it seems this new law has bitten the average classic car owner in the ass. im sure a lot of you will also have had to work a solution to this problem before.. the ideal would be keep him taxed and insured all year although that would be too expensive. i had a look on admiral at a quote for their multicar insurance but short of ringing them up and talking to them about how non standard it is, i cant get an accurate quote. what do all you guys do? (i need him road legal as he is my only tow motor etc)

ingenious, what was the boot from? and do you have any pictures?

Jubilee clips. Works as a guide and if cut manually with a hacksaw the blade seems to not want to cut into the clip, only.follow it a grinder would just eat the clip though although would still work as a quick precise guide.

Somewhere along the way mine has been cross drilled and had a grease nipple tapped into the end works well as if it ever gets rattly you can pump it with grease. I dont have problems with mine rattling even though it has a "full height" lever. drilled for a grease nipple combined with o rings each end would be ideal i think to prevent water ingress and rattling and less messy when greasing.