Freelander 1 Measuring yer wheel fred

[Hippo]

More like adding a bit of sense to a nonsensical imagined problem. But carry on with your sillyness. You can't even explain what all this is trying to prove.

This fred has nothing to do with you as you don't have a Freelander 1. You admit above you're not sure of how a FL1 vcu works. Putting down the work being done in a condensending mannor doesn't give you the moral high ground you seem to want to acheive. If you don't like what's being said/done, don't get involved.

It has clearly been said I'm not going to advise what I have been doing, other than the information I've put up so far. I want peeps measurements first. All I want to know is the answers to the OP. I'm greatful for those who help with this. I admitted above there IS a new method of testing a vcu, which I HAVE done, on the test rig I HAVE used. Your comment that it can't be done is daft when you consider it already has. Yes the applied torque is considerable, but so is the motor driving the vcu. The motor is heavier than me and has considerable power. The test is also very very dangerous to do, which will be highlighted as part of the write up at a later date. I was very close to damaging my arm while doing the test as I made a mistake. I don't have to answer to you especially when you're only here to cause trouble.

The new test has the ability to turn a vcu several times per minute. I'm not posting up the figure yet. It's not a question of IF it can happen. It's a fact it HAS happened and I HAVE filmed it. I plan to film more at the weekend. I'm close to finding the constant speed a vcu can be turned before is "seizes" up, or betterer put: activates. I have several camcorders some of which can film at 250 frames per minute on low bit rate.

This is not the first time you have gone out of your way to put down whats being done. You tried to destroy the ird ratio fred, this fred and not that long ago accused me of not knowing about diesel engines, when I asked questions as oppoesed to your desire to tell me I stated incorrect facts, which I didn't make. If you really do have a problem with what I'm doing, and you want to push me to put in public whats going on, then call my bluff to a mod. I will then tell said mod in confidence whats being done to confirm it's FACT, and supply EVIDENCE. The mod will be asked not to put up detail, only to confirm if the new test is real or not.

 

[wammers]

This fred has nothing to do with you as you don't have a Freelander 1. You admit above you're not sure of how a FL1 vcu works. Putting down the work being done in a condensending mannor doesn't give you the moral high ground you seem to want to acheive. If you don't like what's being said/done, don't get involved.

It has clearly been said I'm not going to advise what I have been doing, other than the information I've put up so far. I want peeps measurements first. All I want to know is the answers to the OP. I'm greatful for those who help with this. I admitted above there IS a new method of testing a vcu, which I HAVE done, on the test rig I HAVE used. Your comment that it can't be done is daft when you consider it already has. Yes the applied torque is considerable, but so is the motor driving the vcu. The motor is heavier than me and has considerable power. The test is also very very dangerous to do, which will be highlighted as part of the write up at a later date. I was very close to damaging my arm while doing the test as I made a mistake. I don't have to answer to you especially when you're only here to cause trouble.

The new test has the ability to turn a vcu several times per minute. I'm not posting up the figure yet. It's not a question of IF it can happen. It's a fact it HAS happened and I HAVE filmed it. I plan to film more at the weekend. I'm close to finding the constant speed a vcu can be turned before is "seizes" up, or betterer put: activates. I have several camcorders some of which can film at 250 frames per minute on low bit rate.

This is not the first time you have gone out of your way to put down whats being done. You tried to destroy the ird ratio fred, this fred and not that long ago accused me of not knowing about diesel engines, when I asked questions as oppoesed to your desire to tell me I stated incorrect facts, which I didn't make. If you really do have a problem with what I'm doing, and you want to push me to put in public whats going on, then call my bluff to a mod. I will then tell said mod in confidence whats being done to confirm it's FACT, and supply EVIDENCE. The mod will be asked not to put up detail, only to confirm if the new test is real or not.

