Re: 6-wheeler discovery...

In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> writes
>
>...anyone want one?
>
>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco1.jpg
>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco2.jpg

Can I put in an order for the second one please Austin, it looks perfect
for my job?

--
Regards
Graham Jones

On or around Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:49:35 GMT, Graham Jones
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
><[email protected]> writes
>>
>>...anyone want one?
>>
>>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco1.jpg
>>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco2.jpg
>
>Can I put in an order for the second one please Austin, it looks perfect
>for my job?

depends... Actually, I do seriously reckon it's possible - however, I'm not
sure how much it'd cost. If you make it out of 1 decent disco and one
broken one, not all that much, perhaps. a front-end shunted one with a
half-decent rear chassis ought to do it, although you'd want a usable front
axle for the rear-wheel steering. Of course, there'd be no point in doing
one that was too old or dodgy condition, as it's inevitably going to cost a
fair amount (compared with an ordinary disco, say) and you'd want it to go
for long enough to recoup the cost.

The pickup-back-end one would be easier, too, in the matter of bodywork, as
you'd not have to match the roof lines and create a satisfactory smooth, and
more to the point, waterproof, joint.

My plan was to keep the centre axle rigid and have a counter-steering rear
one, which would keep the turning circle the same. However, you could set
up a same-steer middle axle and accept the turning circle that comes with a
135" (ish) wheelbase. The main point about steering the third axle is to
get rid of the tyre scrub, which would be, I reckon, unacceptable. Tyre
scrub also puts heavy side loads on everything else.

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:49:35 GMT, Graham Jones
> <[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >In message <[email protected]>, Austin Shackles
> ><[email protected]> writes
> >>
> >>...anyone want one?
> >>
> >>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco1.jpg
> >>http://www.ddol-las.fsnet.co.uk/temp/long_disco2.jpg
> >
> >Can I put in an order for the second one please Austin, it looks perfect
> >for my job?
>
> depends... Actually, I do seriously reckon it's possible - however, I'm not
> sure how much it'd cost. If you make it out of 1 decent disco and one
> broken one, not all that much, perhaps. a front-end shunted one with a
> half-decent rear chassis ought to do it, although you'd want a usable front
> axle for the rear-wheel steering. Of course, there'd be no point in doing
> one that was too old or dodgy condition, as it's inevitably going to cost a
> fair amount (compared with an ordinary disco, say) and you'd want it to go
> for long enough to recoup the cost.
>
> The pickup-back-end one would be easier, too, in the matter of bodywork, as
> you'd not have to match the roof lines and create a satisfactory smooth, and
> more to the point, waterproof, joint.
>
> My plan was to keep the centre axle rigid and have a counter-steering rear
> one, which would keep the turning circle the same. However, you could set
> up a same-steer middle axle and accept the turning circle that comes with a
> 135" (ish) wheelbase. The main point about steering the third axle is to
> get rid of the tyre scrub, which would be, I reckon, unacceptable. Tyre
> scrub also puts heavy side loads on everything else.
>

Would this be like a castor or would it be actually steered by some means?

On or around Sun, 5 Sep 2004 14:34:50 +0100, "Nige"
<nigel.inceNO****[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>
>"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>>
>> My plan was to keep the centre axle rigid and have a counter-steering rear
>> one, which would keep the turning circle the same. However, you could set
>> up a same-steer middle axle and accept the turning circle that comes with a
>> 135" (ish) wheelbase. The main point about steering the third axle is to
>> get rid of the tyre scrub, which would be, I reckon, unacceptable. Tyre
>> scrub also puts heavy side loads on everything else.
>>
>
>Would this be like a castor or would it be actually steered by some means?
>

linked to the front axle by suitable linkage. it can't castor or it'll go
wrong in reverse. Mind, 's a good point. the swivels on the rear steering
axle (which is a front axle running back'ards) will have to be swapped so
they're on the same side of the vehicle in order to get the castor angles
right. This applies whether or not it counter-steers or same-steers, I
suspect.

