Outer Limits 4x4 Board

moose wrote:

Shorty40 wrote:
Are you that emphatic about everything you say or is it like a trademark

that would be it !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought they were lots of little walking sticks to help you not fall over

If you guys were doing a ruf again would you strat with the NT or WT?

Grimbo I noticed that you said you had narrow track diffs with a large offset and this didn't cause any problems.

I want to do this conversion but would prefer to use a narrow track to keep cost down? I would consider changing to WT diffs later on if I did it this way.

DeWsE wrote:If you guys were doing a ruf again would you strat with the NT or WT?

Grimbo I noticed that you said you had narrow track diffs with a large offset and this didn't cause any problems.

I want to do this conversion but would prefer to use a narrow track to keep cost down? I would consider changing to WT diffs later on if I did it this way.

The best setup would be widetrack diffs, with the spring hangers mounted straight under the chassis (i.e. as per narrow track setup).

For a few reasons:
1. the hangers at the front are easier to build.
2. the back is easier to convert to 3/4 elyptic if you chose to do so later down the track.
3. the further inboard you run your springs, the more leverage you can place upon them - this equates to more flex

So you should either start with a widetrack sierra and move the spring hangers inboard. Or, start with a narrow track sierra, and swap the diffs over for some widetracks.

Note: Longer springs = more travel - so if you set it up to run something even longer than a sierra rear spring (so long as you can get the rate to be nice and soft), you will get more travel out of it.

I have wide tracks now. haven't used it much yet but I am getting more travel because

1. With the extra width of the diffs it is placing greater leverage on the springs making them flex better

2. the extra width gives more flex just because its wider, i can't be bothered with the full on tech response

3. My springs are still set as per a NT, ie under the frame whereas a WT has the springs outboard

Either setup (NT or WT) works just depends on what you have. If you have NTs then do it with them and offset your wheels. Down the track when you have some cash then get some WTs. The setup and process to do it is the same for both

Ferozius wrote:

miikeboyle wrote:hey moose

whats the specs on your rim and tyre sizes

thanks
mike

33x12.5R15 Super Swampers

Are they my old swampers ???

Guy

not sure but they are my brothers rims

Moose, Stephen is sort of keen to get them back I think

I have a 92 hardtop WT at the moment, but have the opputunity to pick up a softtop NT at a good price. My problem is the WT is in to good a nick to cut up and I want a soft top. So I think if I did a ruf it would be on the NT.

How did you engineers feel about you extending the chassis and ruf, from ppl i've talked to they said no way and they didn't want to know about it.

What year is the NT? is it a 1.3L or a 1L?

I think it is a 85 but I know that it is a 1.3L

DeWsE wrote:I think it is a 85 but I know that it is a 1.3L

Those two models will have swapable bodies - you could put the soft top on the hardtop and the hardtop on the soft top

That is a good idea greg but I think that I would prefer to sell the WT and have spare money for other stuff. (Like pink paint)

I wouldn't have a problem cutting and welding a $1000 pos, But I would have a problem cutting a $5500 dollar rig.

Then again money is money and it all ends up some where else and not in my pocket!

DeWsE wrote:(Like pink paint)

Oh its better than pink paint, it was pink Gaffer Tape

DeWsE wrote:That is a good idea greg but I think that I would prefer to sell the WT and have spare money for other stuff. (Like pink paint)

Oh you're a funny one aren't you

DeWsE wrote:How did you engineers feel about you extending the chassis and ruf, from ppl i've talked to they said no way and they didn't want to know about it.

I missed this bit before...

As yet i haven't had mine engieered... However, there is a fellow currently building a LWB with a chassis extension at the front here in melbourne... He has been in discussions with an engineer from day one regarding the mods being done and my understanding is that the will get past with the chassis extension in place.

However, there are a few things that he has to do in order to get it engineered - they were something like using a sleeve inside the chassis and new chassis bit and welding this in with puddle welds etc...

