antarmike Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Re modifications to braking. Are the track drive sprockets relatively easy to unbolt. (by which I mean are the side plates with the teeth separate from the hub?) If the inner of the two sprockets was copied as a laser cut profile in a hard material such as EN8 etc, omitting the row of lightening holes just inside the teeth, Would the flat face, created, just inside the teeth be wide enough to run brake pads against, using a modified disc brake calliper system? This would give secondary Hydraulic disc brakes that would stop the vehicle in a straight line. These brakes would only be used in event of failure of the steering brakes. As I read the rules no back up secondary system is required for the steering, just for stopping. The disc so created would not be vented so would get hot quickly, but what we want is a safe way of stopping the vehicle, and not much more. Using the drive sprocket as disc brake would mean that externally the looks had been modified (but using th inner sprocket it wouldn't be too noticeable,) but it totally overcomes problems with internal drive shaft failure that, if it were to happen would mean neither inboards discs nor an electric retarder on the Pack/ steering box shaft would work. May not work if there is final drive reduction between Steering Unit and Track drive sprockets, because torque required to effect stopping would thereby be increased. BUMP!! What I posted might be Billhooks, but surely someone has a thought or a comment on this idea? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosrec Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Antar Mike i think the problem is that the majority of people on here recognise there is a problem. Alas the people who own them are the least willing to accept this fact They are content to say well so and so gets away with it so should i or its got a tax disc so its legal or they put up wishy washy arguments to divert attention away from the basic facts. All the time these people refuse to accept they have bought a pup and are driving about in illegal vehicles that could ultimatly cost them a lot more than a couple of points on their licence you are wasting you time suggesting any way round these problem,s. For instance have you noticed the original poster Firetrucker has hinted he may have a solution to the braking problem yet no one has what asked what this is. No i think the best way to approach this is to adopt the head in sand method and hope nothing serious ever happens. At least that way you can say "told you so" when there is a cockup that has far reaching effects on the hobby as a whole and every over width unroad worthy vehicle out there. Think the expression "none so blind as them that dont want to see" covers it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChasSomT. Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 To answer Antarmike's BUMP, and avoid cosrec's 'pigeonholing' . . . . Yes, there are final drives each side (with a lower ratio for the 434 - used on the Bulldog I believe, for the greater weight - and other, heavier versions) the input shafts turn 'backwards' from the steering gear, the final drives 'correcting' this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Re modifications to braking. May not work if there is final drive reduction between Steering Unit and Track drive sprockets, because torque required to effect stopping would thereby be increased. I have been watching from the sidelines on this thread, up until now, but it is obvious that there is no real knowledge of this vehicle and similar types. Most tracked vehicles, being low geared, have reduction units outboard and braking systems are inboard of them, take CVR(T) as a common example, so it is possible to have a brake before the reduction, just needs calculating the size and effort needed. The other point is that another actual brake is not absolutely neccessary, because hundreds of thousands of road vehicles produced and in use, use the same wheel brakes for main and parking, just different methods of applying. A hydraulic set up on the existing linkages could be made relatively easily. Not a job for the Sat & Sun mechanic, it needs to be made, tested and approved before putting in production and installing. And no, I am not looking for work here, just applying long term experience on "weird and wonderful vehicles". Going back to sleep now :yawn: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I knew there had to be reduction in the final drive, but I still don't know the ratio. The idea still might be possible if both inner and outer drive sprockets where re.manufactured without holes and All four were run as disc brakes. I didn't suggest this since this is more intrusive and makes a bigger change to the external look of the vehicle. As I said it does have the advantage of bypassing the drive shafts, whose bolts we are warned can fail, leaving no brakes and no steering. Most vehicles that have one single brake but two methods of applying it, have the brake directly coupled to the road wheel, without any problematic drive shaft couplings. What I am thinking about is how to re-engineer FV432 so it is more like Automotive practice, and the braking isn't taken from the brakes to the tracks through these shafts and couplings but is directly applied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big ray Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Antar Mike i think the problem is that the majority of people on here recognise there is a problem.Alas the people who own them are the least willing to accept this fact They are content to say well so and so gets away with it so should i or its got a tax disc so its legal or they put up wishy washy arguments to divert attention away from the basic facts. All the time these people refuse to accept they have bought a pup and are driving about in illegal vehicles that could ultimatly cost them a lot more than a couple of points on their licence you are wasting you time suggesting any way round these problem,s. For instance have you noticed the original poster Firetrucker has hinted he may have a solution to the braking problem yet no one has what asked what this is. No i think the best way to approach this is to adopt the head in sand method and hope nothing serious ever happens. At least that way you can say "told you so" when there is a cockup that has far reaching effects on the hobby as a whole and every over width unroad worthy vehicle out there. Think the expression "none so blind as them that dont want to see" covers it My original post to Firetrucker was not an attempt to start a witch hunt against 432 owners, it was intended as a warning to prevent him from parting with his hard earned cash without being at least well informed, the ultimate decission, and rightly so, will always be his. You are correct to say that many