New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[Pilat]

Yeah, "cross-axle scenarios" and "tip over the threshold" is not "slow as molasses speeds.

Btw, I forgot to adress this:

.
Must we inform engineers choosing solid axles for brand new vehicles that their vehicles must be limited to molasses speeds off-road? No. The threshold is higher than you suggest.

You're being dishonest again. I never said they had to be restricted. You once again made that up. I said that IS has more constant grip and therefore better handling than solid axles. Mostly due to less unspring weight. And it's NOT just offroad. It also works onroad. Who would have thought that physics applied both places? Amazing, isn't it?
And as for the slow-as-mollasses comment from me. If you go slow enough, the suspension has time to allow traction at all times. Even small bumbs, and even on asphalt/bitumen the same thing applies (Physics, baby!). There's a reason most cars went with it in the front several decades ago - fast and slow cars alike. Now, the same advantage is there in the rear, although it is not quite as pronounced there due to those wheels not steering.

 

[Pilat]

The Defender and Series were around a very long time. To define the Defender is very easy. It is self evident, by the market it served

Really? And that didn't change through it's lifespan? Who bought the old defender during the last years?
Next you'll tell me that the "Purpose" of the vehicle was to have round headlights.

the engineers intentions,

Yeah, you have shown yourself to make "stuff" up wholecloth, so your insight into the intentions of the engineers is not really worth much. But I'm pretty sure they didn't go "let's make this so the buyers of this will feel they buy something that is done how they did it fifty years ago" (which would be you).

the way it was advertised,

Really? LOL!

and established customer expectations.

Ah, just like your made-up definitions and monickers. You expected them to build a "modern" easily-modified to rock crawl Defender using old inferior tech. Yeah, not many people expected that to happen.

The name has meaning, properties, definition. Call it what you will, but the name isn't re-defined upon a whim any more than a Toyota Prius can suddenly be passed off as a Ford Mustang just because it's superior in different ways.

Yeah, you and your "definitions". And you want an inferior vehicle due to, I guess, nostalgia and ignorance of suspension design. Buy that tow hook and Mahindra. It will look great behind that RV.

 

[nickw]

It's a great idea, but the compromise is expense, complexity, reliablity, and capability because it doesn't articulate or maintain contact patch pressure nearly as well as what it seeks to emulate. It's perfect for a Range Rover, but not for a Defender. They are polar opposites of the lineup, or are supposed to be. Otherwise, they just offer dozens of restyled variations of the same thing. lol well, looking at the lineup, some might actually make that case.

Sounds like it's perfect for a Defender...considering that's what they decided to design.

I don't think IFS is less reliable or capable given the design intent of what it's intended for, overland type use. Add air suspension to a Jeep along with it's current sway disconnect, it's not 'simple' in the way an old Defender is.

People lust after some of these fairytale rigs, LC 70 series too, if you've driven in one, you realize why the OEM's are not producing them domestically....nobody would buy em.

 

[EricTyrrell]

The Defender and Series were around a very long time. To define the Defender is very easy. It is self evident, by the market it served, the engineers intentions, the way it was advertised, and established customer expectations. The name has meaning, properties, definition. Call it what you will, but the name isn't re-defined upon a whim any more than a Toyota Prius can suddenly be passed off as a Ford Mustang just because it's superior in different ways.

You should separate design intent from the design itself. If Ford decides to use IFS/IRS on the F250, it would still be a 3/4 ton rig, it wouldn't magically devolve into something less. IFS can absolutely be robust, long lasting and every bit as strong as a solid axle. Just because we have not seen it commonplace doesn't mean it's inferior, simply that it has not proved to be cost effective or fit the design requirements of the vehicle.

Hummer H1's but more importantly the Pinzgauer military vehicles both us IFS/IRS, their #1 goal is speed and reliability over variable terrain. The G-wagen has gone to IFS. All Hiluxes and Landcruisers (besides the 7X's) have gone IFS. Several very large military use IFS / IRS. Many of the new rock buggies are IFS / IRS.

