New Defender Rage/Hate Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.

EricTyrrell

Expo God
It's not that it is unclear. It is that you constantly move the goal posts and are willing to lie to pretend to be right, and your insistence that you can somehow overcome the problems of having the wheels connected without disconnecting them.
I can quote if necessary, but I never said we could "overcome the problems of having the wheels connected without disconnecting". I essentially said that characteristic of solid axles is irremovable; you have to live with it. Further, I said material science and engineering can address the unsprung-weight issue, which LR themselves worked on a bit with the P38.

How do you think the P38 and D2 handled? However you describe it, it was more than adequate for a Defender, which would only be improved with further development. IMHO they handle better than some modern IS SUVs.
 

mpinco

Expedition Leader
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.

Would take that in a heartbeat .....
 

Recommended books for Overlanding

Crossing the Congo: Over Land and Water in a Hard Place
by Mike Martin, Chloe Baker, Charlie Hatch-Barnwell
From $25.95
Morocco Overland: A Route & Planning Guide - Southern Mor...
by Chris Scott
From $29.95
Lone Rider
by speth Beard
From $19.95
Bushcraft 101: A Field Guide to the Art of Wilderness Sur...
by Dave Canterbury
From $9.99

JeepColorado

Well-known member
45744351_1993011110766630_2490507988553433088_o.jpg


I think it's really sad that the new Defender will just never be this cool! It had potential, but they instead created a vehicle with no purpose- it's not nice enough to be luxury, not utility enough to be useful- the Jeep is at it's core utilitarian, you can upscale it to luxury if you like, but you will never forget it's core mission. Whereas the new Defender is just enough of each to be great at neither- just a bland, sad Kia Soul on steroids without all the reliability of an actual Kia at 2 or 3Xs the $. I do think they will look cool at the Starbucks though and in line at the private school picking up little Madison like the D4 and 5s and RRs do now. I kid the LR crowd, actually I think I saw 1 one time on a wet gravel road on my way back to actual trails- once I got back there, there were plenty of 7-slot grills- the LR had headed the other direction- :)
 

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
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.
They moved to IS because it is better. If your priority is taking your car on an obstacle course, obviously, you can have your solid axles front and back.

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.

And you wonder why I call you dishonest? It doesn't matter if trucks and lorries are as common as cars (they aren't - especially not on a global basis). That wasn't my claim, nor your claim to begin with. Again trying to move the goal posts. And again with the lies. I quoted you where I talked about cars, and requested a list of cars, and that it should be a list of cars still in production. And that it should be 10. You produced not ten, no cars, and several of the ones on your "list" is not even in production.

Sounded like you were then asking for cheap cars.
Lies. Again. I never asked for "cheap cars". I said "even cheap cars have independent suspension", and I said that since solid axles are cheaper, I said sarcastically it should be "easy for you to find lots of them with solid axles", as I knew you would not find any even there.

That is NOT "asking for cheap cars". You truly are world-class. No integrity whatsoever.


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.
Not really. Neither here, nor where you are does "Heavy Duty Truck" mean "car" or vice versa.



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.
It is when you try to argue that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS. That it is everywhere from cheap slow cars to super cars should tell you something. Especially as that only came after you refuse to understand that cutting the axle over an independently suspend each wheel is the only way to solve the problem of the two wheels being connected and the problems that arise from that.

You are the one who want something that is not used anymore on cars for good reason. You are the one who want a solid axle - not only at the back where the problems with it isn't so pronounced, but you actually want it on the front.

I have still to see you come up with even a suggestion as to how to solve the problem of having the two wheels connected, which leads to the problem that whatever the one wheel hits, the other also reacts to, and the problem of ridiculous amounts of unsprung weight. How DO you solve that without actually separating the two?
But I'm sure you will once again move the goalposts, lie, and be further dishonest in general.

Seriously, you should be ever grateful that people on here have explained this to you ad nauseam. Perhaps you will one day actually try to learn something about suspensions, grip, and handling. A good start would be to read what people have written here, spoon fed it to you.
 
Last edited:

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
I can quote if necessary, but I never said we could "overcome the problems of having the wheels connected without disconnecting". I essentially said that characteristic of solid axles is irremovable; you have to live with it.
Sheesh. Do you not understand even the basics: What you're saying yourself:

You are arguing that solid axles are better. I am saying it has severe shortcomings - all because both wheels are connected.

You then go on to argue that you should simply improve the solid axle setup, while ignoring that the way to get rid of its shortcomings is to separate the two wheels.

Then I asked you how you intend to get rid of those flaws without separating the two wheels, which I know you can't, because the problems are all derived from the very fact that they rigidly connected.
If you cannot understand that that is the reason car manufacturers went with independent suspension: You can't remove the problem of them being connected without disconnecting them.

Further, I said material science and engineering can address the unsprung-weight issue, which LR themselves worked on a bit with the P38.
No they can't. It doesn't matter how light you make a rigid axle, it will still have more unsprung mass whenever a wheel is hit than the materials and science applied to independent suspension.
Whenever one side is hit, the other reacts. That is a rigid axle, and that is why the unsprung weight is massive with solid axles.
 

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
Another SFA modern vehicle..
That's two: Wrangler, this Suzuki (if it's still in production). Instead of posting here and there on this, post a list of ten models all in production, so I won't miss one.

I also like to know the name and model of everyone so I can check they're actually road legal (i.e. the Mahindra etc.), and that they are current.
 

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
I'm already beginning to see a theme here: You claim a solid axle handles better, and your examples so far are the jimny (which I actually like) and the Wrangler. But yeah, the Jimni is in production (although it is retro vehicle in so many senses), and it's small, and it is a car (although they call it an SUV).

Two, eight to go.
 

Paddler Ed

Adventurer
That's two: Wrangler, this Suzuki (if it's still in production). Instead of posting here and there on this, post a list of ten models all in production, so I won't miss one.

I also like to know the name and model of everyone so I can check they're actually road legal (i.e. the Mahindra etc.), and that they are current.
That Suzuki was only released earlier this year, so definitely still in production.

All GVM under 3500kg, so definitely car licence in the EU and Australia (car there is up to 4500kg), ie not a truck licence needed - not sure about USA:
  1. Suzuki Jimny (Road legal outside USA)
  2. Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series (Road legal outside USA)
  3. Mahindra Thar (Road legal outside USA)
  4. Nissan Patrol GU (South Africa, Developing and East Asian economies only - clicky https://www.nissan.co.za/vehicles/new/patrol-pick-up.html)
  5. UAZ Hunter (Road legal Outside USA) https://uaz.global/cars/suv/hunter
  6. UAZ Classic van (RL Outside USA) https://uaz.global/cars/commercial/classic
  7. Jeep Wrangler (duh)

So as you can see from that list, most of the developed world (hell, even developing world - the Lada Niva has been IFS and monocoque since introduction) has moved on from live axles, apart from a few heavy duty vehicles and doing things differently.
 

JeepColorado

Well-known member
I don't really understand the argument that IFS handles so much better than solid axles- it entirely depends on what you value. Yes, IFS "handles" better assuming you want a car-like ride. My wife had a Benz- comfortable as hell, drove like you were riding on a cloud, it would lull you to sleep and numb you from the harshest of roads- basically the opposite of what I wanted out of a 4x4.. At the same time we owned the MB, our swanky dress going out to dinner car- I owned a CJ7. Phenomenal vehicle!.. so much fun, so much character. Car and Driver finally gets it- they named the Gladiator a Top 10 Best- there's something different about a Jeep- It's a Jeep thing and they finally understand- it's got soul, it's got personality. If I want something that rides like a car and am willing to spend $80K I can think of many more vehicles I'd buy before I'd get a LR.
 

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
That Suzuki was only released earlier this year, so definitely still in production.
I agree!

