b101uk

Going to standard head cap screw would mean your blades would cost more each as the blades would have to be thinker which also means the anvil would have to move, which would mean a different flywheel and casing which would then also throw out backwards compatibility of parts with all the past TW150.

It tends to happen to some people more than others vs. don’t forget the underside of the head of the cap screw

Its not the drawbar it self or for that mater how it is fixed to the base of the I-beams, that is all good enough and shows good design. But look at the height of the I-beam and the sideways force a tractor would impart when turning a trailer, I-beam is prone to twist that way it is used for semi-trailers etc, it is strong in one direction but not so in others, just thing how tall and thin the metal is that forms the vertical part of the “I” is. All for the want of <15kg of a single steel plate or 2 triangles it could be significantly stronger.

Look good, Though I am surprised they haven’t put a plate/s between the I-beam rails at the front ware the front mountings for the drawbar pick up on them, in order to stabilise/resist the twist/shear of the I-beam rails e.g. when the trailer is turning sharply with a big tractor on the front.

well there are worse places than Shropshire, like Cornwall.

You can probably blame a lot of this forums “firewood” members and the existence of this forum on the net for this. So really the blame is on YOU and others like you and the lady and gent you ridicule are really correct and have there heads screwed on unlike some of the firewood who are over inflating firewood cost because of the business practises they undertake to buy wood at silly prices.

Treebloke is. I am too, though i dont do trees any more but i do sometimes work for Treebloke on tree related things/jobs, as trees are Treebloke's main business funnily enough!

Years ago we use to retrospectively claim the duty back on petrol used for saws and other applications which is really no different to retrospectively claim the duty back on DERV used in lieu of red diesel for off-road purposes, or how bus companies claim rebate on fuel used on some routes or fishermen etc who use petrol in there sea going boats. There is no green or red petrol signifying it is rebate fuel like we have red diesel so duty can only be claimed back retrospectively which of course the HMRC like to make as difficult as possible with paperwork and red tape to discourage people.

Much the same here with respect to trials, though I use to ride a lot 10+ years ago I seldom get the chance now so am terribly rusty, but then I had my first motorbike at age 6 so never went threw the road bike fad and I still haven’t, as I don’t like road bikes. My favourite past bike was my 1987 Honda XR250R (4-stroke enduro bike)

No, it a 2-stroke 250cc though it is tuned quite like a 4-stroke, the 315 was the last of the 2-stroke Montesa/HRC (Honda) trials bikes. The newer 4 stroke Montesa is the 4RT.

my monte 315

Strictly speaking .AVI is a file container, in other words the video & audio steams can be in many different formats within the file so the “AVI” file are much like compressed archives like a .zip, .rar or .cab file apart from they are specifically orientated to video & audio. So sometimes is NOT the file format you choose but the video & audio codec you choose to use to encode within the container file that will denote quality vs. compression etc, this will also limit the amount of PC etc that can play the file should you choose to encode with obscure or non standard (on a windows PC) codec within a standard container file. e.g. with .AVI you can encode H264 video with MP3 or AAC audio in much the same way as you can use H264 video with MP3 or AAC audio in .mp4 files and provided the codec setting are the same WILL yield the same results. .AVI is the file type with generally the widest selection of possible codec’s to use for encoding and is not any ware like “specific” as e.g. .wmv

that same ag rover was on ebay about 2 years ago and was less than 1/3rd of the price, I seam to recall the owner posted a link on hear.

Well its been ~14 odd years since I used any, but if its like what I used then it wouldn’t work to well, as the whole idea of the tree sand is that it promotes root growth/health, reduces compaction and minimises subsidence of the paving surface above, so even though you compact the tree sand before you dig enough out to install the root ball it doesn’t stay compacted/binded like the sand dose used beneath paving. You could perhaps reduce the sand above used for the paving by using a suitable geotextile between the tree sand and the sand used to support the paving, or make it known that the reduction of the normal sand depth above used for stabilising the paving will impair the lifespan and increase the paving maintenance because of the archaeological restriction, it will also reduce the effectiveness of the tree sand as it is in part reliant on the thick layer of paving sand (relative to normal paving sand depth when stone is used as a sub-base) to reduce compaction.

no, you normally put ~100mm to ~150mm of normal sand on top that will bind for the paving etc

It could well be the clutch pack which also acts as a “soft start” or it could even just be an electric fault if its started/stopped by a rocker switch Have you tried the other pto speed or if it has a removable rear PTO stub have you removed the circlip and pulled the stub out to see if the splines have stripped on it. If it looks like it’s the clutch and it’s a wet PTO clutch I would stop using it as all the debris from it slipping end up in the gearbox/trans axel oil which is also used for the hydraulics!

air being sucked in with the diesel fuel (pipe fittings/filters etc). - also causing the fuel to run back to the tank when stopped. The fuel hose (feed) between the fuel tank & filter or filter & injector pump is collapsing internally under suction (internally delaminating). Fuel filter/s is excessively blocked. (for eather of the above try setting up a simple gravity feed to the injector pump using a very clean can/bottle and a fine in-line filter with some new rubber pipe to protect the injector pump) The fuel stop solenoid on the injector pump is fully working. The air filter is extremely blocked with dust or a rag has been sucked in the air-intake. Do a compression test. (internal engine damage) The 1-way demand valves on the injector pump outputs (the pipe unions on the injector pump that each steel injector pipe fits to) has had the springs collapse inside so pressure is not being held in the steel injector pipe between strokes. The woodruff key for the injector pump/timing gear/pully has sheared so the injector pump is slipping/out of timing, the same for crank/cam gear/pully. The injector pump is internally worn/damaged so is not achieving a proper pressure.

