New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

[roving1]

I am also keen on those implied claims that engineers from big car companies prefer solid axles as the better solution, yet somehow gets overridden and independent suspension is chosen even if it's the more expensive design. You driving cars proves absolutely nothing.

What fever dream non-reality do you live in where I said or implied any of this?

I didn't. Stop mixing up people or take a breather man.

My driving cars is one thing in a range of activity from removing and installing parts, collecting data, making video and audio recordings, conference calls, meetings, presentations.

Still waiting to hear what your relevant career/life experience is.

 

[Christian P.]

I really wish you guys were as passionate about overland travel as you are about arguing over IFS and solid axle - you know, traveling, exploring, discovering new cultures, posting some great travel images, etc.

 

[Blaise]

What blows me away is that people are still arguing over ... opinions.

You're allowed to think the Defender is great... or not.

I've tried to have a rational, technical discussion about the choices made for the Defender in this and the last several threads. I personally think the modern rover is a great solution, which is why I own one. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, it's OK. Don't buy one. Yet here we are arguing over what the 'best' solution is.

Problem is, there's no such thing. "Best" is an enormously subjective thing. And guess what, it's determined by the manufacturer, which means your options are to either buy a different vehicle, or you can buy the vehicle and change it yourself (not typical for new cars). That's why we (luckily) have multiple options for those of us who are into this whole non-paved-road thing.

I'd really rather not have to flex my education/experience as a MechE and start talking theory for Vehicle Dynamics. It's simply not relevant for this conversation as (myself included) we are not part of the design process. It's a rather simple exercise of tradeoffs to make the vehicle that they think will best work for their customers. If that's not you... you'll continue to not be their customer. Simple as that...

So on that note.... back to the road....

 

[Box Rocket]

According to one person here there is, in fact, such thing as "Best". Everyone else here with a bit of logic, and some actual experience in a vehicle offroad seems to understand that there is no such thing and different uses, scenarios, conditions dictate what "best" might be.

 

[lumpskie]

I really wish you guys were as passionate about overland travel as you are about arguing over IFS and solid axle - you know, traveling, exploring, discovering new cultures, posting some great travel images, etc.

I agree with this general sentiment. But, l think everyone here can see the common cause of the discord in this thread. It's the repeated insults flung by @Pilat to anyone that disagrees with his opinions.

 

[roving1]

I really wish you guys were as passionate about overland travel as you are about arguing over IFS and solid axle - you know, traveling, exploring, discovering new cultures, posting some great travel images, etc.

Some of us can do both lol. 2 days before I left for a 3 month assignment in Mexico I was doing this. I usually drive down to Mexico too but I didn't know if I was going to Brazil or Mexico until too late.

Point taken though. I'm done. Pinky swear.

 

[nickw]

This is kind of a pointless argument. There are pros and cons to both systems. To answer the question of how do you solve the higher unsprung weight and having the wheels connected is you don’t. You accept those cons for increased articulation, strength, and modding ability or whatever other pro you chose. Same with IFS and IRS, you accept the cons for the pros of the system. But everybody is different and have different priorities. LR prioritized comfort, handling and other pros while trying to minimize the cons. Some people liked that, others didn’t. Imagine the uproar on ih8mud if the 300 series was unibody and IFS/IRS. I feel like this reaction is appropriate.

I think LS prioritized capability as well. IFS/IRS has CLEAR advantages in many off road situations, particularly for an overland rig. Did they get it right, who knows, time will tell.

The IH8MUD crew lost their cookies over IFS but got over it pretty quick and now the 100's are considered one of the most durable platforms there is. I don't think IRS is a big deal, if it works on the front and is engineered correctly in back, it could work as well. I've thrown this example out many times, but it's used on Military rigs and their primary design criteria is maneuverability over rough terrain.

Jeep Cherokee's hold up well and they are Unibody.

People are reacting with their emotions vs reality....

 

[nickw]

What blows me away is that people are still arguing over ... opinions.

You're allowed to think the Defender is great... or not.

I've tried to have a rational, technical discussion about the choices made for the Defender in this and the last several threads. I personally think the modern rover is a great solution, which is why I own one. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, it's OK. Don't buy one. Yet here we are arguing over what the 'best' solution is.

Problem is, there's no such thing. "Best" is an enormously subjective thing. And guess what, it's determined by the manufacturer, which means your options are to either buy a different vehicle, or you can buy the vehicle and change it yourself (not typical for new cars). That's why we (luckily) have multiple options for those of us who are into this whole non-paved-road thing.

I'd really rather not have to flex my education/experience as a MechE and start talking theory for Vehicle Dynamics. It's simply not relevant for this conversation as (myself included) we are not part of the design process. It's a rather simple exercise of tradeoffs to make the vehicle that they think will best work for their customers. If that's not you... you'll continue to not be their customer. Simple as that...

So on that note.... back to the road....View attachment 555368

+1, this guy gets it...

 

[Jwestpro]

At one time mentioned as built in India. Will basically be a smaller Defender body on the Evoque-like platform. Think Mini Countryman. A low-cost car-like 'Defender'. Engine size less than 2.0L. There is also thoughts to offer it across Jaguar and RR but with different features.

Sounds more like an actual POS made just for brand wanna-be types who unfortunately cannot afford the real ones. I read a long time ago that the original Discovery was intended as their "entry level" vehicle but at least it still had a solid build.

 

[Jwestpro]

share any real first hand experience

At 67 idiotic pages now, I think it's time for a poll of how many hours everyone has spent driving off pavement or what their actual experience is "doing" and "going" not just reading and theorizing. I've put about 500,000 miles on three Land Rovers I still own and have used bridging ladders, shovels, camp stoves, air compressors, and beer at least an average of several full weeks a year, summer and winter, since 1999 when it started while using a 1982 Volvo 240.

 

[Jwestpro]

I honestly thought this was in the Fireside Chat

More like an out of control bonfire **********-fest

 

[Jwestpro]

+1, this guy gets it...

@Blaise is a surprisingly insightful guy - who taught me to pause and remember not everyone has, or wants, the same approach to a "problem" and may not even agree on what are problems to solve in the first place.

This thread has a bit of that where one person thinks a thing is a "problem" when another person thinks it's essentially (in their own lifestyle) irrelevant in practice.

 

[Red90]

The point is not that the new Defender is "bad". It will be lovely on road and pretty good off road. The problem is that Land Rover had the opportunity to make a vehicle that was "great" off road, it could have set a new bar while being good on road. They could have also made it affordable. They did not, because they have their priorities reversed.

Now, why does this matter? If they had made this model with a new level of off road capability, beyond anything out there, it would have made the brand famous "again" for off road prowess. It would have brought people in in droves to buy their other models. The first thing they should have been doing is having vehicles entered into serious off road competitions and winning in stock form. But...they don't understand this and the people working there do not have the experience to understand it. All they have done is make a Disco 5 with a more square body and room for larger tires, which is what I said they would do years ago.

 

[Blaise]

All they have done is make a Disco 5 with a more square body and room for larger tires, which is what I said they would do years ago.

Agreed on all points, especially this one. And while you may not agree with the direction they took, it's the one I wanted, so they've got at least one customer in mind.

 

[Red90]

Agreed on all points, especially this one. And while you may not agree with the direction they took, it's the one I wanted, so they've got at least one customer in mind.

Sure. They will sell fine, I'm sure. But they had the chance to make the company grow a lot. The best this will do is recover some of their recent losses. I think what bugs people the most is they have lost the vision that started the company.