Newbie: Disco 6x6 from Spain

[Team Idris]

Have you seen this axel?

http://www.oemoffhighway.com/product/10057446/terra-drive-systems-formerly-tuthill-drive-systems-ez-trac-steerable-hydraulic-drive-axle

You're pushing you luck driving into a diff with hydraulics at road speed, but drive into the half shafts would be okay. Free wheel hubs would keep it all disconected when you didn't need it.

Maybe if it was only 6x6 off road, a PTO driven pump could be matched for low-box speed only?

[bill van snorkle]

Have you seen this axel?

http://www.oemoffhighway.com/product/10057446/terra-drive-systems-formerly-tuthill-drive-systems-ez-trac-steerable-hydraulic-drive-axle

You're pushing you luck driving into a diff with hydraulics at road speed, but drive into the half shafts would be okay. Free wheel hubs would keep it all disconected when you didn't need it.

Maybe if it was only 6x6 off road, a PTO driven pump could be matched for low-box speed only?

How does one get differential action or positive drive to both wheels without making the hydraulics overcomplicated?

Sticking with mechanical drive, and just a thought on not having to make a separate hitch. I'm not sure how much the 70 degree double cardan joint I mentioned earlier would like both driving and pulling the trailer, but a Jaguar rear halfshaft and universal joints does a similar thing in that it drives the wheel in addition to being the suspensions upper control arm, so the UJ's are subject to tensile and compression loading in addition to torque loads.

The British Army's experience with the FC101 and powered trailer was that in certain conditions the trailer could push the truck over on its side. So if the 'trailer' was made so that it only articulated in pitch then the universal joint drive and hitch would be much simpler to make. The propshaft from the trailer axle would go forward to a support bearing on the drawbar and 2 back to back universal joints would be centred in line with the pivot points of the hitch. It would be a little more complicated to make the 'trailer also articulate in roll, but not too difficult with scrap Landy bits the way my minds eye is presently picturing it.

I'm picturing a stub axle bolted centrally on the vehicles rear crossmember. A short beam would be bolted centrally to a Landy hub which would be fitted to the stub axle. On each end of the beam would be welded yokes (pivot points) to which parrallel arms of the 'trailer' draw bar would be fitted to.The extra transfercase could be either fitted in front of the vehicles rear crossmember or alternatively on the drawbar of the 'trailer'.

Unless the distance from the vehicles rear wheels to the 'trailer' wheels was kept very short then 'trailer' axle steering would probably be required. Could probably workshop the idea by replacing the hub bearings with compliant bushings to allow a limited amount of yaw articulation to the 'trailer' but not enough to push the vehicle over. That might be enough not to need rear axle steer.

The drive shaft from the vehicle PTO or second transfercase would pass through the stub axle of the hitch and to the twin universal joints of the 'trailer.'

I'll have to draw this out on paper but I think it will work.

[o_teunico]

Both MAN and Renault are offering hidraulic driven front axles in their range.

[Team Idris]

"How does one get differential action or positive drive to both wheels without making the hydraulics overcomplicated?"

Would you want differencial action if you were only needing drive in the slippystuff on a 6x6?

[tacr2man]

There is some quite interesting home brew engineering in this thread

http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/72593-Project-Mini-H%C3%A4gglund

[bill van snorkle]

I'm not certain that differential action would be necessary for a pure trailer that articulates in all planes, but for one that only articulates in pitch and roll it would probably be important. Whilst hydraulic drive would probably be an ideal way to power the 'trailer', the high cost of the pump, wheel motors etc would be prohibitive unless you know someone that is breaking an old scissor lift that will sell you the parts very cheaply. So back to affordable reality,we are stuck with mechanical drive, and once again, the relative difficulty of using RangeRover/Disco/Defender chassis becomes apparent. I looked under my hybrid to visualise the line that the propshaft would take from the PTO unit to the rear crossmember, and noticed that the rear axle A frame and crossmember is in the way.Even on a 90, at least a 2 piece propshaft and centre bearing would be required to clear all the obstructions and allow the shaft to meet the centre of the rear crossmember.

[o_teunico]

This is, probably, how a short trailer with some limited left-right movement will behave

[o_teunico]

That Hagglund is awesome. But you don´t need such technology.

Keep it simple, like farm tractors. You don¨t need concentric hitch-propshaft. Just a wide angle, long sleeve propshaft and rollers/chains to limit left-right movement. You could even fit diff-to-diff propshaft (maybe with 60" wheelbase for decent articulation).