XL in Roman numerals 40 in normal numbers!

If it’s the 3 cylinder Daihatsu turbo engine, Check the function of the oil pressure switch and the glow-plug on/oil pressure override button (the button that you have to hold down for ~5sec after starting - so oil pressure has time to build).

Well you can definitely see an inclusion and that the crack over time has propagated from the inclusion then the last bit mainly at ~170deg to the inclusion has failed last. However the critical bit will be if the PRV in the valve block was set at the correct pressure as not to cause overload, if you haven’t cleaned up the valve block DONT as the manufacture will more than likely want to test the valve block to check output pressure. It is known that some people adjust the PRV to lift more which in turn overloads the crane, even some people who fit crane tweak the PRV a little to much, so only if it can be proven the PRV in the valve block was set correctly will there be comeback on the manufacture and any comeback on the dealer will depend if they still have the pressure test info or tested lifting weight from the PDI befor it was sent out to you. Overload of a crane even when the PRV is set correctly can happen if upward/downward bounce is induced during lifting of a near maximum weight load. Has the crane ever undergone a SWL test as sometimes they are require to increase the pressure above normal and may have forgot to lower it back to the proper pressure after the test.

I bet as its depicted in the second picture there is no more than 850kg acting on the ring hitch when empty and when uniformly loaded with 10t of wood with the crane in a similar orientation resting on the load I bet it don’t get much more than 1200kg on the ring hitch. What you may find is you may want to fit an additional adjustable pressure regulating valve on the lead axel so you can reduce the suspension air pressure vs. the rear axel so you can transfer weight onto the ring hitch when off-road. Lastly, have you thought about the HMRC etc implications of merely undertaking haulage of timber when you are not directly involved in the operation to take down/fell the timber your carrying, thanks to the NFU & NAAC and the memorandum of agreement with HMRC and notice 75, ergo an agri contractor can no longer just supply the haulage element from field to farm etc unless they are/were directly involved in some part of the field cultivation/harvesting operation from which the “crop” “etc” they are hauling is/was derived, obviously if your buying the wood that is slightly different but you still don’t get the same leeway you do if you are both harvesting the wood & hauling to your “farm”/“yard”

In your defence you are probably thinking back to pre 2000 when the VED system had 2 road tax bands for AMV’s, there was Nil duty with similar restriction to now and “sole use” agri/hort/forestry, there was then what was termed “contractors rate” VED which cost £40 (same as a moped at the time) which removed some of the restriction that Nil duty rate VED imposed and was “primarily used” agri/hort/forestry. Did I define what forestry was? I merely pointed out it was so much more than merely felling a tree/s or could even be just pruning to coppicing, the important factor is both “why” it was done and/or what happened to the resulting “product/arising” and the paper trail it leaves behind if any etc etc.

schedule1 of HODA (Hydrocarbon Oils Duty Act 1979) is "EXCEPTED VEHICLES" which is the OLD near the same txt as in the much newer HMRC notice 75 - section 8 - EXCEPTED VEHICLES on which it was based as section 1 of HMRC notice 75 says. the debate with regard to if the 1.5km applying to "agri engines" used in forestry as in e.g. self propelled forwarders etc or “Vehicles used between different parts of land” which self propelled forwarders can also fit into but then can carry no load on the road is to do with vehicle licensing (DVLA) and vehicle use under construction and use regulations (VOSA & DVLA) and that NO distinction is made between “agricultural” vs. “forestry” and that the “1.5km limit” OR the “may not carry any load except such as is necessary for its propulsion or for the operation of any machinery built-in or permanently attached to the vehicle” applies equally to BOTH agricultural & forestry uses unless register as e.g. an agricultural tractor. Therefore taxing a mog as anything else “agricultural, horticultural or forestry” other than a agricultural tractor means you are limited to 1.5km but CAN carry load OR that the 1.5km dose not apply but you CANNOT carry load on the road, there is absolutely NO exceptions for forestry vehicles over agricultural or horticultural ones with respect to the limitations of use either with respect to the HMRC, DVLA or VOSA.

There have been quite a number of TV documenters about this guy, however he normally free climbs as when he dose it its normally without permission! but this time it looks like it was with permission with the obvious imposition of a safety rope given duration etc and doing it permissively.