Solid axles are cheap to make strong, cheap to upgrade and cheap to lift. They also have bad clearance and don't handle as good as high speeds offroad. It's a trade off for certain but for Expo use, I think the new Defender nailed it.

I already stated solid and IS can be engineered to any capacity, but there are compromises. There are reasons that educated engineers at manufacturers don't choose what you've suggested.

You're ignoring cost, which is important. This is not a Range Rover, it's supposed to be at the opposite end of the spectrum where cost is a consideration.

You're also ignoring complexity and maintenance. Utility vehicle buyers have no interest in suddenly needing rear alignments, more bushings to maintain, and critical alignment checks. The market has chosen. Get the job done, keep it simple, keep it affordable, and keep it self-maintenance friendly.

 

[nickw]

Forrest service and BLM roads here routinely push the limits of articulation and low-speed traction. Solid axle vehicles perform very well. The LR3 had a hard time keep all-four on the ground and would rock and fall, as you'll witness in videos of them in cross-axle scenarios when they tip over the threshold. No rock-crawling here, only uneven ground, which is common many places in the world. Add some deep snow or patchy mud and the ground gets very uneven without full visibility or warning.

95% of roads in the PNW could be easily tackled by a Subaru on 30's. I've been wheeling in the snow for years and like IFS rigs due to their higher clearance.....IRS would only add to this.

Solid axles, to your point, don't all articulate well, at least not ones that have any reasonable load carrying capacity. I bet this new defender would out articulate an older SA Gwagon..

 

[Pilat]

I already stated solid and IS can be engineered to any capacity, but there are compromises. There are reasons that educated engineers at manufacturers don't choose what you've suggested.

You're ignoring cost, which is important. This is not a Range Rover, it's supposed to be at the opposite end of the spectrum where cost is a consideration.

You're also ignoring complexity and maintenance. Utility vehicle buyers have no interest in suddenly needing rear alignments, more bushings to maintain, and critical alignment checks. The market has chosen. Get the job done, keep it simple, keep it affordable, and keep it self-maintenance friendly.

Q: How do you engineer out the unsprung weight and the connection between the two wheels of a solid axle (both detrimental to handling, grip, rolling etc.)?
A: IS

 

[EricTyrrell]

95% of roads in the PNW could be easily tackled by a Subaru on 30's. I've been wheeling in the snow for years and like IFS rigs due to their higher clearance.....IRS would only add to this.

IS certainly does have the less-plowing advantage in snow. It's something I enjoyed on the LR3, until the terrain became uneven, and then its weight, uneven traction, delayed-action traction-control, and teeter-totter effect became troublesome. My D1 with its tall skinny tires and high articulation always seemed to perform more reliably and stable.

Solid axles, to your point, don't all articulate well, at least not ones that have any reasonable load carrying capacity. I bet this new defender would out articulate an older SA Gwagon..

Solid axles can articulate very well, or not very well, as we've seen in the G-wagen. Innovations like electronic quick disconnecting sway-bars can offer both stability and extended capability when the overlander hits a rough patch.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Q: How do you engineer out the unsprung weight and the connection between the two wheels of a solid axle (both detrimental to handling, grip, rolling etc.)?
A: IS

You are correct. 100%. However, it's not necessary in all vehicles, or that would be the universal case. The Range Rover of course requires this. The Defender is the opposite end of the product lineup spectrum, both historically, and by LR's own PowerPoint slides and description. It would be nice if there was a free lunch. A choice that was economical, simple, safest, and most capable in all scenarios, but as with most things, you have to make a best -effort compromise.

 

[mpinco]

Get the best of both worlds with air-sus....makes sense!

Except it is more complex, expensive and you do run the risk of field issues. You can plumb around that risk with manual controls, air lines and compressor. Plus you do need to limit tire size for bump stops.

