I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like a
JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:36:27 +0100, Fred Labrosse <ffl@aber.ac.uk>
wrote:
>All,
>
>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
>was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like a
>JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
>the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>
>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>
>TIA,
>
>Fred
I know that before-n-after, when doing their waxoyl service, enlarge
the drain-holes in the chassis.
I assume that as long as the holes are not on an edge/corner and are
not too big then all is well, common sense required I think.
Dont forget if putting bolts through the chassis it normally has a tube
inside to stop the sides crushing in.
Richard
"MVP" <mr.nice@*nospam*softhome.net> wrote in message
news:d91k7116u0aj67sjltrbfekvev0c2n5hm9@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 May 2005 11:36:27 +0100, Fred Labrosse <ffl@aber.ac.uk>
> wrote:
>
>>All,
>>
>>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
>>was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like
>>a
>>JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
>>the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>>
>>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>>
>>TIA,
>>
>>Fred
>
> I know that before-n-after, when doing their waxoyl service, enlarge
> the drain-holes in the chassis.
> I assume that as long as the holes are not on an edge/corner and are
> not too big then all is well, common sense required I think.
>
>
> Regards.
> Mark.
> --
> _________________________________________
> 1984 110 CSW 2.5(na)D - leaving soon
> 3.9 V8i LPG auto Disco - coming soon
> www.4x4info.info
> www.mvp-fine-art.co.uk
> www.markvarleyphoto.co.uk
> charity calendar project -
> http://www.4x4info.info/calendar/
> _________________________________________
>
>
>
> ................................................................
> Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
> >>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
> -=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-
>
In message <1115289392.49244@leri.aber.ac.uk>, Fred Labrosse
<ffl@aber.ac.uk> writes
>All,
>
>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
>was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like a
>JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
>the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>
>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
As JATE rings are strong enough why bother?
A JATE ring can pivot on its single bolt, if you make it a two bolt
fixing it can no longer pivot, and the force associated will be
transferred into the mounting bolts and then to the chassis. The weakest
link being the chassis !
--
Marc Draper
Fred Labrosse wrote:
> All,
>
> I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
> was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like a
> JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
> the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>
> Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
> existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>
> TIA,
>
> Fred
I think that you'll find that they are 10 mm (3/8") bolts.
You're probably going over the top as a decent 10 mm bolt in double
shear has quite some capacity anyway.
There is a down side to two bolts if I interpret your idea correctly -
they will prevent the 'Jate' ring from swivelling which is one of its
advantages.
As someone else comments the frame is usually 'tubed' at the attachment
point. There is usually some scope for enlarging the holes before
fouling the inside of the 'tube'. At least 12 mm should be possible.
Bear in mind however that there is limited metal in the 'eye' of a
genuine Jate ring and that the enlarged hole required for the bigger
bolt will weaken the Jate ring. If you are designing you own 'Jate' ring
or using one of the copies this might not be an issue.
> In message <1115289392.49244@leri.aber.ac.uk>, Fred Labrosse
> <ffl@aber.ac.uk> writes
>>All,
>>
>>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but I
>>was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something like
>>a JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently used for
>>the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>>
>>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>
>
> As JATE rings are strong enough why bother?
Are they indeed? Somebody not long ago commented on the fact that you
should always use two of these for serious recovery.
>
> A JATE ring can pivot on its single bolt,
Which I think is one of the problems with it: moves about when you drive
normally, damaging the rust proofing of the chassis, crushes what ever you
use for recovery between it and the chassis (unless you use a shackle, yet
another thing flying in case of a break somewhere, etc).
> if you make it a two bolt
> fixing it can no longer pivot,
Which solves the problems above.
> and the force associated will be
> transferred into the mounting bolts and then to the chassis. The weakest
> link being the chassis !
But the effort is anyway transferred to the chassis, only differently. Yes,
you are right, having 2 mounting bolts mean that there will be a torque
applied to the chassis. Is that a problem? I don't know.
> Fred Labrosse wrote:
>> All,
>>
>> I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but
>> I was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something
>> like a JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently
>> used for the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>>
>> Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>> existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>>
>> TIA,
>>
>> Fred
>
> I think that you'll find that they are 10 mm (3/8") bolts.
>
> You're probably going over the top as a decent 10 mm bolt in double
> shear has quite some capacity anyway.
>
> There is a down side to two bolts if I interpret your idea correctly -
> they will prevent the 'Jate' ring from swivelling which is one of its
> advantages.
I'm not sure this is an advantage (see my other post). Can you explain?
>
> As someone else comments the frame is usually 'tubed' at the attachment
> point. There is usually some scope for enlarging the holes before
> fouling the inside of the 'tube'. At least 12 mm should be possible.