[bill van snorkle]

I wouldn't think that the powered farm trailers pictured would be expected to articulate in pitch at angles up to 60 degrees, so they can probably get away with non concentric hitch and propshaft with a wide angle U joint and long slipjoint. By my scribbling on paper, to get 60 degrees from a propshaft will either require a tractor double cardan joint or two opposed wide angle u joints and some means of equalising the angles between them.By correctly mounting the twin U joints concentric with the hitch pivots the angles become self equalising. On a non concentric arrangement the distance between the twin U joints would vary with articulation, and there is no self equalisation, so a situation will arise where one uiversal joint will bind and break whilst the other would have little angularity.I could be wrong about all the above, but my protractor and compass seems to suggest otherwise.

One might say that you will never attempt to climb a 60degree gradient, and that is probably true but when driving across a V gully transitioning from a 30 degree down gradient to a 30 degree up gradient that angularity is used up.

A diff to diff propshaft would be vulnerable to damage as it would be the lowest component between the LandRover and trailer.

[o_teunico]

A picture I have taken from a youtube video, just to see some angles.

A it can be seen, the angle "alfa" between red and orange lines will be the angle between car and trailer.

"Beta" will be the propshaft angle, if it is a three piece one with two UJs.

Since "beta" is the half of "alfa", two 30º UJs will give a 60º movement.

In Haggluns BV206 propsahft is concentric with hitch and therefore doesn´t need any slipjoint.

More distance between hitch and propshaft will mean longer slipjoint.

[o_teunico]

The video. Picture was taken near 0:45

[bill van snorkle]

I think I'm with you now on the propshaft arrangement, although your Hagglund drawing was hard to follow, I got a slightly better perspective with the Scottorn brochure for Bushmaster trailers to suit series vehicles.I read that LandRover conducted tests with non concentric hitch and drives for the 101 powered trailers and found that articulation was more restricted and susceptible to damage. In their words "it wasn't soldier proof".

Does your Santana 2500PC have coil springs or parabolics? If coils, how would you propose to solve the problem of all the obstructions between the transfercase and rear crossmember?

I have towed many a dead Landrover with an A frame towbar over the years. The castor angle of the towed vehicles front axle causes it to follow the direction of the towing vehicle except when reversing when it goes all pear shaped.I wonder if a steering axle were fitted to a trailer that didn't articulate in Yaw, whether the wheels would follow the towing vehicle around turns to reduce tyre scrub and improve manouverability? I think a strong spring loaded return to centre steering damper may need to be fitted to the trackrod though.

[o_teunico]

The 2500DC, known as series V, is basically a series III chsssis with parabolics, 2.5 n/a diesel, LT85+LT230 part time 4WD and a 90 County body.

[bill van snorkle]

The 2500DC, known as series V, is basically a series III chsssis with parabolics, 2.5 n/a diesel, LT85+LT230 part time 4WD and a 90 County body.

Interesting vehicle. So you'll have the powered trailer done and under test in a week or so then?

[o_teunico]

It´s not that easy. The Series V has no PTO and it´s 3.54 diffs don´t match the 4.7 unit of the trailer. We have some spare 4.7 diffs for the car, but need to sort out the PTO problem. Cheapest and easiest way will be the pulley-belt in diff arrangement.

I never heard about the Bushmaster, but now I have found it´s brochure and many other powered trailers´ pics at http://www.landroverclub.com.ar/viewtopic.php?t=108949&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=30&sid=96a338a12686b66b2f2b8649a784c29d

[FridgeFreezer]

Slightly off topic, but do they fit any anti-wrap device to the Series V when parabolics are fitted?

[o_teunico]

Yes, anti-roll bars were factory fitted.

Just a bit of SANTANA history...

Production started in 1959 with SII.

SIIA continued in 1961, with own designs like the 1300 forward control and "Ligero" military lightweight.

Series III didnt appear until 1973. Different improvements were made trough the years, like five point cranckshaft, up-down glass in doors.

In 1982 the Series IIIA appeared. With it, Santana (Land-Rover Santana by then) entered the plastic era: roof(already used in SIII), inner wings, gearbox tunnel, dashboard (with one piece windscreen with no flaps), heater ...

New techologies were introduced: 2.25 turbo diesel (75HP), parabolics, anti roll bars, disc brakes, power steering, five speed LT85+LT230R part time 4WD.

In 1987 SANTANA (no more "Land Rover" in the company name) introduced both Seies IV and V.

Chassis were those from series III and engines were 4 cil. petrol or diesel and straight six, also petrol or diesel.

Series IV used narrow axles (disc in front), rover four speed gearbox and transfer, along with semi eliptic leafs. No station wagons on series IV.

Series V were the station wagons. Appart from County Station Wagon bodies, they were improved with: parabolics, disc brakes, LT85, power steering, anti-roll bars and wide track axles.

