Antichrist
Expedition Leader
Didn't want to further clutter Scott's thread.
"MIGHT" then applies to both depending on how and where you drive.
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.
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.
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.
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.Yeah, you're right Rob. Your internet powers of deduction are effing staggering.
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.That's why contemporary wisdom tells us that a U-joint MIGHT break and a rotoflex WILL shred.
"MIGHT" then applies to both depending on how and where you drive.
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.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.
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.
Again, the pot calling the kettle black....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.
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.
Last edited: