|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:06:07 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:06:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:08:36 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:09:57 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:10:46 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 12, 2012 21:11:43 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by m201 on Dec 12, 2012 21:38:05 GMT 1
Are your bulges under places that carry load from the kit you have added to the chassis please Muttley?
|
|
|
Post by FredTransit on Dec 13, 2012 9:50:21 GMT 1
I think he came to the conclusion it was the chassis length that was the problem
|
|
|
Post by m201 on Dec 13, 2012 10:36:29 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 13, 2012 19:35:51 GMT 1
I think Fred means that he shortened the chassis to move the spec gear closer to the cab so its more between the front/rear axles spreading the load across the whole truck a bit better.
|
|
|
Post by stoney on Dec 13, 2012 19:39:02 GMT 1
also, with less distance and light weak chassis between the heavy cab/engine and the spec there is less chance of it bending but it will be able to lift less.
|
|
|
Post by m201 on Dec 13, 2012 19:50:37 GMT 1
I think Fred means that he shortened the chassis to move the spec gear closer to the cab so its more between the front/rear axles spreading the load across the whole truck a bit better. [font=comic ] Do you reckon Muttley shorted the rear overhang rather than the wheelbase then please Stoney?[/font]
|
|
|
Post by muttleymk2 on Dec 13, 2012 22:02:50 GMT 1
If you check back thru the pics I chopped off all the rear chassis right back to the spring hangers, also I took 2 feet out of the wheelbase by cutting the chassis. The bulges in the chassis are typical of spec bodied Transits, Muttley III had a spec chassis that only went to the back of the cab and not up to the rear of the front seats like Muttley II. This was because M2 was a LWB and M3 was XLWB so the body chassis was too short. This meant that there was a stress point in the chassis where the spec chassis ended and all the leverage was on the original single chassis With hindsight I should have extended the spec chassis forward and into the cab, this puts the stress point at the rear front spring hanger which is much stronger. I did this with Jimmy and never had the bulge problem
|
|
|
Post by m201 on Dec 13, 2012 22:36:05 GMT 1
If you check back thru the pics I chopped off all the rear chassis right back to the spring hangers, also I took 2 feet out of the wheelbase by cutting the chassis. The bulges in the chassis are typical of spec bodied Transits, Muttley III had a spec chassis that only went to the back of the cab and not up to the rear of the front seats like Muttley II. This was because M2 was a LWB and M3 was XLWB so the body chassis was too short. This meant that there was a stress point in the chassis where the spec chassis ended and all the leverage was on the original single chassis With hindsight I should have extended the spec chassis forward and into the cab, this puts the stress point at the rear front spring hanger which is much stronger. I did this with Jimmy and never had the bulge problem Yup, that makes sense to me now you've explained it Muttley, thank you. The further you take the reinforcement along chassis, the less the load / stress at the end of it. Like longer handles on a wheel barrow makes the muck in the barrow seems lighter, and less smelly. ;D
Did you taper the end of the reinforcement as Fords do with the top section of the chassis under the seats please Muttley?
|
|
|
Post by muttleymk2 on Dec 14, 2012 21:57:07 GMT 1
Nah ;D
|
|