Jump to content

Dave W

Settled In
  • Posts

    1,667
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Dave W

  1. So I'm told... It's signposted off all the major routes apparently.
  2. Seems it's 10am to 4pm, not 9 as I put originally and it's also free ! More info here... http://www.lro.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=21403 Anyone else going ?
  3. Here are some calculations based on Boyles law and assuming an atmospheric pressure of 14 psi and based on a Simex containing 3.5 cubic feet of air (very roughly 35x10.5 16 tyre).... To take a Simex from 0 to 10 psi (which is actually from 14 to 24psi thanks to atmospheric pressure) will take 6 cubic feet of air. To take a Simex from 0 to 25 psi (14 to 39) will take 9.75 cubic feet of air so we need 3.75 cu ft to inflate a tyre from 10psi to 25psi which will take a 2 cfm compressor such as the ARB just short of 2 minutes. A 2.5 gallon tank is 0.4 cubic feet and will hold 3.25 cu ft of air at 100 psi and 1.11 cu ft at 25 psi giving us 2.14 cu ft usable air above 25psi. So... when inflating from 10 to 25 psi we need 3.75 cu ft of air and the tank has just over half of that available at the start, the compressor on it's own will take just short of 2 minutes to air up the tyre, with the tank the first tyre will take under a minute to inflate, subsequent tyres will gain up to a minute, depending on how long it takes to move from tyre to tyre as the tank recharges. You also gain back some time each time you stop inflating to check the current pressure. It will take over a minute for the compressor to get the tank back to full charge from 25 psi but I'd have thought at least 30 seconds of that would be accounted for by the time it takes to check the pressure during inflation, screw/unscrew valve caps, move the airline about and, in my case, fit the valve stem adaptor.. I'd guestimate you're looking at 7 minutes with a tank and 10 minutes without a tank to air up all 4 tyres, to save time kneeling in the mud, let the tank finish filling up before each tyre that way, with the tank, you spend 4 minutes kneeling in the mud instead of 8 without the tank
  4. The primary reasons for fitting a tank are: 1) It means that the motor doesn't have to run every time I switch a locker in - the old compressor would switch a locker in 2 or 3 times without running, the new one won't do 1 without running. With an air tank, with no leaks, I'll probably be able to operate the lockers a lot of times before the pump is needed, maybe even get a few hours of use without the pump running. 2) Quicker tyre inflation - the reservoir of air allows the pump to work more efficiently as you move around the vehicle inflating tyres and gives you a "head start" when you first start inflating the tyres. The gaps in inflation where you are checking the pressure or moving to the next tyre are no longer wasted time as the pump is storing air while you're not inflating. I will need to add a trigger to the current ARB airline or, more likely, replace it with a gauge and trigger to make use of the tank. I'm not sure what quantity of air is required to take a 35x10.5 16 Simex from, say, 10psi to 24psi and how that equates to the quantity of air stored in a 2 or 2.5 gallon tank at 100psi. Gut feeling suggests to me there may even be enough reserve to inflate one tyre from the tank... but i wouldn't know where to start with calculating that ! I assume you'd want to calculate the volumes of air required at atmospheric pressure in each case.... anyone ? In, probably way too simple terms, I'd expect 2.5 gallons of air at 100 psi to take up 10 gallons volume at 25psi but I'm sure there will be some kind of none linear formula for it that'll make it far more complex in reality !
  5. It sounds like WHOEVER put the proposal together did a good job then
  6. Now you come to mention it, 5 ports doesn't seem that many, probably not a good idea to use them all up straight away I thought by keeping the current quick release I can isolate the current working ARB setup from the new tank "just in case". The compressor is just behind the navigators seat so easily accessible if needs be. I'll be able to unplug the tank and plug the tyre inflator line in too if all else fails. MattSavage also do a tank port fitting kit which includes a relief valve, drain valve, pipe connector and a couple of port blanks so I guess one of those will sort out most of the fittings I'll need, will have to see if they do the bits individually.
  7. I appreciate the suggestion but I really don't think that'll fit under my motor and I don't think a 2cfm compressor would get it up to pressure in a reasonable time I know I'm a Yorkshireman but I'm really not that fussed If I can buy something that is tested, will fit straight in and will do the job I don't see that as an unreasonable price. Although I did think about converting a couple of those little disposable CO2 bottles that you can get for MiG welders, I used to have a few kicking about in my shed but think they may have gone to the scrappers. Soooo..... other than getting a tank cheaper, would the setup work OK ?
  8. If it stops raining long enough for me to crawl underneath and take a pic of the front propshaft I will do - I'm using a standard prop tube btw, just had the length changed to suit.
  9. The MSA are already involved, a lot of the current events are being run under MSA permits, albeit a kind of "best fit" compromise permit. Event organisers haven't been happy with trying to shoehorn their events into a framework that was really designed for a different kind of event and have been pushing the MSA for a while now to try and resolve the problem. Some are running under trials permits, some under team recovery, who knows what else. Our next challenge is a trial, orienterring, gymkhana permit combo ! The MSA sat down a few months ago and came up with a "new" challenge event permit. They looked at both how the current challenge events were being run under MSA permits and how events outside the MSA are being run and devised a permit that covers it. I'll be honest I was surprised at how open the regulations they came up with are. If you look at the Trials permit though, where the same permit type covers everything from "family vehicle trials" to Icelandic style trials it shouldn't be a surprise really. It's the organisers of the events that add regulations on top of it as part of their SRs and eligibility rules to cover what they feel to be appropriate safety for the event. The organisers that subdivide a single permit into FVT, RTV, RTV+, CCV and so on, introducing their own rules for each. The new permit, from what I've heard, will cover pretty much all levels of challenge in the UK at the moment and most of the vehicles, the permit doesn't even require a roll cage so daily driver challenges can use it as well as the more damaging/dangerous events where a roll cage will be required by the organisers. If helmets become more widely required it won't be the MSA that initiates it, it'll be the organisers and the competitors.
  10. Depends if the organisers require helmets or not, there is no requirement from the MSA to have helmets on challenge events (and none planned). If you're getting a helmet through personal preference, rather than the organisers deeming it to be necessary on their event, you'd be better off getting one that is more suited to the activity we are doing rather than a helmet designed for high speed racing.
  11. It's 54 quid including VAT... so yep, a lot more expensive but OTOH I've not seen a truck one that small. By the time I've added all the fittings and extra airline I reckon it'll cost me about 100 quid for the lot... so less than one trip to the petrol station
  12. For challenge events that don't include speed as a big element, that sort of helmet looks a much better choice than a "motor sport" helmet or a cycle helmet.
  13. After killing my old ARB compressor I bought a new high output ARB compressor via Britpart. Although the air volume seems much better than the old style one it has a much smaller reservoir tank which got me thinking... I have a large protected "hole" under the floor behind the seats where the 8274 for the rear was mounted originally - I've now moved it into the rear cross member. The "hole" is large enough to mount one of these in: http://www.mattsavage.com/acatalog/info_91020.html This tank takes the same fittings as the ARB (1/4 NPT) so I could move the pressure switch onto it and link directly to it. OTOH I currently have a quick release connector on the compressor that has a short airline extension on it that provides a point for plugging in an airline at the side of the navigators seat. I'm considering keeping the quick release on the compressor and running a line from that to the new tank, leaving the pressure switch on the compressor as it's out of the elements there. That way if I have a problem with the tank or it's fittings I can quickly unplug it and be able to use the lockers still. I'll then run an airline with a quick release connector to each side of the vehicle for the tyre inflator, each from it's own port on the tank. Anything I need to think about/beware of ? I'm assuming one of the 5 ports is at the bottom of the tank so I'll need to rig up a drain valve there...
  14. Maybe I should stop worrying about the LT230 then The front prop does run close to the gearbox sump but hasn't touched it, think it would have done by now if it was going to as it got some real abuse at times on the OBC. Might be worth changing over to QT mounts (already have them on the engine) on the gearbox mounts though so I don't run into any problems as the standard runner ones get a bit older. My 4L80E is a 4wd one with both speed sensors so maybe the sump design is different ?
  15. Durite do the NAS lights so you can get them via most auto electrical places... http://www.vehicle-wiring-products.eu/VWP-...hting/round.php For example. It's worth knowing that Britpart do replacement lamp holders, including a new foam/rubber seal for next to nothing, the 2 pin version for everything except stop/tail is part number XBP100180. So when you're contacts disintegrate you can replace it for a couple of quid.
