Are Australians (not) modifying their vehicles a certain way because they are limited by their laws or because it really works 'better'? Seems to me like the regulations they have in place KEEP them from modifying their vehicles past a certain point ( for road vehicles), so they just make due with what they have. The vehicles aren't really any more capable because of these limitations. They might actually suffering MORE damage in difficult off-road conditions because they can't really modify them to properly handle the terrain. I love watching their off road videos on Youtube, it sure seems like they get stuck and use a lot more winch than their USA counterparts in similar terrain. They also have a tendency to carry a LOT of gear, fuel, and fluids with them because of the more remote traveling they have access to.
I'm sure part of it is also a different off-road culture, not to mention the distances and terrain differences. We don't really have to worry about crossing large deserts with loose, deep sand or having nothing/nobody around for dozens if not hundreds of miles. Honestly, in my ~30 years of off-roading and modifying vehicles (on and off-road), everything has been about function and the least compromise for the intended use of the vehicle. I've never been in the "bigger is always better" camp. Too many compromises and too much risk. You want to build something for KOH? Awesome. That's going to be a crappy overlanding rig, though. Just like a good overlanding rig is going to suck for KOH.
Let's examine your post as I think you make some good points but made no mention of how they correlate. I'm sure the regulations do limit them here and there, however...
- They might be suffering more damage due to the limitations/regulations
- They seem to get stuck a lot
- They carry a lot of fuel, gear, parts, etc
And here we have a"pick 2" dilemma of sorts. What I mean is changing one of these will affect the others, perhaps positively and perhaps negatively. I would wager the result would be a net loss and here's why.
If their vehicles are suffering more damage due to tire size limitations or want to get stuck less often then what happens if they throw on 35s or 37s? That adds weight, reduces fuel economy, and moves the weakest link from, say, body/cosmetic damage to drivetrain. Now rather than having to worry about clearance issues and harder obstacles they now have a greatly reduced fuel range and a much higher risk of breaking axles, etc. They've also reduced the amount of fuel or gear they can carry because the larger tires suck up more of the available payload capacity as far as the scale weight is concerned. Sure, the larger tires don't really count against payload, but if you're hitting the scales then it doesn't matter. Whatever the scale says, goes. So in an attempt to reduce certain damage or reduce the likelihood of getting stuck on an obstacle that makes up a fraction of the total route they end up making the vehicle worse for the majority of the travel in order to try and make a fraction of it easier. That's a net loss in my eyes. Not to mention the increased stress put on the suspension and steering components. So you made some damage less likely and reduced the chance of getting stuck for some obstacles, but overall the vehicle is worse off because you made big compromises that reduce the overall usability of the vehicle.
Ronny Dahl and Dan Grec have mountains of experience and have traveled Australia (and the world). They also tend to have some of the best builds with the least compromises that are capable of handing the most common terrain that will be encountered in their travels. There is no perfect rig/build, everything is a compromise for one reason or another.
Personally, I've always made modifications based on the shortcomings or issues experienced rather than just throwing the biggest parts at the rig and hoping for the best. This approach has worked very well for me, not only that but I have surprised others with how capable my vehicles are because they don't really look the part. Driver skill is the best and cheapest mod you can do, IMO, and I'm sure we've all seen it. Someone rolls up with some vehicle with a lift, giant tires, lockers, etc...and still manages to make trails look hard while someone in a smaller, less-capable-looking vehicle makes the same trail look easy. I've been the latter person most of the time, and honestly I do take some pleasure in proving the minimalist approach combined with driver skill provides the best overall combination.
We started using my current truck for overlanding starting in 2020, again I started with the minimalist approach. Better tires (Factory 31" all-season to 32" all-terrain) and improving ground clearance. Pack up and see how it does. We headed to Colorado and did a number of trails along/around the Alpine Loop. Time and again the truck surprised me, not only with how few times it scraped when I thought it would but with how planted it was in general. Then to be able to hop back on the pavement and have excellent road manners? Priceless. I can drive my truck for hours on the interstate and it's one of the most comfortable and capable long-distance vehicles I've ever had. But it wasn't perfect.
Over the winter of 2020-2021 I redid the rear suspension (Deaver Expedition leafs and Peak shocks) due to the constant weight the truck carries and wanting to regain some ground clearance while carrying that weight. I added aluminum skid plates to keep the weight down. Their function isn't to allow me to thrash my way over obstacles but to provide protection and warning if I misjudge something as I'm crawling along.
I could've gone with a 4" lift and 35" tires, but why? I don't need them, but some folks would rather just throw such mods at their rig because they think it'll be better only to discover it was probably a bad idea and now they have new problems to address while they negatively impacted the vehicle's on-road behavior.
Anyway, sorry for the novel. Hopefully my point is clear, though.
