Contact Email List
FAQ  •  Register  •  Login

ULTIMATE LAND ROVER

Moderator: Micka

<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:24 pm

Hi Nick, are the dual wheels on the Mog equal diameter inner and outer ?
Could the difference in ground damage you mentioned between the 110 on paddles and that Mog be due to the mog having difflocks with less likelihood of individual wheelspin on soft ground than the 110 ?
I know that not all Mogs are created equal. some have extremely low gearing. what is the gearing like on that one ? does it have the optional crawler gears? I always thought that Mercedes used only the best quality materials, but you mentioned the steel quality in the Cabs. Have they been cutting costs ? The climate over here in Victoria is generally kind to vehicles but most of the ealier Mogs I have seen here have been quite rusty too.
Bill.
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Tue Aug 10, 2004 10:38 pm

That's a very nice looking mog Nick. Nicer than a lot of the ones over here (Germany).
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

Nick (in the Falklands!)

Posts: 108

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:31 am

Location: Falkland Islands

Post Wed Aug 11, 2004 9:42 am

Hi Bill...

Yes, the rear duals are same, inner & outer & they are 10.00 x 20 radials; the fronts are x-ply.

No, I used the weight comparison on tyre types just to illustrate its capability.... a 110" (safari) on 11.50 paddles weighs around 2 & a bit tons,
the 'Mog is around 3.8-4 (I think...), & the spread of the 'Mog's weight when on those wheels on our kind of country (peat banks & swamps) is less than the L/R. The Mogs rear duals are about 6" apart at the sidewalls, & I think those Everests are either 18 or 20" across the tread.
Also, these wheels don't have a 'sharp' edge to their footprint so don't cut in so much.

As for the 'Mog gearing, these ones have plenty of gears.....I've never even ridden in one yet never mind driven one, but I know the Army spec ones (as used in argentina) have fewer gears than the agricultural spec ones (which also have live pto drive on an extra shaft) But these do have a crawler gear....& it IS slow..!
(I'll ring one of the owners & find out some more..)

The rust....well what it is, is the %-age of licence-made parts in them.
Back then, a lot of the mechanicals, the chassis & engine block were made in Germany, & the rest was pattern-built & the whole lot assembled
in argentina....

.....& the less said about the quality of metal smelted over there, the
better......!! ;) (.....it IS better than the politicians, but only just......!! :roll: )

But otherwise, they are fairly bombproof...its the little things like pipe unions & hoses & electrics that fail & eventually multiply to thwart reliability....
...oh & diesel lift pumps...
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Thu Aug 12, 2004 10:09 pm

What type of vehicles generally work best in the Falklands environment
Nick, Wheeled or tracked ? During the build up to the conflict with Argentina I heard or read that the British forces thought that the Jaguar powered Scorpion light tanks were the only ground transport that could provide mobility over the peat bogs and swamp. I would have thought for civilian duties those Volvo tracked vehicles with the tracked powered trailers would have been ideal.
Do you have many over there?

Bill.
<<

Nick (in the Falklands!)

Posts: 108

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:31 am

Location: Falkland Islands

Post Sat Aug 14, 2004 9:02 am

Hi Bill..

...Nowadays, wheeled vehicles do just about everything here......but it was'nt always the case; in days before roads (& they have really only come on in a big way over last 10 years) there was a bit more tracked vehicle use.. We always used to haul fencing with our International crawler, on sledges till we got a second 4wd tractor, & a floating bogie trailer with tandem twin wheels.....then we moved to using the Forward Control IIB more because it was faster & more comfortable.

Other folk generally had tractors with duals fitted, 'Mogs, or Fordson crawlers, Land Rovers fitted with duals (all round sometimes...!!), & as global warming dried the country out a bit, the braver ones tried MK Bedfords fitted with those Everest boots, or AEC Militant tyres, (doubled up).....

You are absolutely right about the Scorpions being suitable; the Blues & Royals had (eleven I think..) them down here & drove right across from
where they landed to Stanley with them.....think one got bogged at one stage & took a bit of recovering, but they certainly helped to cause some
laundry problems for the buggers up the mountains...... :lol:

The Royal Marines had Volvo BV202's & they worked well too, & since then, there have been any amount of Hagglunds BV206's in use with various units..including the fire section, & particularly Bomb Disposal...
None in full civilian use tho' but a friend has a couple of front-halves, & there was a complete runner for sale privately at Mount Pleasant just a few weeks ago (probably a contractor..?) for about £9000..!!

They are tough on tracks (their own & the countryside..!!) but driven correctly..ie, breaking fresh ground instead of following ruts, they are very environmentally-friendly, & will traverse most terrain down here.

We had a ride in one at an open day once....definitely not for the faint-hearted if you are a passenger (!!), & could certainly spoil your eye for
4wd activity if you got in the drivers seat..! Climbing a 2 in 1 gravel slope that could'nt be crawled up on all fours was something else...!! The Hagglunds is fibreglass bodied too, & will float (if the wading plugs are put in first...!!)