ex-military vehicles are not equiped with a satisfactory secondary breaking system, i.e. transmission hand brakes. So what ever you drive, you should always make a greater allowance for the unexpected. Happy motoring folks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Farrant Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I knew there had to be reduction in the final drive, but I still don't know the ratio. The idea still might be possible if both inner and outer drive sprockets where re.manufactured without holes and All four were run as disc brakes. I didn't suggest this since this is more intrusive and makes a bigger change to the external look of the vehicle. Yes, it does sound a better idea, but it may only require a caliper working on an inner sprocket cum disc. A caliper on the outer sprocket could be liable to damage as it could protrude somewhat. The heavy discs brake calipers now used on HGV's would be of ample capacity, but how to operate them would be a problem. No compressed air, or vacuum pump / exhauster, might need a full time hydraulic pressure system like Saracen / Routemaster set up. Starting to get more complicated :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mk3iain Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 I have had 432s in the past on the road and can sympathise with owners hoping to continue to use them. It is a worthwhile exercise if it is remotely possible to cross these hurdles. I also find the technical challenge of retro-fitting a second braking system interesting. Mikes idea possibly has the greatest mechanical advantage and reduces the risk of failure if it can be engineered, taking into account use in mud etc. Worth a pop! but it may be expensive!:wow: Richard, sometimes when things are getting complex it is time to think simple !! if that is possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosrec Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 Quick one is there enough room to get a simple disc on this imput shaft operated mechanicaly or hydrulically or even electrically as per modern cars For would only need to be small as overall gearing would provide efficency at tracks. Against drive shaft faliure would make it non operative there again faliure of transmission on any vehicle with transmisson braked vehicle would If there is room i think it would qualify as secondry braking system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firetrucker Posted July 9, 2011 Author Share Posted July 9, 2011 My original post to Firetrucker was not an attempt to start a witch hunt against 432 owners, it was intended as a warning to prevent him from parting with his hard earned cash without being at least well informed, the ultimate decission, and rightly so, will always be his. You are correct to say that many ex-military vehicles are not equiped with a satisfactory secondary breaking system, i.e. transmission hand brakes. So what ever you drive, you should always make a greater allowance for the unexpected. Happy motoring folks. Thanks Ray......totally agree I personally think these threads have a valid status here. Lets try and find a constructve way of moving forward, once and for all, to resolve this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firetrucker Posted July 10, 2011 Author Share Posted July 10, 2011 Re an earlier post I made regarding electromagnetic retarding...have a look at this site: http://www.industrialbrake.com.au/driveline_retarders.htm http://www.industrialbrake.com.au/klam/ts20071-f_cfk-300_ing.pdf seems simple....would it fit into drive line though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cosrec Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 (edited) I know i am boring people to death going on about over width non road legal vehicles but here is an example of what can go wrong. We where called out by the police to clear up after an accident. First vehicle was a car towing a boat on a home made trailer down the motorway and it had lost a wheel of the trailer. We where asked to recover the whole lot back to our works for examination. The second vehicle was on the opposite carridge way smacked into the central saftey barrier with a smashed screen and the roof torn back. This is the point were you might think whats this got to do with milatry vehicles and over width non street legal. The guy towing the boat trailer was under the impression that his insurance would cover him for all eventalitys after all he was a carvanner. He was towing the boat for a mate who had bought it in an auction. Police examination of the vehicles revealed the home made trailer (not the boat) had no working brakes and was 75mm over the legal width for a road vehicle. After an interview under caution the guy was charged with death by dangerous (what ever) the insurance company refused to stand by the claim the guy went through shear hell for 18 months while it came to court and on two occasions tried to take his own life So dont think i am only slightly illegal the insurance will sort it out they wont Edited July 10, 2011 by cosrec Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antarmike Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I know i am boring people to death going on about over width non road legal vehicles but here is an example of what can go wrong. We where called out by the police to clear up after an accident. First vehicle was a car towing a boat on a home made trailer down the motorway and it had lost a wheel of the trailer. We where asked to recover the whole lot back to our works for examination. The second vehicle was on the opposite carridge way smacked into the central saftey barrier with a smashed screen and the roof torn back. This is the point were you might think whats this got to do with milatry vehicles and over width non street legal. The guy towing the boat trailer was under the impression that his insurance would cover him for all eventalitys after all he was a carvanner. He was towing the boat for a mate who had bought it in an auction. Police examination of the vehicles revealed the home made trailer (not the boat) had no working brakes and was 75mm over the legal width for a road vehicle. After an interview under caution the guy was charged with death by dangerous (what ever) the insurance company refused to stand by the claim the guy went through shear hell for 18 months while it came to court and on two occasions tried to take his own life So dont think i am only slightly illegal the insurance will sort it out they wont And that example was 75 mm overwidth not 250mm (10") for the narrowest Fv432 (not counting Petrol Mk1). Swingfire FV432 comes in at 2.972mm which is 332" (approx 13" ) Overwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrettkitt Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I know i am boring people to death going on about over width non road legal vehicles but