  16. I like the look of the Atlas and the option of a 4-speed transfer box appeals although the jump from 1:1 to 2:1 on the top 2 ratios suggests that it's more of a hi/low/lower/crawl box unless I change diff ratios as well. I should have bought one when I bought the engine and gearbox - when the pound was a LOT stronger than it is now ! At the time the 4 speed atlas was around £1500 and the 2 speed about £1000, built with my choice of the available ratios and output flanges. The Atlas has the front output shaft stepped back from the gearbox connection which suggests to me that it will be well clear of my gearbox sump (4L80E has a very wide, flat sump), the Dana 300, like the LT230 looks as if it'd need a long adaptor for the front output to clear the side of the gearbox. I think the atlas will also bolt directly to my gearbox although it might need a 1 inch spacer, depending on which output shaft I have on the gearbox. To be fair, the LT230 is doing the job for the moment and (touch wood) has behaved itself, I just have the nagging feeling that I'd be better off with something a bit stronger. Maybe the Dana 300 would be a better option, if only as a cheaper way to find out if the propshaft man is right or not
  17. The ZF can be upgraded although it won't be cheap. Getting a stronger box like the 4L80E would be an option but by the time you've mated it to the engine, bought the shifter, ecu and transfer box or adaptor, strengthening the ZF may seem cheap ! Whatever you do get the best cooling you can for the gearbox, high temperatures tend to kill auto boxes and if it's working hard the biggest aluminium oil cooler you can install will pay dividends. My box rarely gets above 100 degrees F when it's being worked hard, before I fitted the current oil cooler it would top 180 degrees F on the road !
  18. The propshaft already runs offset and the offset constantly changes as the axle moves up and down. If you think about it in "3D", providing that the flange faces are parallel, the fact that the offset, to our way of thinking, is in 2 directions instead of 1 is pretty immaterial as far as the propshaft is concerned. The phasing angle ensures that the UJ's are always in the correct position relative to each other so that each of the bearings move by the same amount during a full rotation. Only problem might be if the UJs bind at a certain axle position. An offset propshaft from an atlas xfer box would also be around 10 inches longer than my current prop (shorter overall transmission plus the extra length of the offset) which would also reduce the angles involved. Not saying it would work BTW but if I had an atlas box in the garage already I'd try it first and use an LT230 if that didn't work... if I can get someone else to try it before I buy an atlas, all the better
  19. One thing that did come up and might be worth a try as you have a transfer box already... I was speaking to a propshaft specialist about the possibility of changing axles. He reckoned that you could use standard axles and still run the rear output from the centre. I have to say I'm not 100% convinced but he said that as long as the phasing was at the correct angle there wouldn't be a problem with either wear or vibration. As I didn't have an atlas box floating around the garage I'm not going to spend £1500 to find out if he's right but if you've already got a suitable box and need to get a propshaft made up anyway... maybe you should be the guinea pig. I know people have used the atlas on Rangies with standard axles in OZ but most have said they go through UJs but no idea if that is because it simply won't work or if the phasing was wrong.
  20. Taken a couple just now... taken from the gearbox end... taken from directly underneath, gearbox to the right. This is one I took during the build... There's a housing that bolts to the transfer box and then an adaptor ring that mates the housing to the gearbox. It has to be that long to make sure the nose of the transfer box is clear of the side of the gearbox. As you can possibly see the adaptor allows you to use standard LR ZF gearbox mounts. One thing that I haven't mentioned before is that, rather than using an adaptor you could think about using an Atlas transfer box instead. It's an option I am still tempted to try for all sorts of reasons including: 1) It's a lot tougher than the LT230 2) A quad speed (crawler, low, high, overdrive) all in one box. 3) Part time 4wd so better fuel consumption potentially. 4) A much shorter overall transmission length. The "only" obstacle to overcome is the drive to the rear axle unless you go for Nissan axles as the rear prop output is inline with the gearbox. Fitting a transmission brake will take a bit of work but doesn't look too difficult. You can get the box with either a right hand or left hand front output so the front axle isn't an issue. There's loads of pics of the build in teh gallery here... http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/imageg...ls.php?album=85
  21. The first one I got had been misdrilled, I spent hours trying to figure out why, no matter which way around i fitted it, the transfer box was at the wrong angle and/or the bolt holes wouldn't match the gearbox ! If there hadn't been another vehicle there with the same adaptor so we could compare the two I'd still be there now
  22. The guy in France charges well over the odds, I bought mine direct but I think they've stopped selling direct now If you get stuck it'd be worth asking on the outer limits forum. Someone might sell you one, they're a very helpful bunch. There's a write up on my conversion here... http://www.yorkshireoffroadclub.net/forum/...topic.php?t=194
  23. I'll second what escape said and add... I run a 4.0l (the Thor engine), been a good reliable motor over the last 3 years, only costs have been petrol and servicing. The viscous box is a LOT quieter than the LT230, which is the main reason they used it. Fuel consumption on the 4.0 is between 18 and 24 MPG 24 on a motorway run at around 80MPH, 18 around town. Towing a caravan is effortless, I much prefer towing with the P38 rather than either of my Defenders, just remember to lock the suspension so it doesn't go into cruise mode when you're towing (just use the manual switch on the dash). It really is a case of you just not noticing the caravan is there, the MPG is good too, probably because I go a bit slower I was originally looking for a 4.6 but am glad I went for the 4.0 now.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy