Daan
-
Posts
4,949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
46
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Blogs
Posts posted by Daan
-
-
thanks guys, with the chassis in is still the same length but i chopped of the rusty rear crossmember and fabricated a
tray, i would rather go down the legal road even if it is a nasty one, spoke to the dvla and have to send them the v5 with a cover letter of the changes i have made, will get this done and see what the come back with, just am not to sure on wether to say i have rebuilt the whole car or just modified it but i suppose this wouldnt make a difference as they will see what i have done when the inspect it.
what kind of paperwork would i need to get it thro the test, is it just a build photo log and receipts.
thanks for your help
In that case you are probably ok without an IVA. Trouble is that it is at the degression of the person you are dealing with, and that can mean mr nice guy right through to mr hard work having a bad day.
Daan
-
Er............
I think sadly you may have done the "Make changes - now how do I make it legal" vs "Make changes within the rules" issue.
basically, and really simply, if you have chopped the rear of the chassis and made changes to it etc then its IVA time,
An MOT pass does not make it legal - an MOT is different from an IVA approved vechile that then goes for an MOT and passes
and saying to DVLA its now a trayback not a hardtop won't work. looking at the picture I can safely say you don't stand a chance getting it
past an IVA as it is
This thread has now been moved, or people get upset!
Nigel, I am not sure that is actually correct: didn't the IVA add a rule that cars such as Traybacks and bobtails got a dispensation of showing a buildup log? They still need an IVA, but you are not required to have a complete ground up photo build log of the car.
Furthermore, I can see no reason why a trayback would fail the test, so depending on the paperwork/photo log you have available for it, it is not neccesarily a dead end.
Daan
-
Interesting to see some people using the maxxis in competition, the only set i've seen in serious use performed nowhere near as well as my boggers.
Tonight i've borrowed a friends brand new spare for a little offer up, i fitted it to some ebay bargin wheels which shockingly are the correct center bore and they even clear my brake conversion!!
Looks good. Interested to hear what they are like when you have all 4 fitted.
My mudzillas were bought for russia; We were loosing out to the boggers on the forest tracks, but only the occasional winch extra, adding a few minutes. The big difference was in the swamps, were the mudzillas were performing amazingly well, gaining hours. despite being smaller, the boggers were all 37s, the mudzillas measure 34.5".
Daan
-
Sure the goodrich is a good option, I used to run the old style MT. If you thinking of going maxis, I would also consider the mudzillas: that has been the best allround tyre I have used. I have not tried the creepy myself, but from having seen others using them, I was not that impressed. The mudzilla, with the big V, like the mickey thompson baja has been the best self cleaning tyre I have come accross, and working on sand, mud and rocks. Slightly noisy on the road, but any other option you mention here will be similar.
Daan
-
As an aside : I have the ome +5" shocks that Gwyn sells - anyone know off hand what the travel is on those ? I checked when I fitted them but can't for the life of me remember....
Pretty sure it is 11". Which brings me to the suspension travel thing: I reckon 10" balanced suspension will do you, the rest has to come from the difflocks. My reasons: well, if you have a lot of suspension travel, it can - and will- get you into a lot of trouble on side slopes, of camber situations, deep hole on one corner, getting high centered etc. It may help in one situation, but not in every situation. Also, keeping a low C of G is very important, so never go over 2" I think.
I found also that the terrain you drive, 99% of the cases, you can choose a line that does not require much travel. it is how I learned to drive when I was still on leaf springs and no difflocks. The video is interesting, as the little series landy is lifting wheels, but actually does drive it effortlessly, that difflock does work! But even so, I think the hill on that video could be driven without difflocks, or trick suspension; the guy in the 90 just keeps pointing at the deepest holes!
Daan
-
Evening.... not sure if this helps but as my truck is currently in bits... what would you like me to weigh?
LS3 fully dressed
6l90e
atlas case?
bare 44 bogger-v's built up?
bare 40" maxxis sticky?
spidertrax pro series axles casing?
my portal boxes?
rd 99 air locker in alloy case?
what type of scales are you guys using?..
All of it.... And while you are at it: we would love to see a build thread of your truck on here!
