Dave W

Remember when designing the system that you can tag additional single port cylinders on anywhere you like in the system. If you're not using an a/c compressor though beware that too large a capacity can lead to the compressor running beyond it's duty cycle.

There's no problem with a single entry tank, if anything I think it makes a neater install. I have a 5 port Vlair air tank on my competition motor and although I originally used all the ports I now only use one with the tank mounted under the floor behind the seats. I don't use a manifold as such but simply use metal "T" connectors screwed together in a chain to provide all the outputs I need. If I need another output I can simply add another T piece. It's important that you have a blow off valve somewhere in the system but it doesn't need to be on the tank, the ARB compressors and the T-Max compressors are supplied with them but if you're using an a/c compressor you'll need to add one in. On our overland motor, with the experience of installing and reinstalling the air system on the competition motor, I went for a much simpler and MUCH cheaper option which, in hindsight, I wish I'd done with the competition motor and saved a lot of money and grief ! The disposable CO2 gas canisters used for hobby MIG welders are rated way higher than you'll ever use with an air system (around 1200PSI IIRC) and they use a male 1/8 NTPF connector on the top. If you drill through the valve of an empty cylinder you can put an air fitting straight onto the top. They are small and it's easy to conceal as many of them as you want around the vehicle either under the seats, under the floor or anywhere you want really. I use 6mm push fit connectors for the installation and you can buy all the fittings you need from a pneumatic control supplier. This is one of the cylinders, I eventually ended up using a female to female 1/8NTP fitting with a 90 degree, rotating, push in connector rather than the straight push in connector on this one. This is the installation of the compressor and "manifold" on the overland 90... This is one of the two "manifolds" on my competition motor... Just below the pressure gauge you can see the one way valve that sits between the compressor and the rest of the air system, you need this if you're using an a/c compressor or a T-Max style compressor.

You could use the alternative map function that MS has, just have a second map that backs off the timing dramatically and runs a reduced fuelling map. If you wanted to get into the code in MS you could potentially link it into the spark inhibit that the rev limiter can use. While it wouldn't be a hard limit on the speed it would be similar to the Land Rover method of vastly reducing the available power. You can also phase the two maps in/out so that it gives a smooth transition either side of the speed limit. To trigger the second map you'll need a speed sensor circuit that can activate the signal to change maps when the speed exceeds your limit. There's probably something out there that can be modified to suit.

Sorry if you feel I'm being petty but you posted the regulations, not me. I hadn't seen a recent example until you posted them and I am simply trying to interpret them based on the information you supplied and what would be required to comply with the regulations as you supplied them and as they are written down. Remember my first response to your question... You did ask for people's opinions and if you want everyone to smile nicely and tell you you're doing a good job maybe you shouldn't have asked for people's views on the ALRC

I suspect I know quite a bit about the "rational" behind the current regulations, I was involved in ARC committees when the "policy document" was first floated over 17 years ago now. A policy document that was penned by someone who had never competed, had never scrutineered a vehicle and the one time he thought about entering an RTV was "intimidated by having to compete against vehicles with roll cages". How that policy document was allowed to turn into regulations without the support or votes of the competing clubs was a mystery to me. Many of the clubs that stayed in the ARC afterwards simply ignored the regulations, those that took them up saw entry numbers drop through the floor. I have no idea what happened after that within the ARC, I resigned my position and went off to help form an independent club that offered exactly the same events we'd run with the ARC club but without all the petty rules and regulations. 1. Land Rover have never fitted MSA roll cages or built 80 inch coil sprung series 1s with power steering either. Come to that, they never put a TDi and power steering into a Series III Back in the day we used to use jubilee clips or large tie wraps on the top of springs to stop them dislocating, Land Rover never did, is that allowed at ALRC events now ? I guess not, you just have to use a hi-lift after each section to pop the spring back in again I guess. I'd take it one step further and suggest that you take a look at the Discovery 2 suspension design. Both the front and rear incorporated features that were developed by ARC competitors years before Land Rover adopted them. When the Disco 2 was launched I went to a dealership and had a look underneath, it was like looking under one of the top ARC comp motors at the time. that sort of innovation has gone from the ALRC, regulated out of existence by people with no interest in motor sport, more interested in counting rivets than competition or even a broader enthusiasm for the Land Rover marque. I honestly believe that Land Rover were influenced by the improvements being made by ARC competitors to improve handling and unsprung weight issues. 2. The regulations clearly state that anything not listed as being allowed to be modified isn't allowed to be modified. HD shafts are a different design to any of the originals, often with a different spline count and different drive flanges. HD prop shafts are often a different design too, using a completely different sliding joint design to any LR design. I keep coming back to the same point, you can't have it both ways. To quote the regulations you posted... As there is no mention in the regulations of none Rover designed axle components being allowed, I would interpret that as suggesting that HD shafts and drive flanges are not allowed, especially as they use a different design to the original. Obviously you can choose to interpret it differently if it suits you but then you're relying on the scrutineer at the event to take the same view. ALRC members are not allowed to compete in a none ALRC spec vehicle, even at an ALRC club's "open" event, as a member of an ALRC club regardless of who applied for the permit. Any ALRC club still applying for any permits through the ALRC is almost certainly missing out on the MSA rebate which, in recent years, has been quite a substantial percentage of the permit fees.

