On or around Sun, 01 Oct 2006 08:36:33 +0100, Austin Shackles
<austinNOSPAM@ddol-las.net> enlightened us thusly:
>On or around Sat, 30 Sep 2006 13:24:44 +0100, "Nige"
><nigel.inceBUGGEROFF@btinternet.com> enlightened us thusly:
>
>
>>126cm matey, sorry about the delay!!
>
>excellent, and no problem - the project ain't off the ground yet.
>
>seems there's a consensus so far on 126cm or so.
hmmm.
Disco seems to measure about 130cm.
Tranny measures about 150. On the front of the tranny there's a fair amount
of clearance inboard of the wheel, cos it has a fat damper in there. not so
good at the back, although there *is* a gap inboard of the wheel - enough to
take up the difference between a 195 section tyre and a 235 section one,
certainly.
However, about 4" sounds quite a lot of spacing on the wheel. Mind, the
axles seem to cope OK with quite a bit more overhang than "standard" - and
the disco rims are offset quite a long way "inwards", if you look at a steel
set. Fitting them "backwards" (apart from the obvious thing about the
chamfers on the holes would be wrong) would get you almost 4", I reckon.
This is an interesting point. are the disco/raro axles longer (between
wheel mounting flanges) than the 90/110 ones? The wheels seem to have more
offset inwards, yet the measurement between tyres appears to be greater...
I wonder how much more complicated the process becomes (legalistically) if I
start with a rangie chassis and lengthen it? lengthening the chassis looks
easy: I can get bits of channel folded up in the local blacksmiths, and 2
bits of channel, sized to fit accurately over the existing channels, with a
suitable overlap, could make a tidy job of extending the chassis.
--
Austin Shackles.
www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)