A trolling comment? I am not the one who refuses to even learn about why independent system works better at anything above rock crawling speeds. I am not the one who refuses to believe that in order to get rid of the problem of having the wheels being connected and the resulting high weight is to simply disconnect them. I actually don't care much about suspension, in the sense that I merely care about performance. And I don't rock crawl.
New Defender Rage/Hate Thread
- Thread starter DieselRanger
- Start date
A trolling comment? I am not the one who refuses to even learn about why independent system works better at anything above rock crawling speeds. I am not the one who refuses to believe that in order to get rid of the problem of having the wheels being connected and the resulting high weight is to simply disconnect them. I actually don't care much about suspension, in the sense that I merely care about performance. And I don't rock crawl.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Hahahaha really? You're aware that the most common off road vehicle on sale today with a solid front axle, the JL Wrangler, has an atrocious death wobble that only gets worse with speed, right? Also, you realize that MB swapped to IFS in the new G Wagon purely for on road manners? Will a D2 maintain 80 MPH on the highway? Yeah, but it's not a pleasant place to be at that speed. I've owned 2, I feel like I'm qualified to respond on that front.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Your point? He's sponsored by LR because he's used their products forever. I highly doubt he'd continue using them if they were garbage. To give you a firearms analogy, you couldn't pay me to carry a KelTec. Why? Because if my life depended on it, I want to make sure it's not garbage. Same applies here. You think he'd do 70,000+ km travelling from remote civilization to remote civilization driving a product that could very well leave him stranded and for dead?
Ah, so the point of you posting those pictures of a jumping truck that when it lands looks like it's stumbling over itself wasn't to prove a point? Watch the frigging video and be amazed. I am not even asking you to read anything.
Click on the damn video. It's a great, short video of several jumps and landings. And you can see how well IS actually works.Although I have also owned a Mitsubishi Evo (which is the car in the thumbnail of that video) and have been in the air with it also.
I also notice that since posting that video (you refuse to watch), you also didn't read the actual post.
6 minutes later and you're saying "crickets"? But do you really think I am prone to take bate as idiotic as that? Look up why most cars have at least IFS these days, and many come with fully independent suspension. THis is like talking to the diehard wooden gaffer brigade that continues to claim that there is no better performing boat than a gaffer. And only full-keel ones made from wood will do. Yeah, you can have your solid axles, and they can have their full keel gaffers. It doesn't change reality. And a contest between two people? Still doesn't change the physics, nor does it somehow prove (either way) that solid axles or IS is better. Physics does that.
I ask again: How do you solve the problem of the wheels being connected without disconnecting them? And no, spring rates or travel has no bearing on this.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Can I bring my IFS LR3?LOL, you seem like a fun guy to hang out with. We can continue to one-up each other with pics of cars getting more are than the last. That is not the point. Although I have also owned a Mitsubishi Evo (which is the car in the thumbnail of that video) and have been in the air with it also.
As I said before, bring your IFS vehicle and lets go for a drive. I promise my solid axle cruiser will handle far better than what you bring. Proof is in the proving, not in the talking.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
Ok let's talk about this because it's the only thing actually relevant to the discussion. I know full well what droop is. In fact, the ONLY reason I have a *lift* on my cruiser is to fit a larger tire. If you were to drive any roads that had any larger than a 6" rock or tree on the road you would know the reason for large tires is for clearance under the axle. So the lift I have is actually fairly small at 3". That just happens to make for a very balanced suspension with nearly equal amounts of compression and droop. All droop and no compression is equally as bad as all compression and no droop. But as a suspension "expert" I'm sure you know that.
Back to your comment about the rally car being settled on landing. That is because of the shocks and how they are tuned more than it is about the fact that it is IFS. Precisely my point. It is the components and terrain and several other variable that make it perform and handle at a superior level, not merely because it is IFS. This is exactly the reason why I am completely confident that my solid axle will out-perform and out handle your IFS vehicle over any terrain that is not pavement or smooth graded gravel roads, and still will surprise you in those conditions as well.
