Canadian Disco 2 Build

[Ron B]

I think we should get Gurhka in on this!

 

[Cary]

First, to take the strain off the rear door hinge. I don't know exactly what they can handle, but I've read of some people talking about them failing. I likely will go to a 265/75/16 tire at some point, and planning for it now.

I don't think you totally understand what was failing on the rear door. When people talk about the tire carrier failing, it was just that....the tire carrier. It was not the door or the door hinges. Wouldn't it have been a heck of a lot easier to just beef up the tire carrier if this was a concern for you?

But, typically, the stock tire carrier was not spliting with smaller tires such as a 265/75/16. It was the larger tires mounted to the carriers that were causing problems. I'm not saying it never happened with smaller tires as anything can and will happen. But it hardly seems to be an issue with a tire under 32 inches.

Secondly, and more importantly, the tire will no longer be protected from below by the bumper. So if the spare takes a hit, I would rather all those forces not be passed directly into the door, it's hinge system, and the chassis...

You seem to be making up "features" as you go along in your bumper build. If you were worried that a larger/wider tire would not be protected by the bumper if hit from the bottom, couldn't you have just designed your custom bumper thicker to accommodate this problem? Seems to me that it would be a whole lot easier, and less labor-intensive, than building a swing-away tire carrier.

But I have to wonder - what would hold up to more abuse; the door hinges and latch, or the latch you're using to secure the swing-away to the bumper? Personally, I think I'd rather the bumper take the grunt of the hit and not the swing-away carrier.

Lastly, I wanted to be able to carry some Jerry cans back there (instead of the roof), shovel, and axe, so I knew I needed some kind of carrier for that anyway.

I'm confused as to why people do this. Honestly.

You posted a "wheeling pic" here. I guess this is an indication of the type of wheeling you enjoy. So, I see problems with your bumper design that I do not think you're taking into account.

In your photo, you're climbing a slippery hill climb that's fairly steep. This is an obstacle commonly seen on the east coast with the mud, and commonly seen on the west coast without the mud. In either case, the same principal applies. When trekking these types of trails, it's best to keep your load low and forward. It's hard to do in a Rover, that's why you see so many folks either fold up their rear seats and move their cargo forward, or remove their rear seats altogether. Of course if you're "Overlanding", this is hardly an issue as 95% of the time the CDL does not even need to be locked. But in your case, based on your own photos, your style of wheeling is best navigated with the load low and as far forward as possible.

When you start stacking swing-away tire carriers on the rear bumper, add a Jerry-Can or two, Ax, shovel, rear winch, gas tank skid, roof-top tent...whatever.....you've compromised the ability of your vehicle. You want that weight in front of the rear axle so the weight is used to your advantage. Obviously, lighter the better - but if you must have the gear, you want to stow it in front of the rear axle when ever you can.

So I'm confused in your build. You seem to have an answer for everything when people ask you why you did this-or--that. But your answers, almost 100% of the time, go against lessons learned 10-years ago when the DII's came out. I think you're making a huge mistake with this design and I don't think I'm alone in my thinking here because of all the other comments in this thread. Alaska Mike thinks people are being negative with their posts, but in reality they're just pointing out some flaws in your design from either personal experience, or from old fashioned common sense.

I understand wanting to take weight off the door. I understand about being concerned about the stock rear tire carrier splitting. I understand you want the ability to carry Jerry-Cans, an ax, and a shovel. I understand you want recovery points and a rear bumper that will take a lick. But I don't think you understand the functionality of your truck, and that's what others have tried, and failed, to help you with.

Functionally, Jerry-Cans work best on the rear of the roof rack because you do not have to un-latch the cans, or remove them from the roof to fill your gas tank when using a super-siphon because the mouth of the can is higher than the fill-hole of the vehicle.

Depending on how you wish to mount your can to your swing-away, you may have to man-handle the can to fill your tank.

Of course you're not going to load your truck like this if you're planning on tackling a trail with steep, slippery, hill climbs, as advertised in your photo's. In that case you could simply mount your can, if really needed, on the front of a roof-rack.

Another thing I absolutely HATE about Jerry-Cans mounted to the rear bumper is the potential to damage or rupturing. I doubt that the possibility of an explosion is valid (although I sure there are stories) but if your truck was ever rear-ended by another truck on the street, it could easily rupture the can and spill the gasoline. Threading Lightly goes deeper than only respecting the land with your four wheels. Taking action to prevent, even in the worst case scenario, to protect the environment should be #1 in your build. (I can't believe the number of people on the trail who do not carry a catch can or bag to trap spilling fluids if needed) But the Jerry-can is vulnerable to damage on the rear bumper or tire-carrier, not to mention again its negative affects on vehicle performance off-road.