There's also been a few Muskegs down here too, & one of the contractors still has a big one for pipeline maintenance.....
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:00 pm

Hi Nick, I assume that the damage inflicted on trails by tracked vehicles would be when they are making turns rather than proceeding in a more or less straight line. Your comments about global warming drying out the islands are interesting. I think you might have got Melbournes share of it.
It has been a bloody miserable winter this year.
I am not familiar with Muskegs. I have said it before. Considering the size of Australia and the varied terrain, we have had very few technical crosscountry vehicles here untill relatively recently. In fact the Government road train, an 8x8 AEC prime mover with self tracking trailers circa 1929 was about as interesting as things ever got, but there was only one of them.
Bill.
<<

Nick (in the Falklands!)

Posts: 108

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:31 am

Location: Falkland Islands

Post Sat Aug 14, 2004 12:47 pm

Hi Bill..

No, a 'BV' can make a hell of a mess in a straight line too given the chance....& some of the lads loved the opportunity to get in the peat banks especially....!!

The tracks are about 2 foot wide each ...& about two foot apart...

So when they go through a wash-out or ruts, they bow-wave something brutal.....& being flat bottomed, but with a blunt front....they just keep on tracking...!! Some of the 'BV wallows' as they are known around here are as deep as the vehicle is high....& they are just deep ponds now..!

But if driven with sense, you woulld'nt know where they'd been, only that does'nt fit in with training logic/convoy thinking...!!
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Sat Aug 14, 2004 8:20 pm

Hi Nick.I had a bit of a fiddle in the garage today. When I made up and fitted my portal hubs way back then, I had a tentative try at mounting my old dual wheel setup, but the inner wheels fouled on the drop boxes. I didn't want the vehicle to be excessively wide so I threw the inner wheels on my junk pile and tried to forget about them.But after the discussions we have had and seeing your vehicles and the Mog on duals It inspired me to have another look at them. I noticed second time around that the inner wheels were actually fouling on the RangeRover axle housing spindle mounting flange, so with a bit of trimming here and there I managed to get them on. Now if I replace the RangeRover rear banjo housing with the narrower series 3 swb housing I will retain my current overall width and get back all the benefits of the dual wheels that I sorely missed but with the added bonus of 5.5 inches of extra ground clearance under the diffs. The trouble will be finding enough places where I could legally explore the trucks limits.

Bill.

Bill
<<

Nick (in the Falklands!)

Posts: 108

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:31 am

Location: Falkland Islands

Post Sun Aug 15, 2004 9:24 am

Hi Bill...

Sounds like you've built a fascinating truck there..! You mention 'inner' wheels which suggested to me that you can separate them...?

Would be most interested to know how you have made yours...?

Have attached a couple of pics of the two different types I have....the 101" duals have their 'cones' slot through the 18" wheels on the truck & mount on wheelstep nuts....I have them on all 6 studs.

On the F/C ones, I had to knock out the studs on the split-rims & use longer bolts with nut spacers because the 9.00's sidewalls clashed before the rim halves mated. With 7.50 tyres, its not a problem & the studs can be used....if I had to do it again, I would try to find some Champ rims as these are wider on the stud half than the Series1 wheels.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Sun Aug 15, 2004 5:27 pm

Hi Nick, Yes my inner wheels look very similar to your bottom photo the six stud deeply dished wheel. I basically welded 2 rims together, flange to flange , and knocked the centre out of the inner rim. a 7.50x16 tyre goes on the inner rim. the outside half of the outer rim is cut off with an angle grinder. this gives a 5.5 inch wide rim with 12.5 inches of back spacing. this narrows the track width down by about 15.5 inches {springs under chassis}
I then clamp these inner wheels on to the hubs with 3.5 inch wide wheel spacers which are 2 half inch thick steel flanges welded onto a concentric tube to resemble a large cotton reel. one flange has wheel studs, the other flange has countersunk holes like a wheel centre. once this spacer is bolted on I simply bolt my normal large wheels which have 6.25 inches of backspacing on the outside of these.this give about 3/4 inch gap between the side walls. when I was experimenting with the concept I had the sidewalls just touching but I found that thay would vulcanise themselves together after about 50 miles. I did originally try 3.5 inch long versions of FC step studs but they used to bend or break when climbing very steep hills.
The way I had it set up originally, before I went to portals was that the vehicles overall width was the same with singles or with duals.

Bill.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:56 pm

Because the subject of this thread is Ultimate LandRover, I have been thinking about what features a vehicle needs to be an ultimate crosscountry performer and not including engines, gear ratios and difflocks have come up with the following interesting requirements.
A crosscountry vehicle needs a short wheelbase for good ramp breakover angles but a long wheelbase for stability on steep gradients.
It needs a narrow track for good crossaxle ramp angles , and a wide track for stability on sideslopes.
It needs to be heavy for good groundpressure on firm but slippery surfaces, but it needs to be light for good floatation over soft boggy surfaces.
It needs to be high for good ground clearance, but it needs to be low for stability and clearance under tree branches etc.
It needs to have minimum front and rear overhang for good approach and departure angles, but it needs to have enough space to carry a worthwhile payload.
The only vehicle layout i can think of that would fill those requirements would be a closely coupled 6x6 or 8x8 with twin diameter dual wheels allround and hydraulic or pneumatic suspension overide to vary ground pressure.
Does anyone else have ideas of what would constitute their Ultimate landRover?
Bill.
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 1:35 am

There are other options for the attributes you describe Bill. Since we are talking "Ultimate" Land Rover, I am assuming money is no object.

short wheelbase for good ramp breakover angles but a long wheelbase for stability on steep gradients.


Why not have a hydraulically adjustable chassis length - like on some bobcats???

narrow track for good crossaxle ramp angles , and a wide track for stability on sideslopes.


Portals - good cross axle ramp angle with wide track.

heavy for good groundpressure on firm but slippery surfaces, but it needs to be light for good floatation over soft boggy surfaces.


From what I have seen and experienced the light vehicles tend to be better (why suzuki's do so well offroad despite their lack of wheel travel). Light vehicles are able to use throttle and momentum to compensate for lack of ground pressure - a 6x6 or 8x8 would suffer the same lack of ground pressure problem. Strange Rover has a few interesting things to say on the capability of his light lockless compared to the heavy portal axled mogrover - something about the mogrover feeling too mig and heavy and nowhere near as capable.

high for good ground clearance, but it needs to be low for stability and clearance under tree branches etc.


Hydraulically adjustable suspension?

minimum front and rear overhang for good approach and departure angles, but it needs to have enough space to carry a worthwhile payload.


Minimum front and rear overhang is easy. Some could argue that the "ultimate" 4x4 is just in terms of capability - it does not need to be able to carry a load. Certainly the most capable vehicles around would have to be the US rockcrawlers - most of them would be lucky to fit an esky in - but they can climb near vertical rock walls, which should be impossible according to the laws of friction (but it depends how the force is applied - which is the critical issue).

One extra thing I would add, is rear wheel hydraulic steering (Like Mal's rear steer system) - in other words the "Ultimate" Land Rover would need to have all wheel steering. Maximum manouverability and minimum turning circle are important factors.

I think that there would be many cases where the huge amount of extra weight a 6x6 or 8x8 has would be a significant disadvantage.
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 8:43 am

Hi Ben, Recent experience with my portalled Rover indicate that although the extra 4.75 inches of clearance is nice to have,it is still limited, and some of the cross axle ramp angle is lost due to the wider wheel track necessary for stability. I have made it a priority to refit my old twin diameter dual wheel setup because even without portals it had superior all round crosscountry performance. Experience with the old 6x6 taught me that hydraulic or pneumatic control of suspension to dial in variable ground pressure is almost mandatory otherwise no matter how agile the vehicle is the tyres will still sit on top of some surfaces and spin uselessly.
I could not justify the time and expense to build such a vehicle if it were not at least capable of carrying enough camping gear and supplies for a long weekend in the bush.
If you study the video of the 6x6 carefully you will notice the one big advantage of multiaxled vehicles, and that it the walking effect. What I mean is when the rear bogie climbs over say a 2 foot high obstacle, the rear body/chassis assembly only rises half that amount, so the bogie gives effectively a 2:1 mechanicle advantage,requiring only half the torque/traction to overcome the obstacle. When a 4x4 climbs a 2 foot high obstacle, the body/chassis must rise 1foot. Generally ,if a 6x6 can get its front wheels to mount a given obstacle, the back wheels can do it to.
There are many occasions when you can force a 4x4's front wheels up a step or log but the back wheels refuse to climb over it.
Of course I am describing a 6x6 or 8x8 with lots of axle articlation here.
Most multiaxled vehicles are load carriers and lack real articulation and under extreme conditions their performance can be and usually is inferior to their 4x4 counterparts.
Bill.
<<

Nick (in the Falklands!)

Posts: 108

Joined: Fri Jun 18, 2004 2:31 am

Location: Falkland Islands

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:24 am

....I don't think I can really give a 'good' account of what I might consider
an'ultimate' Land-Rover; my experiences have been lucky enough to be varied, but I can't pretend to have some of the engineering knowlege & experience of other folk around here...!!!

I find the kind of concepts as used by Valmet on their log skidders very interesting (walking beams on all 4 corners with a centre-pivot frame) which appears to give a very capable 8x8 that would probably perform very well in many different situations to what it was designed for too..

My kind of vehicle would have to be able to carry some kind of payload;
after all, most humans can outclimb a specialist driver-only vehicle, & as a farmer, I suppose I reckon on not going anywhere unless I'm doing & carrying something....!!! :lol:

(We run Suzuki LTF series quads here; independent coils, locked rearend lockable front, 15 forward cogs 3 back......like a minature 'MogxChamp'.!)

I think if i had to build some thing that was practical, capable, & had a reasonable budget to work with, I'd say to hell with wheels & go tracked.

Something like a Hagglunds BV202 with a slightly more entry-easy cab; perhaps a 130"-type twincab...but with a Series2 bulkhead, & a ute tray on the back, (so you could use it round the property, then when you go to church on Sunday you only have to wash the front bit...)

Largest practically-fitting naturally-aspirated (diesel) engine possible for towing, multi-split twin transfer cases behind a strong auto box, (On a BV, the engine/'box are high, they then split to trailer & drive runs to front of front underneath & front of rear) & hydraulically adjustable track tensioning (a la Caterpillar Challenger/Track Marshall/Moorooka crawlers) so that the bands could be left untensioned when parked, tightened for road/hard ground use, & slackened for severe undulation grip to float the idlers more, & also an extra two-way ram between the halves mounted above the pivot hitch to enable traction/weight transfer between the sections.......

...Would also have to have full external services points fore & aft (12v battery-jump, two way hydraulic spool valves & air take-off.....oh, & a wireless so's I can listen to 'The Archers' .. :idea: ..& then know what to do tomorrow....!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:

:roll: I still someday, want to build this 129" replica I've dreamed of (& already have most bits for).....it just has some serious appeal..
Last edited by Nick (in the Falklands!) on Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<

GRIMACE

User avatar

Posts: 10955

Joined: Thu May 29, 2003 3:47 pm

Location: Bum drilling with my buddy Ray!

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 10:28 am

Bill,
Feel free to biuld me a 6x6 any day :D

Its very interesting reading all these thoughts and theorys, and abit of carry space is deffinately a nesecity (spelin?) must have enough space for atleast 6 slabs of piss :D and a chair
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:22 pm

I once saw a strip photo in a British "Wheels and Tracks" magazine of a chain driven Cook Bros 8x8 armoured car climb up and over a vertical 9 foot high wall and drive across an 8 foot wide trench on a Tank test track. That is the kind of crosscountry ability I would like to reproduce in a smaller vehicle weighing no more than 3 tons, using Rover/Nissan/ Toyota sized components.

Bill.
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Thu Aug 26, 2004 9:44 pm

There were some technical drawings I saw on the web of a land rover based 8x8 - I will have to dig them out.

Surely there must be some major disadvantages to all that unsprung weight though???? Besides the ground pressure thing. And wouldn't it be a lot harder to get the same amount of articulation between each pair of axles from a 6x6 or 8x8 that you can get with a 4x4???
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

Gwagensteve

User avatar

Posts: 7345

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:29 pm

Location: Melbourne

Post Fri Aug 27, 2004 8:59 pm

I don't want to sound like a spoilsport, but I think that we might need some "rules" if this is not going to degenerate into a how about XXXXXXX ideas.

As this is the Rover forum, how about we try to limit major parts to LR issue, suitably modified.

How about sticking to LR motors too.

Here's some ideas:

how about starting wuth an FC101 chassis/body, with the front and rear axles pushed right to the edges of the bodywork ( I admit there's not much extra to play with on an FC101, but every little bit will help) tHere should be room in the middle then to slide an extra axle in the middle.

Wheelbase would be around 108" front to back with 54" between each axles. ( I guess it would look a bit like an alvis stalwart)

I reckon a 3.9 EFI V8 should be plenty, into a Zf auto, and maybe a crawler box equipped transfer.

This might be daft, but I reckon that the front and rear axles might not need all that much travel if the centre axle has heaps and is controllable via hydraulics/air, so how about using current RR independent (front) axle/suspension assemblies front and rearmost. Then you could have nice adjustability of ride height, OK travel, and nice tight turning circle.

I figure if the front and rear axles could be steered (perhaps even independantly), maneuverability would be pretty outstanding with a 108" wheelbase

The centre axle could well be some sort of sailsbury, but woudl need a very large range of controllable travel. that way the centre axle could pulled right up into the chassis and the air dumped out of the rearmost bags to help the car descend, and ground pressure would be quite adjustable.

this car would have pretty useful luggage space too.

I would like to see portals there somewhere too, CTIS, and maybe 325/85/16 Michelin XZL's.

What do you think?
greg wrote: some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:12 pm

Hi Ben, I suppose the original reason behind this thread was to discuss the Roadless Traction LandRover, which was originally thought to be the ultimate LandRover fom a cross country performance perspective. We now know that this is not quite true although it still remains a very desirable vehicle in my opinion.The type of vehicle I have been describing in recent posts may not be the most comfortable or practical vehicle for day to day use but is my idea of what would give the ultimate all round extreme crosscountry performance. To answer your questions. The effect that unsprung weight has on ride and handling with a bogie suspension is much less than for a single axle for the same reasons that a bogie can ''walk'' over vertical obstacles twice as easily as a single axle. for example,in a hypothetical vehicle without springs, if both wheels on the same axle of a tandem bogie hits a speed hump at speed that deflects the axle 30cm vertically, the body/chassis only gets deflected 15 centimetres,so you only feel half the force of the bump, wheras on a 4x4 when the axle is deflected vertically 30cms
the body/chassis assembly is also deflected 30 cm so you feel the full force of the bump. The effect is the same when you have springs, an 8x8 with interconnected pairs of axles would give a very smooth ride.
people who rode in the back of my 6x6 always commented on how smoothly it road over rough country compared to riding in front.
Of course all that extra weight does have it's disadvantages, but that only really related to road performance and fuel economy.
Yes it is much more difficult to get the same articulation from a multi axled vehicle as a 4x4, that is why on my 6x6 I reversed the axle assemblies and fitted drop boxes so that the propshafts were 2 feet longer and operating on a level plane when the vehicle was on level ground. This allowed the axles to rise and fall much greater distances before the universal joints reached their limits, so the degree of articulation was equal to some of the better 4x4 vehicles that are around today. The 8x8 vehicle Ben mentioned is probably the Esarco that Nick mentioned previously. This vehicle probably would have failed in severe steep up and down crosscountry terrain for 2 reasons. first, due to the drive layout it would have been extremely difficult to build in a large amount of interaxle articulation, so like a 6x6 Pinsgauer,when attempting to climb an abrupt steep bank for instance, the weight of the extra axles and the portion of the body/chassis they support becomes a counterweight that upsets the vehicles balance and reduces traction for the wheels that are still on the ground.
The second reason I think the Esarco 8x8 would have failed is that it had front and rear axle steering, and the rearmost axle was a Rover type, not a Salisbury.On my old 6x6 over the years I blew numerous crownwheel and pinion sets on the rearmost axle when climbing abrupt slopes because even with good axle articulation there will be a point when all the vehicles rear weight and all the drive torque will go to the rearmost diff, and being a Rover diff it could not always take the strain.The Esarco would have suffered the same problems plus a high incidence of CV joint failures too.
Unless a multiaxled vehicle has lots of suspension travel it is just a rough road load carrier. It not a cross country vehicle. If you want to carry more weight you would be better off buying a larger 4x4. You would have better crosscountry ability in a mechanically less complex vehicle.

Bill.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Fri Aug 27, 2004 9:56 pm

Hi Steve , The vehicle you described is very similar to what I started building about ten years ago, but after I got to about 75% completion I realised that the 56''+ 53'' wheelbase would be a liability in extreme up and down conditions. I watched video footage of Stalwarts and Saracens trying to climb steep banks in Heavy vehicle trials and they were useless.
Once the front wheels reached beyond the crest they would become airborne, so made no further contribution to traction. then the middle wheels reached the crest and you had a ten ton see saw. because of gravity the back wheels won the contest against the fronts and the vehicle slid backwards down the hill.
A 6x6 Scammel Pioneer with a longer wheelbase and rear bogie made the climb look too easy. This despite the fact that the Stalwart has locked drive to all six wheels and the Scammel has no difflocks.An 8x8 Tatra also climbed the bank without any drama.
I deduced that if you are going to space all axles more or less equally then you really need to go 8x8.
On a 6x6 with independant middle axle suspension You would have to build so much up travel in the middle axle that it would offer no anti bellying benefits for the centre of the truck.Maybe a solid middle axle with a centre hinged chassis that would allow pitch would work though. My head hurts.
Bill.
<<

Gwagensteve

User avatar

Posts: 7345

Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:29 pm

Location: Melbourne

Post Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:18 pm

daddylonglegs wrote:On a 6x6 with independant middle axle suspension You would have to build so much up travel in the middle axle that it would offer no anti bellying benefits for the centre of the truck.Maybe a solid middle axle with a centre hinged chassis that would allow pitch would work though. My head hurts.
Bill.


:D Have an asprin and a good lie down hehe

I figured that if you could tuck the centre axle up high enough and push the rear axle (indipendant or not) to full droop, you might be able to get around this.

I understand your point about a 6X6 with poor wheel travel just being a poor riding load carrier.- I guess a bit like a Gamma goat. My theory is that the moment you hinge the chassis you pretty much loose control over wheel loading. (now my head hurts.... off to bed I think)
greg wrote: some say he is a man without happy dreams, or that he sees silver linings on clouds and wonders why they are not platinum... all we know, is he's called the stevie.
<<

RMP&O

User avatar

Posts: 965

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:09 am

Location: B.F.E

Post Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:44 pm

you guys are way beyond me here with your technical chat. But I feel I should post because I own a 6x6 Pinzgauer that has been mentioned. Got to my link in the members area for recent pics of the truck climbing vertical embankments.

http://www.outerlimits4x4.com/PHP_Modul ... 6&start=60

while not 100% vertical they are very steep and all have some degree of lip at the top. The embankments range from 2-4 feet tall with one being at least a little over 4 feet. I feel a convetional 4x4 would have probs doing what this truck does easily. This for a few reasons. The approach angle on the Pinz is fairly good and you have basically a front skid that serves as a slider. The truck can literally slide along the length of the skid until you hit the front tires on an obsticle. This allows me to come up to a 3 foot tall obstical and climb it no probs. At a slow speed it will just dig in sometimes and not climb but all it takes is a tiny run at the wall to pop the front tires up and then it climbs everytime. You can see in the pictures my rear axle hanging on a number of the walls. You can also see the front tires off the ground in at least one shot. yet either way it has plenty of traction for this and much more. The Pinz also has a central tube chassis which sets it apart from other trucks. The central tube can also basically act as skid plate to slide on. Large logs can be tackled fairly easily this way in the truck. Big mounds of earth with a sharp top can also be handled no probs. The same goes for deep 3-4 foot ditches that are only 6 feet or so across. Most other 4x4's I know of would get stuck in these places while the Pinz just crawls right through effortlessly.

As you all know (or most) the Pinz suffers from wheel travel. Yet, I do not agree it is just a rough road load carrier. Yes I agree that is it's main purpose and was one of the main focuses in design but I feel it is more than just that. When I got the truck it was a completly new experience to learn to drive it. The vehicle feels very tippy and tire lifting is part of the experience. At first this made me very cautious and I have put the vehicle on it's side once. But due to it's load carrying ablity I found that the truck needs some kind of load over the rear tires to aid it off-road. This does two things, it makes the truck more stable by keeping the rear end on the ground and it increases traction to rear wheels due to ground pressure. I have also found that the Pinz in a bog or deep swamp and you are screwed. I don't feel that this is due to weight though because the vehicles weight is spread out over 6 wheels. When the Pinz gets stuck I feel 98% of other vehicles are going to get stuck before or at the same location. It will even outdo an ATV with lot's of power and very light weight. Once it is sitting on the central tube you are not going anywhere and extraction is a chore at the least. yet as long as the tires can push it forwards or backwards it will move, even if stuck. There is not much to hang up on under the truck so the resistance is minimal. Traction is high, clearance good and weight evenly distrobuted. The vehicle also being forward cab has a great turning radius that does a ton for it off-road. I recently ran a bunch of trails only used by ATV's and the Pinz is just small enough to fit on these trails. Very tight corners could be made with only a 2-point turn and the rest was just a matter of pointing the truck right. There are some flaws in the design of the Pinz such as wheel travel but I think if you could come up with a central tube chassis that uses solid axles it would really be good. The steering system on a Pinz is also a bit vunerable but this is due to it's independant suspension design. I can assure you of one thing, a forward cab design gives far superior vison to the terrain directly in front of the truck. I can litterally stand up while driving it and view the trail 1 foot or less in front of my truck. After many hours off-road I have learned to put the truck right where I want it down to the inch. Another advantage of the forward cab and design of the front floor pans is that it creates a nice wake in water. The floor pans in shape almost act like the bottem of a boat to form a wake in front of the truck, until it is to deep anyways. The motor being back and between the seats also protects it from water a bit. You have to be going really slow and in deep to fully submerge the motor. Combating the roll over issues with weight and an understanding of how it performs has made it truely one capable off-road truck and very fun to drive. You just have to know exactly what the truck is going to do before it does it so as a result it is a bit of a game of strategy. I know this applies to most vehicles but in a Pinz this is amplified. Once you are used to the truck it feels very natural to have a tire lifting while you move through terrain. You also learn how to drive it and the fear of roll over goes away. So for example in a place I may have rolled it in the past I can now tackle with no worries of roll over. this due to my understanding of how the truck works and preforms. You often have to throttle through something to keep it stable and on at least 4 wheels but it feels right this way and not so tippy. I feel that the engineers at Steyr-Puch intended it to be driven this way and fully considered how it handles off-road. before I owned or driven a Pinz I had certain ideas and conceptions on how it would perform. Then when I got it this changed due to not knowing how to fully drive the truck. Then again it changed after 6 months of driveing it so that I felt it was better and more capable than it really is. Finnally now it has changed again as I now understand the vehicle and how it performs even more. All along what is happening is the truck is getting better. I am doing more with it and it is feeling much more natural to drive under various conditions off-road.

I also feel an air cooled motor is fairly superior in most cases. This for a number of reasons, not sure if one has ever been made but an air-cooled diesel would be the best of all. The air-cooled motor lacks power and to be better would need to be a 6 or 8 cylinder. yet, it runs super cool, 150-200 degrees under all conditions. It has no coolant to worry about in either end of the extreme temp scale. It needs very little maintenance and can rev fairly high. It is also fairly simple to work on or rebuild. Field maintenance a snap. Long life is no problem for this motor, the carbs are also very good. Fuel injection would be far susperior but when I had the truck on it's side, it lay there for 20 minutes. Once back on all 6 wheels it started right up, lost zero oil and blew zero smoke. i think it would have kept running on it's side had I not killed it bit oil pick up would be a big concern then. I have seen other vehicles on their side that had much more trouble getting going again after being set upright. The fan is more like a tubine and seems to not suffer much in deep water. Water either runs through it or is tossed away and it is much stronger in design than a convetional fan. So there is no worry for breakage of fan or sucking it back into the radiator. I realize you can relocate radiators above the flood level and use electric fans with shut off switch. But I am adding to the thread what I think are advantages of an aircooled motor in an off-road truck, even perhaphs a LandRover. If you could design a slip clutch on this type of fan so that in water it would just slip and not spin then you get rid of any troubles in deep water for extended periods of time. The motor runs cooler under water no probs so a fan is not needed. I think hydraulic and vaccum lockers are great. Air lockers good but harder to deal with if a failure occures in the bush. Mechanical opperators for lockers seem good too but will be subject to alot of wear and tear plus probs with friction and having to be adjusted. So I could go on more about why I think the Pinz is a good truck or what parts of it could be used to aid in the design of a custom cross country vehicle. But that is enough for now and I am sure you guys will have some reason why it is not so good or things to counter what I have said.

So to keep it not totally off subject and non-L/R I will say this. I think a FC101 with a 6 wheel drive, portal axles, central tube, proper skid plating, correct weight placement over the chassis, an air cooled motor, hydro or vaccum lockers, vented disc brakes and some other goodies would be one very serious machine. To me the main factors are...keep it fairly simple for service or repairs out in the brush. Design a truck that can be slid along it's length with nothing to hang up on. Dump un-needed things like a water cooled system, turbo and so forth to decrease faliure possibilities in the bush. The use of a central tube chassis to keep things well protected and aid in the skid sliding. The rest I will just leave alone so i don't sound any more foolish than I already DO! :roll:
www.rmp-o.com
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Sun Aug 29, 2004 12:08 am

Hi Ian, I apoligise, this was not meant to be super critical of Pinsgauer 6x6's. I know a couple of guys who own Pins and like you they love their vehicles, warts and all. It is just that I personally would not use any of their drive line or suspension design if I were attempting to build the ultimate crosscountry LandRover type vehicle.
I have seen extensive video footage of 3 Pinsgauers in extreme terrain travelling in company with a coil sprung LandRover,and the lack of rear bogie articulation and cross axle wheel travel was a very real liability that turned the trucks into unstable seesaws that made for spectacular viewing, but heartstopping moments for the occupants.
The approach angles are quite good but the Pins is a cab forward design so approach angles cannot equal a good conventional design.
The German armed forces used quite a few air cooled all wheel drive trucks during world war two, These trucks gave very poor reliability and enormous maintenance headaches because when the engines leaked oil,
in the heat of the desert, sand would stick to the oil, clog up the cooling fins on the cylinders and cause serious to terminal overheating.
Magirus Deutz , Tatra etc have all made aircooled deisels in the past but it is interesting to note that they dont now, and the current Pinsgauer that is built in the UK for the British army uses a watercooled deisel engine. I dont know if the original Pinsgauer was desined for military use but with that high pitched whine from the cooling fans there is no way that you will take your enemy by surprise.Volkswagen engine life improved by a factor of 3 after they switched to watercooling.
A disadvantage of forward control.One of the Pingauer owners I know (Peter Farrer) completely swamped his engine after dropping down a steep bank into a deep mud hole. his engine sucked muddy water through the front mounted snorkel. A LandRover with conventionally mounted snorkel performed the same maneuover without problems.The difference was that on the Rover, being a conventional truck the snorkel was 4 feet further back and therefore much higher up when dropping down into the slop.
Peter has mentioned to me that he would like to install supplementary air springs over the rear swing axles so that he can increase ground pressure for certain conditions by inflating the springs and concentrating more of the vehicles weight on the rearmost wheels. As I mentioned on previous posts all multiaxled vehicles can suffer from too much floatation at times. I dont know that a central tube chassis would be all that practical with live axles. By the time you put frame outriggers to hang the springs and control rods off and made allowance for the whole axle to rise and fall plus open driveshafts from the transfercase, it would be fairly cluttered under there anyway.
No Ian, the Pinsgauer is a nice truck to be sure, but as a basis for our hypothetical ''Ultimate'' vehicle, I would much rather start off with that 6x6 Volvo you told me about.
Regards Bill.
<<

RMP&O

User avatar

Posts: 965

Joined: Fri Mar 26, 2004 10:09 am

Location: B.F.E

Post Sun Aug 29, 2004 3:52 am

heya Bill...well I typed so much about the Pinz because I was bored and did have the time on a Friday night.

Peter is well known around Pinz circles. I am not to suprised you know him. I have seen video of the exact swamping you mention. Peter after that changed his snorkel design and I don't think he has had any probs since. My snorkel when hooked up right is above the passenger door built into the roll cage. This puts air intake way up and back, the only way to flood it being if you rolled the truck in water.

I won't say you are wrong because you are very obviously familar with a Pinz. I do think it has disadvantages. But over all the truck never lets me down and always comes through where I point it. i do think the central tube is a very strong design and it does keep things protected. My tranny, exhaust and the rest is tucked fairly high up above the central tube. The truck will have probs in rocks and is by no means a rock crawler so this is one area it will let me down.

Good point about the loud motor, had not really thought about that before. But I do not need to be quiet in my truck! The Pinz is designed for military use. The motor is found only in this truck and was put in nothing esle, designed specifically for the Pinz. The newer TD Pinz uses a VW diesel motor that I often here bad things or people complaining about.

Any ways...I think a Pinz can hold it's own and to date mine has done things other trucks I have owned can only dream of doing. I think it is a wonderful vehicle but like I said it does have limitations. I have not found the pictures I took of the Volvo 6x6 chassis. If and when I do find them I will for sure post the pictures....it also has a somewhat radical design.
www.rmp-o.com
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 6:58 pm

daddylonglegs wrote:Hi Ben, I suppose the original reason behind this thread was to discuss the Roadless Traction LandRover, which was originally thought to be the ultimate LandRover fom a cross country performance perspective. We now know that this is not quite true although it still remains a very desirable vehicle in my opinion. Bill.



