The UK/IERE Land Rover Owner Daily Digest

Send Submissions uk-lro@Land-Rover.Team.Net

Date: 16 May 96 09:53:14 GMT
From: Christopher.Hall@bbc.co.uk (Hall,Christopher)
Subject: Re: Positive earth

----------
From: Dixon Kenner
Cc: uk-lro@playground.sun.com
Subject: Re: Positive earth
Date: 15 May 1996 09:57

On Wed, 15 May 1996, Steve Reddock wrote:

> sure.

	Never believe it...

> That was the reason for changing to negative earth wasn't it?

	Nope...

> Why else would cars be negative earth?

	Yanks across the sea.  Economies of scale, markets...

Hi there,

Just another 5pence worth, I understood that the main reason for change 
 was because of the increase in fitting of radios and other electronic 
 goodies in cars in the 1960s. It became easier to make electronics for 
 negative earth than for positive earth, and for an electronic engineer 
 it always seems more logical to earth the negative rail of the supply.

I suppose with two poles on the battery there was two ways round that 
 it could be connected. We chose +ve earth, other countries chose -ve 
 earth, someone had to change and we had a less than logical standard.

>From the corrosion point of view, the electro-chemical differences 
 between steel and aluminium are more significant than the earth 
 polarity of the vehicle. If your vehicle has survived long enough to 
 have been made +ve earth I don't think that changing it over now will 
 shorten it's life noticeably!

I changed my series 2 to -ve earth in 1980 when I fitted a radio 
 cassette and radiophone, heres how I did it. Disconnect anything 
 electronic - if you have a positive earth alternator then it will have 
 to be replaced. Temporarily disconnect the two wired from the dynamo 
 at the control box (D and F terminals). Battery terminals are 
 different sizes, the + is bigger so cut the clamps off the big cables 
 and fit new ones of the right type (soldering 35mm^2 cable is not 
 easy!). Swap over the cables to the ammeter (not really necessary but 
 it will read the wrong way if you don't). Re-connect the battery - 
 there should be no sparks! Then, "flash" the smaller dynamo wire (from 
 the F terminal) onto the A1 or B terminal of the regulator box (with 
 the ignition on) - alternatively connect a wire from battery + to the 
 small terminal on the dynamo itself, there will be a big spark! This 
 causes the field windings to set up a magnetic field in the poles of 
 the dynamo in the opposite direction to the original. Flashing the 
 wire causes the magnetic field to decay quickly leaving a residual in 
 the iron poles of the dynamo allowing it to start generating in a -ve 
 earth direction.

Re-connect the dynamo to the control box and switch on the ignition. If 
 the ammeter stays in the middle, start the engine and see which way 
 the ammeter swings. If the ammeter jumps off-scale as soon as you 
 switch on, switch off and investigate possible wrong connections. If 
 it jumps off scale after starting the engine and increasing speed, 
 switch off and "flash the dynamo", it will still be working +ve earth. 
 If the ammeter moves to a reasonable level of charge you have 
 succeded. You do not have to change the connections to the coil, old 
 coils are labelled SW (goes to the ignition switch always) and CB 
 (always goes to the contact breaker in the distributer), newer ones 
 (usually made for negative earth) are labelled + and -. + represents 
 SW and - is CB (usually). Reversing the connection to the coil will 
 cause the earth end of the high voltage winding to be earthed through 
 the wiring of the car rather than directly.

I hope this is useful to someone! ( the author accepts no 
 responsibility etc...)

Chris Hall.
(1990 110 turbo diesel station wagon, 1961 SWB series 2 diesel station 
 wagon, 1962 Rover 100 car)

(Opinions are my own, not necessarily those of my employer)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:22:08 GMT
From: Gerald Tan <gtan@bbchw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: +ve earth

I'm sure even Mr. Haynes says that positive earth encouraged galvanic corrosion, 
thus the change to -ve earth...but I'll check.

Gerald
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gerald Tan    EMail gtan@bbchw.demon.co.uk                              |
| Purely my own opinions - not those of my employer                       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

From: "Steve Methley" <sgm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:21:36 +0100
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

Huw writes:

>	I am also about to buy four 205x16 Tracker remoulds but
>        have held back due to the recent discussions, specifically
>        the problem with sidewall splitting.
...
>	Has anyone had any
>        experience of them ?

I put them on my Range Rover rear axle and they fell apart two days
later on the M4 on the way to a green lane trip in Wales after about
45 minutes running at 65mph.  It was a horror story - huge chunks of
tread flew off the nearside in particular.  The tyre dealers, who I
deal with frequently, apologised and refunded the money.  I then
bought some 'Semperit' tyres for not much more money and am delighted
with them.

I didn't touch remoulds for years because of other people's stories,
but then I heard they got better...  So I tried for myself.  Never, ever
again.  It's not worth any amount of financial saving.

--
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Best Regards,
Steve.

Dr Steve Methley	       *****     *****
HP Labs, Filton Road, 	       ***  /_  __ ***   email:	  sgm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Bristol, BS12 6QZ, UK	       **  / / /_/  **   or	  sgm@hpl.hp.co.uk
direct line: +44 117 922 8751  ***    /    ***   fax: 	  +44 117 922 9286
switchboard: +44 117 979 9910  *****     *****   or		      8920

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

------------------------------

From: marsden@digicon-egr.co.uk (Richard Marsden)
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 12:01:37 BST

> Huw writes:
> >	I am also about to buy four 205x16 Tracker remoulds but
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 23 lines)]
> again.  It's not worth any amount of financial saving.
> --

So why do they sell them?  They're cheaper, but if cracking is a serious
problem, then no one is going to buy them (I accept your horror isn't the
norm, but still...). Am I missing something? British thriftyness perhaps? :-)

Richard

------------------------------

From: marsden@digicon-egr.co.uk (Richard Marsden)
Subject: Re: Re..Re: Sorry! its tyres again. (fwd)
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 12:08:52 BST

> I had the same problem but took the plunge and opted for a complete
> set of tyres (5) on new White 5spokes (I *had* been working a lot of
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 16 lines)]
> wearing pretty well - quoted as lasting for around 60,000 miles(!).
> That's twelve years considering I probably do ~5000 p.a.

Nice solution, but I have this cashflow problem...
I guess wider ones wear at a slower rate (as well as better grip).
Also, if was going to go for wider tyres, I guess I can't do a halfway
job. Change 2/3 then change the others a couple of months later.
I guess this isn't recommended if I was going to change just the tread,
anyway?   (eg. what if I needed to use my spare)

When I get it back (hopefully this evening) I'll start swapping the tyres,
but this isn't going to extend their life that much (another month/2 months??)
I also have a slow puncture in one. 
I don't mind spending L550 if they're going to last 60,000 miles, but
I haven't got that much money!!

Richard

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:21:22 +0000
From: M.J.Rooth@lboro.ac.uk (Mike Rooth)
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

>I put them on my Range Rover rear axle and they fell apart two days
>later on the M4 on the way to a green lane trip in Wales after about
>45 minutes running at 65mph.
They'd be 750 tyres Steve?
Plenty of folk round here use the 205 size.Never heard any moans so far.
Used to be a problem years ago with Xply remoulds.Lost a tread or three
myself.But I think the trouble I had was largely self induced.
Cheers
Mike Rooth

------------------------------

From: "Steve Methley" <sgm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:25:17 +0100
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

Richard Marsden writes re Trackers:

>So why do they sell them?  They're cheaper, but if cracking is a serious
>problem, then no one is going to buy them (I accept your horror isn't the
>norm, but still...). Am I missing something? British thriftyness
>perhaps? :

Well they sell them because people buy them;-)

But really I find that off road tyres need replacing because I've torn
them to pieces, rather than evenly worn the tread down as I do in my
car.  Hence the appeal of the throwaway prices for the aggressive
tread, which otherwise might have cost me BFG prices.

I used to run genuine SATs on my V8 Lightweight and they would do
80mph in the outside lane for hours on end, so there's no inherent
problem with aggressive treads at speed (although Firestone, who make
the SATs, don't recommend above 55mph because of wear rate I believe).

Anyway a Yorkshireman can't resist a bargain!
--
Best Regards,
Steve.

------------------------------

From: "Steve Methley" <sgm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:26:57 +0100
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

Mike asks:

>They'd be 750 tyres Steve?

No, little old 205's.
--
Best Regards,
Steve.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 12:28:22 +0000
From: M.J.Rooth@lboro.ac.uk (Mike Rooth)
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

>        Could Mike Rooth give us some more details on his trackers ?
>        How old were they Mike ? Could you have taken them back to the vend=
or
>        and asked them to replace ? Would you still buy them again if you c=
ould
>        find them for =A335 ?
>        How old were they Mike ? Could you have taken them back to the vend=
Huw,
I *have*,in fact,bought two more,although as it turns out,the tread pattern
is identical,but the manufacturer is a different one.The problem tyres were
about two years old,and differed by six months or so agewise.Basically,I was
changing from Xply to radial,so had the ones on the back axle first,then the
front several months later,on the waste not want not principal.The strange
thing is that the offside tyres were perfectly OK.In fact,they are now both
on the back,with the new ones on the front,and one of the cracked ones as th=
e
spare(its not *that* bad).A friend of mine had her S111 fitted with them,whi=
ch
is where I got the idea.and hers are still fine.So I put it down to possible
under inflation,plus an abundance of roundabouts.I do a regular twice daily
six mile trip involving a roundabout every mile,and I was running the tyres
at 25psi.The S111,I find has its tyres at 30psi,and I've raised my pressure
likewise.Handling has improved,and I dont think the sidewalls are flexing as
much.Tread wear is very good,the one on the spare is only half worn.The fron=
t
one had worn off the outside 1"-2".Roundabouts again!
The tyres were superb in the snow,likewise in mud,(typically about 2" of
tractor churned liquid mud on top of harder horse chopped greasy stuff.)
likewise on longish wet grass with mud under.I would have got through two
sets of Xply in the time.On road they arent,as far as you can tell in a dies=
el,
unduly noisy.I ended up paying 39 quid,including VAT and fitting,for the two
new ones.The place originally asked 46quid,which included a new valve and
balancing,but I dont bother with balancing,and the tyres are tubed,so no
new valve,and the price came down by 7quid.
My beef about the price was that Trackers are advertised at about 32 pounds
from almost whichever ad you care to look at in LRO,and have been for about
two years now.So I thought 35 quid a fair markup,considering the supplier
had to get them(probably at less than 32 pounds)and fit them.But when I
went back,and was asked for 42 pounds from the same place,I objected.Plus
they mucked me about.Presumably they *did* eventually get the tyre,and
presumably they have still got it,because I went elsewhere.
When you come down to it,around 40 quid is still a good price,after all,its
about half that of a comparable new one.But its not going to stop me trying
to get the same thing cheaper in the future!
Cheers
Mike

------------------------------

From: Glen_Rees@PARLON2.CCMAIL.CompuServe.COM
Date: 16 May 96 08:00:27 EDT
Subject: Remoulds

     More on tyres I'm afraid
     
     I am currently running on a set of Colway 205/16 remoulds, with 
     Michelin tread pattern, costing GBP42 each fitted. They 
     have good road holding and after 6000 miles are wearing well.
     I regularly do a 150 mile motorway run at about 55/60 mph, and they do 
     not get hot. They were purchased from a national tyre company, 
     Motorway Tyres, and they have a local race team which uses Colway 
     tyres.
     I am well pleased so far, I will let you know in another 20,000 miles 
     time. (If they last that long)
     
     I have got to get at least 22,000 miles out of them to break even over 
     the cost of my last set of Desert Duelers which did 45,000 miles.
     
     R  1  3        H
     +--|--|   FWD  |
        2  4        L            '55 Series One
                              (25 YEAR TAX EXEMPT)  
     
     Glenn

------------------------------

From: "Seymour, Gareth" <GSeymour@mp.sihe.ac.uk>
Subject: Squealing
Date: Thu, 16 May 96 14:19:00 PDT

My 86" series 1 has developed a reasonably high pitched, continuos "squeal" 
on overrun/engine braking. It had a new clutch last summer and does not seem 
to be slipping and the squeal is absent on acceleration. One of the rear 
UJ's is on its way out which allows for the slight clunk when releasing the 
clutch so what else can cause strange noises on the overrun ???? The fan 
belt seems tight enough and its sounds just as bad in dry weather. When 
freewheeling down hill I don't think it could get much quieter and there 
does not seem to be anything making excessive noises.

Many thanks for any info.

