Thread: Underseat fuel tank rubber mounts

Originally Posted by Chops

So as a thought,, is there any way of finding out "if" there was a design change/reason Neil?
Would records show this? I know in modern times, in R&D, we used to have to record everything.

Hello again from Brisbane.

A reasonable proposition I suppose. However, hard to know how to follow it up - if for no more human reason than a Company's likely reluctance to confess to the need to rectify some piece or other of poor initial design (apologies to the true believers).

My own thoughts are a bit mixed, especially after watching the last few episodes of the great bridges of Britain. Foremost, the railway bridge that Stephenson built to span the Menai Strait - a true marvel of Victorian engineering. The key to its success was the box section design of the main spans that gave great carrying capacity for a relatively light weight. This revolutionary design was based on plant stalks and continues to be used across the globe to the present day. Climbing down from the Pathe hyperbole, Series Land Rovers all (?) have a box section chassis, a key element of their toughness - so despite the use of thinner plate in the later chassis the question arises of whether there is enough flex to crack a rigidly mounted tank?

I retreat to my suggestion that some engineer likely took a look at the arrangement and decided that it might be timely to go for a single rubber bushed bolt for a change.

Cheers,

Neil