Chicken Drumstick

Or you could have tried Googling it.....

I agree with your last comments fully. Just wanted to explore options. I do quite like the idea of a Salisbury rear, but I'm not going to pay silly for one. As for the ALRC rule. Currently/previously they have two classes; Standard & Modified. In both of these classes you can replace all the axle internals with uprated stronger parts on a direct like for like basis. And run any diff ratio, not just LR factory ones. So Ashcroft CV's, shafts and CW&P are already run by many and have been for years. You can even fit diff lockers, but in these classes you can't use them for competition, which means air or solenoid activated ones, rather than a detroit style. As when deactivated a locker is just an open diff. But you can't run an ATB diff centre, as LR didn't offer them. But using D2/p38 or long/short nose diffs and switching and swapping bits is perfectly acceptable and within the rules. And for CCV's and comps completely common and normal. Q class is a new class (official start date Jan 2017) that is a level up from modified, so you can run pretty much anything, including lockers for competition use and ATB's. The only restriction is, as it's a one make club they want the major item to remain Land Rover based. So you can't swap on Unimog axles or complete Toyota, GM or Ford axles. In essence this means you can swap the internal bits about as much as you like.

Note the slightly warmer glow nearer to the vehicle. That's the halogens from the X-Lites. My plan is to actually point them to the sides a bit more, to light up the hedges/verge when cornering or when off road. X-Lites bulbs can be had in spot or flood beam patterns. But being only 50 watt and physically small, they will only ever be medium range lights. If you have stock halogen headlights with 55/65w H4 bulbs in, then a pair or two of the X-Lites are well worth the money. They won't shine any further than main beam does really, but they will increase the amount of light in front of you. X-Lites can also be bought for fitting flush to a roll cage, so make a low profile roof mount option. Or in flood mode even a handy reversing light option or work light. If you want a long distance beam, then you'll need a physically large lamp and reflector. My advice would be, don't fit X-Lites for the ultimate in light output, you'll be disappointed. But for compact tough rugged lights they perform very well. And are well priced too. About £60/pair including bulbs. http://foundry4x4.co.uk/index.php?route=product/category&path=65_1760 If you off road a lot, they are likely to take a knock and keep working.

Even being sympathetic can result in breakages. And as a rule it only works in hindsight rather then when you are stuck or trying to drive somewhere. Not really sure I follow your last comment??? Can you explain it, or have you misunderstood something. Never once mentioned anything about a standard class of any sort.

X-Lites are little aluminium lights made by Simon at E-Engineering. They are little lamps on the bumper in front of the number plate. They use household push in 50watt halogens. They a nice tough little lights, so good if they are to be mounted where they might take a knock or two. But their size limits their output a bit compared to some other offerings.

Just trying to look at costings vs gains really. I have nothing against going for Ashcroft stuff, they are local to me. But having a quick look, a front setup would be just over £2000 and I think I'd still need stub axles too. Suspect a rear would be similar money. Anyway, you are looking at £3500-4000 in parts alone for a full Ashcroft setup.

Standard LR rims are 16" you won't be running 15" tyres on them. If you are in N. America, then I'm not 100% sure rims were used for the 15" factory option. Think they might have been a Wella multi spoke rim of some kind.

I'm not familiar with those lights myself. The big issue is, the higher output LED bulbs all have fans on the back of them. I doubt they'll fit in the spot lamp casings. So unless you plan to cut a hole in the back of them, there probably isn't a direct easy fit replacement. Also with the LED bulbs, there is huge variance in output and quality. And all of them are cool white with poor CRI for the most part. If you want to buy LED bulbs you really need to go and read up a little on LEDs, so that you can know an Cree MK-R from a COB LED. Different types of LEDs put out different amounts of lumens, they also vary in surface brightness and beam angle. Which can all affect how well or badly they may work in a halogen reflector. If you are into modding, then you could in theory fab up a heat sink and mount a good LED on it, and add a driver. Much in the same way people mod torches and the like. But it will be a fair bit of effort to do. Some companies like KC Hilites do offer LED upgrades, basically you only keep the backing dish and replace everything else. But they ain't cheap. Another option you might want to consider is a HID upgrade. Just buy a reasonable 35w HID kit off ebay (£30 maybe) and the bulb should fit. Then remote mount the ballasts and off you go. Biggest benefit here is, you can buy 4300k with much better CRI. I do like LED technology, but for automotive use, in the aftermarket, it's lagging several years behind what is available in other markets. The HIDs will work fine, when you first turn them on you obviously have a warm up period, but it's not as bad as you'd think. If you then go dip and back to mainbeam, they seem to come on straight away once you've used them once. I'm running LED headlights, halogens in the X-Lites (currently working on an LED upgrade for these), and the 3 big spots all run 35w HIDs in them. This photo is with only the centre HID and X-Lites running. It's even brighter with all 3 HIDs running.

Thanks for the info and ideas. Need to go and do some reading I think. Re: D2 axles. Are they actually any stronger? I've certainly seen stock D2's break them at trials. And I was under the impression the diff really isn't all that different. And I didn't know they are wider track than a regular coiler axle. Anyone have any figures on this? Are the tubes and shafts longer, or is it all in the hub assembly?

265/75R16 is standard fitment on late Defenders. A 31.10.50R15 should fit right on no probs. But will depend on the rim width and offset. You usually run a 15x8 rim for them, but you could go to a 15x10. If it has a deep dish offset, then they 'could' stick out, but it isn't normally an issue. This is on 31.10.50's

They are a nice chunky looking tyre. Standard fitment on many Jeeps and were the size LR used for some models in the US, as 16" off road tyres are (or were) quite rare over there. They will be a similar width to a 265, but maybe a little wider in practice. Height wise, most 31.10.50's will normally come in at 29-30" against the tape measure. For example a BFG AT 31.10.50R15 is 30.5" tall. While a 265/75R16 in the same tread is 31.6" tall.

BFG say 6.0" rim for a 235/85R16.

What options are there for different diff centres and ratio's on the Salisbury's? Does anyone do an ATB for them and something around the 4.10:1 final drive?

So, partly a vapour project at the moment, but likely to be put into effect at some point. What are the current ideas of getting stronger axles on a Land Rover? I do have one restriction... they somehow need to remain "Land Rover"... will explain more in a bit. But this means Mog axles or the like are sadly not an option. 1. There is obviously the Ashcroft (or similar) route of beefing up the old Rover axle. But lets be frank, this is not a cheap route and you can only get them so strong. 2. I've heard about putting Toyota internals inside a Rover axle casing, but I don't know the details or how easy it really is. Nor how good the end result might be. 3. Well that's were I'm a little stuck... Now the restriction is, I do like to play with the ALRC as one of my off road pursuits. And even their new Q class still says Land Rover axles. So as long as they look Land Rover from the outside I think I'll be fine (would like to keep this topic about axles, not the ALRC however ). Keeping a Land Rover hub pattern and PCD would be of benefit too, as I have access to lots of sets of wheels and rims. My only other thought was something Salisbury. A One Ten rear would be the correct track for a coiler. I know it's drum, but I'm sure I've seen people convert them to disc. Now I'll be honest and say I don't know a huge amount about the Salisbury, i.e. where it's weak parts are. I do know that they are somewhat of a copy of a Dana 60... so this is where I'm thinking. If I managed to get hold of a Dana 60 front axle from a full size Ford or Chevy truck from the US. How easy would it be to use on a Land Rover? I know there have been loads of different variants. But a Salisbury would easily meet the 'Land Rover' bit and offer a strong axle. I know in the US guys happily run 42" tyres and lockers with the Dana60's no problem. So what would be needed to build a set of good-to-awesome Salisbury/Dana 60 axles for a coiler Land Rover? Or any other ideas on some strong axle setups.

So how about the static belts I mentioned then? Should be exactly what you want, and just fit them instead of your inertia belts.

Ta, then a stock D1 must be fine.

Not all cars/vehicles come with mud flaps though, so I'd be surprised if they are actually mandated and ignored by car makers.

It sounds like you have been very unlucky in the past with wanting to compete. And sadly The ARC/ALRC has had more than its share or very anal officials and event organisers. Maybe there is a different local club you could join these days though, or maybe those/that person who caused the trouble for you, is no longer active in the club. I agree the reg will need clarifying in time and I don't really agree with the current wording. But it is at least some progress. If it hadn't been this, it would have been nothing at all. So while it's far from perfect, at least it was progress. As for what sorts of vehicles look like Land Rover's. Well if clubs start finding 10-20% of their members are in tray backs, I can't see any club really wanting to turn members away. If however only 1-2% turn up, then I can see such things being not allowed at some point in the future, so as not to upset the existing members. But this is all speculation on my part. And only time will tell. I think there consensus however, that as the ALRC is still a one make club for Land Rovers, the preference would be to not encourage things like this: Even if it is built of out LR parts. But something like this does still look like a Land Rover and should be fully allowed to enter: And IMO vehicles that look like this should also be accepted as they clearly look like a Land Rover still. And they will be welcome at our club, as there is nothing in the regs to prevent them now.

