combined trailing arm mount/body outrigger

here are some more pics to ponder.....

Can someone tell me why the LR engineers chose to not weld the corners of the TA mount

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-001-rs.jpg

And then did weld the corners of the body outrigger

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-002-rs.jpg


My guess is that the outrigger mostly sees compressive forces, ie straight down, hence why the top is overlapped to the flange center line....but Im thinking maybe the TA mount sees more twisting???


I was thinking that a compromise may be to fold the bottom of the mount at the yellow line, forward say at 45 degrees, so that the welding was not directly "across" the bottom flange??

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-003-rs.jpg

I think you are on the right track. I would also shape it to avoid any welding across a chassis rail. You may need to plate the chassis face and weld the outrigger to the plates.
It's not a bad thing that modifications need done to a higher standard than factory.

What's the story with compliance and engineers certs?

Serg, I think you are on the right track with your combination outrigger design. The only possible reservation I have is the chassis rail itself. I recall looking at pieces of a written off early 110 chassis that had been cut up into manageable size chunks. The box section in the rear suspension area appeared to be virtually double skinned. I don't know if this double skinning extended as far forward as the trailing arm mounting area but it may be worth checking out.If it is double skinned there, I doubt it would extend as far forward as your new proposed location.
I believe LandRovers bean counters have made 'cost savings' on Defender chassis, particularly 130's,so it wouldn't surprise me if the double skinning disappeared years ago, along with Salisbury diffs etc.
I think you already have rock sliders fitted from memory. Tying all outriggers together with these should also help rigidify things a bit.
Bill.

welding across the flanges:

Note that the top overlap of flange only goes to center, so any welding is not fully across the flange. As I said earlier I would cut the ends of this overlap so they are on an angle, say atleast 45 degrees...

Regarding the bottom section of the face that the TA mounts to, where it goes under the chassis and finishes at the bottom inside corner, Im thinking of folding this, forward, again at 45 degrees....Will this still help transmit the forces in the same manner?

I say all this based on the idea that welding at 45 degrees across is better than 90 degrees across :confused:

Seems like everyone is in favour of fish plating the outside face of the chassis rail before fitting of the mount. I have seen this done many times in various applictaions. If it is just a flat plate, then we are welding to the top and bottom corners of the box section...where I believe the "stresses" are stored??? Again I could fold up a "C" section so that the top and bottom folds return to the center line of chassis and weld along this (note that this is where the Box is its thickest as the 2 "C" sections that make up the box are overlapped and welded here.) The reason Im not sure about welding to "corners" of the box section/chassis rails are that, #1 I think it was Bush65 who said thats where the "stresses" are stored, and #2 taking a close look at the OEM TA mount, it appears that LR have avoided welding here...The top over laps to the center line, and where the bottom folds up and meets the bottom inside corner, it actuall has a small angle, say 25x25x2,sitting over this area, welded anlong its length (front to rear of vehicle) See pics:

Looking inside the bottom of the TA mount where it meets the bottom inside corner of box section chassis rails....note arrows showing no visable weld penetration:

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-002-rs.jpg

Looking up inside the TA mount where it meets the top outside corner of box section chassis rails...note arrows showing no visable weld:

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-012-rs.jpg

Looking at the inside bottom of box section chassis rail, note the angle and the arrrows showing the location of welds, away from the corner:

http://www.aulro.com/afvb/attachment...unt-017-rs.jpg

You can have a close look at the plating/boxing/welding on the 130 on Tuesday/Wed week.

All Land Rover do is run a bandsaw through a 110 chassis and box/extend it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rick130

You can have a close look at the plating/boxing/welding on the 130 on Tuesday/Wed week.

All Land Rover do is run a bandsaw through a 110 chassis and box/extend it.

---

Thanks mate, It will be interesting to see, I have looked at the latest Defenders in LR dealer a few months ago...looks like they may have some more plating????from what I remember of the 130's

I had a quick look at mine after reading Bill's post. There are 2 holes in the web of the chassis between the TA mount and the crossmemeber that the A frame arms bolt to. These holes clearly show 2mm wall only....there is a possibliity that if there was a double skin internally, that there are larger holes in the inturnal section around these holes...:confused:

PSimpson, If your watching Id like to get you to do the cad for the sheet laser cutting and folding.

cheers
Serg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dougal

............What's the story with compliance and engineers certs?

---

so much hear say around this stuff....I went into my local DOT a few months ago and asked for a list of guys that could help....the guys they gave were simple "blue platers"...seat belt and seat mods, basic stuff that is outlined by DOT...NOT engineers :mad:

There is some very grey area, there is a light vehicle code to adhere to, but due to the nature of our LR's part thereof can fall under the heavy vehicle code, which allows different things to be done...btw light vehicle code is more so monocoque. Some guys will swear black and blue its not allowed, some get it done by blue platers sort of ok but maybe not.

I contacted a engineer that does some chassis stuff for trucks and cars. From the quick description/chat I had with him, he basicly said that if it was a kit and and designed for road use, came with full fitting instructions, then it was definitly doable. I said that I could do all that and he basicly said yes :confused:

I would like to finalise a design and procedure. Make one up and then front some serious people. I think a big part of it is attitude and showing them the concept and idea is safe...

then again they could do the usual, take the easy way out and just say NO

:mad::mad::mad:

Here is the NSW hearsay. Pg5. Goodluck if you think it doesn't apply to you, not my problem.

If its not your problem then why post....but hey let's turn the tech into a ****ing match of legalities. I have heard pretty much yes and no to everything. But when you start to dig to ACTUALLY get it done the road becomes long and grey.

Like I said when I have a decent mock up I can approach the engineers and Dot and discuss further. I expect them to say maybe at best but to make changes. Talking about it with just an idea leads no where fast...