Vote needed

If you have encountered or solved a problem post here
User avatar
Tinweasel
Cake Guru
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Vote needed

Post by Tinweasel » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:24 pm

I have seen this debate run back and forth many times, I haven't seen evidence of later vehicles being fitted with 7.50's for used in by UK forces, but they were for some foreign contracts. I can well believe that towards the end of the use of series vehicles then in some of the more remote postings then whatever was available would be fitted, but I don't think it was over common.

What's fitted to my lightweight...I have 7.50's and they are the wrong tread being XCL's as fitted to the 90-110 fleet because they were the right price. Though I have since been told that the RAF did use them, admittedly in a smaller size possibly on there series fleet as they shed mud faster than the series ones and mud on a runway is not a good thing. I don't however know if that's right or not.

Shaun
Image

Rudolf Hess was the editor of mine Kampf, so was he the first grammar nazi?

User avatar
landymad
Site Admin & Webmaster
Posts: 3173
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 8:42 am
Location: Doncaster

Re: Vote needed

Post by landymad » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:40 pm

Got G90's on my Lwt :D
1972 Series III Lightweight GS 200Tdi
----------------------------------------------------------

andrewjsimpson1977
Bake Off Judge
Posts: 2813
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2015 3:31 pm
Location: Befordshire

Re: Vote needed

Post by andrewjsimpson1977 » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:50 pm

Page 171 of the Claudio Lencioni book states that both 7.00 and 7.50 size Goodyear X-tra grips became standard fitment on the vehicles, and that the last ones had Michelin XCls fitted in 750 x 16.

I'm not saying that the book is gospel, but it was prefaced by our very own Clive Elliott :D

Sorry for being enough of a nerd to go look it up, but I am an analyst by trade :lol:

Fred
Master Baker
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:37 pm

Re: Vote needed

Post by Fred » Sat Feb 03, 2018 12:09 am

Well, this is a good debate. I am sure there were, as Shaun says, some units which fitted 7.50x16s. But, in all the photos I have seen of Lightweights having been withdrawn from service and in places like Blanchard's yard - so post-1997 or thereabouts, they're all on 6.50x16 Hi-milers suggesting that, even at the very end, lightweights were mostly, if not exclusively, on 6.50x16s. Where exceptions existed it would most likely be where odd legacy lightweights continued in service alongside much larger numbers of coilers for which plenty of Michelins were held in the store and it was simpler to re-shoe with them rather than indent specially for the smaller tyre. The same might hold for units with very small numbers of lightweights but proportionally much larger numbers of 109"s fitted with the 7.50x16 Hi milers.

I remember when the Hi-miler was newly introduced in my unit in 1977, we were doing pre-NI training and the exercise "opposition" delighted in spreading tacks on the roads - which went through the tyres like a knife through butter (we thought it a terrible weakness in comparison with the Trakgrips they were replacing. We ran out of Hi-miler spares and it is quite possible we fitted 7.50x16s to the lightweights if that was all we had immediate access to.

But, I don]t know, this is conjecture. Certainly overseas orders were filled with vehicles wearing big boots, but, I think the jury is still out on British ones. And, of course, there is the photo of a Series 3 88" CL in RAF service, but being used by the USAF running on the US equivalent of Dunlop trakgrips, such as would be fitted, I suppose, to US M151s.

Fred

User avatar
BYL
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2015 2:02 pm
Location: Prague

Re: Vote needed

Post by BYL » Wed Feb 14, 2018 9:59 pm

I'm glad this can of worms has been cracked open. My question, does anything other than 6.50s on 5J wheels fully fit under wheel arches such that the tyre walls are not the widest point on the vehicle? I must confess I don't know my fv part numbers well enough but I've got some fv stamped 5.5s with 7.50s on now and they are wide and I tried the spare off the 109 which is shod with 235/80s and similarly it was proud. The spare off the 88 was almost completely under; it has civvy 5.5 rims with 205/80s but the 88 has 3.7 diffs that make up for the reduced rolling diameter. Do the 1 ton wheels have extra offset that pulls them in closer? If so, what does that do to the turning circle?
Hugo.

54GF42 S3 GS
43GF59 S3 FFR
61KB78 S3 109' FFR
BYL S2A 88' RAE Farnborough runway hack

Fred
Master Baker
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:37 pm

Re: Vote needed

Post by Fred » Wed Feb 14, 2018 10:17 pm

I suppose it is a can of worms. My Lightweight has 7.50x16s on standard FV rims. Yes, they fit under the wheelarches quite happily. But, apart from the wing mirrors and the exhaust pipe (but that will change once I get a hacksaw to it), they do appear to be the widest part of the vehicle, though by very little. Which is, I understand, not technically legal. But, if they aren't legal, then they could not have been offered as alternatives in the options catalogue or fitted as standard on Dutch Lightweights which would have been, I presume, subject to the same EU-wide rulings on vehicle construction. And, of course, this matter would have raised its ugly head in Land Rover forums extensively over the years resulting in common knowledge that they should not be fitted unless covered with wheel arch extensions. And I don't see that anywhere. Furthermore, I would suggest that a high proportion, perhaps even over 50% of Lightweights on the road are running on 7.50x16s or equivalents as the 6.50s are all but impossible to buy (apart from the outlet I mentioned) and original GoodYears are now very old indeed and, increasingly, will be of questionable serviceabilty as the rubber persishes and the sidewalls crack. If my current tyres were in anything other than the nearly-new condition they're in, I'd swap them for the eye-wateringly expensive 6.50s, but, as they aren't I will soldier on until they wear out.
Fred

chipbury
Master Baker
Posts: 1164
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2011 3:26 pm
Location: Bath

Re: Vote needed

Post by chipbury » Thu Feb 15, 2018 5:33 am

I've got 205's on mine and they fractionally stick out past the arches.

I would like to replace with something more original but at the moment it's not financially viable :roll:
2A - 39 FG 70

User avatar
Tinweasel
Cake Guru
Posts: 4911
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 8:23 pm

Re: Vote needed

Post by Tinweasel » Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:56 am

The law states (to my understanding) that the tred of the tire must be covered by the wheel arches, the sidewall is ok to be proud as long as the tred is covered. Which is why 7.50's are used and not the wider metric equivalent.

Shaun
Image

Rudolf Hess was the editor of mine Kampf, so was he the first grammar nazi?

User avatar
danster
Posts: 415
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 5:23 pm
Location: Blackpool

Re: Vote needed

Post by danster » Thu Feb 15, 2018 10:01 am

I have 7.50s on mine and the biggest improvement I find is that 1st gear is more useful when driving compared to 205-6.50 size tyres.
Top Cocker and Bodger

Fred
Master Baker
Posts: 1868
Joined: Thu Jun 18, 2015 10:37 pm

Re: Vote needed

Post by Fred » Thu Feb 15, 2018 12:09 pm

Tinweasel wrote:
Thu Feb 15, 2018 7:56 am
The law states (to my understanding) that the tred of the tire must be covered by the wheel arches, the sidewall is ok to be proud as long as the tred is covered. Which is why 7.50's are used and not the wider metric equivalent.

Shaun
That is interesting and makes some sense. But, actually, the amount of overlap on 7.50x16s is still very small as they really aren't very proud of the rims.

Fred

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests