Treewolf

Interesting, thank you. A spot of rapid research makes it clear that the linked document specifically and exclusively related to vehicles which have been type approved as N1 unde the ECWVTA scheme and are then subject to modifications prior to first registration. The linked document outlines the modifications which are and are not within scope of the IVA process which would be required in this case. The linked document refers to the Road Vehicles (Approval) Regulations 2009 (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/717/pdfs/uksi_20090717_en.pdf ) and, as far as I can deteremine, indicates that for a former N1 vehicle that has been converted and is presented for IVA, the coupling device itself is regulated but the means of attachment to the vehicle is not specifically so. The relevant part seems to be Item 50 of Part 1 of Schedule 5 of RVAR 2009 which states that the coupling device must conform to "The technical provisions of: Annex VII to Directive 94/20/EC." (whatever this may say) and "Vehicle Installation: Securely attached to structural parts of the vehicle and in such a position to allow the safe functioning and operation of the coupling." So no mention of specific type approval for the means of attachment. As far as I can tell, nothing in either source (and in fact nothing that I am aware of) alters the basic situation that a vehicle that has ECWVTA N1 classification and is unmodified to the extent that IVA is not required prior to registration does not require that any towing attachment is type approved. Please do not however take this as any sort of qualified legal guidance, it is just my personal interpretation of ridiculously complicated legislation produced by people whose sole purpose seems to be to make life difficult for all of us!

For info, for vehicles type approved under EU WVTA class N, such as recent Defenders, the tow bar does not need to be type approved.

Stunning! Thank you for sharing!

BFG KM2 muds for me.

This is actually a more interesting question than you might think. It is this type of behaviour that lead to a study by two psychologists who identified the eponymous Dunning-Kruger Effect. Dunning-Kruger Effect - Wikipedia In essence what they hypothesised is that if you are very stupid, you are unable to figure out if a task is difficult or dangerous and will as a result underestimate the difficulty and/or the risks involved. Intelligent people, on the otherhand, have a tendency to overestimate complexity and/or risk since they have a greater awareness of the issues involved. I would say that this video is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect! Their original study was prompted after they read about the case of a genius by the name of McArthur Wheeler, who was convinced that if he painted his face with lemon juice he would become invisible to security cameras (sadly I am not kidding, there really are people this stupid). In 1995 Wheeler robbed two banks in Pittsburgh in the same afternoon, convinced that he'd conceived the perfect crime. Unsurprisingly Wheeler was (a) virtually unable to see whilst conducting his robberies due to the lemon juice in his eyes, and (b) caught within hours since he showed up perfectly on the security video and was very quickly identified. When caught he was genuinely baffled how the cops managed to identify him, so convinced was he that he was invisible to cameras. Dunning and Kruger were professionally intersted in how someone could actually be quite that stupid, and this lead to their research.

It is quite shocking to think that there are people who fall for this kind of thing, but there must be. The villains wouldn't bother if nobody fell for it. I think that probably 50% of the emails I receive are some sort of phishing or other scam now. Except of course for that generous bloke in Nigeria who still wasnt help getting his surplus money out of the country and has chosen me to help!

Nothing illegal about beadlockers per se but they need to be 'E'-marked, and I believe that the only 'E'-marked 16" beadlockers are the Hutchinson ones at around €525 apiece. If I recall correctly from when I had similar thoughts the Tibus portals cost about £1000 per corner.

I had something similar a few years ago after an attempted eBay purchase, from BTP investigating the theft of tools from railway worksites. Fortunately on this occasion the vendor (or thieving scumbag, if you prefer) had failed to supply the item concerned and Paypal had already reimbursed my hard-earned. In my view any initiative by the Police to counter tool theft, however inadequate, and however overdue, is commendable and should be supported.

You could always try one of these:- https://www.milwaukeetool.com/power-tools/cordless/2787-22 Expensive, but looks promising, and generally seems to get good reviews. I am looking forward to an excuse to try one. It is incredible how cordless battery technology has come on in leaps and bounds. Perhaps one days we'll have electric vehicles that are actually practical!

I have an elderly Evolution which I have had for years (it wasn't elderly when I bought it!) and used sensibly it is an excellent tool, excellent VFM.

A Husky is very simple, you could do it yourself.

They are legal here provided that they conform to C&U Regs (which not all American brakes do). See https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/408947/american-caravan-and-trailer-brakes-coupling.pdf

I guess it must be something to do with your forum user name!

It was aways my understanding that the TU series was the indestructible heavy duty series, and the the T series was a lighter weight, marginally less robust, and somewhat cheaper product family.

An excellent book, the definitive work on knots. I've had a copy for 30 years or more. As far as I know there was only one knot that he omitted (at least only one useful knot), the Hunter bend, although I think that this was added in the later editions. The book is one of those rare gems of the pre-internet age (when research was much harder), and knots must have been a real passion to Clifford W Ashley.

It's a plain flange not a serrated flange.

Yes, the two nearside springs had both broken, cracked through the eye. I could have replaced two putting new springs on one axle and both old on the other, but they're not too expensive so I figured four new was the best bet. 140Nm is terrifyingly tight for an M12 thread though! I was sure the U bolt was going to fail.

Without photos this is an impossible task!

IW has given me the following information which I will post here just in case anyone else needs it in the future. The U bolt nut should be tightened to 140 Nm (103 lb ft). Note, it is essential that the correct flanged Nyloc nut is used rather than a standard Nyloc, since the latter, when torqued to 140 Nm, can cause the U bolts to shear. The spring eye bolt nut should be tightened to 80 Nm (60 lb ft). Note that IW also recommends that the U bolt nuts are checked and tightened every 1000 miles or 2 months. Very helpful people at IW.

For now I've gone with 50lbft (70Nm) which is a typical torque for an M12 grade 8.8 fastener. I'll see if IW can give an answer tomorrow.

I have just had to fit four new springs to my IW LM146 trailer, it's the kind with 2-leaf parabolic springs. Does anyone know the recommended torque for the four nuts on the two U bolts on each spring? If no-one knows I'll ask IW in the morning, but it would be nice to get it all finished tonight! Many thanks.

Earlier Landrovers were rated to 4 tons with coupled brakes.

If it's a Tdci with the MT82 box there's a known issue with the selector shaft detent springs which can cause this effect.

Yes, really like the "ghost tree" effect, very clever!

I'm a big fan of Coast torches and have several, I've not yet found another torch brand as good. I had one Coast rechargeable torch develop a small amount of condensation in the lense area recently after use in very, very wet weather, and Coast replaced it entirely FOC under warranty.