Model designation, some examples:

2.500GC: 2.500=engine capacity in c.c. (series V), G=gasolina(petrol), C=corto "short".

2.5DL: 2.5=engine capacity in litres (series IV), D=diesel, L=largo "long".

There was never a SWB with six cylinder engine.

Production of Land Rover related products was beeing made along with the production of Suzuki products(SJ-Samurai and Vitara).

In 1991 production of Land Rover based vehicles ceased.

In 2003 SANTANA introduced the ANIBAL (PS-10 for export). This vehicle could be considered as a Series VI. Iveco engine, ZF six speed gearbox and reworked chassis and body (still using leafs).

In 2006 ANIBAL changed name to MASSIF and was marketed under IVECO brand name.

In 2011 SANTANA MOTOR company dissapeared as such.

Production line was NOT sold. In a near future it could be possible to see again the factory working.

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santana_Motor

[bill van snorkle]

I was only kidding about everything being done and tested in a week, but the emoticons aren't working for me. But at least with the leaf spring Landy you won't have any obstructions in the way of getting a single propshaft from the PTO to the rear crossmember. For testing purposes wouldn't it be easier to throw a 3.54 diff into the trailer? Have you seen Soren Fromeldts thread on making an LT230 PTO?

What Fridge is referring to in AntiWrap bars is a type of link fitted to the axle housings and chassis to limit axle hop caused by the torque from the axle housings twisting the thinner parabolic springs.

I wish we had got the Santana version of the series 3,particularly the 6cyl, in Australia instead of the British version which was really a POS in comparison with their competitors over here.

[bill van snorkle]

It´s not that easy. The Series V has no PTO and it´s 3.54 diffs don´t match the 4.7 unit of the trailer. We have some spare 4.7 diffs for the car, but need to sort out the PTO problem. Cheapest and easiest way will be the pulley-belt in diff arrangement.

With the pulley belt on diff arrangement,would you not have a problem with the propshaft to the trailer clashing with the LandRovers rear crossmember? or would you run a 2 piece propshaft with a centre bearing under the crossmember?

[Nigelw]

With the pulley belt on diff arrangement,would you not have a problem with the propshaft to the trailer clashing with the LandRovers rear crossmember? or would you run a 2 piece propshaft with a centre bearing under the crossmember?

That would make sense but would it not become compromised then? above the hitch is protected, below is open to a wallop!!!

I came to the conclusion that some sort of hydro drive would be best suited to a powered trailer, and could be coupled to an electronic control valve with a transducer that would send a signal to the valve to open or close more depending on speed of the output shafts, a dash switch and free wheeling hubs would see it redundant when not needed ie, in high range, but low range would be quite suitable for it I think?

[o_teunico]

I have thought that I could use different size pulley combo for matching 3.54s to 4.7s.

Hidraulics are extensively used in forestry trailers. No prop angles to worry about. Unfortunately I dont have access to cheap hidraulics to try it.

[o_teunico]

Oh, and there are no torque bars in parabolic setup

[bill van snorkle]

I have thought that I could use different size pulley combo for matching 3.54s to 4.7s.

The LandRover rear crossmember PTO box has a 1.2:1 ratio.Assuming you could get hold of one, If the trailer were fitted with a 3.9:1 diff from a Rover 3 litre Saloon then the final drive ratio would be around 4.68:1, near enough to 4.7.

That box would of course also become the centre bearing for the 2 piece propshaft.

As I stated earlier, for testing purposes just put a 3.54 diff out of the disco if necessary in the trailer.

[o_teunico]

I will prefer 4.7 for the Series V because they will give lower ratio overall. This way we could use the super-HD rear axle from the Cazorla Six cylinder we broke for spares (it looks like a ENV axle as used in One Tons) for the trailer.

The easyest (and cheapest for me, because I have the spares) way of achieving 6x6 in, by design, the worst one.

The double-faced diff trough-drive system, with a propshaft runing car diff to trailer diff will be extremly easy to create. Unfortunately the CW of car diff will be overloaded, propshaft will be too short for adecuate articulation and also will be extremly exposed. But ease of manufacture is there, and maybe for a simple test drive...

The way Soren made the PTO for his viking winch is great, but another LT230 will be needed for the triler.

[Nigelw]

The double-faced diff trough-drive system, with a propshaft runing car diff to trailer diff will be extremly easy to create. Unfortunately the CW of car diff will be overloaded, propshaft will be too short for adecuate articulation and also will be extremly exposed. But ease of manufacture is there, and maybe for a simple test drive...

.

What is the distance between the two diff? Axle casing width? and what of the pinion? Would it be possible to shorten it at all to give greater prop length?