New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[lumpskie]

I guess for solid axle rednecks loathe to look at physics will have an easier time dealing with solid axles.

Wow, you've resorted to calling names now... your prejudice is showing...

Most people who simply put on bigger tyres does not swap the brakes out for bigger and more powerful ones.

Got a source for that data? Not true, upgrading brakes is one of the most common mods out there.

Secondly, it also lifts the centre of gravity and when adding a lift, you even change the geometry.

So what. It does change the geometry. But, when the CG still lies within the stability triangle, stability under braking is unaffected by CG. This is the case with almost all lifted rigs. In countries, like Australia, the government certifies lifted rigs for safety in their new configuration. In the U.S. states issue a safety certificate which also examines lift. Like I said... you're just turning motion into heat. Super simple.

No it's not. Not when we're talking solid axles. Using stronger/higher spring rate coils/shocks doesn't actually "account" for it, as the unsprung weight is because the two frigging wheels are connected!
How do you solve the problems of unsprung weight of a solid axle setup and how do you solve the problem of them being connected? You separate them: Inde-frigging-pendent suspension.

Read closer next time. You won't get an IFS vehicle to a speed where that is a factor. At the speed that an IFS vehicle can travel, given it's limited travel, a solid axle vehicle will have ZERO stability issues or unsprung weight issues. Zero. It's been done so many times that it's not even interesting anymore. And I'm not talking rock crawling, I'm talking running simple dirt roads, in the desert, even on pavement with frost heaves.

I am not talking about "extreme" travel. Obviously, in a rock crawling rig, you may need that extra travel. But having less unsprung weight and not having the two connected resulting in better grip at above rock crawling speeds have nothing to do with which system can better rock crawl. When I mentioend off road grip I specifically exclude rock crawling and I specifically said "at any speed above rock crawling speed". More travel doesn't help at in this situation.

Maybe forest service roads are "extreme" travel situations? Or long dirt roads? Ask the Jeep guys running an Evo double throw down how they handle on fast terrain... or Land Cruiser 80 series guys running Autocraft Slinkies or Dobinson Tapers. Then compare them to what a Tacoma or 4Runner can do without running extended/trussed upper and lower control arms. No comparison.

 

[Pilat]

Wow, you've resorted to calling names now... your prejudice is showing...

Nope, I am just tired of talking to people who will deny reality in order to claim that what is good for rock crawling must be good for everything else. When you reach a stage where you deny reality with pride, you deserve being called names.

Got a source for that data? Not true, upgrading brakes is one of the most common mods out there.

Got a source for saying that people who put on bigger tyres also do the brakes, considering upgrading the brakes is more involved and requires more skills than dumping bigger tyres on a vehicle (or lift it)?

So what. It does change the geometry. But, when the CG still lies within the stability triangle, stability under braking is unaffected by CG.

Wow, you actually think I was talking about the CG while braking? Frigging unbelievable. Ever heard of "evasive action"? ever heard of "swerving"? Ever heard of roof loads? I am not talking about it toppling over the frigging front doing an endo!
F. me. The BRAKING DISTANCE increases because it takes more power the longer the lever from the centre of the wheel the contact patch is. This is the same reason a bigger frigging brake DISC works better than a smaller one.

The centre of gravity is also about a lever, but not the frigging same. It was TWO issues coming from putting on bigger tyres and lifting the truck. This is unbelievable just how you can discuss these things, and even ask me to "read closer", when you can't tell the difference between the lever arm from the contact patch to the centre of the wheel - as I even EXPLAINED to you - and the frigging Centre of Gravity of the entire frigging vehicle. It didn't even occur to you that that might be a problem with a higher centre of gravity in a vehicle.

This is the case with almost all lifted rigs. In countries, like Australia, the government certifies lifted rigs for safety in their new configuration. In the U.S. states issue a safety certificate which also examines lift. Like I said... you're just turning motion into heat. Super simple.

Yeah, those "safety certificates" aren't worth anything at all. Take a look at big tyre vehicles as well as super high lifted bro-dozers. Yeah, not actually worth anything. In fact, if even issued, they provide cover for making everyone just a little more unsafe on the roads.

Read closer next time. You won't get an IFS vehicle to a speed where that is a factor.