And instead of loading up your truck with an Ax and Shovel, why not get a kit such as the Handle-All or Max-Tool? The kit can be stowed inside the truck where you do not have to be as worried about theft, and you would not look like a gold miner on your way to prospect for gold whenever you set-up to hit a trail. You've already got the Hi-Lift jack so the handle-all would be a nice piece of kit for you. No sense in looking like a rolling farm store.

Take this post how you want, but I think you'll learn later on that your contraption is going to be more of a hindrance to your truck whether you're planning to overland or trail ride or rock crawl.

 

[gjackson]

But in your case, based on your own photos, your style of wheeling is best navigated with the load low and as far forward as possible. . .

Obviously, lighter the better - but if you must have the gear, you want to stow it in front of the rear axle when ever you can. . .

Functionally, Jerry-Cans work best on the rear of the roof rack . . .

Best place for jerry cans is behind the front seats. Low and as far forward as practical. So you have to move them when you fill up; well, it's good for your health. Practical for the 30min that you are filling up is no substitute for stable for the hours and hours that you are driving.

Just my 2c

cheers

 

[SeaRubi]

jeep guys run 2 cans, hi-lift, a 37~39" spare tire, and solid steel bumper/carrier on a SWB rig all the time. I think you guys are making a mountain out of a molehill. the swing-away has some huge advantages. if it's angled up a bit and high like Rob originally mentioned I don't see any big loss offroad. there are plenty of other vehicles that run this way - it's just not the popular thing to do with rover people.

my .03

 

[R_Lefebvre]

You seem to be making up "features" as you go along in your bumper build. If you were worried that a larger/wider tire would not be protected by the bumper if hit from the bottom, couldn't you have just designed your custom bumper thicker to accommodate this problem?

Because I wanted to improve the departure angle of the truck. I don't like the large shelf rear bumpers. The achilese heel of this truck is the departure angle. I get the back end stuck on things all the time. I like the design of the much loved Greg Davis rear bumper, but try a few different ideas.

Seems to me that it would be a whole lot easier, and less labor-intensive, than building a swing-away tire carrier.

Why do you care about MY labour?

But I have to wonder - what would hold up to more abuse; the door hinges and latch, or the latch you're using to secure the swing-away to the bumper?

My latch. No doubt.

Personally, I think I'd rather the bumper take the grunt of the hit and not the swing-away carrier.

So would I. But everything is a compromise. While my design may not attract lusty stares from the Rover Fashionistas, it will be functional. I'll have improved departure angle AND get the tire off the ground.

I mean (not to pick on Michael's, it's just a good photo to use) look at this.

That's a potential problem... here, just as an example:

In your photo, you're climbing a slippery hill climb that's fairly steep. This is an obstacle commonly seen on the east coast with the mud, and commonly seen on the west coast without the mud. In either case, the same principal applies. When trekking these types of trails, it's best to keep your load low and forward. It's hard to do in a Rover, that's why you see so many folks either fold up their rear seats and move their cargo forward, or remove their rear seats altogether. Of course if you're "Overlanding", this is hardly an issue as 95% of the time the CDL does not even need to be locked. But in your case, based on your own photos, your style of wheeling is best navigated with the load low and as far forward as possible.

I have a wife and two kids. They go on trails with me, I do not leave them at home. The rear seat, therefore, is occupied. Putting gas there, is not an option.

They also go on camping trips with me. The gas cans still can't go there. They can't go in the cargo area either, because I have camping gear for 4 there.

When you start stacking swing-away tire carriers on the rear bumper, add a Jerry-Can or two, Ax, shovel, rear winch, gas tank skid, roof-top tent...whatever.....you've compromised the ability of your vehicle. You want that weight in front of the rear axle so the weight is used to your advantage. Obviously, lighter the better - but if you must have the gear, you want to stow it in front of the rear axle when ever you can.

Later on, you go on to promote roof racks. The CG of a roof rack on a D2 is centered just in front of the rear axle. On flat ground, probably 90% of the empty weight of that rack (100-150 lbs?) is on the rear axle. Once you start going up a hill, it gets worse as the vertical projection of the cg moves behind the rear axle. The weight transfers way to the back, making it even worse since the CG of the rack is so high. I'd have to run the numbers, but would wager even an empty rack puts more weight on the rear axle on a 30° climb than my system will.

So far my system weighs... about 50 pounds. Giving it a generous 50% increase due to the distance behind the rear axle, it exerts about 75lbs. As the truck goes up a hill, this does not increase.

I'm all ears for any ideas you have for actually getting weight *ahead* of the front axle. I'm sure if I put the shovel and axe on the hood, somebody else would be all over me for that, now wouldn't they?

I have already added about 200lbs in front of the front axle.

So I'm confused in your build. You seem to have an answer for everything when people ask you why you did this-or--that. But your answers, almost 100% of the time, go against lessons learned 10-years ago when the DII's came out. I think you're making a huge mistake with this design and I don't think I'm alone in my thinking here because of all the other comments in this thread. Alaska Mike thinks people are being negative with their posts, but in reality they're just pointing out some flaws in your design from either personal experience, or from old fashioned common sense.

Because I don't have a lot of respect for the opinions of some of the people making comments. Human civilization wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is, if everybody just listened to everything the religious zealots told them. You know, the world is flat, sun orbits the earth, and all that good stuff.

Personally... I think there's a lot of "well, the Jeepers do that, so it's just not proper on a Rover" going on here.

Functionally, Jerry-Cans work best on the rear of the roof rack because you do not have to un-latch the cans, or remove them from the roof to fill your gas tank when using a super-siphon because the mouth of the can is higher than the fill-hole of the vehicle.

Now, hang on a second here....

So first you say the swing-away is wrong, because I'm putting weight behind the rear axle. Then you suggest the cans would be better almost as far back, and higher? Seriously? You do realize that, due to vertical projection of the CG as the truck climbs a hill, the effect of that weight up high gets even worse on the rear axle?

The super siphon thing is pointless, because the same could be done with the can on the swing-away. Not to mention (one of many roles) the truck is ALSO used to support me on motorcycle enduros, where my wife has to drive it to a gas stop. The siphon is too slow, she won't be hoisting cans off the roof, and I certainly don't want to be doing it in MX boots either...

Depending on how you wish to mount your can to your swing-away, you may have to man-handle the can to fill your tank.

That is not a big deal. At least for me. YMMV

Another thing I absolutely HATE about Jerry-Cans mounted to the rear bumper is the potential to damage or rupturing. I doubt that the possibility of an explosion is valid (although I sure there are stories) but if your truck was ever rear-ended by another truck on the street, it could easily rupture the can and spill the gasoline. Threading Lightly goes deeper than only respecting the land with your four wheels. Taking action to prevent, even in the worst case scenario, to protect the environment should be #1 in your build. (I can't believe the number of people on the trail who do not carry a catch can or bag to trap spilling fluids if needed) But the Jerry-can is vulnerable to damage on the rear bumper or tire-carrier, not to mention again its negative affects on vehicle performance off-road.

We could have a challenge. You post pictures of all the Land Rovers you can find that were rear ended by a truck high enough to touch a gas can. I'll post all the photos I can find of Land Rovers that have rolled, where the Jerry cans also would have ruptured.

I'm pretty sure I'll win.

Annecdotal at best, but then so is the original argument.

And instead of loading up your truck with an Ax and Shovel, why not get a kit such as the Handle-All or Max-Tool? The kit can be stowed inside the truck where you do not have to be as worried about theft, and you would not look like a gold miner on your way to prospect for gold whenever you set-up to hit a trail. You've already got the Hi-Lift jack so the handle-all would be a nice piece of kit for you. No sense in looking like a rolling farm store.

I will not use one of those Handle-Alls to chop wood. Have you ever used one? I haven't. But I don't need to use one to know that a steel handled axe with a floppy head is not going to be nice to use at all. And again, no room inside the truck for the tools, due to family, nor do I care what the Rover Fashionistas think of my exterior mounted tools. Besides, would anybody who cares about such a thing slum it by putting a dirty shovel *back* in the truck? You might get the carpet dirty, and then the photos of gear just won't look as cool.

 

[michaels]

rob i'm moving my tire up as well. just haven't found the time. like this:

albeit not that high.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Is that Hard Labor Creek, I think I saw that design? It's interesting. I'm not quite sure I get it though. Some amount of the weight is still borne on the door?

If all you want to do is move the tire higher, it could be done just by rebuilding a new tire mount off the old mount points, but raise it up. Really easy to do. If I wanted gas on the roof, that's all I would have done.