soflorovers
Well-known member
Also, this guy may want to have a chat with you. On a serious note, I think the vast majority of the performance advantage you see on your LC is due to the shock package you're running. The reality is that yes, a solid front axle is very capable. However, the fastest vehicles to cross the desert (SCORE TT) run IFS. As you previously stated, there are advantages to both. Frankly, the main reason this conversation began was because someone first (What feels like years ago...) decided to ******** on IFS because of "X" reason. Honestly, there are more factors at play and frankly, it doesn't even merit discussion for 99% of the people here. The 1% that are interested and that will need the solid axles will continue with them; that same person probably also has tried their own urine out in the field as a "What if" scenario. The reality is that IFS is perfectly adequate off road and that for the majority of people (Even on this forum!), the benefits of an IFS outweigh the benefits of a solid axle for the overwhelming majority of the vehicle's use.@Pilat You need to get out a bit more I think and stop philosophizing about all the garbage you read somewhere on the internet. You got a lot of angst built up and some fresh air will probably do you good. Your arguments have many, many flaws in them with broad assumptions and disregard for a host of variables. It makes most of your statements either entirely false, or only minimally accurate at best because of all the other factors you ignore. You can theorize all you want on the benefits of IFS vs solid axle. The fact is there are limitations to both (you know, because of physics). But a wholesale dismissal of a solid axle because you *think* IFS is superior is ignorant. IFS can definitely be preferable in some situations. Solid axles can still outperform IFS setups in a number of areas BESIDES rock-crawling. I'm not even going to put rockcrawling into the discussion since there is a general consensus on the matter. But the only one with a disconnect from reality in this discussion is you I'm afraid.
I have owned many Solid Axle and IFS vehicles that I've used extensively offroad in nearly every scenario possibly encountered. I've raced in the Baja 1000 in an IFS Toyota Land Cruiser, and currently drive a 80 series solid axle Land Cruiser. I've owned a Land Rover in the past as well (Discovery). I feel like I can speak with a reasonable degree of first hand experience and not merely physics textbook calculations. Physics are a real thing, but in real world scenarios those same laws of physics, while constant, respond differently to different variables. Or should I say, vehicles employ a number of variable to manipulate the laws of physics to work in their favor. Simply saying that IFS is superior, period, is idiotic.
My current vehicle is a prime example of what you would describe as a worst case scenario. Solid front axle. Lifted. Big tires (37's). Factory sized brakes. I would invite you (genuinely) to join me on one of my typical offroad trips (not rockcrawling) but covering a lot of ground and fairly high speeds over a variety of terrain. Please bring your ideal setup, IFS, not lifted, standard size tires as the engineers intended (albeit any type of tire you want) and I'm confident you will not keep up. I'm also confident it can be done with better ride and comfort than you'll experience. Heck I'll even put the roof top tent on top of my too tall Cruiser and be at camp hours before you get there. The capability you seem so confident in will have a day of humility I think. Honestly. If you're able and willing to come to Utah, I'd love for you to join me. I'll show you some neat places.
You mentioned suspension travel being only a real factor for rockcrawling. It seems to me you have not experienced the benefit of ample wheel travel on simple dirt roads.
Here's one example of where wheel travel is a plus outside of rockcrawling. It doesn't have to be RTI ramp poser amounts of wheel travel, but a well set up 12" of useable travel. I've done this with a unlifted IFS vehicle as well and I'd be happy to demonstrate with you in the vehicle which setup is preferred. Hint, the lifted solid axle one every time. Typical IFS vehicles, even modified ones will struggle to have 12" of front wheel travel unless you start looking at race setups.
IMG_8007 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8009 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
IMG_8010 by Adam Tolman, on Flickr
Now, for the record, I'll repeat a point I started with. IFS *can be* superior in some situations and a modified IFS suspension *Can* outperform a modified Solid axle but it all comes down to components, and a bunch of variable you refuse to recognize.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
Dude, you need to relax. It's funny that your first response to me is that I should learn about suspension before questioning someone, and then in another comment you admit to "I actually don't care much about suspension, in the sense that I merely care about performance. And I don't rock crawl." It is obvious that you not only don't care about suspension but that you do not really even understand it. You may think you do but it's clear than your very basic understanding is lacking in many areas. You're obsession with "performance" might have some application for road cars but it does not carry over to the offroad world. You also continue to miss the point. VARIABLES. One cannot say that IFS is superior in EVERY situation (forget rockcrawling). The VARIABLES/components are the key to which is going to perform better, not just because one is IFS. If you're argument had any real truth, a Toyota Corolla will outperform a solid axle Defender or Land Cruiser etc offroad purely because it has IS. It doesn't take a smart person to recognize that logic as completely ridiculous.
