Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • 2 weeks later...

A peen in the butt….

The chassis suffered some weld distortion (or I didn’t check my measurements correctly, but it’s looking like the former). The rear of chassis has lifted a good 5-7mm. I have the feeling this was in two areas. Firstly, where the rear chassis cross member ties meet the top of chassis rail, and secondly where I’ve welded in a reinforcement angle on the top outside corners of the chassis rail between damper mounts and rear body outriggers. 
 

The reinforcement angles were to counteract some structural loss due to crevice corrosion where the original A Frame cross member end plates overlapped the outside of chassis rails. Those cross members are a notorious moisture trap at the chassis points and have unsealed areas which will absolutely lead to failure. Since mine was not terrible, still good form in the corners etc and the fact the factory internal reinforcement is spot welded in this area, I did not want to start cutting it up and patching it. These angles were also to take part of the battery trays, but I’ve had to can those due to physical limitations. 
 

Crevice corrosion cleaned up prior to zinc rich paint under the to be installed angle.


IMG_2570.thumb.jpeg.671c08155330ba058bd321f262a1372c.jpeg

 

Angle formed and welded in. Angle was also painted with zinc rich paint, and the divots in the chassis had polyurethane sealant blobbed in them to reduce atmosphere which leads to corrosion. Seal out the air (and moisture) and you’ll have no problems (even untreated steel will survive well)

IMG_2504.thumb.jpeg.4be69ca2f820f51ce624b896b1ec1d60.jpeg

 

Even though these are longitudinal welds, they still shrink. And being on the top side of the chassis, making it a little shorter on the top only will curve the end up. 
 

So I figured I’d give peening a go. Traditionally, it’s done very quickly after welding while the weld is still hot. When the weld cools it shrinks and is left with tensile forces or stresses in it. Peening changes those to compressive and can balance it back out.

Though, with multiple weld passes (2 on top of each other) and doing it cold, I think this is an exercise in a sore right forearm…

I turned the end of a centre punch into a nice little 2mm radius on my belt linisher. And then it’s a matter of hammer hammer hammer (and hope no one reports me for noise ) 

Peening under way

IMG_2571.thumb.jpeg.ecd162549d8acb8beb07ba9cf05e38de.jpeg

 

A little better perspective 

IMG_2572.thumb.jpeg.0185716c0608ed70bbfeb9c023a10f0c.jpeg
 

I don’t have enough information, either from LR documents or factory 110s measured, but from what I can figure it seems the body line front to back is the same angle as the flat section of chassis rail under the front of cab. If my chassis is 1.2° at this section it will mean my body line be 1.4°. Now 0.2° doesn’t sound much, especially by LR standards, but over the length from front bulkhead to rear tailgate, that’s a height change of about 9mm. And it means the front of front guards/wings have to drop 4mm.
 

Again, it’s not much but I did have it right prior to these components. 

oh well, live and learn I guess…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

No I hadn’t. An air hammer would be a reasonable addition to the shed as you can hammer, chisel and even set solid rivets with them. 
 

but for control and simplicity a hammer and punch is cheap and easy. Just need to have my weet-bix (no, not weetabix 😆
 

 

Edited by uninformed
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bishbosh said:

Did the peening achieve the desired outcome?

I haven’t finished yet, I figured I’d give the neighbours ears a reprieve for Sunday 😆

All I managed was this boring video 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I found it really interesting, I like the thought that goes into the detail.  I don't watch many hour long videos, I was just giving it a quick look and got completely drawn in. Will continue to follow with interest.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Blanco said:

Well I found it really interesting, I like the thought that goes into the detail.  I don't watch many hour long videos, I was just giving it a quick look and got completely drawn in. Will continue to follow with interest.

Thanks mate , much appreciated 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

“Well sometimes you just have to take it on the chin …. “ Linda Lovelace

It was pointed out to me that my load supports on my chassis ties and the ones I started making for the chassis were of poor design.

673AEE25-BCE7-42C4-9774-C4ED0ACED338.thumb.jpeg.6eed5095e13cbe12d23a2aa5355ea9d1.jpegIMG_2772.thumb.jpeg.bab58306990da497ad5995beac384740.jpeg

The flared hole in the top flange was a bad idea for fatigue failure. It reduces cross sectional area AND is a stress riser in the section under higher stress. So off they came…

IMG_2771.thumb.jpeg.9aec6505c39bc6a55eb4a417de32c4f3.jpeg

 

That gave me the opportunity to revise my load support spacing layout. One landed right on axle centreline which I didn’t think a good idea as far as stresses in chassis rails, and I wanted to move the rear most, rearward. 
 

I also came across the WSM diagram with the chassis datum to rear cross member (height) reference. 

ScreenShot2024-07-19at12_58_31pm.thumb.png.0ee81fbfdd9b1557590b850d465addd1.png

IMG_2776.thumb.jpeg.92488e224b5986d7ec0a9ce16b363bee.jpeg


And now I’m as confused as Cal Norten Jr

IMG_2786.jpeg.5e697a1370893af1e6c21ccbb69bf155.jpeg
 

It turns out my cross member is exactly on height in relation to chassis datum line. As the load supports in that diameter appear parallel, then it should not matter what length the rear cross member is at. The confusing part is my datum line is not parallel with the mid section top of chassis rail….

