Sean N

60 on a dual carriageway, 70 on a motorway. It's under 7.5 tonnes gross, so not an HGV just undergoes the same Ministry test as HGVs (though private HGV taxation to confuse things). John, you're right, those having passed their car test since 1998 (I think - check it) can't drive over 3500 kg gross without passing another test.

In my experience they only inspect if there isn't a paperwork trail - if there's a Form 654 and a reciept from Withams / MoD auction they're satisfied, even if it's ages old. Our local office have always been happy to inspect at the VRO or where the vehicle is lying, but there's often a long wait for on site inspections so I've tended to take the mountain to Mohammed, as it were!

Private HGV isn't an MoT category, its a taxation class. As others have said, as the truck grosses 5300 kg it'll be a Ministry test at the goods vehicle testing station or designated premises. These tests are nothing to be afraid of (and in many ways are better than many class 7 stations). The only pain is they take a bit more organising and notice. Look up your local GVTS or ask VOSA and book the test on the vehicle's chassis number. Get the vehicle insured (again on the chassis number) before you take it for test, and make sure you've checked the vehicle thoroughly and it's nice and clean, particularly underneath. Once it's tested, take the certificate, insurance and the MoD disposal paperwork, go to your local vehicle licensing office (DVLA office, not just the post office), fill in a V55/5, give them all the paperwork and an appropriate amount of money and they'll give you an age related registration and a shiny new tax disc.

I hink they're a supply chain logistics set-up rather than a parts supplier.

Is this really true though? Up to Pz IV the German tanks were pretty small as well - Pz IV is only 9' or so wide. Tiger 1 and Panther are wider than, say, Churchill or Comet, but not by all that much; I suppose there's a big difference between Cromwell and Tiger 1, but a Churchill is only a few inches narrower than a Panther. Centurion - OK, not WW2, but designed at the time and presumably under the same constraints - is near enough the same width as Pz V. I always had the impression that the differences, and particularly Tiger II and the real German monsters of the later war years - had more to do with design philosophy and perceived use (and possibly megalomania!). And what about Tortoise...?

I really like this, and it's a rare thing if it's a genuine airportable, but is it really worth what he's asking? http://www.milweb.net/webverts/54660/

Hi Simon, As someone who used to do the Avon Dassett heavy weekends in the '90s I'd be well up for this, if only for old time's sake - if there's a good turnout it'd be just like the old days! Would probably bring the RL, and my brother has said he'll ring his. I also have a request from my mate for it not to be April 2 - 17 as he's away then!! Any low-loaders likely to be going from Dorset?

Wow. I bet that hurt when it landed.

By 1966 if not earlier these were being called RKs by Bedford and the MoD. It's a shame no apparent historic value was attached to many of these prototypes, not only Bedfords - as an R type fan it's sad to see this in this state rather than preserved.

All sorts of stuff hides in odd corners, often the TA, long after types are officially obsolete. I remember in the mid '90s some beautiful, delivery mileage only 101s coming out through Aston Down - I think they must have been from CVD Ashhurch. Still in deep bronze green with bridge plates and everything, they looked as though they'd come off the production line yesterday.

At Beaulieu Autojumble the other week there was a guy with a baby Peugeot that I rather liked the look of, and would have been prepared to offer good money for. It had a for sale sign in t windw (actually on the tax disc), so I asked the stallholder if it was his - the answer was yes. 'For sale?' I said, just to confirm and to open the discussion. 'No, but it could be bought' came the reply, with some attitude. Starting to get irritated, I said 'I'm not sure I see the difference'. He replied 'Go away and think about it', to which I, increasingly irritated, replied 'OK, if it could be bought, how much could it be bought for?' Unsurprisingly the reply was 'That's up to you'. By this time I'd had enough and walked away, saying I wasn't going to be buyer and seller. Stallholder's reply to my disappearing back was 'well you won't be the buyer'. Surprise surprise. I can't understand the need for such a attitude. I've had my fair share of timewasters, thieves and other lowlife, yet I try to treat everyone the way I'd like to be treated. Is that so hard? OK, rant over!!!

Don't know if this helps but I asked my machinists about this - they suggested bore & file square or bore and use a slotting head on a mill, indexing the wheel over to achieve the taper.

Bedford

All the current requirements and exemptions are in GV262-02, see http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/freight/road/workingtime/drivershoursgoods.pdf Why would a Fox be Private HGV or come under tacho regs though, it's not a goods vehicle, surely? As has been said already, it's probably PLG.

I can see the vision, I just can't see the bank balance :cry:

What about the one to say the light bulb is too wide and you can't legally change it... (Sorry couldnt resist - ducks for cover...)

A mate of mine who was flying Buccaneers at the time was at an airshow where there was an A-10 static exhibit. He quoted the A-10 pilot as saying "you'd never get anyone to fly them in wartime, and even if you could their balls would be too big to fit in the cockpit"...

In some ways, that doesn't really help with what makes a strong final drive though. A badly designed or overstressed drive of a theoretically more efficient design could be worse than a well designed 'poor' type. Driving style makes a big difference too; put 200 bhp through an axle designed for 150 but go gently with the right hand pedal and you'll be fine, put 150 bhp through an axle designed for 200 and wheelspin off wet grass onto dry tar and you'll break a halfshaft. My own feeling, having done many engine conversions without axle issues, is that you can worry too much about these things! In practice you're unlikely to have much choice with final drive types particularly on medium trucks and particularly if trying to retain the same axle casing. As others have said, what affects speed is the final drive ratio (at least until frictional losses and air resistance approach engine power output) but either a spiral bevel or hypoid axle will put up with speed increases better than an (old style) worm drive.

If you look at (older) truck final drives there are three main types (as far as I can remember!). A lot of very old heavy trucks will have worm drives. These tend to be quite strong and you can achieve big ratios easily with a worm, but the mechanical efficiency isn't great (50% - 90%) due to the sliding contact between the driving and driven gears, which can lead to rapid overheating and failure particularly if overloaded or if lubrication is poor. Many vehicles use spiral bevel drives, which are highly efficient (99%), but it's quite difficult to arrange big ratios in a spiral bevel. You can spot a spiral bevel axle as the axes of the propshaft and axle shafts will intersect. Also common is the hypoid axle, where the teeth mesh in what's called a hyperboloid. In a hypoid axle the propshaft and axle shaft axes do not intersect - the prop will normally enter the axle casing below the centreline. The teeth in hypoid gears have a sliding contact which is less efficient (95% - 99%) than a spiral bevel, but more efficient than a worm. The greater tooth contact area makes up for the poorer efficiency by increasing durability, though they can be hard on oil due to the high pressure shear between the teeth; Hypoid (extreme pressure) gear oil was devised to cope with the peculiar sliding contact between hypoid gear teeth. Hypoid axles tend to be quieter and smoother than spiral bevel axles and bigger ratios can be achieved. In some installations the ability to get a low prop centreline can be useful as well. Bedford used at least two of these designs, having light duty spiral bevel axles in small trucks, heavy duty spiral bevels in big trucks, and hypoids in the ones in between!

There is - we used an M2 bridging rig - but only if it's legal to use it under some classification that's exempt C&U.

If you assume this is 1950, that £69.10.0 engine is the equivalent of £1770 now using the increase in retail prices, or £5260 now relative to average earnings (probably a more realistic comparison). If it's 1945, it's even more expensive!

It's not bad though. Might be worth getting in touch with the SdKfZ foundation, I think they did one, but I don't have contact details.

Traditional blasting never seems to work against rubbery materials because the blast medium either bounces off or sinks in. This can be handy sometimes - at work we get aluminium mats with rubber infill strips blasted to clean and finish them and it doesn't mar the rubber. I've never come across any better method than warm and scrape, perhaps with petroleum based solvent (or just petrol) to soften and to remove the last traces. I do find warming helps but be really careful not to set it alight and be careful about how you're doing the job - if you get it too hot you get gobbets of semi-molten underseal dripping on you - not nice. I think acid dipping would probably take it off, pricey though.

Hanno, a digression, but I don't understand this bit - you appear to be saying the Ram wasn't used in WW2 and then that it was?

Ebay. Lots of it on there at sensible money. We just bought some for work from Acorn Storage in Kent via ebay; under a grand for 10 or more bays, second-hand but looks like new, loading signs, SWLs, the whole works.