>>> My plan was to keep the centre axle rigid and have a counter-steering rear
>>> one, which would keep the turning circle the same. However, you could set
>>> up a same-steer middle axle and accept the turning circle that comes with a
>>> 135" (ish) wheelbase. The main point about steering the third axle is to
>>> get rid of the tyre scrub, which would be, I reckon, unacceptable. Tyre
>>> scrub also puts heavy side loads on everything else.
>>>
>>
>>Would this be like a castor or would it be actually steered by some means?
>>
>
>linked to the front axle by suitable linkage. it can't castor or it'll go
>wrong in reverse. Mind, 's a good point. the swivels on the rear steering
>axle (which is a front axle running back'ards) will have to be swapped so
>they're on the same side of the vehicle in order to get the castor angles
>right. This applies whether or not it counter-steers or same-steers, I
>suspect.

Easier to do it with hydraulics than linkages. A master cylinder on
the front steering, piping down the vehicle to a slave cylinder on the
rear set. easier than faffing about with bloody great long track rods.

Alex

On or around Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:40:26 GMT, Alex <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>>linked to the front axle by suitable linkage. it can't castor or it'll go
>>wrong in reverse. Mind, 's a good point. the swivels on the rear steering
>>axle (which is a front axle running back'ards) will have to be swapped so
>>they're on the same side of the vehicle in order to get the castor angles
>>right. This applies whether or not it counter-steers or same-steers, I
>>suspect.
>
>Easier to do it with hydraulics than linkages. A master cylinder on
>the front steering, piping down the vehicle to a slave cylinder on the
>rear set. easier than faffing about with bloody great long track rods.

maybe. I like mechanical links, though - easier to bodge when they break or
bend. I've been known to put the jack under a track rod before now...

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On or around Sun, 05 Sep 2004 17:40:26 GMT, Alex
<[email protected]>
> enlightened us thusly:
>
> >>linked to the front axle by suitable linkage. it can't castor or it'll
go
> >>wrong in reverse. Mind, 's a good point. the swivels on the rear
steering
> >>axle (which is a front axle running back'ards) will have to be swapped
so
> >>they're on the same side of the vehicle in order to get the castor
angles
> >>right. This applies whether or not it counter-steers or same-steers, I
> >>suspect.
> >
> >Easier to do it with hydraulics than linkages. A master cylinder on
> >the front steering, piping down the vehicle to a slave cylinder on the
> >rear set. easier than faffing about with bloody great long track rods.
>
> maybe. I like mechanical links, though - easier to bodge when they break
or
> bend. I've been known to put the jack under a track rod before now...
>
What about a small sprocket on the input to the front steering box, a chain
to connect to a larger sprocket inputting into a flexible driveshaft (tubed
teleflex or similar?) running to rear (LHD) steering box, where again you
have a small sprocket on the shaft and a chain to a larger sprocket on the
steering box. This should give the necessary down-gearing as it were of the
rear steer system, indeed it would be a doddle to alter the ratios to
fine-tune it.
Just remember to have all the panhard rods (if that's how you wish to locate
the axles) connecting to the chassis on the same side otherwise strange
things happen going over bumps!!

--
Badger.
B.H.Engineering,
Rover V8 engine specialists.

now live but still under construction,
www.bhengineering.co.uk
www.roverv8engines.com
www.roverv8engines.co.uk

On or around Sun, 5 Sep 2004 22:09:40 +0100, "Badger"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>>
>> maybe. I like mechanical links, though - easier to bodge when they break
>or
>> bend. I've been known to put the jack under a track rod before now...
>>
>What about a small sprocket on the input to the front steering box, a chain
>to connect to a larger sprocket inputting into a flexible driveshaft (tubed
>teleflex or similar?) running to rear (LHD) steering box, where again you
>have a small sprocket on the shaft and a chain to a larger sprocket on the
>steering box. This should give the necessary down-gearing as it were of the
>rear steer system, indeed it would be a doddle to alter the ratios to
>fine-tune it.

a bit fiddly, I'd've thought. and probably prone to have too much slack in
it. Rod with trackrod style ends was what I had in mind, though in practice
it might have to be more than one rod.

>Just remember to have all the panhard rods (if that's how you wish to locate
>the axles) connecting to the chassis on the same side otherwise strange
>things happen going over bumps!!

good point. The middle axle will have an A frame as normal, I hadn't
decided whether to do a second A frame for the rear one or a Panhard rod.
Panhard rod would doubtless be easier to set up on a front axle, as it has
the fittings for it.