Daan
-
Chris. If you want some advice from someone who has done this recently (me), then reckon on 12 months to do it and do it properly. If you really don't want it off the road for that long then I would really really recommend that you do just one of the other at a time and not both. This may seem counter productive but believe me the amount of work involved in doing both is huge and unless you are 100% motivated and have all the space and kit and new bits to hand then it will drag. Ebay is littered with projects where the seller doesn't have the time to finish it. I would suggest changing the chassis first and while the body is off in one piece go round and loosen as many bolts around the front end as you can, one at a time, remove each, grease or replace with new, and then bolt them back up. Do one at a time so as not to disturb anything. You will learn where everything is and when you come to change the bulkhead it will be a doddle.
Just my 2pence worth....
That's very true, There are people doing a car build (because that's what you are basically doing when you replace a chassis) in 3 weeks, others take 3 years, most people never finish it.
If you are going for the bulkhead option at the same time, I would advice you to get a replacement bulkhead, get it galvanised and fit it to the new chassis. It then become a rather straightforward swapping job for all the parts, rather than take the car to bits completely, repair the bulkhead and try to build it up 3 months (or so) later, wondering were this and that bit go?
Daan
-
I build my landy in a barn from a farmer which was shared with Safety devices; I paid him £50 cash in hand a month. I never insured anything of it, just had a lockable steel box which was out of site and fixed to a pole. in hindsight, it probably was a bit unprepared, but everyone could walk in and out. The only thing that went missing was a jack. Never found out were it went but I have a suspicion who it was. These days, I would worry more about the car going missing.
Daan
-
I have it tyrapped inside the car at roof level. If I need to tow a trailer, I have to fit my towbar temporarily and tyrap the plug next to it. I have had it in the pto hole (on a series 3) for it to be protected, but if you dunk it in mud, good luck fitting a trailer plug into it a year later! A towbar on an off roader just doesn't work basically.
Daan
-
On my salisbury the shaft is larger than the splines, and it wouldnt push thru the drive flange.
Probably, the wear on the driving member splines is so bad that that the shaft could get out that way. This happens when the internals are dry usually, like the output splines in the transfer box. If you run oil instead of grease in the bearings, you wont have this problem.
Daan
-
I'll do my best guys - I tried with my 90 rebuild but keeping the thread updated sort of got away from me after I got started so there is stuff from the start and then a big gap and some pictures from the end with just a few specific bits in the middle.
Had seen that one, didn't realize it was you. Very tidy build you did there. I think people have used a v8 mating plate for a v8 to series box in this application. I seem to remember that you have to cut the crankshaft flange using a grinder to create clearance for the clutch mechanism but otherwise it is pretty straightforward.
Daan
-
Can someone move this to the "Special projects" section before all the IVA/SVA bullsh*t smothers another build thread? Let's just leave legality as a paperwork exercise for the owner.
No. in special projects, nobody mentions the The you-know-what test and lives to tell the tale.
Anyway, before you think we are a buch of grumpy rivet counters: welcome the the madhouse, we want a dedicated build thread with photos.
Daan
-
roof chop? I removed 60 mm from the roof, and changed from a ribbed roof to a flat roof, loosing a further 20 mm. This would give you a 3" drop. Loose the lift and youre there. I have also dropped the body 40 mm lower onto the chassis, giving a total drop of 120 mm, but this is quite involved, and only makes sense if you rebuild it from the ground up.
Guess which is mine?
I have used the rim solution in the past, 2 rims on the back is enough to get it in usually. But now mine fits with 35" tyres and 1" lift.
Daan
-
1
-
-
The brake calipers are from a Mercedes van 208, if I remember correctly. Not sure about the discs. the axles are basically series 3, but wider. As said, engine, box and gearbox are readily available and so are the springs.
This guy used to sell the brakes and springs, but has now changed over to his own versions. Surely he has bits left over or knows where to get them.
http://www.heystee-automotive.com/
I am not nessecarely a fan of the car, but it would make a great base to rebuild a series lwb.
Daan
-
nice job.
Daan
-
Dan, is there any reason to choose this setup vs. a watts linkage? or is it just packaging?
Daan
-
Not yet got an engine. But will be some form of LS. Circa 500 - 650 hp.
What are you planning to do with this car to need this much power?
The rims will all be 8 x 6.5G
Thats roughly the size of a quad bike!
Daan
-
Shannon Campbell's buggy from the US
Be interesting to see how this goes, I predict it will be very hard to arrive at solid facts as there are not many examples where you could pick two very similar vehicles (same platform), one with indy, one with beams, and compare them side-by-side. There will also presumably be a driving-style problem, if you drive an indy as if it had beams you're more likely to come a cropper, but that's not necessarily the fault of the setup.I think it is very straightforward to pick two similar vehicles; At the king of the hammers, there are very comparable vehicles with beams and indy suspension. They perform differently from each other in that the fast desert sections are usually favouring indys, while the rock crawl sections are favouring the beam axles. Which wins pretty much depends on what mix of rock crawl and fast sections the organizers decide to go for. In my mind, that explains the story.