here is an example of what can go wrong. We where called out by the police to clear up after an accident. First vehicle was a car towing a boat on a home made trailer down the motorway and it had lost a wheel of the trailer. We where asked to recover the whole lot back to our works for examination. The second vehicle was on the opposite carridge way smacked into the central saftey barrier with a smashed screen and the roof torn back. This is the point were you might think whats this got to do with milatry vehicles and over width non street legal. The guy towing the boat trailer was under the impression that his insurance would cover him for all eventalitys after all he was a carvanner. He was towing the boat for a mate who had bought it in an auction. Police examination of the vehicles revealed the home made trailer (not the boat) had no working brakes and was 75mm over the legal width for a road vehicle. After an interview under caution the guy was charged with death by dangerous (what ever) the insurance company refused to stand by the claim the guy went through shear hell for 18 months while it came to court and on two occasions tried to take his own life So dont think i am only slightly illegal the insurance will sort it out they wont I think you have hit the nail on the head with that one. The financial implications of being sued by the victims relatives and having no insurance don't bare thinking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 I think you have hit the nail on the head with that one. The financial implications of being sued by the victims relatives and having no insurance don't bare thinking about. Hence the need to find a way, working with the DoT, to resolve the process in a legal manner. If the will is there on both sides then nothing is insurmountable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferrettkitt Posted July 10, 2011 Share Posted July 10, 2011 Hence the need to find a way, working with the DoT, to resolve the process in a legal manner. If the will is there on both sides then nothing is insurmountable. Its getting them to the table to at least talk isn't it, the will is there on one side the other wants to sit behind a mountain of paper and forget that its supposed to be there to help the public and not just serve its own interests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArtistsRifles Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Its getting them to the table to at least talk isn't it, the will is there on one side the other wants to sit behind a mountain of paper and forget that its supposed to be there to help the public and not just serve its own interests. Sadly too true - at the risk of introducing the dreaded "P" word - the DfT seem now to be ruled by the <censoreds> in Whitehall and the EU and thus more interested in promoting their relevant political agendas than in viable, workable legislation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sidewinder Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Going off on a slight tangent here, but while having a browse through Withams online auctions website earlier I noticed that they currently have a Stormer HVM up for auction. What most caught my eye however was the small print: This vehicle will not be issued a 654 and will not be able to be road registered. I believe the 654 is the Cast Vehicle form which without means the vehicle can't be registered, as they have stated. Am I correct in thinking that although the Stormer complies with C&U and braking/steering requirements that like a 432 it is also overwidth? Could this be the start of Withams stopping issuing Cast Vehicle forms for vehicles that don't comply or is there just another simpler explanation? If they are not issuing one on grounds of non-compliance, surely they'll stop issuing them to other similar vehicles.. Either way, buyer beware! James Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
croc Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Has anyone who has bought a "road legal" 432 etc tried doing the dealer under trade descriptions act yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormin Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I'm not sure that without the 654 cast vehicle a vehicle can't be registered. If probably complicates matters somewhat but doesn't make it an impossibility. It puts the onus on the new owner to prove the vehicles age by whatever approved means and then go through the relevant process of MOT, SVA, plating etc if relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CVRTNick Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I would have thought it was a width issue,as early CVRTs were under the legal road width & new model CVRTs are much wider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grasshopper Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It is possible to register an armoured vehicle without a 654, I did it recently with our Striker, using the new style history card. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flywheel Posted July 15, 2011 Share Posted July 15, 2011 (edited) " This vehicle will not be issued a 654 and will not be able to be road registered." the above is also stated on withams advert for a 432. looks like they are covering their backs just in case of any legal issues that may arise in the future from these vehicles being operated on public roads I think that if people want to drive these vehicles on the road and can manage to do it legally it is up to them, the risk is theirs but it always reminds me of an advert that used to be on t.v for a legal company and their slogan was "where there's blame there's a claim" and with a vehicle of this size and weight any accident is not likely to be a minor one.whoever's fault it may have been Edited July 16, 2011 by flywheel added comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
landyandy Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 i have been reliably informed today that this thread has come to the attention of the relivant authorities and those 432,s that are already road registered will face problems if stopped on the road as they are running outside of c and u use at the moment which makes them illegal but there is a way forward with it, if some one is willing to take the plunge and go for sva there is a chance it can be achieved,if the braking issue is sorted out first ie secondry braking fitted,lets here your thoughts on this as this problem aint going away and someone will fall foul of the law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoelH Posted July 16, 2011 Share Posted July 16, 2011 I have been reading the many threads on this subject - its a tricky one. Q: have the issues being faced by the 432 been addressed with the bulldog upgrade program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpeg.1fba8180d889fded3012642bff4ceac2.jpeg)
Recommended Posts