> Bear in mind however that there is limited metal in the 'eye' of a
> genuine Jate ring and that the enlarged hole required for the bigger
> bolt will weaken the Jate ring. If you are designing you own 'Jate' ring
> or using one of the copies this might not be an issue.
> Marc Draper wrote:
>
>> In message <1115289392.49244@leri.aber.ac.uk>, Fred Labrosse
>> <ffl@aber.ac.uk> writes
>>>All,
>>>
>>>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but
>>>I was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something
>>>like a JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently
>>>used for the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE rings).
>>>
>>>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>>>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>>
>>
>> As JATE rings are strong enough why bother?
>
> Are they indeed? Somebody not long ago commented on the fact that you
> should always use two of these for serious recovery.
>
The reason for this is to avoid distorting the chassis and turning the right
angles into something else - imagine putting three tonnes of stress on one
chassis rail and having that rail move towards you while the other side
stays stuck in the mud and doesn't move - the result is a parallelogram
shaped chassis and an expensive replacement job - the result's about the
same as hitting a concrete bollard straight on one of the chassis rails at
around 30MPH - one buggered chassis.
JATE rings are rated to an 8 tonne load - believe me - they're plenty
strong.
>>
>> A JATE ring can pivot on its single bolt,
>
> Which I think is one of the problems with it: moves about when you drive
> normally, damaging the rust proofing of the chassis, crushes what ever you
> use for recovery between it and the chassis (unless you use a shackle, yet
> another thing flying in case of a break somewhere, etc).
>
I've never seen one swivel far enough to catch what was attached to it
between the ring and the chassis - the chassis where they attach is
curved, and the tube they bolt though is suspended about half an inch below
the chassis member proper.
With JATE rings you just do the bolt up tight enough to *just* pinch the
chassis tube between the ends of the ring and it won't swing unless a
genuine force is exerted on it, like a rope or a rock - no swinging loose,
no knocking lumps out of the chassis rail.
P.
--
1992 200 TDI Disco - heavily modified
1982 V8 Range Rover - heavily corroded
2000 Rover 75 - heavily driven
1993 Lexus LS400 - just plain heavy on fuel
> Fred Labrosse wrote:
>
>> Marc Draper wrote:
>>
>>> In message <1115289392.49244@leri.aber.ac.uk>, Fred Labrosse
>>> <ffl@aber.ac.uk> writes
>>>>All,
>>>>
>>>>I'm planning on fitting decent anchor points. JATE rings seem fine, but
>>>>I was thinking of something similar but over engineered ;-), something
>>>>like a JATE with two bolts (and bigger bolts than the M8 (?) currently
>>>>used for the towing eyes and usually sold with "traditional" JATE
>>>>rings).
>>>>
>>>>Anybody has anyting to say about drilling additional holes and enlarging
>>>>existing ones in the chassis of a defender?
>>>
>>>
>>> As JATE rings are strong enough why bother?
>>
>> Are they indeed? Somebody not long ago commented on the fact that you
>> should always use two of these for serious recovery.
>>
>
> The reason for this is to avoid distorting the chassis and turning the
> right angles into something else - imagine putting three tonnes of stress
> on one chassis rail and having that rail move towards you while the other
> side stays stuck in the mud and doesn't move - the result is a
> parallelogram shaped chassis and an expensive replacement job - the
> result's about the same as hitting a concrete bollard straight on one of
> the chassis rails at around 30MPH - one buggered chassis.
>
> JATE rings are rated to an 8 tonne load - believe me - they're plenty
> strong.
Point taken.
>
>>>
>>> A JATE ring can pivot on its single bolt,
>>
>> Which I think is one of the problems with it: moves about when you drive
>> normally, damaging the rust proofing of the chassis, crushes what ever
>> you use for recovery between it and the chassis (unless you use a
>> shackle, yet another thing flying in case of a break somewhere, etc).
>>
>
> I've never seen one swivel far enough to catch what was attached to it
> between the ring and the chassis - the chassis where they attach is
> curved, and the tube they bolt though is suspended about half an inch
> below the chassis member proper.
They would if mounted on my 110 as suggested at
<http://www.difflock.com/offroad/bowyer/attached.shtml>.
>
> With JATE rings you just do the bolt up tight enough to *just* pinch the
> chassis tube between the ends of the ring and it won't swing unless a
> genuine force is exerted on it, like a rope or a rock - no swinging loose,
> no knocking lumps out of the chassis rail.
The AutoGuide.com network consists of the largest network of enthusiast-owned enthusiast-operated automotive communities.
AutoGuide.com provides the latest car reviews, auto show coverage, new car prices, and automotive news. The AutoGuide network operates more than 100 automotive forums where our users consult peers for shopping information and advice, and share opinions as a community.
Linear Mode