Are you sure you're not a sock? It doesn't take much speed to make it a factor. Basically anything over walking pace, and the IFS has the advantage. There is a reason that even small slow cars have IFS. Stop denying reality. You need to study rather than rock crawl.

At the speed that an IFS vehicle can travel, given it's limited travel, a solid axle vehicle will have ZERO stability issues or unsprung weight issues.

Nope. You're wrong again. You think the speed an IFS can travel is limited by being IFS? AND that a solid axle setup (at the front) will have no problems.
I already explained this. You have reached a point where you are outright lying to defend your positions. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic that someone can be so opposed to learning anything that they will lie in order to stay ignorant.

Zero. It's been done so many times that it's not even interesting anymore. And I'm not talking rock crawling, I'm talking running simple dirt roads, in the desert, even on pavement with frost heaves.

Lying again, while exposing you have no clue what you're talking about.

Maybe forest service roads are "extreme" travel situations? Or long dirt roads? Ask the Jeep guys running an Evo double throw down how they handle on fast terrain... or Land Cruiser 80 series guys running Autocraft Slinkies or Dobinson Tapers. Then compare them to what a Tacoma or 4Runner can do without running extended/trussed upper and lower control arms. No comparison.

You truly are detached from reality. Not a single word, or a tiny bit of your "understanding" is correct.

I have to assume you're either a sock for another member who thought and argued like you, or you're a troll. Your posts are the perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect, coupled with a tendency to outright lie.

I will go on and ignore you from now on. Without any ability to learn and the constant lying, there is no need for me to waste more time on you.

 

[lumpskie]

Let's do this. Do you think people can't find your old post?

Nope, I am just tired of talking to people who will deny reality in order to claim that what is good for rock crawling must be good for everything else.

This time I'll bold and underline for you.

I guess for solid axle rednecks loathe to look at physics will have an easier time dealing with solid axles.

Ever look up the definition of bigot?

Definition of BIGOT

a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Done and done for ya.

Got a source for saying that people who put on bigger tyres also do the brakes, considering upgrading the brakes is more involved and requires more skills than dumping bigger tyres on a vehicle (or lift it).

I used this crazy thing called Google to help you out. I am an 80 series owner right now, so I'll limit my links to 80 series stuff.

Google Search

Wow, you actually think I was talking about the CG while braking? Frigging unbelievable.

Read your own words here, haha. I'm not sure what this has to do with your hatred of solid axles but there you go.

Most people who simply put on bigger tyres does not swap the brakes out for bigger and more powerful ones. Secondly, it also lifts the centre of gravity and when adding a lift, you even change the geometry.

Here's another interesting quote for you:
Speaking with the engineering team, I asked about the ability to fit larger off-road tires. They said a 35-inch tire will certainly fit, but will require a one-inch suspension lift. A response that direct gave me the feeling that someone at Land Rover had already tried this.

The New Land Rover Defender Is Designed to Make You Swoon

Exclusive details on the most hardcore Rover in decades

www.outsideonline.com

The Land Rover engineering team must be a bunch of "rednecks" too.


I'll ignore the intermediary name calling and go to your next point. You should go back and read my previous post.

Nope. You're wrong again. You think the speed an IFS can travel is limited by being IFS? AND that a solid axle setup (at the front) will have no problems.
I already explained this.

Here's the setting: Not pavement. This means varying terrain and not flat. Picture that. Now... picture a vehicle traveling over that not flat terrain at say... 35 miles per hour. When the vehicle encounters the variances in terrain, the suspension will move to compensate. This movement is called suspension travel. (ok, I'm getting a little tongue in cheek here) When you reach either end (compression or extension) of the suspension travel, you hit a hard stop. When you hit that hard stop, the vehicle becomes unsettled. OEM IFS setups are notorious for hitting that stop. Why? Because they commonly run 6" travel shocks, to limit the extension of the suspension to save the CV axles. On a solid axle rig, there is no such limitation. So, you can run a 12" shock with equal up and down travel. This lets you hit bumps at speed. But, you don't have to take my word for it!


There are plenty of bolt on kits for solid axles that will take high speed action. There are no simple, bolt on kits for IFS to do the same. (Like I said, you need to gusset and truss to support the longer control arms for IFS long travel) Let's take a look at some!
Here's the Evolution manufacturing double throwdown in action: (Oh no! Solid front axle going fast off pavement!)


