New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[EricTyrrell]

You fail to see the irony, even as you moan about how it isn't manly enough, that it looks like the other LRs that women (the horror!) drive you see about your neck of the woods, and complain about how awful it is because it doesn't use the tech used in 1948.

You accuse me of being dishonest and then claim that solid axles were last used in 1948....

 

[Pilat]

He was talking about the appearance. You're stuck on IS.

That's even worse! You think the appearance is somehow detrimental to "utility and function". That is just an unbelievable shallow and ignorant comment. Almost as ignorant as your argument that it can't be good because it looks like the Land Rovers you see women drive.

 

[Pilat]

You accuse me of being dishonest and then claim that solid axles were last used in 1948....

Again with your dishonesty. Even when you claim I am the dishonest one, you can only make that argument by lying.

No, I wasn't claimed they were LAST used in 1948. In 1948, the Land Rover saw the day of light. That first version was the actual copy of the Wrangler. It was the cheap technology back then. Since then, advancements have been made. When the limits of advancement on the solid axles were evident and the technology and materials where there, the solution to the problems of solid axles were quite simple: You separate the axle, and voila: Problem solved.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Sure. Whatever. You manage to somehow move the goal posts, while ignoring reality. That really is a gift. Especially when you couple it with your eagerness to revolt against gaining knowledge.

You defined the goal posts and I delivered a list not entirely composed but certainly including trucks, because again trucks exist, they overland, and sell enormously well right now, to everyday working people, the same market LR used to offer a product for.

 

[DieselRanger]

I'm familiar with the guy. He's been around a long time.

I see, and it's embarrassing, that they has to switch the D5 to Compomotive wheels because LR doesn't give a damn about utility and function anymore.

Really, wheels and tires is all you've got? ?

 

[Pilat]

You defined the goal posts and I delivered a list not entirely composed but certainly including, because again trucks exist and sell enormously well right now, to everyday working people.

I said "cars". You posting HD trucks and old, old cars designed as commercial vehicles and then converted to campers. Of course they sell to "everyday working people": They're cheap.

And you really are grasping at straws: We talk about handling, and you use cheaply built commercial vehicles which doesn't even give a nod to handling as backing up your argument that they perform better.

Seriously,that is your argument: First you argued they handled better. When confronted with that, you said that overlander vehicles was proof that solid axles perform better, and when you then post HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, you think that proves solid axles perform better and give better handling, safer handling, and so on.

Enough with your lying, general dishonesty, and moving of the goal posts.

 

[DieselRanger]

lol, it's not supposed to be interesting and polarizing because it looks like every other model in their lineup, or in everyone's lineup. I'm sure LR will beat it up more, just like they did the D5 when it did the silk road and needed 15 pairs of spare tires supplied hush-hush to keep the illusion alive.

Oh noes! A 2,000 mile drive and they had *flat tires*. Scandalous!

Because *real* off-roaders *never* get flat tires. The spares they all carry are ... for ... um, to help lesser vehicles, I guess?

 

[EricTyrrell]

In 1948, the Land Rover saw the day of light.

I see your ruse now. You're too focused on dates. It doesn't matter. Tech is either appropriate for an application, or its not, which is why we see a variety of solutions.

That first version was the actual copy of the Wrangler. It was the cheap technology back then. Since then, advancements have been made. When the limits of advancement on the solid axles were evident and the technology and materials where there, the solution to the problems of solid axles were quite simple: You separate the axle, and voila: Problem solved.

..and problems introduced. It's not a one size fits all tech. It doesn't fit this application.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Oh noes! A 2,000 mile drive and they had *flat tires*. Scandalous!

Because *real* off-roaders *never* get flat tires. The spares they all carry are ... for ... um, to help lesser vehicles, I guess?

There's a different between a flat or two, and numerous failures.

 

[Todd780]

They have been for several pages, and he specifically asked for solid axle overlanders. From this very site..

I said "cars". You posting HD trucks and old, old cars designed as commercial vehicles and then converted to campers. Of course they sell to "everyday working people": They're cheap.

