To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 04:34:24 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 15 Apr 2005 at 22:12, G.R.Baker wrote: > --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "outback6x6" wrote: > > > > Im am not saying you CANT. I'm saying that it will eventually lead > > to axle failure. IE broken, bent ect ect.. I am not an engineer > > and have not studied the effects of 40" plus inch tires on Volvo > > portal axles. What I said was what guys who run rock buggies ect > > who have Volvo portal axles said. 38" are about as big as you want > > to go if you want to avoid axle failure. Someone on this forum said > > they were concerned about bigger tires. So 38" I said were about as > > big as you would want to go. Ive seen lifted Toyotas with there tiny > > stock axles run 44" inch tires. They dont last to long. Not even if > > there just street use only (cruising back in 1986).For RELIABLE USE I > > would suggest MAX 38" inchers only. Run what you want. > > > I agree completely, the 38" Michelin XLs add 30lbs over the stock > weight. I figure that's about the weight of a set of chains which the > C30X would have been engineered to handle the extra weight.(we have a > mild climate and shouldn't need chains). With only 2.5" clearance between your rear tires this must at least partially be wishful thinking....;)) (but then again, chains in that size, with the proper truck-size segments, will probably be almost as heavy as the tires itself, with the same handling nightmare....;)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "G.R.Baker" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:40:22 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote: > > With only 2.5" clearance between your rear tires this must at least > partially be wishful thinking....;)) > (but then again, chains in that size, with the proper truck-size > segments, will probably be almost as heavy as the tires itself, with > the same handling nightmare....;)) > I don't think you understood my post, I meant to say that the extra weight of my larger tires would be no more than a stock tire with chain attached (which would have been engineered for). Where I live we never get much snow, so I such never need chains. G.R.Baker To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Jim Molloy" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 02:57:46 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Willem-Jan Markerink" wrote: > With only 2.5" clearance between your rear tires this must at least > partially be wishful thinking....;)) > (but then again, chains in that size, with the proper truck-size > segments, will probably be almost as heavy as the tires itself, with > the same handling nightmare....;)) > > -- > Bye, > > Willem-Jan Markerink Instead of a set of chains for each rear tire, I wonder if it might be possible to fit someting like the Diamond Shoes as seen at: http://www.usedrubbertracks.com/brands.shtml on the C306 trucks. Low speed would be a requirement but traction would be awesome. An easily convertable half track. Jim Molloy Waldersee Farm http;//www.northwestmogfest.com http://www.volvo4x4.com To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8nntass?= Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 18:01:57 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Jim Molloy : > Instead of a set of chains for each rear tire, I wonder if it might be > possible to fit someting like the Diamond Shoes as seen at: > http://www.usedrubbertracks.com/brands.shtml > on the C306 trucks. Low speed would be a requirement but traction=20 > would be awesome. An easily convertable half track.=20 According to what I've been told, it should be possible to use normal, solid snow-chains in this way. It will of course also require low speed, I suppose..... Christian To: From: "Greg David" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 15:25:09 -0700 Subject: RE: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com -----Original Message----- From: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Volvo303@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Jim Molloy Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2005 7:58 PM > Instead of a set of chains for each rear tire, I wonder if it might be > possible to fit someting like the Diamond Shoes as seen at: > > http://www.usedrubbertracks.com/brands.shtml > > on the C306 trucks. Low speed would be a requirement but traction > would be awesome. An easily convertable half track. > I wonder though if the axle articulation might stress the belts? It seem their normal application is on things like skid-steers that don't have any suspension travel. Sure would look cool though! Greg To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "G.R.Baker" Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 23:46:42 -0000 Subject: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com --- In Volvo303@yahoogroups.com, "Greg David" wrote: > I wonder though if the axle articulation might stress the belts? It seem > their normal application is on things like skid-steers that don't have any > suspension travel. Sure would look cool though! That would be the problem, if you saw the video of mine going through some deep rutts you can see just how drastic the articulation is. http://tired-iron.mounet.com/Grace4X4 G.R.Baker To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Gr=F8nntass?= Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 09:06:03 +0200 (CEST) Subject: RE: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com Greg David : > I wonder though if the axle articulation might stress the belts? Since the rear-axles are in each end of the leaves, the distance between them will not warry more than the warrying load will warry the length of the leaves when bending them. Anyone understood that? :-) Christian To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: Teppo Rapo Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 10:14:25 +0300 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com >>I wonder though if the axle articulation might stress the belts? >> > >Since the rear-axles are in each end of the leaves, the distance between them >will not warry more than the warrying load will warry the length of the leaves >when bending them. >Anyone understood that? :-) > >Christian That is not how it's build. In rear the leafs just do the suspension job and there are 3 very strong arms between frame and axels. So, leafs does not carry any forces. See: http://www.petrisimolin.net/gallery/data/images/PIRSSI-portaalitaka2.jpg http://www.petrisimolin.net/gallery/data/images/PIRSSI-tukivarsi2.jpg -teppo To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 20:29:51 +0200 Subject: [Volvo303] Rear tandem location arms (was: Axels and rims + max tire size Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 19 Apr 2005 at 10:14, Teppo Rapo wrote: > > >>I wonder though if the axle articulation might stress the belts? > >> > >> > > > >Since the rear-axles are in each end of the leaves, the distance between them > >will not warry more than the warrying load will warry the length of the leaves > >when bending them. > >Anyone understood that? :-) > > > >Christian > > > > > > > That is not how it's buid. > In rear the leafs just do the suspension job and there is 3 very strong > arns between frame and axels. > So, leafs does not carry any forces. > See: > http://www.petrisimolin.net/gallery/data/images/PIRSSI-portaalitaka2.jpg > http://www.petrisimolin.net/gallery/data/images/PIRSSI-tukivarsi2.jpg While I agree that the two rear axles *do* move back and forth slightly (closer at full droop, further apart at full compression[*]; but that's also what Christian meant to say I think), I have wondered & pondered about the force-distribution in that tandem constellation. Most importantly, though hardly related to this track-belt-context: Has anyone ever wondered how the side-ways forces are dealt with, in particular in a corner, when the axles fight eachother (and the frame) in the horizontal plane? These 3 location arms only absorb the lateral forces (and guide/control the axle in the vertical plane). Which means that (only) those leaf springs take the side-way forces, but each leaf tip still only dealing the 'outward' forces....which can be seen by the shape of the 'tip-locator' on the axle- housing....only an edge on the inside. (the center bearing/pivot of the entire spring is also the only one large enough to cope with these forces....if that had been the task of the 3 locating arms, those bushings/bearings would have been much larger/wider) Not sure how other tandem-vehicles are designed in this context....the Pinzgauer can rely on the fixed location of the diffs inside the tube-frame. Would love to hear more opinions on this, this question had me puzzled for quite some time in the past, but my 'Eureka!' wasn't very enthusiast....it's still a bearing/pivot that is bend in quite a different direction than it's basic design would imply.... (on the other hand: this is basically also how *all* other/normal/4x4 leaf-sprung axles are located as well....but they just don't have to deal with such large twisting forces, of two rear axles fighting eachother) [*] this would be the worst-case scenario in the snow-chain context too....perhaps Greg could also measure this minimum distance, by lifting the rear of his TGB13? (lifting only one side might force the tandem to drop even further) Also note that this variable tire-distance might just as well be the least important argument against mounting track-belts....with the rear tandem crossed-up/twisted-diagonally, the front tires are probably so much out of line with the rear tires that this causes even more length-variation, if not the track completely failing to stay on the tires (depends a bit on the height of the 'teeth' next to the tires, possibly also on the twist-flex of the belt- segments....don't think any metal-based belt is good at that....and rubber belts might not be strong enough) PS Teppo: what on *earth* was the reason/purpose/fate of this cut-up 6x6? (first picture/URL above) (I first thought only the rear of the frame was shortened (like that TGB20 in Malaysia), but then got puzzled about the orientation of the diff....that's not the last diff of the tandem, but the first one....8-)) -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!] http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/main_4x4.htm To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com From: "Willem-Jan Markerink" Date: Sun, 08 May 2005 21:01:02 +0200 Subject: Re: [Volvo303] Re: Sandblasted and Painted/Ramp Reply-To: Volvo303@yahoogroups.com On 8 May 2005 at 17:58, G.R.Baker wrote: > While I was on the ramp none of the tires rubbed in the fenderwells, > the closest was about 10mm. No chains for you then....;)) (yes, I know you said you didn't see much snow where you live, but also in very nasty mud/ruts, it's nice to have this option, as a last rescue (before tearing up the trail....;)) (though it doesn't help you much if you are already stuck....8-)) (I did see 'partial' chain segments somewhere, as snow-traction-aid only, a short/single piece of chain, hooked onto/into the rim on both sides; not sure how much that would do in mud, probably need several on one wheel, but at least you can mount them with the wheels half- way stuck....:)) (or could one still mount a ladder chain, by pulling/rotating it through the mud, if the front-piece can also be attached to the rim?....hmm....that would be a good worst-case scenario aid....:)) Btw, I had my theory about the rear axles 'locating structure' confirmed by the fact that, in a flat & tight corner, those rear axles shift about 2cm horizontally/sideways, away from each other....before even the tires start to twist (and further supported by a leaf-spring typical 'clunk' at maximum shift....:)) The only thing I am still not happy about with my theory, that those leafs take all the side-forces, is that in a tight/continuous corner with maximum & repetitive articulation, those leaf-tips might want to work themselves out of/over their 'bases'....but apparently that doesn't happen. (while only two of those 'bases' take all the twisting-forces in a corner....don't even want to think about how much force that could be, in a worst-case scenario (it's also hard to compare any of this with the forces that a normal leaf-spring endures, in a 4x4) Also wonder if one could decrease this side-wards play between leaf- tip and 'base'....can't be good for directional stability at speed. -- Bye, Willem-Jan Markerink The desire to understand is sometimes far less intelligent than the inability to understand [note: 'a-one' & 'en-el'!]