Evidentiary standard for tech

[Antichrist]

Didn't want to further clutter Scott's thread.

Rotoflex.

No issues there...

Some people like Antichrist have fourhweeled for a while but they just do the same stuff repeatedly ad nauseum and they cling desperately to the same conclusions.

Yeah, you're right Rob. Your internet powers of deduction are effing staggering.

Isn't that sort of the pot calling the kettle black? No, it definitely is, considering you have absolutely no knowledge of the kind of off-roading I do or have done. Factoring in the fact I haven't had a rotoflex on my '95 Disco since shortly after buying it 9 years ago, and that my wife's '97 doesn't have one, I'd say your internet powers of deduction aren't all you imagine they are.

That's why contemporary wisdom tells us that a U-joint MIGHT break and a rotoflex WILL shred.

Actually, experience tells us that a u-joint WILL break if it's not properly maintained and a rotoflex WILL shred if it's not replaced with a new one at regular intervals.
"MIGHT" then applies to both depending on how and where you drive.

Early on a lot of us liked the rotoflex. We argued theoretically about its advantages, particularly for the Disco2.
...But then we experienced reality it in the field and we evolved. We saw that the rotoflex was a giant spinning donut hanging down below the pinion at a low point of contact and every rock, log and ledge imaginable was going to grind it.

Maybe you and some others did, but I never argued about it's advantages. There's nothing argue. It dampens some drive train noise and can reduce minor vibrations.

In my case (which you obviously have such keen insight about), when I bought my '95 Discovery my first thought on seeing the rotoflex was, "******?" I didn't need the experience of it shredding, I could use observation to see that it was a low point in the drive train made from rubber and, having fourhweeled for a while, could cling desperately to the same conclusions about the consequences of low points of a vehicle contacting things on the trail.

...your out-of-context web wisdom just aren't going to cut it on the trail. It's a disservice to anyone who might actually get out into the good stuff [sic].

If you want to hold a "higher standard for tech" then base it on credibility and understanding, not out-of-context BS.

Again, the pot calling the kettle black.
The u-joint photo was posted a good while back as "evidence" that Neapco u-joints are crap (by someone who has recently claimed to be buying them). Posted with no supporting information about how it was maintained, how it was installed or the conditions under which it broke.
The shredded rotoflex photo was posted as "evidence" that a rotoflex will shred. Posted with no supporting information about how many miles were on it, it's condition at the start of the trip, the conditions under which it shredded, or even the make of the rotoflex (Britpart rotoflexes have a known reputation for early shredding).
At least the u-joint photo clearly identified it as a Neapco. Aside from that, both photos were equally out-of-context BS, so I stand by my statement in the other thread.

And keeping in context of Scott's driveline, no one said that a rotoflex would be a good application there. Not even Rob.

 

[Viggen]

And keeping in context of Scott's driveline, no one said that a rotoflex would be a good application there. Not even Rob.

I believe that the keeping of said Rotoflex, based on what Scott wrote on EE's board, was his goal. He wanted to retain it and seems to have revised that goal and gone with one of two driveshafts. As someone who has experience with Rotoflex couplings from British cars (many Triumphs used them rather than the typical u joint), I would never want one anywhere in my drivetrain.

Everything breaks. It doesnt matter what it is made of but using rubber as a joint where angles, compression and extension are going to be constantly changing, strikes me as a stupid application. One or two instances of documented failure does not make for a bad component. Thats an acceptable number in my book. That being said, I have seen more broken u joints due to neglect than Rotoflex and thats probably because it only takes one broken Rotoflex before upgrading to a real joint.

 

[Antichrist]

I meant no one said it in the thread here. Scott's first mention of the rotoflex here was that he wanted to get rid of it.

Did you not like them on your cars because they failed early, or because you think it's not a good application in general?

I don't really have an opinion on their use on cars in general, I just know I didn't want one on my Land Rover for the reason I stated.
I do know they are used now on a lot of cars, and I expect that use will increase.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Jack, as usual, you completely missed the point of the posting. It was not a discussion about whether or not a U-joint is better than a Rotoflex. It was about how you like to chime in every once in a while with an out of context photo or a statement to be taken as fact simply because it comes out of your mouth, not because it has been presented with any supporting evidence.

In the interest of properly discussing the facts, you need to consider the audience. As you so often like to point out, most people here do NOT do hardcore wheeling with their trucks. They are less likely to shred a Rotoflex, and more likely to benefit from it's NVH damping properties over a long dirt road. Even with the small remaining risk that something could cause it to fail, it's cheap, lightweight to carry, and easy to change. It's failure is not as likely to cause catastrophic damage as the front shaft is, and the truck can still be limped home without any rear shaft at all. The change to a U-joint in the rear will cost several hundred dollars. Your voice shouting that this modification should be done before venturing out for fear of dire consequences is reinforcing the hesitation that some people have about venturing out of state before they have completely "built" their rig.

Some people like Antichrist have fourhweeled for a while but they just do the same stuff repeatedly ad nauseum and they cling desperately to the same conclusions. The rest of us will actually adapt and learn.

This coming from the guy who usually espouses the vitues of keeping a truck original? Or making choices on mods based on how the aesthetics fit into some pre-determined mold (established 20 years ago)?

Your little Bridges of Madison County jaunts and your out-of-context web wisdom just aren't going to cut it on the trail. It's a disservice to anyone who might actually get out into the good stuff.

You need to keep up man. You also have no real knowledge of what I do. This was just 2 weeks ago, you must have missed it.

So to get back to discussing the FACTS, where exactly did that failure occur?

It's obvious from the image location that it happened on the Rubicon trip, but which truck? Was it this truck?

So are you saying that THIS is the experience the rest of us should have? Taking an underprepared truck and an unskilled or uncaring driver, and pushing, dragging and bashing a truck through a difficult trail?

No thanks.

I'll continue wheeling WITH my donut, while using skill, care and judgement to the best of my ability to avoid destroying the truck. And if the donut dies, I have a spare. When I have the money, I will consider changing it. But it's down on the list of things to spend money on.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

It doesnt matter what it is made of but using rubber as a joint where angles, compression and extension are going to be constantly changing, strikes me as a stupid application.

You mean like... in a tire?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Roto-flex shred on the trail.

this is much more common on slick rock or other high traction surfaces then it is on wet dirt or muddy trails as you see.

because Scott's truck will be used on a number of different types of terrain I would have to agree with Jacks contention that the roto is a bad choice.

Here's an example of a statement that at least allows a guy to weigh the pros and cons of his options. This is what I'm talking about, an attempt to educate, rather than just posturing.

 

[AxeAngel]

What bumpers did you have on that thing before wheelng? Looks like stock tires too?

 

[Viggen]

I meant no one said it in the thread here. Scott's first mention of the rotoflex here was that he wanted to get rid of it.

Did you not like them on your cars because they failed early, or because you think it's not a good application in general?

I don't really have an opinion on their use on cars in general, I just know I didn't want one on my Land Rover for the reason I stated.
I do know they are used now on a lot of cars, and I expect that use will increase.

I dont think that their use will increase as CV's are much better for the use in rear suspensions, which is where I have experience with them. A CV allows for smooth rotation at many angles and are designed to allow for compression and extension. A Rotoflex depends upon the rubber itself to do all of the above and thats why they are a bad idea. Push and pull and subject a piece of rubber to angles it wasnt designed for a you have a failure. Now, subject it to a large twisting force (torque), while subjecting it to angles AND push and pull and, well, you should see where this is going. A piece of metal, like a u joint, with a strong web section, quality needle bearings and a grease port (not cheap sealed for death ones) is better at handling twisting forces along with angle changes and it being metal, allows the compression and extension action of a suspension to be transferred to the driveshaft slip yoke rather than the joint itself. They were used in half shafts where you had a two piece shaft and a rubber donut with metal sleeves through it that is expected to take numerous cycles of compression, extension, etc... What usually happened is the rubber fatigued, cracked and the bolts, still in their sleeves, pulled out of the donut leading to halfshafts spinning around banging against anything nearby.

You mean like... in a tire?

A tire and a rotoflex have only rubber in common. Nothing else. To compare the two goes against your own "evidential standard." The design (thickness, layers, material, lay up process, etc...) and purpose are probably completely different. Will a tire hold its integrity with a metal sleeve through it? No. Will a rotoflex? Yes. Why? They were designed for it. Hey, we should compare apples and oranges. They both come out of the ground and are plucked off of trees therefore they MUST be similar.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

The Rotoflex also has fiber cord reinforcement, just like a tire. It is the fiber cord which takes the torsional load in the RFx, not the rubber itself. The RFx is subject to many of the same stresses as seen inside a tire. The statement that rubber isn't designed to be flexed and stressed is just completely untrue.

We've seen evidence that it can't withstand being ground against the ground. It's also obvious that flexing them beyond design intent with a lifted truck could drive them beyond their abilities. In a stock truck driven as Land Rover intended, they have merit.

 

[Viggen]

We've seen evidence that it can't withstand being ground against the ground. It's also obvious that flexing them beyond design intent with a lifted truck could drive them beyond their abilities. In a stock truck driven as Land Rover intended, they have merit.

Is Scotts truck stock? All of my comments are in reference to a lifted truck which does subject the coupling to stresses it was not designed for. A tire is a tire whether its attached to a lifted truck or a stock truck. It will handle the stresses the same. A Rotoflex is not going to handle the increased angle, movement and torque of a lifted truck. Lift a truck, going to a traditional u joint is a better option.

Does Rover even use a rotoflex anymore? Does ANYONE use a rotoflex anymore? That will answer the question. Its certainly NOT due to cost as u joints are far cheaper to specify.

 

[JSQ]

Didn't want to further clutter Scott's thread.

Yeah, keep telling everyone that.
You started a new thread because you know from reading them that Scott Brady won't let his Discovery I, 5-speed thread or his Critical Spares thread be edited by anyone but himself. Those two threads are the most honest in this forum for this reason. BS actually gets called out in those threads.
You started a new thread so that the other mods could carve it up if you and Rob Lefebvre get into trouble.

What's elucidating about this thread and the other is that we see how clueless this discussion about rotoflex and u-joint is: Rob Lefebvre is arguing about how "strong" the two are.
The rotoflex doesn't break because rubber is weak and metal is tough.
The rotoflex shreds because it hangs down and rubs on anything it touches. It's not torqued apart all of a sudden on some hill climb. It's ground down on the first hard surface it meets.

The funny thing is Tom Rowe understands this but he still wants to argue on Rob Lefebvre's behalf:

I didn't need the experience of it shredding, I could use observation to see that it was a low point in the drive train made from rubber and, having fourhweeled for a while, could cling desperately to the same conclusions about the consequences of low points of a vehicle contacting things on the trail.

This is that same rotoflex pictured above:

That POS was brand new at the beginning of the Rubicon trip. Two days and it looked like that. The owner had a spare so we swapped it. Two days later it looked just like the first one.

As you so often like to point out, most people here do NOT do hardcore wheeling with their trucks.
...
You need to keep up man. You also have no real knowledge of what I do. This was just 2 weeks ago, you must have missed it.

You're joking right?
Those are your tough-guy pics?
Those pictures are hilarious because Rob Lefebvre wants to represent his majority here on the forum but at the same time he wants prove that he's better than them. This forum isn't about being hardcore BUT Rob Lefebvre IS hardcore. What a joke
But at least they show what I've been trying to impress on the neophytes here. Don't excuse yourself from technique or durable equipment because you're a soft-roader. Learn it, use it and discard what isn't relevant to you after you've mastered it. Don't walk around with blinders on. Because sooner or later even the Rob Lefebvres try to prove something even if it's on a teency-weency little rock. And those who have nothing to prove will still find that somewhere along that long flat dirt road adventure there is an obstacle or two with no bypass and without understanding and good equipment it's going to turn around and shut down that trip-of-a-lifetime overland-adventure down in a hurry.

No, it definitely is, considering you have absolutely no knowledge of the kind of off-roading I do or have done.