Want one closer to home? Here's @Box Rocket from this very forum using his slinky setup: (No, Box Rocket! Don't do it and die!!)



Let's keep this going! I want to learn all about how solid axles can't go fast!

 

[EricTyrrell]

Here you go. You posted the two videos in this video, claiming they were "real trails" (my emphasis):


To which I responded:



And here's the clincher: Apparently saying "You think that's rock crawling. It's an uneven dirt road". Doesn't mean what it says.



Oh, and just because I figure you need to "clarify" your statements again, I will say that it very obvious you claimed they weren't rock crawling at that point.
But I'd like to add, that according to that last sentence in the above quoted paragraph it can apparently not be called "rock crawling" because it is not "extreme rock crawling".

How do you even get pleasure from discussing things when what you say changes constantly and without any merit to it all?

See screenshot below:

See how there are two replies in my original post? I think I know where the disconnect occurred.

The first reply's video was of an uneven dirt trail. That's what I was looking for. Most trails are not flat or we wouldn't need 4wd. That's the video I insisted repeatedly was not rock crawling. However, I think you were talking about the second video.. thus the disconnect.

The second reply's video obviously contains rock crawling. The video was addressing your claim that technology has allowed modern vehicles to surpass the classic Defender in capability. The point of the video is that people were already driving extremely difficult trails long before even the classic Defender existed. In this instance it doesn't matter if the trail contains rock crawling because anything less difficult is obviously going to be passable. That's why I assumed you must be claiming the first video was rock crawling.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Let's keep this going! I want to learn all about how solid axles can't go fast!

I'd like to learn about all the places solid axles can't go. Where is the supremely-capable Playskool Defender going that previous vehicles haven't?

 

[Jwestpro]

(Oh no! Solid front axle going fast off pavement!)

Impossible !

 

[Jwestpro]

limit the extension of the suspension to save the CV axles.

I'm reminded of the Land Cruiser 200 series IFS "bolt on" kits comprised of UCA, diff drop, etc. I wish there were a kit for the lr3/4/rrs for a "diff drop" and longer travel struts and/or new UCA, hell while wishing longer length control arms so the resulting travel AT the tire would incease more per slight increase in strut travel.

I LOVE how svelte the air struts ride but the complexity of gaining ground clearance and tire sidewall is incredible compared to my Disco II.

Not sure all the fuss over needing larger brakes for larger tires. Do you need or want more braking power? Doesn't anyone want "more"? Simply sizing up the rotor is only one way to achieve that though so not sure why the other guy going on and on about it. In racing a smaller wheel is lighter and thus faster where braking is an issue.G55 brakes still allowed an 18" wheel LOL and those have a ton of power to stop the heavy G wagon. Land Rover was cheap on brakes, not "better". You could have insanely strong brakes that still allow a 16" wheel. Larger is simply a profits driven choice.

On braking, more LOL at the "must have larger rotors crowd", while I actually changed my lr3 brakes from the NAS V8 spec size to the slightly smaller NAS V6 spec to allow the factory 17" wheel. They are slotted EBC and guess what, no sense of less braking or effective real world stopping and my LR3 never weighs less than 7200 lbs.

 

[Jwestpro]

There's a limit to this unless the rim is also bigger.

Unless you add bigger brakes, the leverage when braking is higher, resulting in longer braking distances. It is also why it accelerates slower.


They have bigger brakes and bigger rims because of it. It is not simply "bigger tyres".

Agreed, what you wrote is ".....nonsense not based in reality." LOL
A. The path to more braking power is not solely "bigger"/larger rotors. Commonly more pistons and/or higher grade rotors and pads are the best choice, not the cheapest like Land Rover chooses.
B. Larger tires are of course heavier, however, a larger tire on the same size wheel is less overall increase than both a larger wheel to start with then combined with larger tire.
C. This idea about "longer braking distance" is true of course, but in practice it's a lot less important unless you were already reaching the far limits of the first braking equipment. Meaning, how often do you even come close to the limitations of the braking power? The brakes themselves, not skid pad distance. Tires have a lot more to do with the stopping distance than the brake rotor size by a centimeter. You are not racing loading heat into the brakes needing more mass to dissipate heat.