With the upper location, it needs to be so it pulls you back into the seat, rather than down. This is why they have a recommended angle. If it pulls down it can potentially break your collar bone or damage your back as it'll try and squish you down into the seat. What vehicle are we talking about exactly, is it the 110 in your sig? What sort of body is it, pickup, hard top, county? I suspect to fit comp harnesses safely it will likely restrict the use of the 2nd row of seats you have, if fitted. But maybe some of the guys on here have come up with some clever ways to mount them. BTW - what sort of off roading are you doing? They really shouldn't be needed and unless it's a speed type of use, probably won't make it any safer. As a left field option, you could look at retro fitting non inertia real belts, i.e. static ones. Bit like what you'd have got in a 109 or 88. They will hold you snug a bit like a harness, are still 3 point but are a diagonal over the shoulder fitting. So the stock seat belt mounts can be used. Bit like these: http://www.paddockspares.com/sec30030-static-lap-and-diagonal-belt-for-outer-front-seats-of-series-hardtop-vehicles.html

You really do have an axe to grind don't you?? The ALRC are as much a part of off roading and future off roading the UK as any other organisation. The size and number of events certainly has some bearing on that. Really do not understand why you are being so doggedly determined to be difficult about it, apart from some other ulterior motive. If you don't want to partake, then that is your choice. But no reason to keep bashing and putting down because you have some personal beef with them. And what is wrong with single make clubs??? There are loads, be it Triumph, MX-5, Toyota and so on. All run and hold many different types of events. And as this is a Land Rover forum, not an any make forum. Talking about a Land Rover off road club is 100% relevant.

I would imagine in time the regs will adjust to suit what the majority want, while still remaining true to the spirit of the events. Don't quote me on this, but my hunch is, many mods will find their way into the current modified class, which will probably be the bulk of most modded Disco's and 90's today. And I suspect the Q class will become a super mod style of class with more bespoke style vehicles. But the future of LR off road competition is changing, for the simple fact that the model line up is different from LR now. As for big tyres. I really don't know how many people really run bigger than 35" tyres. Not on Landry axles anyhow. My local P&P sites will have loads of people running 33" or 285 sized tyres. Which are pretty chunky in their own right. That said, I think if people like trials, then they might run different tyres. 38's would give you no lock and make the vehicle wide and cumbersome. And probably not overly competitive. For example, I like rolling about on some 33.11.50 Simex's, but for competition I'm more of a narrow 7.50 x 16 person, as the vehicle will turn in better and usually have a lot more lock, while keeping the track narrow. As for lockers, well LR sell the D3/RRS and newer with optional rear lockers. It won't be long before someone chops one of these up to make a trialler out of it. So you can't really say no to such things moving forwards. Although locks probably won't help with turning circle. My choice would be traction control with ATB diffs in the axles and an LSD in an LT230.

1. I think way too much emphasis goes towards comp motors. Don't get me wrong they are great, awesome and all that, but for club level and even the National they are very much the minority in terms of entrants. Trials motors are far more numerous (250 entrants vs 25-30 entrants). 2. Sadly some of the (cough cough) older folk in the ALRC have been somewhat anal in the past. People should never be turned away from events IMO, not unless they vehicle is unsafe or wildly flaunting many rules and not in the spirit of the event. But it is true that such silly things have happened in the past, hopefully those times are past us however. As for winch bumpers, it may well depend on the style of the bumper in question. Many winch bumpers are tubular and smaller than a normal bumper, on a trials section when your bumper is something that can hit a cane and score a penalty point it can make a big deal. And sadly, far too few people bother to spend the time (20 mins say) actually reading the regs. Sometimes this may include the officials for some events. Q class should make all this a non issue. Because all these things are allowed no questions asked. The only difference will be, if a club runs modified, standard and now Q class as separate classes on the day. As said earlier, my local club and many of the other ones local to us don't. We tend to split to coil and leaf and LWB. This generally means the Series 1, 2 & 3's compete against each other. The 90's and coiler 88's compete against each other and the Disco's and RRC's compete against each other. Anyhow, if you had a bad experience before, then I implore you to maybe give it another go. Chiltern Vale are running a joint trial (tyro, RTV and CCV) on the 11th Dec at Gt Brickhill just outside Milton Keynes, Bucks. It's a good site, me and my brother are setting up and running the RTV and I'm club scuitineer. And unless forced too, I plan to turn nobody away from a days playing. http://cvlrc.co.uk/html/calendar.html

Right, not wanting to labour this too much.... but I think some clarity is needed. 1. This is important. The ALRC already have a class for modified vehicles. Q class is designed to go beyond this. You can already run ashcroft shafts and the like and people have been for years. Therefore as Q class is beyond modified, you can do this in Q class too. The reg is really very simple and deliberately vague. This is done to allow pretty much ANYTHING with the only restrictions being what is listed. Drivetrain simply means you can't run things like Unimog or Toyota axles... but a fully modded up Rover axle is exactly what it is intending. Likewise, a GM4L80e gearbox is not a Rover item, so can't be used, but any other Rover/Land Rover box can be. 2. Same with appearance, this one is a little more subjective. But as I posted earlier, there was a split opinion on the SORC and ALRC committee. But importantly don't add words, you've said 'production', but that is not what the reg says. The reg says Land Rover. Are you really trying to say something like this doesn't look like a Land Rover?? It does to me, so will be welcome to any of our events. Despite never being a production model (again... this is the intention of the Q class, to allow non production spec vehicles to compete). But seriously drop the use of 'production vehicle' as you are mixing yourself up... As for being turned away for parabolic springs. You were either hugely unlucky or it was 30+ years ago... or both. Did you read the regs yourself? Parabolics have been allowed for a long long time and are clearly stated so in the green book: http://www.alrc.co.uk/Handbook/2015/regulations/Competition Rules & Regs 2015.pdf B.9.3.3 Note --- this is really important. The regs I've linked to are for Standard and Modified classes. Class Q allows everything they do, plus anything else that conforms with the minimal restrictions of engine/gearbox/axles/appearance. The aim was not to try and list every conceivable mod, as you'd be there forever and still miss loads of them. Hence the short open regulation.

The reg has only been ratified as far as the text I posted earlier (which is the wording that has been voted on). I disagree with it and raised it multiple times, as it is subjective; "has the appearance of a Land Rover". IMO a tray back Disco still looks like a Land Rover. I mean, if you posted a pic up and asked what vehicle is was, you wouldn't get people saying it's a Lotus or even Shogun. They'd say Land Rover. And arguably, many of the current CCV motors look less Land Rover like. Anyhow, there was certainly a split decision/opinion on the ALRC council when this was being discussed. At the end of the day, if a club wants to turn members away on these grounds, it'll be their loss. CVLRC won't be and I doubt we will be alone. I'm sure some clubs will issue additional SR's for their meetings too. And in time I suspect the regs will be updated to reflect what works and doesn't for the clubs. But for now it's Game On!

Sorry, not sure how to multi quote with the new editor, can't see way to turn off the WYSIWYG editor either. So I'll number them. 1. So now this is no longer the case. Q class vehicles could be as simple as a Series with no door tops on. Different clubs will likely run the events differently. My local club Chiltern Valve LRC, runs events with 'Coil', 'Leaf' and if enough 'LWB' (over 100"). Doesn't matter if you are modified or standard. Or now if you are Q class. You'd be welcome to come and play just the same. 2. I agree, there has always been an oddity with some of the rules. Which I think Q class is aiming to try and solve. Or at least get things moving. The rational behind the Series coiler is, originally it had to be a production based vehicle, i.e. wheelbase is a pretty good way of defining a vehicle, even more so as LR used them for the actual names too. Then some bright sparks though of using a chopped Range Rover under a Series body. So that's how that came about. If they had stopped it there and then, then a lot of the problems they have now wouldn't exist. Although neither would the current CCV circle. The 100" was built by LR, but never as a proper production vehicle (200 for the Italian army wasn't it). So never got accepted by the ALRC rightly or wrongly (wrongly IMO...) Q class however means you can now take a Disco1 with a rotten body and slap a Defender body on it for a D100 and happily come and compete. Personally I'd quite like to have a go at building a 100" Series 1 on a D2 chassis. TCS, narrow body and bumper and being 100" you'd get a shunt on section too. 3. Sorry I just have no idea where you are getting this info from. I've been around the ALRC/ARC since the 1980's, my Uncle who is a founding member of our local club has been with them since the 1970's. I've never heard or anything about 80" coilers stopped being allowed. Indeed I know of many that have been built as recent as this year and spanning the past 10-15 years. I do note you have said 'spaceframe'. So maybe here is the difference. But spaceframe's have never been allowed unless they are a rollcage frame mounted on an LR chassis. I guess a few might have slipped in when someone first came up with building a spaceframe sans LR chassis. But you must be talking 20-25 years ago. But as far as I can remember you have always needed a Land Rover chassis for an ARC/ALRC vehicle (unibody accepted for newer models).