 

[nickw]

Solid axles can articulate very well, or not very well, as we've seen in the G-wagen. Innovations like electronic quick disconnecting sway-bars can offer both stability and extended capability when the overlander hits a rough patch.

It also introduces complexity.....

 

[nickw]

Except it is more complex, expensive and you do run the risk of field issues. You can plumb around that risk with manual controls, air lines and compressor. Plus you do need to limit tire size for bump stops.

More complex....true, but so is fuel injection, power steering, electric locking differentials, electric windows, electric door locks, etc. It is something else to break, history tells us the more crap you add the more crap breaks.....but the life cycle of these systems* are good, they are proven and are not catastrophic in nature if they do fail.

Edit for clarity...*Air assisted suspension that is

 

[Pilat]

You are correct. 100%. However, it's not necessary in all vehicles, or that would be the universal case.

Of course, you can ride around in car without suspension at all if we take to extremes. I am saying IS is better. Not that solid axles can't work.
Independent suspension at the front is almost universal. Which cars do not have it, apart from the Wrangler - the favourite for slow-as-molasses rock-crawlers?
At the rear it is not yet universal as the disadvantages of solid axles aren't as pronounced as in the front (so they can save some cost).

The Range Rover of course requires this.

Even a cheap Yaris has IS at the front. It is not something only on super luxury cars. You are once again making up stuff.
Seriously, read those two short pages I gave you links to. Or at least the hightlights of them that I posted in plain text.

The Defender is the opposite end of the product lineup spectrum, both historically, and by LR's own PowerPoint slides and description. It would be nice if there was a free lunch. A choice that was economical, simple, safest, and most capable in all scenarios, but as with most things, you have to make a best -effort compromise.

There isn't. You can't have cheapest possible engineering and "most capable". Independent suspension is newer tech than solid axles, yes, but it is well understood and almost universal on the front of cars because it is better.

I ask again: How do you best get rid of the problem of huge amounts of unsprung weight and the fact that one wheel hitting something influence the other, and the rolling?
Answer: You cut the solid axle in two and you make separate shock and spring for each side.
It's that simple.

You really, really need to read up on suspensions. You are completely adverse to learning about how unsprung weight directly influence grip in all situations, apart from the very, very slow speeds you rock crawl at. At 10 mph you are already well into the territory where IS has an advantage when it comes to grip. Unless, of course there are never small bumps, repaired potholes, or small puddles where you drive.

 

[nickw]

I already stated solid and IS can be engineered to any capacity, but there are compromises. There are reasons that educated engineers at manufacturers don't choose what you've suggested.

You're ignoring cost, which is important. This is not a Range Rover, it's supposed to be at the opposite end of the spectrum where cost is a consideration.

You're also ignoring complexity and maintenance. Utility vehicle buyers have no interest in suddenly needing rear alignments, more bushings to maintain, and critical alignment checks. The market has chosen. Get the job done, keep it simple, keep it affordable, and keep it self-maintenance friendly.

It's somewhat of a straw man to say they are more complex and throw out alignment/bushing checks/maintenance. It's a factual statement, but a bit disingenuous since it's very uncommon and very sporadic in nature. Relative to the discussion, it's very minor and not 'complex'.

Have you wondered why Toyota has gone IFS on the majority of the Landcruisers and Hiluxes? How often do they require alignments? I didn't wheel my 2001 Tacoma hard, but got after it here and there, 150,000 miles, the only time I needed to align the front end is when I lifted it, took an hour and less than $100.

 

[mpinco]

More complex....true, but so is fuel injection, power steering, electric locking differentials, electric windows, electric door locks, etc. It is something else to break, history tells us the more crap you add the more crap breaks.....but the life cycle of these systems* are good, they are proven and are not catastrophic in nature if they do fail.

Edit for clarity...*Air assisted suspension that is

I have never had issues with fuel injection. I did wake up to one corner of the air suspension down while camping. A recycle resolved but.....

 

[mpinco]

IS without cross linked air suspension is not superior.