Christover took step by step pics of this - so he may be able to put some up to show you what i mean

Hope that helps

No i'm not funny I just think it looked "cute"

All this talk and nothing happening, I better start saving and ordering gear. Don't think to many ppl would have done a ruf this end of the world, would love to see the faces of the hilux guys (seem to have a attitude where I live) if I drove pass on a set of 34's.

From what I've seen when the guys building a hot rod mahe cut it has to be "fish plated" and "gusseted". A sleeve would work quite well I would imagine.

I will have a chat to an engineer I know before I start, he usually does houses and stuff but he has designed truck traillers before. I call him Dangerous Dave, Coz I see a lot of his work and he signs off just about anything. (I'm a building surveyor)
But he is usually very helpfull and uses common sense. So he might be able to approve something like this without to much prob.

If this does go ahead I wouldn't drive it on the road that much, but I would think the cops wouldn't care to much...To busy busting the boy racers

I'll be the odd one out and support the addition of the fish plates/gussets etc.

I'f you didn't like the idea of big fish plates on the side's of the chassis rail/RHS, then as a minimum I would add either...

1. a piece if 50x6 plate to the underside of the RHS, 150mm long (75mm either side of join)

2. a 'extended copy' of the existing mount (the bit of tube the bushes go in is welded to a 'modified' piece/half of 40x40x3 rhs, this piece is extended such that it overlaps the join when welded in place, see next sketch)

The lower side of the chasis rail (in this area) is in tension, and the upper side in compression, so, structurally, if I was going to add steel/strength, I would be welding any form of assistance to the lower side.

Note: all welding is to the sides, and not directly across the tension member (see sketch again...)

This is what I'm doing on mine, plus I'll be adding a 6mm plate betweel the rails (with appropriate bracing) for the mount for the winch).

I trust this assists, rather than confuse, since the main point is to add strenght to the tension side, as this is where the join would probably fail first (ie where a crack would start...)

Heres the crap sketch/photo........

Thanks for that reply, not that hard to understand it was well written.

I beleive you are right in saying that you must support the area in tension, my only thought to that is that the load will change direction depending on what state the spring is in. When the spring is in full droop I would think that the tension is above the RHS. Don't quite know if that amount of load would bother the chassis rail though.

That looks pretty good .. The only thing I would add (besides another 25mm to make it an even 10 cm) would be an additional crossmember and a plate to ensure tension loads (like snatching and winching) are adaquately allowed for (as I am sure they are in the previous design)


Like this

Do you know how big steve did his, it looks quite neet only having one cross member?

DeWsE wrote:Do you know how big steve did his, it looks quite neet only having one cross member?

Big Steve used a brace to hold the chassis rails steady, then removed the front tube bit, and welded the new 100mm bit in place with a tube in it.

The holes from the original tube were then closed over with the circles that were cut out of the box for the extension (to put the tube through)...

Found some pics for any one who is interested.

I wish that was my welding, this was a pic of sean whites samyota, which is reverse shackle.

Here's my understanding of how the fellow in melbourne built his extension which is meant to be engineered once it's completed...

If I could see it. it would be good but it appears as X extension.JPG

DeWsE wrote:If I could see it. it would be good but it appears as X extension.JPG

Ta'da - all fixed

yep, that would work to, heaps of way's to make mouse traps.

Fortunately, the amount of leverage in this instance is very small.

Auto Engineers get nervous when we start hacking chassis rails in the middle of the rails (ie halfway between front and rear wheels).

Bottom line, heaps of ways to achieve the same end, most methods are strong enough for this particular application, just go with the way your 'preffered engineer' suggests, as he's the one who signs the bottom line.

Can,t help myself , my sixpence says If your gunna run rears up front on an spring under , Add a steering box sector shaft to your spares kit.

Larry.

Say no To RUF (/).

Dozoor wrote:Can,t help myself , my sixpence says If your gunna run rears up front on an spring under , Add a steering box sector shaft to your spares kit.

Larry.

Say no To RUF (/).

why? I have been running this for at least 2 -3 years now and never had any problems

Thats what I like to see this tread becoming a debate again the way it start out as.

Well spoa like the nursery rhyme " and we all fall down"