At this point I’m going to stop asking the universe questions and just roll with datum line as my guide. Mounting the rear tub angle at about the usual height above cross member and striking a line through to the front bulkhead has the bodywork parallel with datum line. So that’s going to be it for now….

or until something changes. 
 

IMG_2787.jpeg.c31eb86c02715b2d893fccce4152bad8.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
On 8/25/2024 at 9:43 AM, uninformed said:

Not sure whether I’ve mentioned but my 110 will be Series style as far as paint etc. Marine blue for the body, Limestone for the wheels, roof and cab turret, and all body cappings will be raw gal. 

Ah, a man of taste!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

Ah, a man of taste!

I’d like to point out I decided this nearly 5 years ago before the influx of Series colours Defrs lol.

My caveat were, had to be an original Series colour and scheme and it WASNT going to be either of the greens. It came down to Marine Blue and Mid Grey, and while I’ve seen a few cool looking grey Defrs, the blue won me over. Now every man and his dog are painting them Marine Blue 😆

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I’m still working on the tub bulkhead and some associated bits, is there any reason not to use Series tub side cappings?

is there any difference that will affect body fitment or structure?

I don’t have anything Def’r to compare…


IMG_2982.thumb.jpeg.f4e812ac05fc822ce7044ae1b8ec72f1.jpegIMG_2983.thumb.jpeg.615fac7a6622b0cc7e72dc3d3676be13.jpeg

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, uninformed said:

My caveat were, had to be an original Series colour and scheme

I quite like the early series RAF blue, which is just that bit different, .... not sure if that applied to RAAF though?. ... As I get older I do quite like the light green, hated it when we owned one but nostalgia plays tricks after a few years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, uninformed said:

I’d like to point out I decided this nearly 5 years ago before the influx of Series colours Defrs lol.

My caveat were, had to be an original Series colour and scheme and it WASNT going to be either of the greens. It came down to Marine Blue and Mid Grey, and while I’ve seen a few cool looking grey Defrs, the blue won me over. Now every man and his dog are painting them Marine Blue 😆

Similar thoughts here.... I love grasmere green and keswick green but they've just been so over done by the tarted up 'heritage' versions various people and companies are churning out. 
I think marine blue will look great. Also like @Blanco's suggestion of RAF blue. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, uninformed said:

Is there any difference that will affect body fitment or structure?
 

I don't think so. Both my 90 and my 110stw features cut down 109 cappings. The only difference I could find was the small part that extends over the doorseal. If memory serves me right, it isn't there on the newer ones. 

/mads

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, uninformed said:

Now every man and his dog are painting them Marine Blue 😆

you could change it to stratos bleu LRC327 , not many around , so it stays a bit special 😉 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 2 weeks later...

And the fun continues….

I’ve been tinkering away on the various rear bulkhead bracketry and did a quick bolt in to check alignment and fitment in position. This so I can get my first lot of bits off to the galvanisers 
 

IMG_3200.thumb.jpeg.73e9ea54b5a46cc8d6051df7cd5b7a0c.jpeg

 

The in cab stays will affect the vertical angle of bulkhead (importantly the B pillars) so making sure that’s right is critical before sending them off. 
 

Unfortunately, in true LR “coach building” fashion,  *cough (ruff as guts) cough* ….. I found the returns each end were not square to the back of bulkhead

IMG_3202.thumb.jpeg.e0f06b3f83fbfa9ce865c8ab1aa5a5e2.jpeg
 

This affected the B pillars and when they were aligned plumb each side (looking from the front ) they were 10mm wider overall when compared to the back of the bulkhead…. Only 200mm away!!

IMG_3203.thumb.jpeg.a02852566058fc46876f2f931516d9ea.jpeg

 

This is the body width and has to match (well as close as possible to the front bulkhead) , not only would it have been 10mm wider , it would put a big kick/bow in the guards.

So a few spot welds and rivets drilled out and I can realign them square, which surprise surprise, puts the overall width on point with the rear… 

the old 1 step forward 487 steps back 🤦🏻‍♂️

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TD5toV8110 said:

This is going to be the most perfect Land Rover ever!🤩

Hardly! But if you squint it will be good enough 👍

I was thinking last night (as we do), and I wonder if the cab chassis variants got the worst of the rear bulkheads. If they had QC for that it would make sense as the effect to the body line is pretty much nil. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s amazing the dimensional errors that they have, not only poor tolerances, but mismatched design that is never rectified.  Every Defender built has a 7mm difference in the width of the rad slam planes compared to the chassis brackets for the front wing lower corners, which is why they all have sagging front wings, and they all suffer from the sidelight and indicator holes in the headlamp trim plastic squares being in the wrong location, putting them out of square with the wing fronts and exacerbating the drooping look, always worse on the right wing than the left..  From 1984 to 2016, they never bothered to fix it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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