X Deflex Issues...

[Paddy_SP]

After much consideration, I finally stumped up the money and bought an X Deflex kit which arrived yesterday. While I'm pleased with most of it, there are a couple of issues that have left me scratching my head. Firstly, there were no instructions with it. I could accept this if they were available on-line - but they aren't - just a set for the previous version (v1.2) - mine is a v1.3 (so I'm told), which is different.

When I 'phoned them yesterday the suppliers said they'd email me the instructions, but it seems that their technical department had the day off, so I didn't get them.

So - having worked in the motor racing industry for the last several decades, I thought I should be able to sort it out easily enough - famous last words...

On calling again today to ask specifically about which way around the roll bar itself goes, I was categorically told that the circlip and associated groove go at the left end to hold the drive flange on - which is what I had assumed.

I was also told that what I'd got is correct as the seal gets sandwiched between the plate and the clutch and therefore no water can get in. This is completely wrong as the seal's lips are simply sitting in fresh air when the bar is fitted the above way around, and any water in the area would simply flow straight in.

The problem is that the right hand end of the bar - which takes a plate that carries an oil seal, should have a shoulder for the seal to bear against - but this is at the left end, where it can't do anything. 

So - either the circlip and shoulder should both go at the right end, or the groove has been machined into the wrong end. 

I wouldn't normally be worried about it, but as it's a Bank Holiday weekend, I've got to wait three days before I can get an answer from the suppliers and I'm frustrated as hell. So - my question is simply this - which damned end is the circlip groove meant to go???

[steve200TDi]

A picture may help of the troublesome part, as I'm unfamiliar of the difference between mk2 and mk3 versions.

As you say, you may need the mk3 instructions, but I've found the mk2 instructions here:

https://foundry4x4.co.uk/pdf/X Eng at Foundry 4x4 X-Deflex Instructions.pdf

Regards

Steve

Edited August 28, 2021 by steve200TDi

[Paddy_SP]

Thanks, Steve - yes, I have those, but despite the differences between that version and mine, the damned things don't even mention the circlip in question. They briefly mention that there's one in the freewheel clutch, but that's it!

 

[landroversforever]

Got any pictures of your kit? I'm pretty familiar with the version I've got so might be able to see any differences?

[Paddy_SP]

Yes - here's the issue: The images here show the problem - the 32 mm shoulder which the seal appears to have been designed to run on is at the same end as the circlip groove. If you look, you will be able to see that the other end - where the free-wheel clutch sits, has no shoulder. The shaft there is 31 mm, whereas the seal's ID is 32 mm. The supplier seems to think this is correct - I think it isn't. It looks as though I'm going to have to machine a new circlip groove into the shaft and then switch it end for end. I do hope that this problem is restricted to the shaft I have, and not to any others that have been sold...

[steve200TDi]

From looking at your pictures and reading the mk2 instructions I have noted the following:

 - The circlip groove does need to be on the nearside with the curved bracket and drive flange.

 - The offside with the straight bracket and freewheeling hub accepts the half shaft up against a circlip.

 - From looking at the illustration of the cut away of where the shaft sits inside the free wheeling hub and oil seal plate (in the mk2 instructions), you can see that the oil seal plate sits quite neat to the end of the shaft (right near the spline) and so if you were to swap the half shaft round it probably wouldn't sit on that machined surface.

What is the OD of the half shaft near to the spline with no circlip groove? 

Steve

[Paddy_SP]

The raised section (which sits in exactly the right place when the shaft is reversed) is the correct diameter - 32 mm, while the shaft at the 'no groove' end is 31 mm. The seal is 32 mm ID.

[reb78]

I'm assuming these are an X-Eng design? @simonr might know what to do?

[Paddy_SP]

Yes, I believe so - however, not being privvy to the background details, I don't know if what was designed there is actually what is being supplied to the public. I'm currently in the process of re-engineering the whole thing so that it meets my requirements. To this end, I've cut a new circlip groove and flipped the bar over. There isn't enough room to get the seal plate over the raised shoulder, so I'm going to have to make an extension seal carrier. At least when that's done the poor seal will have a chance of doing its job - sitting in fresh air as it does at the moment, it might as well not be there!

[pat_pending]

1 hour ago, Paddy_SP said:

Yes, I believe so - however, not being privvy to the background details, I don't know if what was designed there is actually what is being supplied to the public. I'm currently in the process of re-engineering the whole thing so that it meets my requirements. To this end, I've cut a new circlip groove and flipped the bar over. There isn't enough room to get the seal plate over the raised shoulder, so I'm going to have to make an extension seal carrier. At least when that's done the poor seal will have a chance of doing its job - sitting in fresh air as it does at the moment, it might as well not be there!

TBH I think you're overthinking it,

The "bar" is just a Land Rover half shaft, it's not been made for this application, just repurposed. There is no extra machining done. 

The machined surface on the circlip groove end is there for it's original application, in a Land Rover axle.

 

It seems your issue is with the oil seal not sealing against the half shaft, so? does it really need to?

If you look at the hand drawn picture at step 9 of the instructions, you'll see there is very little space once assembled for either dirt to get in or the grease packed in the "clutch hub" to escape.