Gareth

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:34:31 +0100
From: Harrington Andrew Richard (eb2_95) <harrinar@ee.port.ac.uk>
Subject: positive_earth_originator

Dear All,

	The +ve earth debait was started by me, am I glad?, it started the 
net talking again and now I have a choise. Do I NEED a radio, or do I want
a very original vehicle with a doggy radio and CB that may catch fire AGAIN???. 

	At least now whatever I choose I have the infomation, Thank you to
everybody who contributed.

	My pennie says the change over was done so electronic equipment may
be standardised to one polarity, this was -ve.

	Thank you.

	Andy.

	1969 SIIa 88in	(+ve earth still).  

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 14:31:40 GMT
From: Gerald Tan <gtan@bbchw.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Re: Positive earth

In your message dated Thursday 16, May 1996 you wrote :

>  It became easier to make electronics for 
>  negative earth than for positive earth, and for an electronic engineer 
>  it always seems more logical to earth the negative rail of the supply.

Hmmm.....So which warped mind chose -50V for the GPO and consequently the BBC 
"norm"!!??!! :-)

Gerald
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Gerald Tan    EMail gtan@bbchw.demon.co.uk                              |
| Purely my own opinions - not those of my employer                       |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 09:44:23 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dixon Kenner <dkenner@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: +ve earth

On Thu, 16 May 1996, Gerald Tan wrote:

> I'm sure even Mr. Haynes says that positive earth encouraged galvanic 
> corrosion, thus the change to -ve earth...but I'll check.

	But you don't have galvanic action on Mini's, MGB's, TR-6's,
	and a host of other British iron that was running around.  To
	change B<phlegmsucking>L from + earth to - earth just for the 
	Land Rover seems a bit farfetched.  What was Ford and GM doing
	at the time.  Making positive or negative earthed vehicles?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:28:35 EDT
From: "Steve Reddock" <steve_reddock@uk.xyratex.com>
Subject: Squealing

Gareth asked:

|My 86" series 1 has developed a reasonably high pitched, continuos
|"squeal" on overrun/engine braking. It had a new clutch last summer and
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 9 lines)]
|much quieter and there does not seem to be anything making excessive
|noises.

My guess is the UJ.  I had one which had more than a little play
and it clunked a little when taking up drive.  There was lots of
noise under power, I can't remember if there was anything when engine
braking.

It could also be the furry mammals which live in the chassis squealing as
they slide down the main chassis rails as you slow :-)  Does the
noise move from rear to front?  Does it all go quiet after a thud/splat
noise? :-)

It's nearly Friday!

Cheers, Steve

Steve Reddock, Xyratex       | Just as he thought he had
Ext.(01705) 486363 x5209     | clinched the interview he was
IBMMAIL (GBXYR96P)           | visited by the ghost of Usenet
Steve_Reddock@uk.xyratex.com | Postings Past.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 10:32:50 EDT
From: "Steve Reddock" <steve_reddock@uk.xyratex.com>
Subject: Re: Re: Positive earth

*** Resending note of 16/05/96 15:29
Garald said:
|In your message dated Thursday 16, May 1996 you wrote :
|>  It became easier to make electronics for
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 9 lines)]
|Hmmm.....So which warped mind chose -50V for the GPO and consequently
|the BBC "norm"!!??!! :-)

I can't think.  I am an electronic engineer and my mind is not at all
warped.

I'm not wierd, everybody else is!

Wibble, Steve

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 11:34:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Dixon Kenner <dkenner@emr1.NRCan.gc.ca>
Subject: Re: positive_earth_originator

On Thu, 16 May 1996, Harrington Andrew Richard wrote:

> Do I NEED a radio, 

	No.

> or do I want a very original vehicle with a doggy radio and CB that 
> may catch fire AGAIN???. 

	Ditch the doggy radio.  properly install the CB and all will be fine.
	(You can get a electronic device of some sort that allows you to
	use -ve earth radios etc. in +ve earth vehicles.  Don't have a
	clue to how it works though.  This will solve the problem with 
	the CB itself.  The antenna is not a problem is capacitors
	are installed.)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 20:51:42 +0200
From: lopezba@atnet.at
Subject: Re: Positive earth

Only a month old, and already forgotten:

>Date: Thu, 11 Apr 1996 12:42:39 -0700
>From: jjbpears@ix.netcom.com (Jeremy Bartlett)
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 15 lines)]
>>  Any comments?
>>Ron Franklin
>I think it's true that if you don't need the - ground for modern 
electronics that 
>+ ground will be less prone to rust.
>The reason for this seems rather simple.  With a + ground (e.g., frame) 
>Subject: Re: Galvanic action
electrons 
>will tend to be attracted to the iron counteracting the process of oxidation 
>(rust) (which is a loss of electrons).  I've not checked the half cell 
reaction 
>free energies, but (based on thermite energy) I'll wager that the + ground 
would 
>also tend to counteract the interaction between iron and aluminium (or more 
>accuratly rust and corundum).
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 9 lines)]
>Jeremy 
>------------------------------

Makes sense to me, but then what do I know...
Peter Hirsch
SI 107in S/W
Vienna, Austria (officially 1,000 years old this November 1)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:40:52 +0100
From: Phil Taylor <philt@innotts.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Tracker Remoulds

At 10:21 16/05/96 +0100, you wrote:
>Huw writes:
>>	I am also about to buy four 205x16 Tracker remoulds but
	 [ truncated by lro-digester (was 16 lines)]
>bought some 'Semperit' tyres for not much more money and am delighted
>with them.

I'll put in my 5p worth. I've been running Mudpluggas on my lightweight for
nearly two years now - about 6000 miles, and theres still plenty of meat on
them. Admittedly, it spends a lot of its time off road (mainly trials &
setting out comp safaris), and high speed use simply is not an issue (65 mph
is high speed in a 2.25 lightweight). 

As for Semperits, in my opinion they are a pile of cr*p. The dealer I bought
my disco from put two new ones on to get me a full MoT. Six months and maybe
3000 miles later I got home one evening and thought my OSR wheel wasn't
looking too round. Indeed it wasn't - there was a huge bleb in the sidewall.
I'm just glad I hadn't been tearing up the motorway that day. Replacement
wasn't possible as I hadn't personally bought the tyres...  I swallowed hard
and fitted Tracedges all round. 25000 miles later, I think I could
unreservedly recommend these. You pays yer money and you takes yer choice...

Phil Taylor
___________________________________________

Across the wires the electric message came:
'He is no better, he is much the same.'

			(Alfred Austin)
___________________________________________

------------------------------

From: David Brooke <db@fusk.demon.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Sorry! its tyres again. (fwd)
Date: Thu, 16 May 1996 19:29:37 GMT

In article <9605140928.AA01163@doyle.digicon-egr.co.uk>,
	marsden@digicon-egr.co.uk (Richard Marsden) writes:
>failed all my lights - strange 'cos they all work for me. I think they
>couldn't work them out (ex-mil. vehicle you see).

Probably tried to check the brakes and indicators with CONV selected.

I've been tempted to switch it to there and brake lightly when there's
some idiot hiding almost out of view below the tailgate so I can give
them a _really_ close look at the NATO hook (but then I think of the
potential paperwork hassle and resist). 8-)

BTW thanks for the info on the Museum of Army Transport (and to Graeme
also).

Dave

------------------------------

  END OF LAND ROVER OWNER DIGEST 
 Input:  messages 20 lines 919 [forwarded 143 whitespace 211]
 Output: lines 706 [content 417  forwarded 74 (cut  69) whitespace 187]

UK/IE Land Rover Owner Additional Information:

In addition so subscribing and unsubscribing, the Frequently Asked
Questions (FAQ) file and the last month of daily digests may be retrieved
(by mail) from majordomo@Land-Rover.Team.Net

Useful commands for this are 'index uk-lro-digest' which returns a list of
files available, as well as 'get lro-digest <filename>', etc.

UK/EIRE World Wide Web Sites start at 
         http://www.Land-Rover.Team.Net/~majordom/lr/pages.html
(shadow) http://www.OpenMarket.com/personal/caloccia/lr/pages.html

ARC:			http://www.apricot.co.uk/rel3/directory/rrr/arc.html
Scottish LROC:		http://www.tardis.ed.ac.uk/~kiz/SLROC/
Range Rover Register:	http://www.apricot.co.uk/rel3/directory/rrr/index.html
Glamorgan Off-Road C:	http://theo.sihe.ac.uk/~bird/Home.html

If Major Domo barfs at something, and you're convinced he should have 
understood what you sent him, contact majordomo-owner@Land-Rover.Team.Net

  -B