Just had a look at the drawing I have here and the Herald chassis is 110" from the back of the large cross member that supports the diff to the end of the main runners at the front that support the front axle. The thin bits at the end that support the anti roll bar are not included. 110" is as small as it can be to get the van chassis on as the Herald has an almost identical wheel base.
The answer is......
- Thread starter Arrocuda
- Start date
Had a 'eureka moment' this morning and the knock on effect is a serious change of plan. The reason for not going the original chassis cab route was because of having to remove the central chassis members in order to get the cardan shaft down to the diff, but TBH in all other respects a chassis cab would be ideal for obvious reasons. In the past when gas guzzling was a way of life I had a couple of Range Rovers that were fitted with Borg Warner transfer boxes.
These boxes have an input shaft mounted above floor height and 2 output shafts that come out about 10" lower below the floor. After a little googling I find that the standard box has a ratio of 1.1:1 and there is a replacement gear available for 0.85:1 I was hoping for 1:1 but that is close enough for me. So..... from a practical point of view it makes a lot more sense as the engine and transmission can be mounted on the commer chassis runners parallel with the floor with the transfer box mounted directly to the transmission and the output shaft connected to the diff below the chassis. The body mods are not a problem as the cab is non structural. So new shopping list:-
1) Chassis cab ex luton, highwayman or whatever, no mechanicals needed but must be rolling. Don't mind doing some remedial works but not a complete basket case. (Want to drive this thing BEFORE I get a bus pass)!
2) Monocoque van, camper or minibus. No big holes in the roof or the bodywork. Can be a stripped shell providing the chassis cab has doors. Not bothered about chassis/floor as the chassis cab will be the structural unit. Rolling, not essential I suppose, but preferred.
My apologies to everyone that responded first time but this route would make the build a lot less complicated and less time consuming.
These boxes have an input shaft mounted above floor height and 2 output shafts that come out about 10" lower below the floor. After a little googling I find that the standard box has a ratio of 1.1:1 and there is a replacement gear available for 0.85:1 I was hoping for 1:1 but that is close enough for me. So..... from a practical point of view it makes a lot more sense as the engine and transmission can be mounted on the commer chassis runners parallel with the floor with the transfer box mounted directly to the transmission and the output shaft connected to the diff below the chassis. The body mods are not a problem as the cab is non structural. So new shopping list:-
1) Chassis cab ex luton, highwayman or whatever, no mechanicals needed but must be rolling. Don't mind doing some remedial works but not a complete basket case. (Want to drive this thing BEFORE I get a bus pass)!
2) Monocoque van, camper or minibus. No big holes in the roof or the bodywork. Can be a stripped shell providing the chassis cab has doors. Not bothered about chassis/floor as the chassis cab will be the structural unit. Rolling, not essential I suppose, but preferred.
My apologies to everyone that responded first time but this route would make the build a lot less complicated and less time consuming.
Chassis cab is identical to van/minibus, just no upper body panels.
http://www.commervanspares.co.uk/
http://www.yorkshireclassiccampers.co.uk/
http://www.commervanspares.co.uk/
http://www.yorkshireclassiccampers.co.uk/
From my point of view it doesn't matter Martin. Is just that the DVLA regard the panel van to be a monococque whereas chassis cabs are treated differently, in that the product that the manufacturer has supplied has sufficient structural integrity not to require the provision of rear pillars and a roof in order to maintain its load bearing capacity. If it's not described as a 'chassis cab' on the V5 I will need to keep photographic evidence of the build stages in case I am ever asked to provide evidence of its original state. The law does not appear to allow for vehicles that were similarly constructed and, as usual, it just assumes that every situation is either black or white.
Unlike lawyers, people such as ourselves live in the real world where things are rarely so clear cut.
Unlike lawyers, people such as ourselves live in the real world where things are rarely so clear cut.
Just had a look at some of my reg docs. Some say 'Motor Caravan', others 'light van'. Motor caravan seems to be both, light van, only van type campers.
The only one that says Pickup, is the Pickup, none say chassis cab. Although the chassis number does designate if it is a drive away DA, light bus LB or van VA.
Don't know whether that clarifies it more, or fudges the issue :I
http://www.commervanspares.co.uk/
http://www.yorkshireclassiccampers.co.uk/
The only one that says Pickup, is the Pickup, none say chassis cab. Although the chassis number does designate if it is a drive away DA, light bus LB or van VA.
Don't know whether that clarifies it more, or fudges the issue :I
http://www.commervanspares.co.uk/
http://www.yorkshireclassiccampers.co.uk/
Hell.... I don't know myself now! If they didn't have a chassis cab designation for the works plate than chances are they will not be regarded as such. I have never come across the term 'drive away' myself so I'm pretty certain that it won't figure as a definitive description.
Need to give the whole thing a little more thought I'm thinking!
Need to give the whole thing a little more thought I'm thinking!
quote:
Originally posted by Arrocuda
quote: Originally posted by Panky
Hmmm, got me thinking now :I
Don't tell me Panky...... a jet powered camper maybe?
Maybe you've got yer eye on this?.....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rolls-Royce-Viper-301-Gas-Turbine-Jet-Engine-Starter-Motor-/110812468515?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item19ccf01523#ht_780wt_936
Crikey chief I'm not THAT mad:I
It's got me thinking on my 'expert' Triumph chassis knowledge is all[8)]
Two's company
Originally posted by Arrocuda
quote: Originally posted by Panky
Hmmm, got me thinking now :I
Don't tell me Panky...... a jet powered camper maybe?
Maybe you've got yer eye on this?.....
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Rolls-Royce-Viper-301-Gas-Turbine-Jet-Engine-Starter-Motor-/110812468515?pt=UK_CPV_Aviation_SM&hash=item19ccf01523#ht_780wt_936
Crikey chief I'm not THAT mad:I
It's got me thinking on my 'expert' Triumph chassis knowledge is all[8)]
Two's company
Drive away front end was a term often used by many manufacturers, probably still is, for the basic cab and rear bed supplied to converters for turning into coach builts, horseboxes and a multitude of other stuff. I doubt if any where registered as a DA front end as the converters would have registered them on completion of whatever they turned them into. But I guess it doesn't change the fact that they where built bare to begin with and as such were deemed to be structurally sound.
Two's company
Two's company
Have decided to go with the original plan. Couldn't bear the thought of doing all the work and then being caught out by some bureaucrat. Obviously the drive away would be strong enough but the donor chassis option just closes the issue.
Checked out the Spitfire chassis idea but it isn't long enough.... so it's back to the original Herald chassis plan. It will take a little while to gather the bits I need together but I want to complete the work on the Arrocuda project this year anyway. For now it's back to getting this Jag sorted out and creating some space.
Checked out the Spitfire chassis idea but it isn't long enough.... so it's back to the original Herald chassis plan. It will take a little while to gather the bits I need together but I want to complete the work on the Arrocuda project this year anyway. For now it's back to getting this Jag sorted out and creating some space.