Mounting Options

tdragger

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#1
IBA has a reasonable requirement for full cells to be solidly mounted. My question is in regards to the style shown below in the picture. It consists of 4 RAM mounts attached to hard points on the frame. In my proposed application I would attach to the passenger grab rails. Will this mounting system satisfy IBA and/or Team Strange rally requirements?

 

kscyclist

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#2
Not that I would have any authority with IBA or Team Strange, but I can not see this type of mount passing inspection. I know that my ramball mount of a heavy GPS needs to be adjusted from time to time as the balls will slightly deform over time loosing the clamping force.

A better solution would be to replace the ram arms with steel/alum struts mounted to the same places you plan on mounting the ram balls. That is just a lot of weight to rely on the clamping force you can generate by hand tightening the T nut on a ram arm.

Now again I expect there are others with more experience that will chime in.
 

tdragger

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#3
What is attractive about this mounting option is the quick change that it allows. When not on an IBA run, I could quickly remove the tank. When getting ready to head out on a run it could be quickly mounted.

Thanks for the feedback.
 

Patrick Ford

Premier Member
IBR Finisher
#4
Why don't you ask Warchild for the final opinion on what you have in the photo. He would be the one who would say yea or nay at tech inspection.
My Ron Smith tank mounts to the grab rails and passes just fine.
 

Ed.

Premier Member
#5
I've got a funny feeling I saw photos of this mount style being run in one of the recent IBRs (last year?). Again, no IBA technical vetting authority here so more more authoritative info should be sort.

Bloody hell, I sound like a lawyer.
 

Gatey

Premier Member
IBA Member
#6
Looks simple and neat...But.
That tank holds maybe 19 l when full just estimation.
In a frontal collision your expecting an element made to hold devices much lighter than a fuel cell to prevent that cell driving into your back/hips.
My thinking is although the rear mounts ( plastic tube section) are short relative to the clamping knob thus clamp has greater effect. The front ball's are further removed from the pressure zone the knob will apply. I think those balls could/would pop out the ends of that length clamp with anything about say 10l of fuel.

Just my thinking. Is all.

Lots of fast change hardware out in the marketplace designed for this job tdragger. I use http://www.ddbarry.com.au/contact-us/ for lots of good stuff.
Some things in the indexing elements might be better. Designed for work in shear.
 
#7
It's the Universal Tank from Mike Langford.

He builds popular, solidly mounted kit and I very much doubt those balls would "pop out". They certainly would not under the usual Warchild "grab and haul" test.

If in doubt, go with the larger RAM balls rather than the usual 1". They cost more but are rated for higher loads.
 

Gatey

Premier Member
IBA Member
#8
Giving the units a human base mighty grab abd hual is not delt out at 60mph.
We have had issues with slightly over weight data loggers in spray rige poping out under extended advers use.
No disrespect to the parent manufacturer but the question was asked and Ive posted my observation. I would go with the large balls as large balls have a relative larger dimension clamping column.
Not being a premier member probably limits my understanding of most stuff