Well i havent said much of my project on here in a while. I guess you could say thats because nothing has been happening with it, but heres a quick update.

Unfortunately, after pulling the tub off of the rig, i found the frame to be immensely rusted and poorly patched. Not to mention that after having quite a few more hours to study the rig, it appears to be a complete basket case.

so what i have done is sold my other frame (a Marsland 88" galvy), and bought a great condition exMOD 109 pickup frame, and rear body tub.

with a new plan in hand, i will continue work when the new frame gets here.

the new plan basically consists of narrowing a fullwidth D60 rear end to stock series truck width (maybe an inch or two wider), a D44 front down to the same width. i will spring the rearend with 63" chevys, sprung over, and with a few leaves removed. the frontend with some worn out 88" rear springs, also sprung over.

i also plan to put the 302 from the old rig into the 109 now, hopefully with a T18 or NP435 and series truck transfer case.

we'll see though, these plans might change some as time moves along.

btw, the reason for the 109 is that the longer wheelbase will be more stable, offer me more room for longer leaf springs, and most of all, be easier and safer to weld on compares to the galvanized 88" frame. plus i have always liked the look of the 109s :D

but dont worry, i have a few tricks up my sleeve to improve the departure angle a bit :D

Hey I have pics of a truck built to those specs EXACTLY if you wanna see them.

It's in the same shop that we're building the 145 in. I just happened to take some pics of it when he finished his spring-over. Man it's gonna be a sweet ride!

Michael

Originally posted by Serious One
Hey I have pics of a truck built to those specs EXACTLY if you wanna see them.

It's in the same shop that we're building the 145 in. I just happened to take some pics of it when he finished his spring-over. Man it's gonna be a sweet ride!

Michael

hell yeah! email them to me Adam@Pirate4x4.com.

thanks mike!

Ok, I spoke too soon.

This truck has 88 rears that have been de-arched in the front

109 SW rear springs that have had the overload springs mounted upside-down

Buick 215, NP235 (I think), Rover t-case.

Front frame horns have been lengthened and the front spring mounts from the Serious One have been used on this 107 SW. (which I think it's cool that Serious One parts are being recycled now)

Salisbury rear axle

Rover Series One front axle with tracta-joints

Drums front/back

work in progress.....

here are the pics mike sent me of the SI 107 SW in the shop.

this is he text of his email:

"I think they are 38x12.5's.

This particular 107 was chopped up waaaaaaaaaay before the current owner ended up with it. A group of Boy Scouts from S. America drove it from the tip of Panama to the tip of Alaska for a project back in the 60's (70's maybe...), and then had to sell the truck in Alaska to buy plane tickets home. The engine block had pieces of a cast-iron stove welded to it where it had cracked the block, the bodywork was THRASHED and the t-case/tranny was shot to hell. That is the tip of the iceberg on the story for the 107.

Doing anything at all to this truck would be rescuing it. Turning it into a wheeler makes the weird twisted history just that much cooler IMO. Since it was already a basket case, just turning it into a different form of a basket case really is what it deserves."

btw, mike would you mind if i called my truck the Serious Too :D heheheh

Did Chauncy end up with Roberts 107. And please say it won't be repainted, That paint job alone is worth owing the truck.

Is it to end up as a wagon?

-Jeff

Yeah, Chauncy ended up with Robert's 107. I know that it won't be re-painted, and I think that he's going to run it as a pick-up initially.

I think he has a good condition roof, and plans to put a cage in it to (ala- Russell).

Adam, you can feel free to call your truck anything you want!! Just make sure it fits!

Michael

Originally posted by 9-Volt


the new plan basically consists of narrowing a fullwidth D60 rear end to stock series truck width (maybe an inch or two wider), a D44 front down to the same width. i will spring the rearend with 63" chevys, sprung over, and with a few leaves removed. the frontend with some worn out 88" rear springs, also sprung over.


The only thing I question is why stick with such narrow axles?
Why not just use 60-63" wide axles?

Originally posted by roverhybrids


The only thing I question is why stick with such narrow axles?
Why not just use 60-63" wide axles?

because i want to keep it street legal, with at least the majority of the tire under the fender. i think stock series axles are 58" WMS (mike, you know?) and i like the way they fit the bodywork. so i just bought a 58" WMS D44 frontend :D

I dunno the width of a stock series axle.

You must be confusing me with the walking LR encyclopedia. ;)

Michael

Hello 9 Volt

I considered going for rear springs on the front of my 109 but as it isnt spring over and its not running mega size tyres the loss of arrival angle becomes a real issue. Even with extra height and tyre size the extra length of spring sticking out the front must be a trade off against the improvment in flex.