We went through that battle before we left the ARC and created a new club as a result of exasperation at the imposition of regulations and the lack of any compromise, that was 16 years ago now, in many ways the ALRC regulations are more restrictive now than they were then. There are many clubs outside the ALRC (there are actually more MSA off road and Land Rover clubs outside the ALRC than in it) that offer the same events (and more) without the constant input from the rivet counters. There are clubs that cater for all levels of competition and all marques although Land Rovers pretty much dominate in most of them. That's good, it does beggar the question though, why allow uprated diffs but not allow spring relocation devices and extended bump stops ? You're allowed to upgrade the diff but not half shafts or drive members ? You can change steering linkages though, It's all a bit random really. At a limited number of events per year (8), sanctioned by the ALRC secretary in writing, you'll let people compete at ALRC club events as long as they are not a member of an ALRC club. Members of an ALRC club can only compete in the same vehicle if they are also a member of a none ALRC club... you really couldn't make that up. If someone turns up on the day who has, say, oversize poly bump stops, they can compete as long as they are a member of an invited club. What do you do if they're not a member of an invited club, get them to fill out a membership form for another club so they can compete at your events ??? Does the invited club get any say in the matter ? IMV if the ALRC don't want to allow modifications outside those sanctioned by the council then it is disingenuous to then suggest to people that they can take part in ALRC events anyway whilst at the same time not allowing them to join an ALRC club or forcing them to join a none ALRC club as well. If you don't want the vehicles taking part then just man up and say so and stop trying to pretend that you're doing people a favour by letting them compete at your events when you don't actually want them as members. If you're not getting the numbers to your events it's because your regulations suck and it's about time you kicked the rivet counters out of the competition decisions and fixed the problem. The whole "privilege" events thing is just a bandaid to try and cover over the cracks and if you remove that bandaid you may find that the clubs actually start to push for regulation changes.

The ALRC is the Land Rover equivalent of Europe, it's a fine idea in principal but when you get down to it most of the member clubs use it as a flag of convenience and don't actually abide by the rules they agreed to when they joined. Many of the technical regulations that the ALRC make mandatory for all club events are either outdated, badly applied or badly thought out. They were designed by committees that, in many cases, have no technical experience. In the worst cases the rules were created by members who have never competed. No, I am no longer a competitor at ALRC events because my Defender doesn't comply with ALRC regulations although it fully complies with MSA regulations. Not really, been there, done that, there are far better clubs that are not members of the ALRC that do a better job without getting worked up over relocation cones etc... (relocation cones are also against ALRC regs) If the ALRC wants to change, the first thing it needs to do is make it clear to member clubs that their regulations are NOT optional. Too many ALRC clubs run events that do not comply with the regulations, see post above as an example. Once all the clubs actually abide by the regulations the ALRC can then start to remove some of the sillier ones because the clubs that ignore those regulations at the moment will suddenly have a reason to help change things, instead of passing stupid regulations without a thought at council.

That is incorrect, as a member club of the ALRC you are bound to their regulations which specifically forbid the fitment of lockers. The MSA view of this is that, as you are running as an ALRC club you are in breach of MSA regulations and your permit to allow competitors to run vehicles that do not comply with ARC regulations.

Why not mount a trailer tent on the Sankey rather than a RTT ? Generally speaking the trailer tents are bigger than the RTTs and are actually quicker to put up if you just stick with the core section but they can be expanded on with additional rooms, porches, side walls depending on your needs and how long you are staying at a particular site. Not the best pics but this is our trailer tent mounted on our Sankey: Partially opened out (the "porch" to the left of the living area opens out to cover the 2.1 metre x 2 metre additional room): Tent removed (the supporting bars and canvas cover can also be removed to use as a "standard" Sankey) just throwing it out there as an option as we've spent months living in a RTT and the addition of two dogs to the family has meant we've had to rethink how we're going to carry everything/everybody and where they are going to sleep. The Sankey based trailer tent gives us the extra camping room, means we can leave camp set up while we explore in the vehicle. Prior to the trailer tent we were using a RTT and ended up towing the Sankey anyway because we needed the extra luggage space !

MS2 is a lot smoother running than MS1, everything runs at a higher resolution so fuelling and ignition values are incremented by smaller amounts making it less of a "best fit". I've run both on mine back to back and despite a lot more time being spent to set up the MS1 than the MS2 the MS2 runs noticeably better/smoother. You could possibly get an MS1 running similarly using the high-res variant of the code. I'm still using up v3 boards though which is easier to deal with. On engines with a stepper motor idle control the MS2 is also a good option for that of course. Look at all the options and see what you can make of it yourself. Cookie cutter installations are all well and good but nothing advances if everyone sticks to the same old formula and never pushes the boundaries.

A, hopefully, final update on this in case it helps someone else... I got a delivery this morning from Ashcrofts (thanks Dave !) and the replacement one just slots in without much effort other than getting it lined up correctly. It seems it should just drop in, no brute force required ! Although the diameters of the two cages (19mm and 17.5mm versions) are the same, the 19mm cage which I had is much deeper by about 5mm or so and that made it impossible for the cage to fit into the bell. Within a few minutes of the courier arriving the CV is all back together and ready for fitting

I have no idea if there's any difference between the 300 and 200 TDi sender units, quite possible not ! The different sender units on the plastic tanks are pretty much interchangeable barring a few different lengths due to tank depth differences. The 300TDi sender unit is ideal simply because it has two pipes, the pickup pipe has a sprung extension on the bottom that ensures it sits on the bottom of the tank and it has a shorter return pipe. I would take the sender unit you have out and have a look at it, I'm not all that familiar with the old school diesels but I always assumed the 200TDi and 300TDi would have the same sender unit, the one I used happened to come out of a 300TDi Discovery. No need to change the tank, the plastic tanks all have the same sender fitting so you can use pretty much any sender in any tank. You wouldn't want to use a TD5 sender though, they're essentially a swirl pot design that sits in the tank with a low and high pressure pump in the same unit.

Not sure about the 200TDi, is it a plastic tank ? You don't need huge i/d pipes so the existing sender pipes are likely to be about right. I can't remember the exact size of mine but from memory I think they're 8mm i/d or thereabouts. On the 300TDi Discovery with a plastic tank the original fuel pick up and return is perfect, on the donor vehicle I used the original fuel pipes were plastic and had threaded compression joints to join them to the sender. I cut away the plastic pipe and used hose clips to secure the new pipe to the brass stems. It may seem like you need bigger pipes to supply the fuel but if you're using more fuel than an 8mm pipe can deliver you have some serious fuel consumption issues ! On my original setup the pre-filter and the fuel pump inlet were 22mm or something similar which was a real PITA to deal with. The rest of the system was all 7 or 8mm i/d though. When I re-designed it I got an 044 with an 8mm inlet and used off the shelf disposable 8mm EFi filters before and after the pump.

Yes, mine was the first to be Megasquirted and documented using the OEM sensors, the MS1-Extra code had to be modified to cope with the strange cam sensor. WB02 is only really of use when you're first setting up an engine, after that they become just an expensive toy IMV. I've set up a number of engines using an aftermarket WB02 and not really had much better results than when I've set it up using NB. As a manufacturer WB is probably seen in the same way, once the engine mapping is complete a NB is more reliable and much cheaper. Off road a WB sensor will last until the first time you dunk it in water. It's an option on most variable regulators to use vacuum, probably more a throwback to the early EFi systems, I never use the vacuum input, didn't know if the standard LS setup used it or not The LS engines are an excellent candidate for MS, all the sensors are the same ones the MS comes pre-set with, the ignition coils are triggered with a 5v signal so can be driven direct and the crank/cam sensors are now supported as an option in the MS setup and it already has a suitable throttle pot. The only relatively difficult bit is the IAC stepper motor but these days I use an Arduino module to control the stepper and a single PIC to convert WPM output from the MS into an absolute position for the stepper. I had no choice but to use MS for mine as, at the time, LS engines were difficult to get shipped top the UK and the only supplier who offered the engine I wanted would only ship it without an ECU. We did two Defender installs in 2007 and both of them used MS although with the easy availability of dedicated LS ECUs now the second Defender is now using an OEM one. There's a build thread covering my conversion here if it's of any interest... http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=194

As above really, unless you are using a swirl pot you don't need a lift pump. The Bosch 044 is a good pump (I use one of those on mine at the moment) but it's bloody noisy compared to the Sytec equivalents. I originally fitted one to my TD5 and swapped it for a Sytec one as it was drowning out the sound of the diesel engine ! My LS engine was "turn key" so came with a pump but last year I replaced it with an 044 after noticing a lack of fuel pressure. At the same time I changed it over to use a more obtainable pre and post filter. I sourced mine from http://www.fuelpumpsonline.co.uk as they can supply your choice of connectors, filters and pump mounts etc... Very helpful on the phone when I had some queries about the various connector sizes. You'll also need a fuel pressure regulator, I have an adjustable one next to the pump on mine and don't use a vacuum control because I find it's easier to get the Megasquirt tuned in with a fixed fuel pressure.

Thanks, I'd seen that guide already and, although it gives step by step on taking it apart it kind of skips over the whole putting it back together again thing HFH, when you say they are a sod to assemble, is brute force required to get the cage in past the "teeth" in the bell or should it pop in when you get the angles right ? I've managed to find a part of the old cage that was originally in the CV. It's only a small section but large enough, I think, to give an indication of the diameter of the top of the cage and it seems to match the replacement cage I have. I'm going to give it another go this evening and if I fail again I'll send the lot down to Ashcrofts and let them do it !

The ones from the CV are 17.5mm diameter as close as I can measure them

Tried the heat and freeze thing and it still won't go in, when the bell cools down enough I'll try and measure everything and see if there's actually enough space for the cage to fit even if I got it past the entrance.

OK, so last year I blew an Ashcroft CV apart and with one thing and another it's taken me this long to get the parts and time to actually do something about it - only to be brought to a halt again ! So, the CV spider and shell exploded into a large number of bits, leaving the outer part of the CV intact albeit with a few minor burrs/scratches. I phoned Ashcroft to see if I could get it to be repaired and was told there was a repair kit and all I needed to do was let them know the size of the ball bearings. This supplied they sent me the repair kit which contained just the central spider thing and not the cage. Another phone call and I then received a cage (this may be significant). I found the pdf on the Ashcroft site which shows how to take a CV apart but doesn't really cover putting it back together again in a sort of Haynes manual kind of way. So, the point of all this is... there is no bloody way I am ever going to get the cage to fit into the outer case. I have tried everything I can think of from subtle means to brute force (which has left some marks on the cage !) and it simply won't go in. I'd assumed from the clues in the Ashcroft write up that you put the cage in at 90 degrees and then twist it but there simply doesn't seem to be enough clearance for that. On the off chance that someone on here might have rebuilt one, is the cage supposed to be that tight a fit ? Am I missing something in technique ? I'm beginning to think that maybe, given that the cage and inner spider were sent separately that I may have been sent the wrong cage. Something doesn't add up somewhere and I'm trying to figure out what I'm doing wrong, if anything ! A couple of pics...