It's only during locking/unlocking that anything actually rotates in the hub, so there's no heat or force to push the grease out.

If the seal is supposed to keep dirt out, (I don't think it is, as they call it a retainer) the instructions show it fitted the wrong way round anyway.

I would imagine that as the position the seal sits in is unmachined, there's probably a wide tolerance of sizes amongst different shafts hence the slight gap on yours.

If you still want a tight fit against the shaft, get an oil seal with a smaller ID.

Edited August 29, 2021 by pat_pending

[landroversforever]

I'd suggest its something as simple as Foundry 4x4 having changed supplier for the halfshaft (as above, its just a repurposed LR long-side half shaft, nothing special) and the shaft being a slightly different size.

[Paddy_SP]

Gentlemen - I agree that what I'm working with is simply a re-purposed half shaft, but I don't agree that allowing water in is acceptable. If you read around the 'net you'll find various accounts of people having to undertake regular rebuilds of the clutches - if it takes me a bit more time now to avoid that in the future, then so be it.

A tighter seal is certainly one option, but the rough-machined state of the shaft would simply mean that it'd wear out in short order. Anyway - I've nearly fixed the problem now - had I not been dragged away kicking and screaming to attend a family birthday, I'd have finished by now!

[Paddy_SP]

Well, I'm pleased to say that all is done and dusted, despite it fighting me pretty well every step of the way. Before doing starting out, I went back and re-measured the exact section where the seal would have been located, and it was 29.7 mm - certainly not enough to prevent water from passing through a 31 mm seal, and even if it had fitted, the rough finish would have seen it suffer unduly. This encouraged me to press ahead - the roll bar has, as stated above, been flipped end-for-end and has a new circlip groove at the left. I then made up a stainless extension carrier which places the seal on the raised shoulder (which has a lovely ground finish to it) at the right hand end. The carrier then has a Teflon spigot which fits into the original seal plate. After the usual measuring and re-machining of the various spacers I got the desired amount of end float in the shaft. I had to make up a short distance piece to get the left knuckle arm to line up properly as well - sadly, I didn't have any stainless in a suitable size, so that got knocked up in titanium! All the fasteners have been replaced with stainless equivalents. 

As far as the comment about me 'overthinking' this goes - I'm very happy to be accused of this. The whole vehicle has been built from the ground up on this basis, which is the main reason it's taken me so bleddy long. Far better to over-think than under-think, in my books...

Despite all the work I had to put in to make it suit my requirements, I'd still buy the kit - if I were the manufacturer though, I'd do two things:

1) Make sure up to date instructions were available (I still haven't received mine).

2) I'd provide a Nylon sleeve to go over the shaft where the seal sits so that water and muck were kept out of the freewheel hub. Bonded on with silicone or equivalent, it would be a cheap solution to the problem.

Edited September 2, 2021 by Paddy_SP

[missingsid]

Ah well done for fixing it. Your initial post sounded a bit more like a rant rather than a quest to improve it. I would have  suggested returning your update info to either SimonR or Foundary, however.

1. This is your intellectual property.

2. I doubt Foundary would be interested as it will increase manufacturing costs.

If you do want to share your fix with others then you could post pictures and diagrams here as that is the nature of this forum?

[landroversforever]

Which fasteners have you swapped out for stainless? I can’t think of any on mine that would be suitable to swap for stainless really? There’s a lot of load on it when you’re cornering with any gusto or weight up top. 

[simonr]

Looking at the pictures, I would guess at the half shaft having a slightly different OD at that location.

The direction of the seal was to keep the grease in, more than water out.  Trying to make things like this watertight is futile in my experience.  Filling the interior with grease however mitigates the effect of water getting inside - as it surely will eventually.

Unfortunately, I don't know what the difference between Mk1.2 & 1.3 are.  Foundry should have included printed instructions though.

I would have a chat with Steve (the owner).  He's very friendly and I would guess he would take note of any suggested improvements.

Si

[Northwards]

On 8/28/2021 at 6:23 PM, Paddy_SP said:

 

 

Hi folks, 

I picked up my X-Deflex kit the other day and have just unpacked the box to check things out. Like Paddy, the OP, there were no instructions supplied, and the ones on the web are still mk1.2 if I have a mk1.3 kit.

I think I get the gist of it though I hadn’t picked up on the oil seal issue until finding this thread. I have two main questions - first is that the revised kit has no “locking collar” between the seal retaining plate and the freewheel hub; second relates to the arb/chassis brackets in the photo above.

I have emailed Foundry in the last wee while so I’ll hope for an answer and some revised instructions.  But what’s the view on the bracket/spacer. As you can see in the pic it has four bolts for holding the OEM bush clamp, but then only two (per side) holding the spacer to the chassis bracket. It seems to me that this chassis bracket isn’t especially strong - I’ve seen them flattened and mangled in the past - and that by using only two bolts, all of the load of an uprated arb is going through half of the OEM fixings. As someone said above, am I overthinking it?

