New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[Todd780]

You can be upset, but you can't change it. And one day, autonomous vehicles will arrive...

As long as we still have the option to drive them ourselves.

 

[Blaise]

We may lose that option as well on certain roads. That's the simplest way to increase throughput without worrying about the human factor.

 

[EricTyrrell]

You edited your post. I read it fine the first time.

Again, you're still wrong, because you don't get to decide what the priorities are. Thankfully. You just have an opinion and you're working really hard to express something you cannot change.

I edit my post in two conditions, a typo, or incomplete thought. I try to do it quickly as to avoid misleading.

Correct, I don't decide what the priorities are. They were decided long ago, and continuously revised, but never detoured completely. To find a different solution to the same priorities is normal development. Appropriation is to develop a solution to a completely different order/set of priorities and pass it off under a name which is well established to represent another order/set or priorities.

 

[Pilat]

Man, I went back just to see if I missed your "car" specification. Didn't see it. At least I checked. Maybe you did specify that. Hard to tell now.
Never knew you were asking for a list of cheap overland cars.

Dishonesty again. I did not ask for "cheap overland cars".

Is the Wrangler a car?

Yes it is.

It's a body-on frame solid axle vehicle, like many trucks.

But it can't carry or tow anything, or load anything light for that matter.
[...]


Found loads (couldn't search on "car" - it was too short) - but managed to search on "cars") - click "click to expand":

[...]
So, no, people upgrading their cars with aftermarket lockers or asking about it in a thread is not something I delve into.
[...]

[...]
Great. If you want to play the numbers game, how many cars have independent suspension? I realise that many more (percentage-wise) of US cars have solid axles (it has been a standing joke in Europe for about four decades that the US thinks they're still driving tractors or motorised carriages - with the handling to match).
[...]

[...]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.

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).[...]

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.
[...]

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.

[...]

LOL, yeah, I'm pretty sure electric windows isn't solely in the realm of "luxury vehicles" anymore. It trickled down to normally priced cars decades ago.

Your wording made it seem like it was mostly in that realm. Your previous wording was akin to saying that "disc brakes is the realm of luxury cars". It isn't really, is it?

Not really. Not when it comes to the physics of it. Find me some examples of solid axle (on the front) cars currently in production. 10 should do.

There is a reason you can't find them, even though a solid axle front is much, much simpler, and much, much cheaper - especially if you make it out of cast iron.

I am only asking you to give me a list of 10 cars. Solid axles are cheaper, so there should be plenty of examples out there.

Yes, please hdo. Tractors (as in lorries) doesn't count.



I understand the advantages of IS and how it is important - especially at the front. Hence both cheap, cheap cars and über luxury cars using it.

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.
[...]
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. [...].
So it looks like, once again, you're being disingenuous when accusing others of using a car as an "identity".

Turns out there are loads of places where I specifically mentioned CARS!
So much for that. But at least you wasted my time by lying.

Edit: **************** the quote tags. Now fixed.

 

[Pilat]

Btw, if "solid axles" somehow means "truck", I guess Volvo tractors trucks/lorries aren't "trucks" anymore - from 2015.

Volvo Trucks introduces dynamic steering and front suspension package

Volvo Trucks’ independent front suspension can now be specified in combination with Dynamic Steering.

www.commercialfleet.org

Development of suspension continues. Even on Heavy Duty trucks. Apparently trucks aren't trucks unless they have solid axles, and cars are trucks if they have solid axles.

 

[Blaise]

A vehicle with better angles than a Rubicon and 10/13" of suspension travel is hardly a 'completely different set of priorities' under the same name. Not in this case. But, it has happened:

"Nissan Pathfinder"

 

[Pilat]

Eric, let me quote myself again even though it is part of the larger quote fest upstream, so here it is:

Find me some examples of solid axle (on the front) cars currently in production. 10 should do.

I am only asking you to give me a list of 10 cars. Solid axles are cheaper, so there should be plenty of examples out there.

So where is that list? You know, the list you said you already posted. Still waiting. And no, you still can't use HD trucks or lorries or whatever to get around it.

Edit: And I specifically said back then it was to be "currently in production". That was a criterion as well, as I knew you'd find some old sh..tuff to post about.

 

[Pilat]

A vehicle with better angles than a Rubicon and 10/13" of suspension travel is hardly a 'completely different set of priorities' under the same name. Not in this case. But, it has happened:

"Nissan Pathfinder"

It's only a completely different set of priorities if you think the priority was to have a solid axle vehicle. But no one in their right mind would think that would be- or should be - a priority in itself.

 

[Blaise]

I think we've beaten the solid front axle bit to death already.

The industry has moved away from the solid front. It's just fact. If you really want to stick to old tech (like me with my manuals), you can just buy an older car.

 

[DieselRanger]

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

Land Rover doesn't make tires.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Land Rover doesn't make tires.

Really? lol. They make choices, with consequences.

 

[EricTyrrell]

It's only a completely different set of priorities if you think the priority was to have a solid axle vehicle. But no one in their right mind would think that would be- or should be - a priority in itself.

The priorities direct one to select a solid axle. The priority in itself is not a solid axle. Just as the vehicles that currently ship with solid front axles are directed by their design priorities.

 

[EricTyrrell]

I think we've beaten the solid front axle bit to death already.

The industry has moved away from the solid front. It's just fact. If you really want to stick to old tech (like me with my manuals), you can just buy an older car.

They only moved away where their advantages are associated with lesser priorities, which is fine, but that's not every market niche. Obviously they still exist and will continue to.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Eric, let me quote myself again even though it is part of the larger quote fest upstream, so here it is:

So where is that list? You know, the list you said you already posted. Still waiting. And no, you still can't use HD trucks or lorries or whatever to get around it.

Edit: And I specifically said back then it was to be "currently in production". That was a criterion as well, as I knew you'd find some old sh..tuff to post about.

Off the top of my head.. Every coil sprung LR, pre-barbie G-wagen, FJ80, most 70 series, Wrangler, all HD trucks.

Take it or leave it. Trucks are as common as cars (whatever you think that means) here, and dominate the sales charts. Like I said, the LR3/4 is heavier than many of them. The Defender was a truck as well, so no, I wont revise the list. I already re-quoted this list several times.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Dishonesty again. I did not ask for "cheap overland cars".

I can't be bothered to go through my posts (no easy search function for threads that I can find), but "car" has been mentioned by all of us throughout this thread, but the clincher is this: We are talking about the Defender - a car, other Land Rovers - cars, and comparing it to the Wrangler - another car.
I have several times mentioned that IS at the front is even on cheapo cars.

Sounded like you were then asking for cheap cars.

Turns out there are loads of places where I specifically mentioned CARS!
So much for that. But at least you wasted my time by lying.
Edit: **************** the quote tags. Now fixed.

I'm glad you were able to find it. Here a "car" is either any passenger vehicle, or a sedan type car, not including SUVs. It's vague term that varies by context, person, and apparently region.

Anyways, enough splitting hairs. Engineers select technology based on its characteristics and if they fit the overall set of priorities for that vehicle. Original invention date or which other cars it's used on, are not a consideration.