The short front springs fitted as standard to Land Rovers can be made to flex well (my 109 has 22" of articulation from the front end) but you must pay close atention to their setup to get them to perform like this.

Because of the springs short length the geometry between spring and shackle is hyper critical. This is because the length of the shackle is much greater, as a proportion of the overall spring length, giving it more influence over the behaviour of the spring. Also with a shorter spring the amount of twist that the spring has to accept during articulation has a much greater affect on just how far the spring will allow the axle to travel so some way of relieving this twist becomes more important.

The front end on my 109 flexes much better than that of my 88 fitted with Revolver Shackles and drives well on the road.

Perhaps you should give some consideration to making the standard length front springs flex to their full potential before you stretch the front of your chassis out to catch rocks all the time.

Michael
I would be very interested in seeing any more photos of that 107 in the workshop that you have. Would their be any chance of emailing them to this address



[EMAIL=Nigel Aldred <nigel.aldred@mapline-engineering.de>[EMAIL]

I would like to see as many details of the spring over as possible as I have never had the chance to have a close look at a spring over LR.

hey Nigel, you have any pics of the front of your 109 flexing? the reson why i want to run 88 rears on the front of my 109 is that it has been done before, and it works very well. and besides, anything that you can do to a rover front spring you can do to a rover rear spring for even MORE flex :D

i dont think that running the ends of the chassis into the ground will be a problem, as i plan to be running 36-37" tires. could you post some more pics of your 88 and your 109 too? id like to see them.

thanks!

9 Volt

Do a search on my user name and you should come up with some pics of both my 109 and my 88.

The 88 appears in a thread titled english flex

the 109 appears in a thread titled serious leaf sprung flex

I will post a couple to this thread later.


The front end on my 109 out flexes the rear by a fair margin:

22" front flex and 13" rear flex

I will explain why later:smokin:

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Jun/20026111286065733583447.jpg

http://mediaservice.photoisland.com/auction/Jun/20026112835825342515192.jpg

9 volt

Not being in any way mathmatically inclined I sat down at a drawing board to work out how to ge the front end to flex like this on standard length springs. I simplyfied the spring and shackle into a series of straight lines and pivots and then plotted the curves everything moved in (nothing in suspension moves in straight lines). The plots allowed me to chose the best geometry for the spring and shackle.

The front end uses military length shackles (5 3/4") and parrabolic springs, these springs have virtually no internal friction as the leaves only touch at the ends. Having sorted out the theoretical maximum travel for the springs all that remained was to ensure that the spring was free to move as naturally as possible during articulation. To reduce the amount of twist imparted to the spring as the axle articulates the front mounting point was modified substantialy. Standard shackles are used no missing links or Revolvers.

A Land Rover fitted with parrabolic springs already has a reasonable amount of flex from the rear end. I have ploted the geometry for the rear springs in the same way as I did for the fronts and suprisingly I have not been able to generate the same level of theoretical flex from them as I did from the front springs, despite trying all the same tricks. so perhaps your idea that whatever can be done to front springs will give even more flex on the longer rear springs is untrue. I say perhaps because modifications to the rear suspension are still at the theoretical stage and havent made it into the real world yet.

I think the reason for this may be the difference in proportion of shackle length to spring length.

1:6 at the front (military length shackles)
1:9 at the rear (military length shackles)

These are from memory I am afraid and so may get edited at some stage. Because of this difference in proportion the shackle for the front spring is able to compensate for a proportionaly greater reduction in length hence a greater arch in the spring which for us translates to more flex.

(hope this doesnt sound to muddled it realy needs drawings to become clear)

I am interested in the LR Michael showed photos of because for a while now I have been thinking about the idea of buildind a spring over 109 using completly flat "single leaf" springs that will flex just as happily in both directions so removing the problem of damaging springs through reverse arching them. Which I think is where most spring over setups get their extra travel from.

I have formed this opinion about spring over conversions because when I have pointed out the fact that my front springs are flexed to very nearly their theoretical maximum nobody has been able to come up with a reason why putting the axle under the springs would generate any more flex.

I am up for suggestions and reasoned thinking on the last point so feel free to yell and shout at me:smokin:

hey 9 volt if you run hummer rims you can keep the axle full width and keep the tire up tight under the body, something to consider versus cutting and shortening axles
not to mention that you could buy evilfij's eaton or another an then you could have an offset rear for your rover t-case
you should be able to get rims, runflat/beadlocks and some used hummer tires from daniel 6x6 for about $150 each plus shipping, which is a good deal considering that one swamper is at least $200 for a comparable size (38 sx's)
I hope you stick with this plan and start wrenching!:flipoff2: