Treewolf

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.

Wow, has it really been a year? Time flies. Glad he's doing ok.

You have rats that can build a hospital ?!

There is actually a very sound reason for this. By law a speedo is not allowed to under-read, but can over-read by up to 10%. It would be very expensive to make a speedo which was exactly accurate (some Police cars have calibrated speedos), but it is realtively simple and cheap to make a speedo which is +/-5%. If you made one which was spot on but +/-5% it would fail Type Approval, since it might under-read by 5% (illegal). However if you design it to over-read by 5% to start with, and then it is accurate to +/-5%, it will actually be +10%/-0% on true speed, which is legal. With modern manufacturing, the majority of speedos will be more accurate that the guaranteed tolerances, so most will over-read.

I have heard of a Police motorcyclist whose licence came back ... with the motorcycle entitlement removed! Apparently he had one hell of a job getting it back! I was lucky enough to be able to take my full car test well before it became complicated, and then go straight to HGV Class 1. It was so much simpler then. I don't really understand why it is that as the tests and licences have become so much more complicated, the standard of driving seems to have become so much worse! Surely the whole idea is that the standard should go up. On a different note, how do all these holidaymakers now get away towing small cars on "A" frames behind huge motorhomes? My understanding is that an "A" frame is legal only for recovering a broken-down vehicle to the nearest place of safety, and not for anything else. These cars all have a MAM in excess of 750kg so need fully performing autoreverse brakes on all wheels, and then there's the small problem that you can't reverse a vehicle on an "A" frame because the steering goes doolally. Yet they seem to get away with it in large numbers! Thanks to JustMe for starting this thread and for handling so many questions is such a helpful and patient way! This has become a very useful thread, despite the extreme wierdness in the early stages.

^^ That's right. As each block falls the first time is ends up resting *just* on the corner of the next one down the line. The last block falls a little further, so it is lying flat, which means that the last but one block then falls flat. When that happens, the one before falls off its edge, so that is it lying flat, so the one before that then falls, and so on. Much harder to describe in words than to do, and a very near trick. The key to making the system work is getting exactly the right spacing between the blocks. It is a very neat trick in deed, and the second run, where they fall flat, looks like witchcraft till you figure it out!

I'd try contacting tractel, details below:- Contact | TRACTEL® | United Kingdom

2" towballs used to be normal in the UK as well, but a long time ago (like back in the '60s and before). The first car I ever bought had one, a '66 Triumph 200 Estate. If I recall correctly, when the move to the standard metric 50mm coupling started to happen, the metric balls had to have a flat on the top with "50mm" stamped on it. I think even to this day that a metric 50mm towball has a flat on the top. If you have a ball with a round top, it probably isn't 50mm. Mismatching 2" and 50mm couplings can be deadly.

Not a tuning box, but a proper remap (from Bell Auto Services) made a massive difference to the drivability and general pleasure of driving. Totally transformed the vehicle. A-road hills that used to require 3rd now only need 5th. Stunning improvement.

It's more likely to be because they want to check that you still have a licence, since you could potentially have had it taken away in the intervening year. If a little bit of hassle helps prevent even more exorbitant insurance cost increases, I will settle for the inconvenience of provided details at renewal time!

I like that, very nice!

Yes, I really am really sure! In fact I am more sure even than that, I am completely certain.

It's more complex than "hire or reward", it affects you if you're carrying any load (with a very few exceptions) in connection with a trade or business, even if it's not your own trade or business. So even if you're not being paid or rewarded you may need a tacho. If you're towing a caravan which you're delivering for your mate who sells them, you need a tacho if over 3500kg GTW. It's a nightmare trying to stay legal nowadays!

We seem to have come full circle and arrived back where we started. There are in essence three broad types of vehicle recognised in UK law, these being "motor cars", "goods vehicles", and "dual purpose vehicles". These categories are defined by the Road Vehicles (Construction & Use) Regulations 1986 (as amended). [Within some of these categories there are sub-categories, such as "heavy motor car" etc. Anything not in one of these categories can only be driven on the road by virtue of Special Types regulations.] If you drive a Landrover Defender, then irrespective of what it is used for, who owns it, how it is taxed, you are NOT driving a light goods vehicle, you are driving a Dual Purpose Vehicle. It may be taxed in a VED category called "N1 Light Goods" but it is not a light goods vehicle. Any vehicle which is a Dual Purpose Vehicle as defined in C&U(86) must be MOT tested as Class 4 and is subject to normal car-type speed limits. That is the law, to do anything else is illegal. It is true that a Class 7 MOT tests the same things but to a more rigourous standard tha Class 4, but if you lose income because your vehicle has failed a incorrectly-administered Class 7 test when it should have passed a Class 4 test, I imagine you could now sue the test station. Similarly if you have presented the vehicle for test and the test station has carried out and charged you for a Class 7 test when it should have been Class 4, they have overcharged you (or mis-sold you the test). You can argue the absurdity of the situation, but you cannot argue the facts of the situation. That was, IIRC, the intention at the time. The message given out to the trade was that we would be changing to the Euro style M1/N1 passenger / goods classification and DPV would be completely removed making it 'easier' to determine goods vehicle as based clearly on GVW/DGW. Unfortunately your selective quoting of my post is exactly the sort of thing which is propogating the myths on this subject, since it suggests that there was an intention to remove the DPV vehicle type definition from the C&U(86) regs. This has NEVER been the stated case, and DVSA and/or the DfT cannot do this - only an Act of Parliament or Statutory Instrument can alter the C&U Regs. What DVSA proposed was a change to the MoT Test Regulations, which would have removed the provision that states that DPVs are tested as a seperate defined category. It would only have affected MOTs, it would not have affected speed limits, tachographs, drivers' hours, weight limits, type approval, or any of the other areas where DPVs are/were/may be treated differently and specifically.

That special notice has caused massive confusion at every level, and was one of the issues for which I sought specific clarification from DVSA (see my post much earlier in this thread). At present there is a potential probelm which testers face with DPVs, in that they have to know the unladen weight of the vehicle in order to determine if it is a DPV or not (for example two near identical 4x4 pickups, one has an unlande weight of 2030KG and therefore is a DPV and hence class 4 test, one has an unladen weight of 2045KG and therefore isn't a DPV and hence class 7 test). The problem that the tester faces is that the unladen weight is not recorded on any official database, so he cannot with certainty make the correct decision about test class. The current sitaution is that there is a specific permission from DVSA for him to test a vehicle which appears, based on his judgement, to be a DPV as though it legally definitely is a DPV. The special notice mentioned above was issued several years ago and announced that DVSA was soon to remove this specific permission, with the result that the tester could no longer rely upon his judgement alone and err in favour of the vehicle being a DPV. The reason given for the removal of this permission was an intention to remove the DPV classification from the MOT test regulations only, so that all DPVs would be tested as Class 7 Light Goods. Note, and this is very important, that this proposed change to the MOT regulations does not remove the DPV vehicle type definition, does not affect speed limits, or anything like that, it simply says that a DPV no longer gets tested as Class 4, it now gets tested as Class 7. The fact is however that the MOT test regulations have not yet been changed to remove the DPV Class 4 provision, and as a result the tester still has the authority of DVSA to test a vehicle which appears to be a DPV as a DPV, ie as Class 4. Bottom line, if your vehicle genuinely is a DPV, it should be tested as class 4. If your vehicle appears to be a DPV but could possibly be slightly over the unladen weight limit, the tester can still opt to test as class 4.

Nothing will happen, since (a) you were not committing and offence, and (b) DVSA/PNC does not hold records of unladen weights and hence cannot discriminate between a DPV and something which looks like a DPV but is too heavy to be one. Are you sure it was a speed check not a VED check?

I've re-ended Tirfor (and other griphoist) cables using the methods above on several occasions. Whip the rope tightly with wire about 2" on the good side of the last bit of damage, then cut the damaged end off with a cutting disk in an angle grinder (or a wire rope shear if you happen to have one lying around). Then weld the newly cut end into a blob, and shape with the grinder so that it has a fairly well pronounced chamfer on it. If need be reweld as you grind to ensure that all the strands are securely held in the weld. Finally remove the whipping. It isn't hard but can take a little practice. It is handy to have a new rope as an example of what you're aiming for when you do the first one. Remember that Tirfors and all other griphoist winches use special ropes, you can't just use any old wire rope with them.