I think it's the speed that's the issue, normally a motor's free running speed is self limiting, the currents generated in the windings by the motor turning limit the current that can pass through the windings, the faster it goes the bigger those limiting currents become. As a result the motor has a "natural" top speed that it self regulates, the speed being dependant on the configuration of the windings. When you double the voltage the effect of those currents is also halved, potentially allowing the motor to run at up to twice the design speed, that can damage the motor if it's done for a sustained period. Running over volted motors gives better performance under load than running 24v motors. The reason being that almost as soon as you start winching under load the battery voltage starts to drop. On a 12v system it's not uncommon to see the voltage under load drop down to 8 or 9 volts at the motor. With a 24v setup it can drop down to 16 volts and with a 12v motor it means that the battery can still push maximum current through the motor when a 12v system is tailing off. At low speed the impedance of the motor is fixed, the current passing through it determines the power of the winch motor and as current = voltage / resistance the higher the voltage available the higher the current passing through the motor. The "turbo" system is actually a very good compromise, using two batteries and changing them between 12v and 24v to suit the situation. The downside is that the "top" battery is relying on it's stored capacity and receives no charge when in 24v mode. In a twin voltage setup you could actually use a spare albright solenoid and switch the winch between the 12v system and the 24v system as required if you were concerned about damage to the motor at 24v.

A freespool is probably a bigger upgrade than a 24v setup and that will also resolve most of the issues with the motor burning out when overvolting because you'll never pay the rope out with the motor again. It also improves winching because when you do start winching you're starting with a full battery instead of starting the winch in having partially drained the battery by powering out. A switched 12/24v setup is easy enough to set up, all you need is two matched batteries and an Albright solenoid (the same type that you use for the winch) to switch them from series (24v) to parallel. It's always better though to go for a 3 battery setup with twin alternators, that has been the optimum setup for the last 20 years and it still works well.

Not sure if it applies to the site you linked to as I have never heard of them but the MSA introduced regulations a few years ago that made it simpler to marshal and set out a challenge event if all competitors use synthetic ropes. From what I remember, without looking it up, if you have competitors using steel rope then any spectators need to be kept at least 25 metres away. That requirement can make life difficult on some sites when it comes to setting out so the easy option is simply to insist everyone uses synthetic. This was something we included for the Muddy Truckers Trophy regs 4 or 5 years ago although for closed to club events we still allow steel ropes at our entry level challenge events to keep the costs down for competitors. Having said that only a small number still use steel anyway as most prefer to handle synthetic ropes.

I've just ordered one and TBH at under £800 you have a LOT of decent options - I paid £175 for mine after a lot of research but then I'm happy to learn as I go along and upgrade bits myself. For your sort of budget I think a Flashforge Dreamer is probably one of the best options. A dual extruder means you can use different coloured filament or use a water dissolvable support filament (PVA) and the enclosed design improves stability and safety - one of the reasons it's being used in some schools now. They have a decent heated bed and the extruders are more reliable than some of the cheaper models that can take a lot of tweaking to get them to run right. The downside, I guess, is that buying a printer of this sort is kind of a dead end with any upgrades coming from the manufacturer rather than the community but then it's very likely that you'll be up and printing within hours of receiving the printer. If you're looking for something as a business machine then it's probably a good choice as you won't want to spend days "playing" with it and you're less likely to want to modify it or upgrade it. If you go down the Flashforge route one of your first prints will be to create a couple of universal filament spool holders so you can use pretty much any filament supplier. you can download them from thingiverse.com

You're not kidding ! Ashcroft CV and it blew it's innards apart on the first punch of the day, not ideal. BITD I used to carry spare CVs and shafts with me, that was the first breakage I've had since changing over to Ashcroft innards in 2007, probably a cumulative effect of 8 years of competition.

Yorkshire Off Road Club are running two challenge events this year, both closed to club members and both catering for "grass roots" competitors with competitors ranging from those in standard vehicles (without a winch in some cases) to those with "all the toys". It's a "real" challenge event, the sort we used to compete in 20 years ago before all the "extreme" bull**** sought to destroy the scene. Both events are run under MSA regs and all vehicles must comply with the "road legal" sections of the regs. Some of the requirements for things such as winch strops and shackles have, with the agreement of the MSA, been dropped for vehicles without winches. Last years event was a real success, hence we've added two into the calendar this year. There are a few pics from last year's event here which might give an idea of the sort of vehicles competing... http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/imagegallery/thumbnails.php?album=219 There are still vague plans to run one last Muddy Truckers Trophy too but IF it happens that won't be until 2017.