Oh really? Are you going to blow me away with some super spy pics of a crazy top secret trips you did under the radar just like Rob Lefebvre? No, you aren't because you've been on Discoweb and D-90 for a long while now. You're not Johnny Come-Lately from Canada. You've been posting about your trucks and where you go for as long as I have and we know what you've been up to.
Tom Rowe isn't a rookie, but he stays well inside the box. That's why he's most comfortable playing the authority to the less experienced here. Tom Rowe is becoming the Paul Schram of ExPo.

This coming from the guy who usually espouses the vitues of keeping a truck original? Or making choices on mods based on how the aesthetics fit into some pre-determined mold (established 20 years ago)?

Leave your out-of-context weak jedi mind trick BS to your crappy little blog. Over there we let you try to anonymously pass off quotes from one person to another and post little pics or videos to try to make the other disgruntled poseurs think the truth is something other than what it is. I know that you can tell John Lee, Dan Chapman and myself apart but you think it's some clever BS to try to interchange us. It's hilarious because I can't think of three more different Land Rover owners. Who do you think you're fooling?
I'm not Mr. Stocker and I've never been.

Here's an example of a statement that at least allows a guy to weigh the pros and cons of his options. This is what I'm talking about, an attempt to educate, rather than just posturing.

Don't waste your time sucking up to Thom. His opinion of you isn't going to change anytime soon.

 

[Antichrist]

I don't think anyone was talking about CV's. At least I was only talking in relation to the diff end u-joint. That's the only place I was saying that I think the usage will increase, the same as increased usage of sealed cardan type u-joints.

 

[tdesanto]

...In the interest of properly discussing the facts, you need to consider the audience. As you so often like to point out, most people here do NOT do hardcore wheeling with their trucks. They are less likely to shred a Rotoflex, and more likely to benefit from it's NVH damping properties over a long dirt road. Even with the small remaining risk that something could cause it to fail, it's cheap, lightweight to carry, and easy to change. It's failure is not as likely to cause catastrophic damage as the front shaft is, and the truck can still be limped home without any rear shaft at all. The change to a U-joint in the rear will cost several hundred dollars...

I have no skin in this game, but I had a question about this comment.

What happens if it fails while climbing a steep hill? Even if they are simple and easy to replace, wouldn't that be a precarious spot to do that type of repair?

When would it most likely fail, on a flat road (where it's easier to replace) or on a steep hill climb when stresses on the drive-train are greater?

 

[Antichrist]

Yeah, keep telling everyone that.
You started a new thread because you know from reading them that Scott Brady won't let his Discovery I, 5-speed thread or his Critical Spares thread be edited by anyone but himself. Those two threads are the most honest in this forum for this reason. BS actually gets called out in those threads.

Speaking of weak jedi mind trick BS...

You've completely lost me here. Maybe you can't, but I have no problems editing my posts in both those threads.
As seen here:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=492645&postcount=41
and here:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=712081&postcount=975

And if you doubt me about not wanting to clutter his thread, check with Scott. He knows I try not to clutter his build thread with off-topic BS. Also evidenced by starting a new thread about u-joints when his thread was going off-track.
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=33729

You started a new thread so that the other mods could carve it up if you and Rob Lefebvre get into trouble.

LOL good one.
My level of concern about getting into trouble from you in this thread is less that zero. When someone won't address the real discussion point, and/or resorts to weak personal attacks in an effort to prove they are right, I have no worries at all.

The funny thing is Tom Rowe understands this but he still wants to argue on Rob Lefebvre's behalf

What the funny thing really is is that you think I was arguing on his behalf. Obviously you missed this post:
http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/showpost.php?p=705992&postcount=947
I was only addressing meaningless photos, the same way I did when Dan originally posted the u-joint photo.

That POS was brand new at the beginning of the Rubicon trip. Two days and it looked like that. The owner had a spare so we swapped it. Two days later it looked just like the first one.

There you go. You get it now.

Oh really? Are you going to blow me away with some super spy pics of a crazy top secret trips you did under the radar just like Rob Lefebvre? No, you aren't because you've been on Discoweb and D-90 for a long while now. You're not Johnny Come-Lately from Canada. You've been posting about your trucks and where you go for as long as I have and we know what you've been up to.
Tom Rowe isn't a rookie, but he stays well inside the box. That's why he's most comfortable playing the authority to the less experienced here.

If you knew as much as you make out, or just paid better attention, you'd know that since I started posting on Land Rover forums in 94/95 I've always said 99% of my off-roading has always been done alone, was work related, or was just getting to and from my house, so I rarely take photos.
I also rarely post about my trucks, I just don't feel the need to unless it is relevant to the discussion. Probably the reason you thought I still had a rotoflex on mine.

Finally, this has absolutely nothing to do with whether a rotoflex is better than a cardan u-joint, where people off-road, or even if they ever "get out into the good stuff", whatever that means.
It's only about people posting photos with no context and making out like it's some sort of authoritative statement.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

What happens if it fails while climbing a steep hill?

From the Jedi Master himself:

It's not torqued apart all of a sudden on some hill climb.

In fact, that donut looks like it hasn't even completely failed yet. It was changed before it did. The same way the bumpers were cut off before they could destroy all the tires.

And really, that's the funniest part. The guy destroys a $1000 front bumper, $1000? rear bumper, and several hundred in lights, fenders, exhaust etc... and JSQ is all worked up about a $40 part that takes 15 minutes to change without even lifting the truck, and that DID NOT leave them stranded, or fail catastrophicaly.

Those are your tough-guy pics?
Those pictures are hilarious because Rob Lefebvre wants to represent his majority here on the forum but at the same time he wants prove that he's better than them. This forum isn't about being hardcore BUT Rob Lefebvre IS hardcore. What a joke
But at least they show what I've been trying to impress on the neophytes here. Don't excuse yourself from technique or durable equipment because you're a soft-roader. Learn it, use it and discard what isn't relevant to you after you've mastered it. Don't walk around with blinders on. Because sooner or later even the Rob Lefebvres try to prove something even if it's on a teency-weency little rock. And those who have nothing to prove will still find that somewhere along that long flat dirt road adventure there is an obstacle or two with no bypass and without understanding and good equipment it's going to turn around and shut down that trip-of-a-lifetime overland-adventure down in a hurry.

Yes. Please note, all you NEOPHYTES (even the ones who have driven around the world already).

This is not hard core. Ruining JUST the transmission is not proof of how awesome you are.

THIS is hardcore. You must submerge your truck up to the roof, leave it overnight, and ruin the whole thing. That ****, is hardcore. This is awesomeness.

That is the lesson here. If your idea of a good time is to keep doing stupid **** until something breaks, for sure, get rid of the Rotoflex. Then go find something else to break. No matter how tough you build your truck, you can always find a way to break it.

Leave your out-of-context weak jedi mind trick BS to your crappy little blog. Over there we let you try to anonymously pass off quotes from one person to another and post little pics or videos to try to make the other disgruntled poseurs think the truth is something other than what it is. I know that you can tell John Lee, Dan Chapman and myself apart but you think it's some clever BS to try to interchange us. It's hilarious because I can't think of three more different Land Rover owners. Who do you think you're fooling?
I'm not Mr. Stocker and I've never been.

Oh please, this from the guy who stated this:

Another nagging issue on the 110 was a lack of interior lighting. On trips I've been all headlamped out, which is fine but for day to day use this was impractical. I didn't want to bust out a headlamp or a Surefire every time I wanted to find my wallet or look in the Tuffy console.
I spent a lot of time trying to come up with a lighting scheme that looked right for the 110. I wanted it to look as factory as possible and I also wanted it to look "period correct". That meant it needed to be some dim ****ty low watt incandescent bulb rather than some kickass futuristic LEDs. It also needed to be a clean simple housing that wouldn't look at odds with the very basic design of the ExMOD 110.

And who is running Hella 550's (?) on the front of his truck because that's what they used back in the Camel Trophy days.

I used to have a set of 530's. They were awesome. On my 1983 VW Rabbit GTI.