Yes I can. And I have even told you were to look for evidence that it works better at all speeds above rock crawling speeds. But you simply refuse to even go look.
New Defender Rage/Hate Thread
- Thread starter DieselRanger
- Start date
It is not a single data point. Just because you refuse to even look at the evidence and gain even a rudimental understanding of the pros and cons doesn't mean it's just a single data point. You hearing the word "IS" often doesn't mean it's a single data point. It is an entire area of engineering of suspensions.
Still waiting for a list of all those non-rock crawling vehicles with solid front axles.
See above. You think "IS" is a hammer, all the while the only shtick you have is to declare that solid axles are superior. We point to evidence to show you, you simply refuse. And when outright refusal from you fails, you make up sh.tuff.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
Do you have a non-defensive response, where you're able to understand the Defender?
I'm well aware. You missed the point, and the sarcasm. In one way, they're an ancient tech, but at the same time they've evolved and improved over time. We didn't need to switch whole-sale to something completely different, except in specific use-cases such as tracked-vehicles. The same can be said for the solid axle. I'm not convinced LR can't figure out how to improve them further and retain simplicity, articulation, and ease of maintenance. I'd also be pleased if LR figured out how to make their IS/air suspension suck less.
Last edited:
EricTyrrell
Expo God
His single data point is hid buddy's old 4Runner. I've seen and worked on crappy old 4Runners too. They're still far more reliable on average. What good is capability if your vehicle in incapacitated? Doesn't that make it fairly incapable?
Off the top of my head.. Every coil sprung LR, pre-barbie G-wagen, FJ80, most 70 series, Wrangler, all HD trucks.
Show me where I said solid axles are universally superior. I had made every effort to only to prescribe their use in specific cases.
Last edited by a moderator:
EricTyrrell
Expo God
I knew before. I looked anyways. It's true. It matters on a Range Rover. It doesn't matter as much on a Defender. There are other, more important considerations.
It wasn't defensive. You made a claim. I countered that claim. You then asked why, I explained it to you. And now you pretend it's "defensive"? Seriously, "integrity". Look it up. You need to learn about it.
If you were, you were then being disingenuous, because you would then have seen how it didn't actually fly with your argument about the suspension.
No, I didn't miss the point. I recognised immediately what your point was and your dripping sarcasm. Hence why I had to explain it to you why you were once again arguing from ignorance.
Again with the ignorance. Suspension evolves. The problems of solid axle suspension have been solved: The answer is IS.
IS also evolves, but solid axles doesn't. You can't still have solid axles and solve the problem of them (unsprung weight and the wheels being connected) and still have them "solid". When you get rid of those two problems, they are not solid axles anymore.
So, yes, once again your sarcasm shows up your ignorance, and when confronted, you double down.
Of course you're not "convinced". You refuse to look at evidence.
No, because there is no "single data point". You are once again making sh..tuff up from wholecloth. You really need an engineering class badly. But when refusing to learn anything at all, that might be a mighty undertaking.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for that list of solid front axle "overlander" vehicles from you. You said that there were a lot of there, so it shouldn't be hard to mention, say, 10.
No. You didn't know before. You still don't know. If you knew, you would know, and not continue with ignorant arguments that show you haven't the slightest idea about independent suspension and why just about any car, cheap or expensive have them at least at the front.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
Yet you are unable to discern IS's appropriate applications. Thankfully, most engineers are not as ignorant. "any car, cheap or expensive" that have them, probably have them for solid reasoning, but not all. Many technologies have been used inappropriately; the Defender is clearly one example. It's akin to using a solid front axle on a Celica (handling, safety, etc) or IS on a dump truck (cost, maintenance, complexity, support systems). The problem is you don't understand the Defender. You just want a comfy car, but they aren't cool enough so you need to appropriate another identity.
EricTyrrell
Expo God
Read again.. His buddy's old 4Runner. One anecdotal datapoint. <--- It's right there
Read below ------>
<------ Read above
nickw
Adventurer
Just wanna leave this here, IFS/IRS:
bollingermotors.com
5000 payload capacity
BOLLINGER B2 VS CANOO
The Only Class 3 Commercial Electric Trucks on the Planet.
bollingermotors.com
5000 payload capacity
EricTyrrell
Expo God
All hail IS/AS, the one rule them all, to find them, to bring them all, and in the darkness leave them SOL on the trail and in the shop.
That's another wrong claim from you based on your own ignorance. You really need to stop with the strawmanning. I already said that anything above crawling speeds, and IS is better. THat's the application for solid axles. That and building as cheaply as possible. If you want that, yeah, solid axles win. Suspension evolves, and the problems of solid axles have already been solved many, many decades ago. It's called going to independent suspension.
Find me some. The Wrangler is one. What else is out there? You said there were "lots", yet you haven't even linked to a single one.
No, most engineers who work with suspension aren't ignorant. That's why cars have independent suspension at least on the front.
No it's not. Read up on independent suspension instead of making claims about reality based on your ignorance of same.
Any vehicle travelling at more than crawling speed will benefit from independent suspension.
Even a dump truck will benefit.
I do understand the Defender, and I understand engineering. You want it to be a copy of a Wrangler with not only solid rear axle, but a solid front axle. That is as ridiculous as wanting to go back to solid tyres.
LOL. You obviously don't know. My identity is not tied to a car. And once again you're projecting: You are so tied up in the wannabe rock crawling scene you think that your ignorance of suspensions are somehow arguments in themselves. You are the one who doesn't think LRs are manly enough "people driving them around where I live are all women", and you're the one who dislikes the looks because they're not "manly" enough, whatever that means.
So it looks like, once again, you're being disingenuous when accusing others of using a car as an "identity".
************************, you can't tell the difference between an example and "relying on a single data point? You think that by giving an example, there can be no other data points?
We have pointed you to the engineering, the reasons for that engineering, and the fact that most every car on the road uses independent suspension at least on the front.
And then, by giving you an example, it then becomes "a single data point". Sheesh, you truly are adamant that you're not under any circumstances going to learn anything.
Okay, let me ask you this:
How do you solve the problem of the two wheels being connected and the huge amounts of unsprung weight because of that?
Come now. What's the solution?
Btw, there are many different types of independent suspension and it continues to evolve.
Still waiting for that list of solid front axled overlander vehicles. Or are you willing to admit by now that you made that up too?