 

[Cary]

You took my comments a bit out of contexts. I think you did this defensively because you see some substance to my post. So, I'll give this another shot. Don't expect many more, though , as I know you're hard-headed and do not want to listen to others because it hurts your pride and you have a hard time admitting it.

Because I wanted to improve the departure angle of the truck. I don't like the large shelf rear bumpers. The achilese heel of this truck is the departure angle. I get the back end stuck on things all the time. I like the design of the much loved Greg Davis rear bumper, but try a few different ideas.

The D2 rear is longer, we know. The D2 rear is too long, IMO, but it is nice when loading groceries. But it does pose a problem off-road. Sort of.

Even the D1 hits the rear bumper often. It's just going to happen. Unless you shorten your truck like Norman Hall did his D1, it's always going to be an issue. You're just going to have to accept that, curve your driving style to deal with it, and protect your truck just in case....

If you do not like the "shelf bumpers", that's one thing. I don't care for the looks of some on the market, either. But lets face it, whether it's your bumper, Michael's bumper, or a shelf bumper, it's going to get hit. The chances of it hindering you from overcoming an obstacle are slim is you learn what your truck and and cannot do. You've got to know your trucks limitations. Slimming down your bumper is not going to make a night-and-day difference. You're talking, what, 3" max you are shaving off the length of your Disco? How often is 3" going to matter? Is it really going to matter at the end of the day?

My latch. No doubt.

I find this highly unlikely.

So would I. But everything is a compromise. While my design may not attract lusty stares from the Rover Fashionistas, it will be functional. I'll have improved departure angle AND get the tire off the ground.

If this was honestly the case, you could build a bumper like Michael's, and then flip the D2 tire carrier over, bolt it back on, and gain extra inches.

I have a wife and two kids. They go on trails with me, I do not leave them at home. The rear seat, therefore, is occupied. Putting gas there, is not an option.

I have to really wonder here, though, do you take you kids and wife out on trip where you're going to need additional fuel? If I were going out on a trip that would require additional fuel, I can't see myself taking the kids along, much less the wife. Seriously.

But more power to you.

However, didn't you say you were building a trailer to take camping with the family? Wouldn't you just put a mount on your trailer to hold a Jerry-Can?

You confuse me, Rob. I think you confuse yourself sometimes, too.

Bottom line, you're not going to be going places with your family that's going to require a pit-stop for additional fuel from a Jerry-Can and you know this. Admit it. You're digging here and that's part of the problem that has so many people laughing at you. Perhaps you're over thinking the project? Whether you respect the opinion of the other posting here or not, you have to open up your mind and allows other to steer you in he right direction. You're new to Rovers and you're new to off-roading. No one is going to come to this web site and tell you totally off-the-wall information routing you down a dead-end road. You can do whatever you want, sure, but there is a reason you're posting your progress on your truck on this board; it's to get approval from others. If you deny that fact, then you're a lost cause. You keep coming back and posting updates because you thrive on the attention others give you, then you pretend not to care or "know better" when constructive criticism is given. The mods of this board are just as bad.

They also go on camping trips with me. The gas cans still can't go there. They can't go in the cargo area either, because I have camping gear for 4 there.

It sounds like you need a roof-rack more than I do.

Later on, you go on to promote roof racks. The CG of a roof rack on a D2 is centered just in front of the rear axle. On flat ground, probably 90% of the empty weight of that rack (100-150 lbs?) is on the rear axle. Once you start going up a hill, it gets worse as the vertical projection of the cg moves behind the rear axle. The weight transfers way to the back, making it even worse since the CG of the rack is so high. I'd have to run the numbers, but would wager even an empty rack puts more weight on the rear axle on a 30° climb than my system will.

I think you better run the numbers, Rob, because what you just posted it off. Way off.

So far my system weighs... about 50 pounds. Giving it a generous 50% increase due to the distance behind the rear axle, it exerts about 75lbs. As the truck goes up a hill, this does not increase.

Ahhhh, come on, Rob! That things weighs more than 50lbs, lol.

I'm all ears for any ideas you have for actually getting weight *ahead* of the front axle. I'm sure if I put the shovel and axe on the hood, somebody else would be all over me for that, now wouldn't they?

I think you better go back and re-read my post. You're getting too hot headed and you're not comprehending what you're reading.

But yes, you're right; putting the ax and shovel on the hood would not be a great idea.

