Jump to content

antarmike

BANNED MEMBERS
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    5,852

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by antarmike

    Half track licence

    in Legislation, Licenses & Registration

    Posted · Edited by antarmike

    Direct,gov site specifically says H licence is for vehicle "steered by its tracks".

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Motoring/DriverLicensing/WhatCanYouDriveAndYourObligations/DG_180694

    This produced with co-operation with DVLA

    http://www.businesslink.gov.uk/bdotg/action/detail?itemId=1083722718&type=RESOURCES

    and if you want three answers saying the same try this

    http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/licence/category.html

     

    Assuming the half track is steered by its front pneumatic wheels (or wheel for a kettenkraftrad * but see later description of German half track steering) (or not steered effectively by its front wheels in the case of Centaur!!) then you don't need an H licence to drive it.

     

    Some German half-tracks used a more complex system whereby for shallow turns the front wheels alone steered the vehicle but to aid turning sharp turns braking was applied to one or other track to help the vehicle round. This leaves me in utter confusion as to which licence would be required to drive such a beast. But even so it is not steered just by its tracks (it is steered by its tracks and its wheels) so probably doesn't need H licence. Don't rely on that advice in court if you are caught driving a Sd.Kfz. without an H licence and some jobsworth decides you need one.

     

    Quote Wiki "The Sd.Kfz. 9 had a ladder frame chassis.........Both tracks and wheels were used for steering. The steering system was set up so that shallow turns used only the wheels, but brakes would be applied to the tracks the further the steering wheel was turned." unquote.

     

    *Even the Ketenkraftrad had track braking when the handlebars were turned beyond a certain point.

     

    This is why German half tracks were brilliant and things like the Matador- Valantine prototype and Cammel Laird Centaur were so much bin fodder....

     

    The answer to the original question is therefore No, Yes or Maybe depending on which half track you wish to drive! (and the courts interpretation of "steered by its tracks")

     

    For a White etc, No.

     

    In the case of Centaur and Matador/Valentine both of which spent most of their time going straight ahead whatever the driver did with the steering wheel and the front wheels, I suppose you could say they were steered by their tracks, just not in the direction the driver wanted to go!!!

    Half track licence

    in Legislation, Licenses & Registration

    Posted

    You are right but I too am finding it hard to provide a link

     

    BV202 etc does not need H licence because it steers on an articulated link between front and rear cars.

    H licence only needed if steered by its tracks.

     

    Of passing interest this from DVLA minimum test vehicle standards regarding suitable vehicle for taking H licence test in. Category H

    "To drive a tracked vehicle you will need to hold a full category B (car) licence.

    Any vehicle used for category H tests must have adequate all-round visibility to enable the driver to carry out manoeuvres and deal with junctions safely. Any vehicle requiring a second person to help with observation, such as a military vehicle, is not suitable for test purposes."

    Is some sanity returning?

    in Transporters & Wreckers (All Nations)

    Posted · Edited by antarmike

    "Even the Rover 3.5 V8 is only around the 100 BHP mark.."

     

    Whilst I bow to your knowledge on trucks, your Landrover Horsepower is slightly selective. For your edification I cut and paste the following:

     

    The Rover 4.6 underwent several changes throughout the years, which led to some changes in horsepower (hp) output.A.....

     

     

    You appear not to have read what I posted and therefore you comment and associated paste is of little relevance.

     

    I specifically had the 91 BHP Stage one, and the 120 BHP 101 FC in mind when I said it was around 100 BHP. (this was I believe the first production Land Rover to use the Buick derived engine.) And I clearly stated the 3.5 engine not the 3.9/4.0, 4.2, 4.3, 4.4, 4.5, 4.6 or the 5.0 litre.

     

    http://www.series123.com/AUShomepages/index65/index.html

     

    There were other applications but in general Land Rover have pushed everything by upgrading engines, weights of vehicles axle loadings etc without necessarily upgrading all associated components.

     

    As a result Land Rovers are not always that reliable (eg steering joints on the series 2b that never got any larger and were essentially series one ball joints put onto a 1 1/2 ton payload truck)

     

    A lot of propshaft UJ sizes and the like also were chosen for lower power applications and not always increased when larger engines were fitted.

     

    My point was that basic Land Rover propshaft joints from the 91 BHP V8 of the stage 1 may have remained in use on later models.

     

    Land Rover 101 FC user manual "Minimum BHP at Flywheel 120 BHP."

    Averaging 101 and stage 1 BHP gives

    (91 + 120) / 2 = 105.5 BHP (or as I said around 100 BHP.)

    H Licence Required for tracked wheelchair

    in Legislation, Licenses & Registration

    Posted · Edited by antarmike

    What do you think to this?

     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-12210986

     

    Might be good PR if an instructor could help him out

    Entirely reasonable to require H licence but I doubt whether this vehicle complies with C and U so probably can't be registered, hence licence would not be worth the paper it was written on (nor the plastic it was printed on)

     

    At 2.1m wide you would not be able to get it through a standard doorway. Yes you could get into some shops, but really this has no reason to be used on pavements within town has it?

     

    If you read the article there is no point offering instruction ( as a PR stunt or whatever) because the poor guy 's medical condition prevents him holding a provisional driving licence.

     

    And if he only wants to use it on the beach, is he really being fair on parents who just want to relax knowing their kids are in a safe place?

     

    Power source is not indicated in the article but if I/C should other on holiday have to listen to him driving up and down?

     

    If he is not fit enough to hold a provisional licence, he maybe isn't fit enough to control this vehicle that could cause serious harm or death to other road uses and children walking nearby.

     

    I feel for the guy but really he should not be using this where public can come into conflict with his "child mangler".

    Is some sanity returning?

    in Transporters & Wreckers (All Nations)

    Posted · Edited by antarmike

    It will take far more torque to to rotate the wheels of an Explorer because they are larger dia than land rover.

     

    Landy axle ratio is often not 3.5:1, quite a lot are 4.7:1 .

     

     

    Landy Gearbox/ transfer gearbox in top is underdrive at 1.15:1 , , Explorer gearbox is overdrive, but Prop is after gearbox in Landy, but before gearbox in Explorer, so in rough terms the effect on multiplying torque is about the same in each case, and I am ignoring that.

     

    I cant remember the ratio of explorer diff, but walking beam is 2:1? so this roughly cancenls out difference in wheel size between Explorer and Land Rover.

     

    Even the Rover 3.5 V8 is only around the 100 BHP mark, and far less than standard Meadows Explorer, Consider that people are putting 305 Rollers and bigger into Explorers, how can a Landy Propshaft coupling last any time, or give any reliability.

     

    The is not much scope for fitting a larger Harder Spicer at the gearbox end, in the restricted space by the gear lever turret casting.

     

    Some people put a solid coupling at this point and only have a U.J. at the clutch end of the shaft, where a much larger Hardy Spicer can be fitted.

     

    I cannot see the logic, or the engineering argument that says you can run with a shaft with a flexible drive at one end only.

     

    It is said that Gearbox and Clutch should be perfectly in line, hence coupling is not needed.

     

    However if perfectly in line U.J. at front end will not move, hence grease will not be distributed, and Brunnelling will result.

     

    If two units are to be driven with a Hardy Spicer carden shaft, then it is normal practice to offset one unit sideways out of line so that on each revolution, the U.J. works and changes angle and keeps the grease moving.

     

    I can't see U.J. proshafts ( in the way many people install them in Explorers) are a solution to anything, just a bodge, and unlikely to be reliable.

×
×
  • Create New...