Daan
-
Hate to say this, but what did you expect?
Daan
-
I've grown a little bored of the Jeep for now, between my merc v8, my patrol and some trailer maintenance I've not been idle though.
I've also started trialling again, and the trialler needs a little time and funds! Some suspension work from our trialler might find its way on here though as I'm preparing something different I've wanted to create for years!
You make me feel bad now, in all that time, all I have done is get my windscreen wiper motor running again!
Daan
-
The 3rd link has some convergence with the lower links to give an instant centre around 20 cm behind the instant centre of the previous radius arms. there was no science behind choosing that dimension though. It was just about the only location I could find enough space to put it.
We should probably move this conversation to another multilink suspension thread though, rather than clutter Dans build thread.
Apologies Dan.
Yes, bill that would be good, and some pictures to stop us all guessing....
-
I think the bmw used the ZF box for an automatic, so that should be easy to do. Other wise, use the BMW rear wheel drive box and run the LT 230 remote, with a propshaft in between. You probably have to move the 230 backwards to do this, so packaging wise it is not ideal. But for sure it can be done
-
Daan, The term 'Torque Tube' can be a bit confusing to this discussion. Unimogs have torque tubes, but essentially they do the same job as Dans single wishbone links.Torque tubes have spherical joints, Wishbones have bushings or ball joints.
When driving forward in 4wd, torque reaction rolls the front/rear axle housings backwards, in the opposite direction of the wheels rotation. The front torque tube/wishbone, being rigidly attached to the axle housing, pulls in a downward direction at the chassis end. If the spherical joint/bushing at the end of the torque tube/wishbone is attached centrally between the chassis rails, it will tend to pull the chassis down squarely. If the joint/bushing is offset to the right of the suspensions roll centre, then it should pull the r/h/side chassis rail down further than the left side. But Torque reaction from the engine, transmission, propshafts also imposes a force that tends to roll the sprung mass to the right, so by off setting the torque tube joint/wishbone bushing to the left of the roll centre instead, the downforce applied by the left biased joint /bushing should cancel out the lateral torque roll from the driveline.
This bit I agree with, and I am aware of it
Under brakes, in gear there should be some reverse driveline torque roll but not much so the bushing offset would not want to be too great as you pointed out.That is not the full story, if you engine brake, then, yes the antidive will work the other way and also cancel out bodyroll induced by propshaft torque.
However, if you slam the brakes on, a force will go upwards through the centre pivot and try to push the front of the car upwards. When this joint is offset, it will apply this force not central on the chassis, but offset, causing body roll. Considering that the brakes can create much larger forces than the drivetrain does, this would be an area of concern.
Daan
-
Yes they are interesting points to ponder Dan.
I unpacked a new/reco 404 front axle from its crate tonight, and measured from swivel knuckle flange of banjo housing to each side of the pinion shaft left and right. the numbers came out at roughly 17.5" left 25.5"right, so we are looking at the torque tube swivel joint being mount around 4" to left of centre. Didn't get around to unpacking the rear end, but now that you mentioned that the rear torque tube is also offset, but to the left, suggests that something clever was going on when the designer drew that up.
Some day I might make an offset to left front One Link and scrap my current 3 link front arrangement, which due to the upper link being mounted above the diff on the r/h/side and angling down to the chassis, tends to exaggerate torque roll. Now where did I put that length of 2"x2"x1/4" RHS I bought 20 years ago?
This sounds like the location helps to stop the roll under braking: the location of the torque tube does affect brake dive, as it will roll under braking. For this reason, I would not be keen to offset the central pivot. However, if you can offset the rear in such a way that you can counter act roll under braking from the front, that could be a good solution.
The location of the diff has no effect on torque roll created by the propshaft: a torque is a torque, regardless were you apply it on the axle.
Daan
What size tyres are you running & picture thread
in International Forum
Posted
I used to run 255/85/16 goodrich mud terrains on my series; using the series 1 transfer box to lower the low range ratio. I broke a few rear shafts on the series axle, than swapped to a salisbury. I never broke the front axle. It was a good setup on the series, very capable as well.
Daan