Because I don't have a lot of respect for the opinions of some of the people making comments. Human civilization wouldn't be nearly as advanced as it is, if everybody just listened to everything the religious zealots told them. You know, the world is flat, sun orbits the earth, and all that good stuff.

Yes, but you're referencing theory and not fact. It was a theory that the world was flat, but no one really knew for sure. Your tire carrier has been done before and it has proved to be not such a great idea. Now, you may love it at first, but you'll be back with a new plan in no-time. Believe me! You'll be back and then everyone will say "told you so".

Personally... I think there's a lot of "well, the Jeepers do that, so it's just not proper on a Rover" going on here.

No, the "Jeeper thing" typically refers to Rednecks who hack up their Jeeps. I've seen some really nice Jeeps and I've seen some really poor equipped Rovers. There are jut many many more poorly equipped Jeeps on the road vs Rovers, and that's what gives the Jeepers a bad name. It's becoming that way with Rovers, too, sadly. I mean, just look at this thread and the number of posts it has, and then look at this thread and the post count.

Now, hang on a second here....

So first you say the swing-away is wrong, because I'm putting weight behind the rear axle. Then you suggest the cans would be better almost as far back, and higher? Seriously? You do realize that, due to vertical projection of the CG as the truck climbs a hill, the effect of that weight up high gets even worse on the rear axle?

See, here you're not comprehending what was said again.

I said that the best place FUNCTIONALLY for Jerry-Cans is on the roof-rack near the back. Then I went on to say that this is not a good place when overcoming obstacles such as hill climbs, etc...

If you're "overlanding" it's hardly an issue where you place your Jerry-Cans because weight distribution is not really all that important. For the most part you're not crawling around trails like you'll find in Moab, UT. I'm not saying it does not happen, but I am saying it's a different style of "wheeling" and not something you're going to find too much of in your part of Canada.

The super siphon thing is pointless, because the same could be done with the can on the swing-away. Not to mention (one of many roles) the truck is ALSO used to support me on motorcycle enduros, where my wife has to drive it to a gas stop. The siphon is too slow, she won't be hoisting cans off the roof, and I certainly don't want to be doing it in MX boots either...

Huhhhh? Have you ever used a super siphon? I guess not. You're speaking purely out of speculation. The super siphon is faster than the gas pumps at the gas station. You can empty a 5-gallon very quickly. It's much faster with a super siphon than it is with a funnel or the Jerry-Can spout, and it's a heck of a lot easier, too.

As for your MX stuff, I think you got the wrong truck. Maybe you need a pick-up as that would make more sense than what you're saying.

We could have a challenge. You post pictures of all the Land Rovers you can find that were rear ended by a truck high enough to touch a gas can. I'll post all the photos I can find of Land Rovers that have rolled, where the Jerry cans also would have ruptured.


I'm pretty sure I'll win.

You're failing to see the point; and it is a valid point. You are much more likely to be rear-ended by another vehicle or back into something than you are to roll your truck - especially all the way over on to its roof.

I will not use one of those Handle-Alls to chop wood. Have you ever used one? I haven't. But I don't need to use one to know that a steel handled axe with a floppy head is not going to be nice to use at all. And again, no room inside the truck for the tools, due to family, nor do I care what the Rover Fashionistas think of my exterior mounted tools. Besides, would anybody who cares about such a thing slum it by putting a dirty shovel *back* in the truck? You might get the carpet dirty, and then the photos of gear just won't look as cool.

I don't know what "Rover Fashionistas" think, but I know what I think. I have never been on a trail, anywhere, and thought to myself, "you know, I wish I had a shovel or an ax". I'm not even sure what I would use a full-size shovel for. If I get stuck, I have a winch. I do, however, carry one of those small folding shovels to dig a poop hole or a campfire hole. But I really can't think of one thing where I would need a shovel. Maybe if I found a dead dog I wanted to bury??

Same with an ax. I carry a machete. It's light and flat and fits in the back. It's good for cutting camp wood or tree branches from a tree that's fell over a trail. To get the bulk of a fallen tree, I use my winch. I personally see no need for a full size ax. Hatchet, maybe....





As for the guy who posed the Jeep pic and the rear rack..

It's easy to see why keeping the weight forward and low is best. Just think of yourself sitting on a lawn mower. If someone else stand on the rear of the lawn mower and you attempt to climb a steep hill, what will the front wheel of the lawn mower want to do? They want to get light, right? But if that person sat on the hood of the lawn mower, wouldn't the front wheel want to stay more firmly planted?