No i am just trying to understand why you don't understand that what you are doing is a waste of time other than in your head. I fully understand how a VCU works thank you. Obviously you don't. The Freelander is an after thought four wheel drive, that is the problem. If the front and rear diff ratios were the same there would be no drive at all to the rear wheels unless one or both of the front ones had lost traction and was spinning. I have news for you the MOD won't have a bloody clue what you are talking about. I did not try to destroy any thread i just talked mechanical sense something you seem to lack in abundance. If you were asking people to maintain standard TPs and measure tyre deflection at various loads. Maybe you would get some useful info, what good it would be is questionable however, as i don't think it will cause Land rover to change the design any time soon. Basically a pointless exercise. If you are thinking of producing an expensive automatic VCU tester forget it a breaker bar works really well and is cheap. I will comment on any thread i think it fit to do so, if someone is talking bollocks i reserve the right to say so rather than others being guided by nonsensical information.

 

[Hippo]

No i am just trying to understand why you don't understand that what you are doing is a waste of time other than in your head. I fully understand how a VCU works thank you. Obviously you don't. The Freelander is an after thought four wheel drive, that is the problem. If the front and rear diff ratios were the same there would be no drive at all to the rear wheels unless one or both of the front ones had lost traction and was spinning. I have news for you the MOD won't have a bloody clue what you are talking about. I did not try to destroy any thread i just talked mechanical sense something you seem to lack in abundance. If you were asking people to maintain standard TPs and measure tyre deflection at various loads. Maybe you would get some useful info, what good it would be is questionable however, as i don't think it will cause Land rover to change the design any time soon. Basically a pointless exercise. If you are thinking of producing an expensive automatic VCU tester forget it a breaker bar works really well and is cheap. I will comment on any thread i think it fit to do so, if someone is talking bollocks i reserve the right to say so rather than others being guided by nonsensical information.

I'm sorry if not telling you about the test is winding you up. It doesn't matter what comments or accusations you chuck at me. I won't tell until I'm ready. I think you should have more respect for the mods. 1 photo says it all, or about 15 words. I even have a new name for the test. There is the option peeps can send the vcu for testing if they want. This could be arrange but time is limited. Commenting on what the test is or the cost... pointless if you don't even know the colour. Commenting on my knowledge... pointless as the testing will continue regardless of your comments. LR stopped production of the FL1 in 2006 so I don't know why you bring up the topic of a redesign, unless you've been reading my freds like the HCU topic. If LR were to bring the FL back into production then it would make sense to bring back the FL2. The request for measurements is NOT directly related to the new test, but it related to something I noticed the other day. I have a film of that too.

There is something you can do. Tell us how many revs put minute a vcu can turn before it "activates".
Answer the question and don't try to avoid it. Put yer balls on the chopping block. How many revs per minute? We're all waiting for your answer.

 

[blue beasty]

As it happens I do understand how a VCU works but more importantly I understand how testing theories by trail and error and that it's possible to learn something new.

Information has been requested, nothing more. There is nothing to argue about yet.

 

[wammers]

I'm sorry if not telling you about the test is winding you up. It doesn't matter what comments or acusations you chuck at me. I won't tell until I'm ready. I think you should have more respect for the mods. 1 photo says it all, or about 15 words. I even have a new name for the test. There is the option peeps can send the vcu for testing if they want. This could be arrange but time is limited. Commenting on what the test is or the cost... pointless if you don't even know the colour. Commenting on my knowledge... pointless as the testing will continue regardles of your comments. LR stopped production of the FL1 in 2006 so I don't know why you bring up the topic of a redseign, unles you've been reading my freds like the HCU topic. If LR were to bring the FL back into production then it would make sense to bring back the FL2. The requrest for measurements is NOT directly related to the new test, but it related to something I noticed the other day. I have a film of that too.

There is somethig you can do. Tell us how many revs put minute a vcu can turn before it "activates".
Answer the question and don't try to avoid it. Put yer balls on the chopping block. How many revs per minute? We're all waiting for your answer.

I don't know. But what good it will do you is questionable. You are obviously playing at engineering. If you said what you are trying to achieve maybe you could get some help. But up to now it's been nonsense. IRD ratios, rear axle ratios and overall ratios for the different specs of vehicle are easy to find in Freelander tech data. Maybe the VCU was changed because the builtin ratio mismatch front to rear was knackering them, so a new design was introduced, it's what's know as design progression. Not a new concept. The loaded rolling radius of the rear wheels will change significantly more when the car is fully loaded than that of the front wheels. Have you taken that into consideration?

 

[wammers]

As it happens I do understand how a VCU works but more importantly I understand how testing theories by trail and error and that it's possible to learn something new.