SO, how about we look at the good points and shortcomings of this vehicle as a starting point. As far as I can see:

Good points:
50" wheels - long footprint length - good at traversing terrain that would stop smaller wheeled vehicles.

Lack of portals - in this case I think is an advantage - with 50" wheels you want CofG to be as low as possible, and 20" or so of clearance under the diff is plenty. 31 degrees or better front cross axle rampover, 35 degrees or better rear (if my rough calcs are correct).

No front or rear overhang and very good rampover angle.

Geared hubs to reduce loads on axles and diffs.

Good overall gearing - although some people may need lower.

Most components seem to have been strong and reliable

Bad points:
Lack of diff locks
Different front and rear track
Wide front track (disadvantage in treed areas)
Small tyre-wheelarch gap which limits uptravel.
Weak IIA box
Low top speed
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 8:36 pm

Most of the disadvantages could be overcome. difflocks could be made, the front and rear track widths could be matched. I still cannot see why they made them different. If the reverse Ackerman geometry would work with those tyres the track width could be reduced to about 70 inches for the same turning circle. Cycle type mudguards (fenders) could be fitted to permit full axle articulation. The final drive gearing is so low that even the series 2 gearbox is probably not overstressed. But a 5 speed gearbox and modern 80kmh rated tractor tyres should lift the top speed to acceptable levels for the vehicle type. low range gearing can be improved with a supplementary crawler box. When do you start building Ben?
Bill.
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 9:24 pm

I will admit I am very keen Bill (but nothing will happen for at least 2 years - don't have machining equipment in Germany - there is a fully equipped machining workshop downstairs here but they won't let me use it - and if I submit them CAD drawings of landrover parts I think they will realise). If I was 100% sure that I could do it (and make it reliable) using 35 spline salisburies I would definitely do it. I think finding some suitable planetary hubs (for a reasonable price) and adapting them would be the hardest part. I am like you and like to do all my mods on a shoestring budget and do everything myself. I would also have to be 100% sure that my engineer would approve the modification.

Maybe a 6x6 version of the forest rover with all-wheel steer and decent link suspension would be the ultimate off-road vehicle???

How does your reverse ackerman steering work on road at slow speeds Bill? If the tyre on the outside of the curve (which is turned more) describes the curve that the wheel is turning, surely that means you will scrub out the tread on the inside tyre
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:01 pm

I can only say Ben, that I run the TSL's all the time and tyre wear is certainly no worse than with normal Ackerman angles.Maybe even a slight improvement. Because the Roadless tyres protrude past the front spring hangers you can get more steering lock with reverse Ackerman before the inside tyre rubs on the chassis rails, so a narrower track would be feasable. Yes a 6x6 version of the Roadless would probably be the ultimate, but where do we draw the line ? If I lived in the Falkland Islands or some other place with liberal attitudes to vehicle modifications I might have a go at it, but the authorities in OZ are hell bent on stifling individuality and creativity.

Bill.
<<

ISUZUROVER

User avatar

Posts: 5803

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 3:02 pm

Location: Brisbane

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:35 pm

daddylonglegs wrote:I can only say Ben, that I run the TSL's all the time and tyre wear is certainly no worse than with normal Ackerman angles.Maybe even a slight improvement. Because the Roadless tyres protrude past the front spring hangers you can get more steering lock with reverse Ackerman before the inside tyre rubs on the chassis rails, so a narrower track would be feasable. Yes a 6x6 version of the Roadless would probably be the ultimate, but where do we draw the line ? If I lived in the Falkland Islands or some other place with liberal attitudes to vehicle modifications I might have a go at it, but the authorities in OZ are hell bent on stifling individuality and creativity.

Bill.


Maybe a way around the regs may be to build a "powered trailer" that works like a 6x6 (of course you can't use a bogey drive system like on a normal 6x6). I know LR experimented with this for the 101 and there was a Suzuki in the TTC in the US a while back that did quite well with a similar system. AFAIK the regs for trailers are a lot less stringent than for vehicle mods??? And you cold disconnect the drive on-road so the fuel consumption and tyre wear woule be less. And where you had too much flotation just disconnect the trailer.

It would solve the problem of equi-spaced axle 6x6's of pivoting on the middle axle when cresting hills - but you would need some sort of anti-jacknifing system - hydraulic steering of the trailer relative to the 4x4 offroad???- like skidders that steer in the middle?

What are your thoughts Bill?
_____________________________________________________________

RUFF wrote:Beally STFU Your becoming a real PITA.
<<

daddylonglegs

Posts: 705

Joined: Thu May 13, 2004 7:29 pm

Post Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:40 pm

Ben, my friend who I lent my suspension book "New directions in suspension design" is away at this time so I cannot quote directly from the aticle on Ackerman linkage, but they basically said that Ackerman got it wrong because when he did his calculations he did not factor in Slip Angles of the wheel/tyre units when making a turn. They concluded that it makes more sense to have parallel steering or even Reverse Ackeman angles. After reading that I tried it, liked it and haven't looked back.
PreviousNext

Return to Rover

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by ST Software.
eBay Sniper
Time : 0.160s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off | Load : 0.08