If the weight is in front of the rear alxe, then that weight is transferred TO the rear axle and gives you traction - to a point.

If the weight is already behind the rear axle to begin with, it's working against you...unless you're going down hill.

That's why in a perfect world sports cars will have a 50/50 weight distribution on the front and rear axle, thus the invention of mid-engine cars.

I'm sure if you really wanted to get into it you could just google it.

 

[Alaska Mike]

Funny, I carry a full-sized shovel (D-Handle) and axe, as well as a bow saw. I've used them all in recovery situations, digging out berms, cutting wood for ramps/bridges, cutting back alder...

Utility varies.

I have one of those racks on my Jeep. I carry light stuff on it, besides the single gas can on one side and my HiLift on the other. Since I don't have a tailgate, the rack is bolted to the rear of the tub, surrounding the factory mount. I actually prefer this design, and have looked for ways to mount the rack onto my Series (while still having use of the rear door.

Your mileage may vary.

I never unbolt my gas can. I use a plastic tube with a bulb-style siphon pump and run the tube from the can to the filler. Simple.

 

[Root Moose]

I'm really not a fan of externally mounted fuel cans. I'd do it if I had to but...

The "long ranger" tanks you can get in Australia are a better solution. They make TLC 80 series versions, and a version for my Jeep ($$$). They must have something for LR vehicles. I like how you can get an aux tank for the TLC as well. I've been eyeing the space behind the front transfer case output on my machine as a potential place to fangle something into the fuel system.

It solves the space and CG problem; put it down under the floor where it belongs. I'm going to pursue it if I find a need for more fuel on a regular basis.

I'm ambivalent about tools out on the rack. It's not a lot of weight. Whatever floats your boat.

 

[SeaRubi]

this thread really draws 'em in.

As for the guy who posed the Jeep pic and the rear rack..

It's easy to see why keeping the weight forward and low is best. Just think of yourself sitting on a lawn mower. If someone else stand on the rear of the lawn mower and you attempt to climb a steep hill, what will the front wheel of the lawn mower want to do? They want to get light, right? But if that person sat on the hood of the lawn mower, wouldn't the front wheel want to stay more firmly planted?

If the weight is in front of the rear alxe, then that weight is transferred TO the rear axle and gives you traction - to a point.

If the weight is already behind the rear axle to begin with, it's working against you...unless you're going down hill.

That's why in a perfect world sports cars will have a 50/50 weight distribution on the front and rear axle, thus the invention of mid-engine cars.

I'm sure if you really wanted to get into it you could just google it.

Google my a$$crack - you'll find a free body diagram holding a beer from my time in the physics program :elkgrin: Are we wheelin' a tractor here? I didn't think so. here's an exercise for you - since you seem willing to learn.

Centers of gravity are a 3-axis deal. Keeping it over the tail is a compromise from moving it too high on the Y axis, giving up a bit over the X axis. If the cans are balanced around the spare then Z axis is happy. The truck weighs over 5k lbs, and you're talking about 200lbs of stuff. 2 fuel cans = roughly 10 gallons x 6lbs/gallon = 60'ish lbs. Plus a hi-lift, maybe 30lbs. That's 90lbs plus the weight of the steel in the carrier arm. Maybe we're talking an extra 100~120 lbs over what is already there. Please put together a free body diagram for a static case, and calculate roughly how many inches backward that 100'ish lbs moved the COG on 5,000lb + truck.
We're balancing the cans, so lucky for you that's back to 2-axis diagram. We don't need to consider ground pressure on each tire but each axle, via the tires, are pushing up so that will factor in to your calculation, as you'll need to calculate the torque at the rear axle exerted longitudinally along the chassis due to the unbalanced weight. No need to account for spring rates - just assume they are fixed. there is already a small amount of torque - if you look up the front and rear axle GVW's you should be able to calculate the percentage difference and get a ball-park number. you will also have to "google" the distance from the center of the stock spare tire to the axle center-line in the chassis since I'm sure you don't have a DII, to get an idea of how long your lever is. Now that you have a base case, and you know the weight each axle is pushing up with, and the amount of torque exerted on the rear axle to the rest of the chassis - put the whole deal on a 15% grade and recalculate the forces on the axles pushing back up and compare it to stock. For extra credit, why doncha throw a big ol' winch and heavy front bumper on the front axle and see what that did to your torque on the rear axle by calculating the torque exerted on the chassis by the lever of the front bumper.