For the oil seal question I’m going to see if any of the half shafts I have kicking about have a wider OD as I would tend to agree that a 1mm gap seems a bit large. 
 

ta

[landroversforever]

Remember the force is all trying to twist the bar... so actually those mounts aren't seeing an awful lot of load. Plus the inventor of it ( @simonr) is a very well respected clever chap round these parts and I'd certainly trust his choices! 

[Northwards]

Thank you. While I am a little disappointed by Foundry in not providing relevant instructions, and still not replying to an email, the question about the mounts was genuinely asked and not trying to take a ‘pop’ at anyone. I am not an engineer, beyond having my own sense of what does/does not look right. I get that a lot of the force is rotational, on the bar, but I’d have expected there to be a degree of force on the brackets too, as the axle rises/falls. Surely in order for a rotational force to be applied to the bar, the bracket has to be strong enough to allow this force to be applied? I also understand that where these forces would be greatest, in an off-road situation, the arb is meant to be disconnected anyway. But still….

It is interesting that for the 30mm spacer, it’s a solid block, which picks up on all four mounting holes per bracket. With the 60mm spacer, where the potential for additional leverage exists, it seems odd that only two holes are used. But that’s it - it seems odd to me, but I’m no real engineer, hence why I asked the question. Depending on replies I may ask Foundry to send me 2x30mm solid spacers and just use longer bolts.

I had picked up along the way that Simon was the original designer, and is well-respected, but I really wasn’t having a go. It does look like the design has been modified over time and I’ve no way of knowing if the current 60mm spacers were part of the original spec. and just to repeat, I had intended that to be read as a genuine question for others with more expertise and experience than I have.

[landroversforever]

I certainly didn't read your comments as having a dig in any way at all  

The twisting force in the bar doesn't impart much on those brackets at all IMO. As the axle rises and falls, the bar will rotate within the bushes.

I can't remember with the spacers.... is that something to do with which vehicle it's going on?

[Northwards]

Thanks again.

I am quite happy to be corrected on the question of the brackets/forces! It would certainly be by far the easier option for me, just to fit what’s in the kit, and I assume they’ve sold more than one or two, and probably for vehicles/usage which will be more demanding than mine. 

On ordering the kit there’s a drawing showing a measurement you’re supposed to make, and then some simple sums to determine what size spacer you need, so that the bar once fitted clears the fuel tank.

My car is, in this respect at least, a pretty basic 1994 110 SW, though it’s on a Td5era chassis and with the plastic fuel tank. I did the measurement and sums and came up with a 60mm spacer. If I fit it, and find that a smaller spacer would do, I’ll take that route. COVID booster jab today, so lacking the energy to lie under the car!

[Snagger]

I don’t know how much force the brackets carry, but I think it is more than some realise.  Yes, the bar is in torsion, but the point is for the car to be pulled level by forces acting on those brackets as well as the axle.  They are primarily a fulcrum, so the forces are much small than on the vertical links, and yes, one is going to be forced up against the chassis at the same force as the other is pulled down, spreading the load across them, but when levers are pulled, fulcrums want to move in the same direction.

In practice, the forces can’t be enormous because regardless of the bracket size and how much weld they have securing them to the chassis, the bush clamps have just two fairly small bolts.  The links themselves are also not huge - on my XC90 (a reasonably heavy car), the vertical rod between the ball joints of each link is about 1/4” diameter.  Now, that car has independent suspension with a lot less travel and firmer springs than the average LR, but all the same, it gives an idea that the forces are significant but not enormous.  I’d say that the fixings in the kit are plenty for a Land Rover as long as everything is in decent condition.  Should the bolts have corroded threads, the boltholes be elongated by wear  or the brackets be thinned by rust, then concern would be warranted.

[Northwards]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:39 PM, Snagger said:

 

In practice, the forces can’t be enormous because regardless of the bracket size and how much weld they have securing them to the chassis, the bush clamps have just two fairly small bolts. 

  I’d say that the fixings in the kit are plenty for a Land Rover as long as everything is in decent condition.  Should the bolts have corroded threads, the boltholes be elongated by wear  or the brackets be thinned by rust, then concern would be warranted.

Thanks Snagger - on my car (1994 110) the bush clamps have four bolts holding them to the chassis. I don't know if this is the same for 90s, or if it's a factor of having anewer Td5 chassis. No issues whatsoever with corrosion or wear. By my reckoning this means that the 'upgraded' bar is fitted using half of the OEM fittings and that just doesn't seem right.

I'm in no great rush to fit it at this stage, so I  guess I'll just wait and see what Foundry say when (if) they reply. I might chase them by phone through the week. 

[Snagger]

I’ll take a photo of my Volvo’s links to show how skinny they are.  As memory serves, the antiroll bar clamps around the bushes on Marshall SI and SIII ambulances have only two bolts.  Of course, not all bolts are equal and I think they are around 7/16”, equivalent to M10.  If you are worried, you could fit some higher tensile bolts or fit a pair a couple of mm wider, which significantly increases overall cross sectional area.  There is nothing to sop you making your own spacer, solid or folded, with four bolts, just for peace of mind.  Whatever you do, I doubt you’ll have any problems.

[landroversforever]

Early Ninety rear anti roll bars are a single bolt each side with a bracket that hooks in one end.