As for the video. I've seen that video probably more times than you have. Been a rally fan for decades (remember I have owned a vehicle that is legendary in terms of performance on road and in rally, the Mitsubishi Evo). I'm not some ignorant sod with zero life experience in the motoring world like you seem to think.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
you are absolutely correct! It is the shock package that I'm running that makes all the difference. That is precisely the point! It is the components and other variable that make it perform, not merely being IFS. Listen, I'm not some die-hard solid axle guy that claims solid axles are the end all be all. I love IFS! It is the RIGHT choice in many cases and I own IFS vehicles. But @Pilat is making idiotic claims plain and simple and isn't worth engaging in a discussion because of his lack of understanding.
It can be debated as to whether or not the benefits of IFS outweigh the benefits of a solid axle. Is IFS adequate offroad, sure in many cases. I offroad in IFS vehicles all the time and they are more than "adequate". I will agree that for the majority on this forum, IFS is completely sufficient for what they do offroad. Sufficient and adequate doesn't make it better in every case.
Since you brought up Trophy Trucks and I've been around them a bit having raced in Baja.....you are correct that they run IFS. For truly competitive high speeds, there is no question that IFS is superior. Solid axle vehicles in Baja have zero chance of keeping up with IFS trophy trucks, regardless of how good their shocks are. But we're not talking about desert racing. We're talking about the type of offroading that is common among people on this forum. In that world, IFS is great but will NOT ALWAYS outperform a solid axle purely because it is IS.
The offer still stands, even though I know you wont take me up on it. Come go for a drive.
You still haven't answered how you can get rid of the unsprung weight and the problem of the two wheels being connected without disconnecting them
Again, answer the question.
Secondly, you can have droop on an IFS vehicle too. Quite a lot. And you don't have the problem of the other wheel getting jolted whenever the first one hits something (a bump, even). You also keep ignoring the fact that due to those things, over anything other than a pool table top, an IS setup will allow individual wheels to droop quicker, and that a solid axle will not.
It is also about not having the two connected - except if you land perfectly with both wheels at the exact same time. If you do not land (I'm talking nano-seconds here) with both simultaneously, so they are affected at the same time with the same amount of force, the IS will perform better and stick the landing better.
Sure, the suspension design and choices have nothing to do with it.
No, of course it matters that they use good stuff. But even if using cheap stuff, IS will perform better than a similar quality solid axle.
Ever noticed how much solid axle "jumpers" tend to "bounce around" (not just up and down, but in the process of settling, side to side, and so on). That's because if they land on one wheel the other wheel is affected even before it touches the ground.
The video I posted proves you wrong. Your eagerness to show off just how well your car can jump is ridiculous. It's about physics. Look up "suspension design". You sorely need to study. It is also funny, but even when looking at frigging still photos of the landing, you can see it struggling and wobbling as it puts weight on the ground.
Let me repeat (should I begin to use "crickets"?): How do you solve the problem of the wheels being connected without disconnecting them? And to explain: The problems (among others) is the very fact that they're connected; If one wheel is affected, the other is too. And since they are connected, you also have more unsprung weight.
Now, do tell me; How do you solve those major problems without disconnecting the two wheels?
But I'm glad that apart from idiots on the internet, reality and physics have already solved those problems. There are almost no cars left with solid axles (at least on the front), regardless of them being fast or slow, and outside of the rock crawling fraternity (and idiots who thinks showing a series of photos of a solid axle car is also able to jump).
Death wobble also can occur on IFS vehicles. The root cause is the same as solid/live-axle systems. Worn components, poorly engineering aftermarket kits, poor alignment, backyard mechanics, etc. My IH Scouts with D44 axles never had death wobble issues. Even the one with 400K miles.
Appears everyone is exaggerating to make points. Same as pebbles being rock crawling.
Nothing "funny" about that. I am not actually someone who prefers that "full keeler" I mentioned as an example. I care about what works the best. I don't think that my eagerness to stay with old tech can somehow overcome physics. Suspension has evolved from solid axle when solid axle turned out to be a dead end, and have problems that couldn't be overcome without doing something drastic. The drastic part in the evolution of suspension was to get rid of the connection between the two wheels. Something that was invented in 1922, and already ten years later it was a common thing. There is a reason for that. Now, since then, various IS systems have been tried, and today there are several different ways of implementing IS.
So, the fact that I don't care much about suspension as a whole does not mean that anything will do. It is just that we have moved on from rigid axles almost a century ago for good reason. Unless you're rock crawling and like to weld things shut, IS is the way to go. The physics bear this out. There are plenty of IS solutions, and I don't care enough about suspension to care about which type of strut is the best and so on. Those are details compared to the luddite ignorant response of "solid axles are better than IS":
You also continue to completely ignore why "unsprung weight" is a problem, and why having the wheels rigidly connected is a problem in itself.