D. About the last line you wrote: The TIRE size got larger on the 18" wheels between disco 2 and lr3. The wheel remained an identical 18x8 but the tires were 255/55x18 and 255/60x18. Additionally the new Defender is supposed to have an 18" option but will allow a 33" tire compared to the 30" lr3/4/5 stock size.

 

[Pilat]

Agreed, what you wrote is ".....nonsense not based in reality." LOL
A. The path to more braking power is not solely "bigger"/larger rotors. Commonly more pistons and/or higher grade rotors and pads are the best choice, not the cheapest like Land Rover chooses.

Sure, but bigger rotors are actually cheaper than more powerful pistons. And the bigger rotor, the more heat resistant it is (less fading) because it both has more mass and more area.

B. Larger tires are of course heavier, however, a larger tire on the same size wheel is less overall increase than both a larger wheel to start with then combined with larger tire.

It is not because the tyre is heavier that the braking distance increases. And we were also talking lifts (raising the CoG).

C. This idea about "longer braking distance" is true of course, but in practice it's a lot less important unless you were already reaching the far limits of the first braking equipment.

Ah, so now it's not important. It's a good thing we have rules about these things, because you are purposely ignoring that any brake will become less powerful the moment you add to the circumference of the tyre.

[EDIT] there is a reason in the old days that they first began using disk brakes on the front (while due to cost, only used drum brakes at the back). That is because the disk brakes brakes better, and especially at the front which takes the most power (inertia) and can put down the most braking power, that it was that end that got the biggest brakes. Hell, even good bicycles uses this "trick": Bigger rotors on the front result in more braking power, despite both the front and rear using the same pistons etc..
[/EDIT]

Meaning, how often do you even come close to the limitations of the braking power? The brakes themselves, not skid pad distance. Tires have a lot more to do with the stopping distance than the brake rotor size by a centimeter. You are not racing loading heat into the brakes needing more mass to dissipate heat.

We are not necessarily talking about losing grip (tyre grip) as that would mean the brakes were powerful enough. We are talking about how fast something can stop something heavy. If you guys now attempt to argue that it doesn't matter, I am once again glad we have rules here, because the proponents of bigger tyres and lifts obviously can't think this through well enough for themselves.

D. About the last line you wrote: The TIRE size got larger on the 18" wheels between disco 2 and lr3. The wheel remained an identical 18x8 but the tires were 255/55x18 and 255/60x18. Additionally the new Defender is supposed to have an 18" option but will allow a 33" tire compared to the 30" lr3/4/5 stock size.

Yes, as the manufacturer calculated that the rim and brake combo could handle it. There's quite a difference. On this new Defender, the wheels are even bigger to be able to fit even bigger brakes. There's a reason for that.

 

[EricTyrrell]

A. The path to more braking power is not solely "bigger"/larger rotors. Commonly more pistons and/or higher grade rotors and pads are the best choice, not the cheapest like Land Rover chooses.

Inboard brakes and regenerative brakes are other options. They could have figured it out, but LR is more intent on regurgitating Range Rover designs.

 

[EricTyrrell]

Why didn't any of you guys tell them to take their geriatric Toyota Lorrie-Cruiser back to the solid-axle retirement home before they get hurt? Traveling the world? The audacity!

 

[Peter_n_Margaret]

On this new Defender, the wheels are even bigger to be able to fit even bigger brakes. There's a reason for that.

And the reason is to save 50c.
My expedition vehicle is over 6T, has discs all round with single (large) pistons that fit inside 16" wheels & tyres. I can lock all wheels on any surface.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

 

[Pilat]

And the reason is to save 50c.
My expedition vehicle is over 6T, has discs all round with single (large) pistons that fit inside 16" wheels & tyres. I can lock all wheels on any surface.
Cheers,
Peter
OKA196 motorhome

Sure, bigger brakes is a cost-saving measure. The detractors' arguments have become so ridiculous and detached from reality, it is not even worth explaining reality to people like you.

 

[Christian P.]

This thread is supposed to be about saying negative things about the Defender. Not about each other.

 

[Christian P.]

In case you forgot, the Defender looks like a Kia Soul made love to a Ford Explorer.