It's been 15+ years for me and I'm not digging out the books after a couple beers, but you seem to have spunk and a willingness to learn something via google, as opposed to us poor bastards who had to sit in class. Go on now and come back to us with how much of a difference this really makes, so we can see if Rob is still justified in doing it this way. I have boxes to unpack and and am too annoyed to actually draw this up.

drunk'ish SeaRubi owwwt

 

[Alaska Mike]

Given the lack of interior space in a CJ-5, I've never really had the option for storing the tanks internally. Since all I've ever used are the traditional red steel jerry cans, I've never been crazy about storing fuel in the cabin anyway. They seem to leak a bit more than the NATO cans, and the smell of fuel just doesn't do it for me.

I could have gotten a 20 gallon tank, but to be honest I wasn't interested in losing that much departure angle. I punctured more than one 15 gallon one until I beefed up my skid plate.

While I agree that it's best to have an increased vehicle fuel capacity through permanently-mounted tanks, sometimes you have to trade off what can be mounted with the terrain-imposed constraints.

 

[Root Moose]

http://www.thelongranger.com.au/discovery04longrangefueltank.html

Agreed on the CJ5 - there is only so much you can do with some vehicles.

That said, what about doing the old Willys/Kaiser M38A1 pattern tanks under the seats in addition to a rear mounted tank from the AMC era CJ5? Just an idea - no idea if it is feasible.

SeaRubi, LOL!

 

[R_Lefebvre]

You took my comments a bit out of contexts.

Only because you're not following the logic.

So, I'll give this another shot. Don't expect many more,

I would only wish there weren't any more Dan! :clapsmile

The D2 rear is too long, IMO, but it is nice when loading groceries.

Or when packing for 4.

You're talking, what, 3" max you are shaving off the length of your Disco? How often is 3" going to matter? Is it really going to matter at the end of the day?

The inside sidewall is flush with the back of the bumper. Therefore, it would take 10" more "shelf" to shield a 10" tread, now wouldn't it? It's fairly significant. Will it make a difference? I think so.

All I know is I drag the back over enough stuff as it is. I'm trying to help that. Here's a fairly easy trail, still hit it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFiIf_iMmgE

I find this highly unlikely.

You have no idea what I've done. I haven't posted the details.

If this was honestly the case, you could build a bumper like Michael's, and then flip the D2 tire carrier over, bolt it back on, and gain extra inches.

But no extra gas. That is the crux of the situation. If it wasn't for that, I'd agree with your position here.

I have to really wonder here, though, do you take you kids and wife out on trip where you're going to need additional fuel? If I were going out on a trip that would require additional fuel, I can't see myself taking the kids along, much less the wife. Seriously.

Yes. I've already needed to carry extra fuel, which so far I've had to do with some pretty heinous setups.

Stop trying to project your tiny perception of reality onto my life. If you only run trails a short distance from your house (and never more than what... 75 miles from a MacDonald's?) doesn't mean that's my world.

However, didn't you say you were building a trailer to take camping with the family? Wouldn't you just put a mount on your trailer to hold a Jerry-Can?

Yes. In fact, I plan to carry another two cans on the trailer. However, the trailer won't always be there either. If I'm using the truck to get us to a canoe camping trip, I don't have the trailer.

Bottom line, you're not going to be going places with your family that's going to require a pit-stop for additional fuel from a Jerry-Can and you know this. Admit it.

Again, stop projecting your reality onto me. This summer we'll be doing a route from Petawawa, up through the the ZEC's to Lac Dumoine (46°51'45.09"N, 77°51'27.68"W), and on to Reserve Faunique de la Verendrye (47° 2'33.58"N, 76°32'1.90"W). It's 330km of dirt roads (if you don't get lost, or explore any side roads, and there are a LOT of side roads). Probably not needed, but I won't be attempting it without extra fuel.

You can do whatever you want, sure, but there is a reason you're posting your progress on your truck on this board; it's to get approval from others. If you deny that fact, then you're a lost cause. You keep coming back and posting updates because you thrive on the attention others give you, then you pretend not to care or "know better" when constructive criticism is given. The mods of this board are just as bad.

No, it is to exchange ideas with other like-minded people. And get input from people I DO respect. You're just bent out of shape because that's not YOU. There's guys here who've traveled around the world saying not to put fuel on the roof, and some other guy who I've never seen evidence of ever having left Virginia, telling me to do just that.

You are the one who only posts because you thrive on the attention. That's why you get so bent out of shape when people don't listen, and keep re-registering for boards you've been kicked off of.

It sounds like you need a roof-rack more than I do.

I need more storage space yes, but I don't need a roof rack.

I think you better run the numbers, Rob, because what you just posted it off. Way off.

I will. Just to get you started, look at the side view of a D2, and look at where the center of the roof panel is. It's only slightly ahead of the rear axle. That's where the CG of the rack will be. Then, as the truck rotates up to climb a hill. the vertical projection of that CG move behind the rear axle.

Ahhhh, come on, Rob! That things weighs more than 50lbs, lol.

You haven't even touched it!

Your tire carrier has been done before and it has proved to be not such a great idea.

Show me.

Was it proved to be not such a great idea, in exactly the same way welded recovery brackets were proved to be not such a great idea?

Now, you may love it at first, but you'll be back with a new plan in no-time. Believe me! You'll be back and then everyone will say "told you so".

Kind of like how the ARB bumper, and the OME 2" lift were sure to have me coming back for RTE equipment? Oh wait... they didn't.

No, the "Jeeper thing" typically refers to Rednecks who hack up their Jeeps. I've seen some really nice Jeeps and I've seen some really poor equipped Rovers. There are jut many many more poorly equipped Jeeps on the road vs Rovers, and that's what gives the Jeepers a bad name. It's becoming that way with Rovers, too, sadly. I mean, just look at this thread and the number of posts it has, and then look at this thread and the post count.

I can't believe you brought that up. What does that have to do with ANYTHING?! The only thing it proves is a bunch of snobby, narcissistic, bigoted jerks definitely like to spend more time putting people down than they do even fluffing themselves up.

I said that the best place FUNCTIONALLY for Jerry-Cans is on the roof-rack near the back. Then I went on to say that this is not a good place when overcoming obstacles such as hill climbs, etc...

So what are you suggesting then? Store them up front, but shuttle them to the back for fill and empty? What exactly IS your solution?

If you're "overlanding" it's hardly an issue where you place your Jerry-Cans because weight distribution is not really all that important.

No, not important at all! :Wow1: :xxrotflma

As for your MX stuff, I think you got the wrong truck. Maybe you need a pick-up as that would make more sense than what you're saying.

Well, a pickup truck wouldn't fit on these trails, though. I have a hard enough time getting a 100" WB Disco through.

Now, if you want to donate some money, I can buy a second truck for all these other things, and the Disco can be dedicated trail rig so that my low-class hacks don't offend your sensibilities of what a proper Land Rover should look like.

You're failing to see the point; and it is a valid point. You are much more likely to be rear-ended by another vehicle or back into something than you are to roll your truck - especially all the way over on to its roof.

You're failing to see my point: I completely disagree with your "statistics".

I don't know what "Rover Fashionistas" think, but I know what I think. I have never been on a trail, anywhere, and thought to myself, "you know, I wish I had a shovel or an ax". I'm not even sure what I would use a full-size shovel for. If I get stuck, I have a winch. I do, however, carry one of those small folding shovels to dig a poop hole or a campfire hole. But I really can't think of one thing where I would need a shovel. Maybe if I found a dead dog I wanted to bury??

Same with an ax. I carry a machete. It's light and flat and fits in the back. It's good for cutting camp wood or tree branches from a tree that's fell over a trail. To get the bulk of a fallen tree, I use my winch. I personally see no need for a full size ax. Hatchet, maybe....

I think I've used my axe on just about every trail I've run, and the shovel on many of them. When you have 30" tires, sometimes it takes a bit more work. I also use it for splitting firewood. The few times I've had to use my hatchet because I didn't bring the axe due to space, it sucks. If you like splitting wood with a machette... good for you.

That's why in a perfect world sports cars will have a 50/50 weight distribution on the front and rear axle, thus the invention of mid-engine cars.

Hold on there Mario... that's pretty open for debate. And I don't think you really want to be arguing sports car stuff with me.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

http://www.thelongranger.com.au/discovery04longrangefueltank.html

Agreed on the CJ5 - there is only so much you can do with some vehicles.

That said, what about doing the old Willys/Kaiser M38A1 pattern tanks under the seats in addition to a rear mounted tank from the AMC era CJ5? Just an idea - no idea if it is feasible.

SeaRubi, LOL!

Yes, I'm aware of those tanks. Not a clue what they cost, but I bet it's a lot. And doesn't fuel a dirtbike easy either.