WK2 rear tyre carrier

[Wanderer]

Easy enough to move the camera..Done it before and eliminates the tail lights issues but then that's my preferred version which may not suit everyone..Centre one balances the vehicle load better and looks a damn sight nicer on the vehicle but then manufacturing costs really suits one bar with the 2 options as you say..The twin one could probably upset the camera anyway ..If not then the field of view could be narrowed significantly..I'm doing some measurements..I bought 2 x OE alloys extra when I bought my WK2 so one in the tyre recess (very hard to get to loaded up) and one on the roof which does have trouble at shopping centres and undercover car parks..Would be much better on a carrier...

[simmo32]

I would also prefer centre mount if it was possible?

[fester]

I can't remember the angle that rear lights have to be visible from but there is a good chance that even a centre mount would impede this requirement by the time the wheel is far enough off the back to clear, hence you may not get away without extra lights anyway. Centre does look good but also means stronger swing out with longer swing as it still has to swing from the side of the car.

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by fester

I can't remember the angle that rear lights have to be visible from but there is a good chance that even a centre mount would impede this requirement by the time the wheel is far enough off the back to clear, hence you may not get away without extra lights anyway. Centre does look good but also means stronger swing out with longer swing as it still has to swing from the side of the car.

Agreed the viewing angle is a consideration but doesn't seem to bother the Formula Offroad WH carrier which is centre mounted and the way it is attached down and under the plastic bar, sits a fair way off the bar.

[GeoffV]

My two cents, I would personally prefer to have the two swing outs, not the one centre mounted. For two reasons. I want two spares outside the car, and I want to be able to use the reverse camera. The camera is damn handy.

[Mudguard]

The GCs are about the same width as a Patrol so they should handle 2 spares and the swing-out arc would be less so it may have less chance of hitting any trailer/caravan bit. The GCs can't take enormous tyres (like my old patrol) so the fabrication of the bar shouldn't be that extreme. If its anything as good as the front bar, she'll be sweet as!

[Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Mudguard

The GCs are about the same width as a Patrol so they should handle 2 spares and the swing-out arc would be less so it may have less chance of hitting any trailer/caravan bit. The GCs can't take enormous tyres (like my old patrol) so the fabrication of the bar shouldn't be that extreme. If its anything as good as the front bar, she'll be sweet as!

Read this so did some rough measurements on the Overland. Now using inches the tyres are about 30" and the GC is about 62" tail light to tail light so with 2 tyres that leaves 2" or 50mm for the reversing camera to see through. Now adding in the width of the tyre say 265mm, the camera has a 50mm x 265mm + (mounting gap between carrier and vehicle say 50mm) channel to look through. To me that would severly narrow the field of view...Bit like tunnel vision...Only rough workings here but worth looking into..No pun intended ha!!..Seriously thouigh a design criteria to consider. If it is a problem then moving the tyre mounting position further out is a possibility but would have some legal issues with roadworthy if they protrude out further than the wheel arch flares I guess....Need another look at the NCOP on vehicle mods??...As for viewing angle to rear lighting then how do those rubbish come wood carring bags that fit on rear tyre carries pass..Surely they must obstruct??

Ps: You have a point about swing radius and camper/caravan clearance...I had to have a drawbar extension fitted with centre mounted carrier on the Commander otherwise I had to pull up at an angle to open the rear.