Information has been requested, nothing more. There is nothing to argue about yet.

Nobody is arguing, just doubting the value of the requested information at no specified load state and with various TPs and tyre wear. With load, different TPs and tyre wear things change considerably. Unless there are controlled conditions the info is pointless.

 

[blue beasty]

Nobody is arguing, just doubting the value of the requested information at no specified load state and with various TPs and tyre wear. With load, different TPs and tyre wear things change considerably. Unless there are controlled conditions the info is pointless.

Without knowing the reason how can you know it's pointless? More to the point why would you go to considerable time and effort to say so?

 

[wammers]

Without knowing the reason how can you know it's pointless? More to the point why would you go to considerable time and effort to say so?

I don't think you quite understood the post you just replied to. Random info is pointless. Unless the information gathering is controlled anything extrapolated from it is useless. In the IRD thread he asked and went to considerable trouble to post photographs of the gearing in two different IRD units, asking why the gears were different in one than the other. That was bloody obvious, they had different output ratios. Only someone with the mechanical knowledge of a glow worm would need to ask that question.

 

[dfossil]

Having put up my own numbers in support of Hippo's request and not wanting to highjack his thread I have put up my own thoughts in a thread called
VCUs - the sweet spot

 

[blue beasty]

I don't think you quite understood the post you just replied to. Random info is pointless. Unless the information gathering is controlled anything extrapolated from it is useless. In the IRD thread he asked and went to considerable trouble to post photographs of the gearing in two different IRD units, asking why the gears were different in one than the other. That was bloody obvious, they had different output ratios. Only someone with the mechanical knowledge of a glow worm would need to ask that question.

Your apparent need to belittle others knowledge doesn't answer why you feel you need to derail another freelander thread?

There is nothing to be lost here and perhaps something to be gained.

You aren't adding anything useful and are preventing the possibility of anything useful being added.

 

[wammers]

Your apparent need to belittle others knowledge doesn't answer why you feel you need to derail another freelander thread?

There is nothing to be lost here and perhaps something to be gained.

You aren't adding anything useful and are preventing the possibility of anything useful being added.

You are right of course i have no need to belittle he manages that on his own quite well with his lack of mechanical understanding. Bit like the doorman at Windscale working in the physics lab after hours.

 

[Hippo]

I don't think you quite understood the post you just replied to. Random info is pointless. Unless the information gathering is controlled anything extrapolated from it is useless. In the IRD thread he asked and went to considerable trouble to post photographs of the gearing in two different IRD units, asking why the gears were different in one than the other. That was bloody obvious, they had different output ratios. Only someone with the mechanical knowledge of a glow worm would need to ask that question.

Now yer picking on glow worms.
History dictates LR chaged the ratio from something we don't know, to 0.8 difference in prop speed. This is false information. What really happened was the v6 was born and that had the new 0.8 ratio, and all T4d's had the same ratio as the 1.8 petrol before/after the v6 came out, as opposed to us thinking they were different. Later 1.8's being considered betterer than early as they has the change to 0.8, which I found they didn't. If it were "obvious" then peeps wouldn't have made the mistake for many years, including reconners. I therefore put forward the question for thems who take their ird apart, to count teeth in support of this theory being correct or otherwise. So far I have had no responce despite a number of peeps cracking open ird's for repair.

Back to this fred. You haven't given yer answer to the number of rev's per minute.
What's on the board miss warmmers?

 

[Hippo]

You are right of course i have no need to belittle he manages that on his own quite well with his lack of mechanical understanding. Bit like the doorman at Windscale working in the physics lab after hours.

Higher than an ace? Yer still int answered. How many rev's per minute?

 

[wammers]

Higher than an ace? Yer still int answered. How many rev's per minute?

Yes i did.

 

[wammers]

Now yer picking on glow worms.
History dictates LR chaged the ratio from something we don't know, to 0.8 difference in prop speed. This is false information. What really happened was the v6 was born and that had the new 0.8 ratio, and all T4d's had the same ratio as the 1.8 petrol before/after the v6 came out, as opposed to us thinking they were different. Later 1.8's being considered betterer than early as they has the change to 0.8, which I found they didn't. If it were "obvious" then peeps wouldn't have made the mistake for many years, including reconners. I therefore put forward the question for thems who take their ird apart, to count teeth in support of this theory being correct or otherwise. So far I have had no responce despite a number of peeps cracking open ird's for repair.

Back to this fred. You haven't given yer answer to the number of rev's per minute.
What's on the board miss warmmers?

The KV6 IRD output ratio is higher than the others to reduce the engine RPM at the same road speed it would make sense to do that. The front prop has to revolve faster than the one behind the VCU to give drive to the rear wheels. If it didn't and revolved at the same speed there would not be any drive to the rear wheels unless the front ones had lost traction and were spinning. That is why there are different diff ratios front to rear. All you need to do to work that out is study the tech datasheets.

 

[blue beasty]

The KV6 IRD output ratio is higher than the others to reduce the engine RPM at the same road speed it would make sense to do that. The front prop has to revolve faster than the one behind the VCU to give drive to the rear wheels. If it didn't and revolved at the same speed there would not be any drive to the rear wheels unless the front ones had lost traction and were spinning. That is why there are different diff ratios front to rear. All you need to do to work that out is study the tech datasheets.

Why there is a difference in ratio front and back isn't in question.

Why give a detailed explanation of something that hasn't been questioned?

There is limited tolerance of trolling in technical sections. Please stop deliberately derailing the thread.

 

[Hippo]

Yes i did.

No you didn't. You haven't given a figure of the number of turns a vcu can take per minute before it activates. I will give you a clue. It's less than 500.

The KV6 IRD output ratio is higher than the others to reduce the engine RPM at the same road speed it would make sense to do that. The front prop has to revolve faster than the one behind the VCU to give drive to the rear wheels. If it didn't and revolved at the same speed there would not be any drive to the rear wheels unless the front ones had lost traction and were spinning. That is why there are different diff ratios front to rear. All you need to do to work that out is study the tech datasheets.

No. The fred didn't ask why. It clearly stated all ird's other than the v6 were the same ratio. It stated there was no change of ratio. The different ratio was only put in the v6. It didn't ask why. It asked peeps to contribute if they took their ird apart, by counting teeth. Thats is all.

Not going to respond to you anymore. Give it a rest ffs.

 

[wammers]

Why there is a difference in ratio front and back isn't in question.

Why give a detailed explanation of something that hasn't been questioned?

There is limited tolerance of trolling in technical sections. Please stop deliberately derailing the thread.

I am not trolling i am trying to offer and explanation, if you don't understand that maybe the comment about MODS not knowing what Hippo was on about was justified. The speed differential front to rear is crucial to the discussion. If there wasn't one there would be no discussion. The VCU transmits torque to the rear prop shaft BECAUSE of this ratio differential, between 360 and 440 Nm with a 75 RPM difference in front to rear rotational speed through the VCU. There has to be this speed difference or there would be no drive to the rear wheels. Unless in the conditions as previously posted. It's a bit of an Heath Robinson design to be honest not Land rovers best idea by a long chalk.

 

[wammers]

No you didn't. You haven't given a figure of the number of turns a vcu can take per minute before it activates. I will give you a clue. It's less than 500.

No. The fred didn't ask why. It clearly stated all ird's other than the v6 were the same ratio. It stated there was no change of ratio. The different ratio was only put in the v6. It didn't ask why. It asked peeps to contribute if they took their ird apart, by counting teeth. Thats is all.

Not going to respond to you anymore. Give it a rest ffs.

Think you are a rainbow chaser. Carry on.

 

[blue beasty]

I am not trolling i am trying to offer and explanation, if you don't understand that maybe the comment about MODS not knowing what Hippo was on about was justified. The speed differential front to rear is crucial to the discussion. If there wasn't one there would be no discussion. The VCU transmits torque to the rear prop shaft BECAUSE of this ratio differential, between 360 and 440 Nm with a 75 RPM difference in front to rear rotational speed through the VCU. There has to be this speed difference or there would be no drive to the rear wheels. Unless in the conditions as previously posted. It's a bit of an Heath Robinson design to be honest not Land rovers best idea by a long chalk.

Insulting me doesn't really support your view that you're not trolling

Once again this thread is a request for data. If you can't do anything other than pour scorn on the request than please leave the thread alone.

It's a simple request and I've asked politely.