And you really are grasping at straws: We talk about handling, and you use cheaply built commercial vehicles which doesn't even give a nod to handling as backing up your argument that they perform better.

Seriously,that is your argument: First you argued they handled better. When confronted with that, you said that overlander vehicles was proof that solid axles perform better, and when you then post HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, you think that proves solid axles perform better and give better handling, safer handling, and so on.

Enough with your lying, general dishonesty, and moving of the goal posts.

I would have to agree that those are not commercial vehicles. Are they HD pick up trucks? Sure. They look like 3/4 - 1 ton trucks.

But, many average people buy those vehicles in North America for personal use.

The new Ford Tremor and the Ram Power wagon are two HD trucks specifically geared toward travelling off pavement. Not commercial use.

And, they are definitely not cheap. I wish they were! lol

 

[EricTyrrell]

I said "cars". You posting HD trucks and old, old cars designed as commercial vehicles and then converted to campers. Of course they sell to "everyday working people": They're cheap.

And you really are grasping at straws: We talk about handling, and you use cheaply built commercial vehicles which doesn't even give a nod to handling as backing up your argument that they perform better.

Seriously,that is your argument: First you argued they handled better. When confronted with that, you said that overlander vehicles was proof that solid axles perform better, and when you then post HEAVY DUTY TRUCKS, you think that proves solid axles perform better and give better handling, safer handling, and so on.

Enough with your lying, general dishonesty, and moving of the goal posts.

The topic is the Defender. Excellent handling is a high priority of Jags and Range Rovers, not the Defender. It's a consideration, but lower on the priority list for a utility vehicle at the opposite end of the product lineup.

 

[EricTyrrell]

I would have to agree that those are not commercial vehicles. Are they HD pick up trucks? Sure. They look like 3/4 - 1 ton trucks.

But, many average people buy those vehicles in North America for personal use.

The new Ford Tremor and the Ram Power wagon are two HD trucks specifically geared toward travelling off pavement. Not commercial use.

And, they are definitely not cheap. I wish they were! lol

It depends. They can be cheap, but quickly climb in price with options. It's a very wide range to serve all crowds.

 

[Pilat]

I see your ruse now. You're too focused on dates. It doesn't matter. Tech is either appropriate for an application, or its not, which is why we see a variety of solutions.

It's not a "ruse". It's a fact. And while something can be appropriate for a given time, engineering and materials tech moves forward. My point was that you want to live in the past.
And with this latest argument, you have proved my point exactly. You think that if it was okay then, it is good enough today.

..and problems introduced. It's not a one size fits all tech. It doesn't fit this application.

LOL, independent suspension comes in forms, shapes, and sizes. But they all have the advantage of not having the wheels connected by what amounts to a stiff rod, and they all have the advantage of less unsprung weight.

Now, if you go slow enough (crawling speeds), all that weight doesn't mean anything because they have time to have constant contact with the ground, and it doesn't matter if one wheel is jolted - it won't matter on the other side.

You even mentioned that independent suspension was the realm of luxury cars. Not realising that even cheapo ones have it. Only someone coming from the rock crawling community (or the wannabe rock crawling community) could believe such stupid things.

 

[Pilat]

The topic is the Defender. Excellent handling is a high priority of Jags and Range Rovers, not the Defender. It's a consideration, but lower on the priority list for a utility vehicle at the opposite end of the product lineup.

Stop lying.

Even cheapo cars have independent suspension at the front because it is so much better than solid axles and contributes to safety via better handling than a solid axle. It doesn't necessarily mean "excellent handling" - it depends on the engineering and the amount of money thrown at it. It means "better handling". I never said "excellent handling" was a natural consequence of IS. That said, you will never come close to either with a solid axle at the front.

 

[Todd780]

It depends. They can be cheap, but quickly climb in price with options. It's a very wide range to serve all crowds.

That's true. I guess it's all relative too. The Tremor and Power Wagon I referenced or even the Gladiator Rubicon are over $60,000 here. To me, that's not cheap, lol.

But, maybe it's cause I'm cheap, lol