Let me repeat: How do you solve the problems caused by the wheels being connected?
IS is at an advantage at anything above crawling speeds for the reasons I have explained to you several times by now.
How do you solve the problems caused by the wheels being connected?
Nope. At any speed above rock crawling speeds IS works better. How do you solve the problems caused by the wheels being connected?
One cannot say that IFS is superior in EVERY situation (forget rockcrawling). The VARIABLES/components are the key to which is going to perform better, not just because one is IFS. [/quote]
How do you solve the problems caused by the wheels being connected?
No, that's not what I'm saying. I am saying that a similarly priced and designed to a specific purpose (be it off road or on road, jumping or not), the car with solid axle will perform worse than the IS.
And without actually needing to wade, get over boulders and whatnot, the IFS corrolla will actually outperform the old Defender. The old Defender was abysmal in just about everything. If you went slow enough, yeah, it was better than the corrolla IF the rocks or mud or whatever would strand the Corrolla.
How do you solve the problems caused by the wheels being connected?
No, you're like that full-keeler bloke who may have been around boats all his life, yet thinks that his boat outperforms a modern trimaran.
Aaand you were the idiot who posted a photo sequence of your solid axle truck thinking it would prove something more than yes, you can actually get airborne in something with a solid axle. That doesn't actually prove anything. You sure are a slow learner.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
Ok now we're getting somewhere......sort of.... but man this has been painful.
First off, I'll take each part of your response one at a time. Unsprung weight. You never get rid of the problem of unsprung weight whether on IFS or solid axle. It's just a matter of how you control it. Since you are determined to speak in hypotheticals and theory I'll do the same in this case. Assuming that you have a vehicle that is the same other than the front suspension design. I'll use the 1st gen Toyota 4runner as the case point since they were available as a solid axle vehicle and as an IFS setup all other things being identical. To keep this a level playing field, both 4Runners have springs of the same spring rate and the same shocks. Let's take both 4runners across a deep rut at an angle at speed. The IFS 4runner will stay more "settled" and feel the rut less inside the cabin because the wheels are not connected to each other by a solid axle. I'm sure we agree on that.
But take the solid axle 4runner and change the spring rate and shock setup and it can cross that same rut at a higher speed even smoother than the IFS 4runner can and the occupants would hardly feel it. If you upgrade the IFS 4Runner to the same level, then yes it will be smoother again than the solid axle one. Again, it comes down to components, not merely one design over another. Just because the one 4Runner has IFS does NOT guarantee it will perform better, or smoother than the solid axle one unless the solid axle components are of equal or lesser quality.
Next item. Droop. Sure you can have droop on IFS vehicles. Back to the trophy trucks, they have massive amounts of droop. At the same time, if you've ever had a torsion bar IFS vehicle and you want to raise the chassis by lifting it, you have to adjust the torsion bars to do so. By using the torsion bars to raise the front of the vehicle you reduce it's amount of available droop. The range of travel stays the same, you just change the static height when not moving. The same 8" of travel is there but instead of having say 4" of compression and 4" of droop you might instead have 6" of compression and 2" of droop after adjusting the torsion bars to lift the vehicle.
HOWEVER. It does not guarantee that the IFS system will droop faster as the terrain drops away. Again it's back to components and variables. Assuming we have the same two 4runners again and they have equal springs and shocks, then yes, the IFS will have less resistance to droop because the two wheels are not connected. But change the components and that no longer is a guarantee.
This has taken a long and painful road to get to this point but I don't think we are really in any disagreement. IF it's a level playing field in terms of components, the IFS will nearly always have better dynamics (*performance*) than a solid axle. Same goes for IRS (think Ford Mustang with a solid rear axle until recently). If that is what you are saying, I don't disagree. But once that playing field is no longer level, then all bets are off. This is why I say you cannot claim that IFS is better 100% of the time.
Box Rocket
Well-known member
Invitation still stands. Come go for a drive. Bring your IFS vehicle and I'm still confident that my solid axle one will outperform it at speeds much higher than crawling speeds.
And for the record, my photos weren't to "prove" anything. Just to show an example of why having ample wheels travel is important. Equally so, your video doesn't "prove" anything.
And for the record, my photos weren't to "prove" anything. Just to show an example of why having ample wheels travel is important. Equally so, your video doesn't "prove" anything.