All GVM under 3500kg, so definitely car licence in the EU and Australia (car there is up to 4500kg), ie not a truck licence needed - not sure about USA:
  1. Suzuki Jimny (Road legal outside USA)
  2. Toyota Land Cruiser 70 series (Road legal outside USA)
  3. Mahindra Thar (Road legal outside USA)
  4. Nissan Patrol GU (South Africa, Developing and East Asian economies only - clicky https://www.nissan.co.za/vehicles/new/patrol-pick-up.html)
  5. UAZ Hunter (Road legal Outside USA) https://uaz.global/cars/suv/hunter
  6. UAZ Classic van (RL Outside USA) https://uaz.global/cars/commercial/classic
  7. Jeep Wrangler (duh)

So as you can see from that list, most of the developed world (hell, even developing world - the Lada Niva has been IFS and monocoque since introduction) has moved on from live axles, apart from a few heavy duty vehicles and doing things differently.
2. Let's say it's road legal some places outside the USA - not in Europe either.
3. Mahindra is road legal in India. That's about it. Not the EU nor USA. - but let's count it anyway.
4. Okay, if you say so.
5 & 6. Another couple who couldn't cut it in the EU or USA.
7., yes, that counts.

In reality, what you have found are a few cars - many of them not road legal due to throwbacks to another time, and they're simply not good enough to be road legal in the US or the EU.

That should tell you something: They are keeping these around for the third world because they're cheaper. They don't have solid axles because "solid axles handles better" as he said.
 

Pilat

Tossing ewoks on Titan
I don't really understand the argument that IFS handles so much better than solid axles- it entirely depends on what you value. Yes, IFS "handles" better assuming you want a car-like ride. My wife had a Benz- comfortable as hell, drove like you were riding on a cloud, it would lull you to sleep and numb you from the harshest of roads- basically the opposite of what I wanted out of a 4x4.. At the same time we owned the MB, our swanky dress going out to dinner car- I owned a CJ7. Phenomenal vehicle!.. so much fun, so much character. Car and Driver finally gets it- they named the Gladiator a Top 10 Best- there's something different about a Jeep- It's a Jeep thing and they finally understand- it's got soul, it's got personality. If I want something that rides like a car and am willing to spend $80K I can think of many more vehicles I'd buy before I'd get a LR.
I am not explaining this again. Go here for a start. And I would also like to mention that in 2015 Volvo began going IS for their lorries. Not much "car" about that.

Anyway, here are some primers:

Scroll down to the bottom to see the disadvantages:




And I will say this: Even small bumps, ripples, and so on will be better handled by IS. That is, unless you crawl along so the suspension has time to recover.

I can't believe there is another who thinks that IS somehow new tech. Or that IS somehow means luxury vehicle as your example with the Benz. It can mean luxury, but it can also mean "cheap, rattling hatchback". It is still an advantage in the cheap hatchback.
 

Paddler Ed

Adventurer
That should tell you something: They are keeping these around for the third world because they're cheaper. They don't have solid axles because "solid axles handles better" as he said.
As I said, and I had to double check the Lada Niva:

So as you can see from that list, most of the developed world (hell, even developing world - the Lada Niva has been IFS and monocoque since introduction) has moved on from live axles, apart from a few heavy duty vehicles and doing things differently.
Kind of telling when Land Rover has only just caught up with Lada... :p
 

Recommended books for Overlanding

The Alchemist, 25th Anniversary: A Fable About Following ...
by Paulo Coelho
From $10.47
We Will Be Free: Overlanding In Africa and Around South A...
by Mr Graeme Robert Bell
From $20
Into Africa
by Sam Manicom
From $25.52
Overland: A Mercedes-Benz Journey Through the Americas
by ri M. Stroh
From $20
Tschiffely's Ride: Ten Thousand Miles in the Saddle from ...
by Aimé Tschiffely
From $10.99

EricTyrrell

Expo God
They moved to IS because it is better. If your priority is taking your car on an obstacle course, obviously, you can have your solid axles front and back.
It is better, for most applications, because most applications are not utility/offroad. I've said this countless times in as many ways as possible for you. However, they solid axles exist in utility/offroad vehicles and will continue to. No obstacle course needed. Again, they continue to roam the roads as well as off-road without issue.

And you wonder why I call you dishonest? It doesn't matter if trucks and lorries are as common as cars (they aren't - especially not on a global basis). That wasn't my claim, nor your claim to begin with. Again trying to move the goal posts. And again with the lies. I quoted you where I talked about cars, and requested a list of cars, and that it should be a list of cars still in production. And that it should be 10. You produced not ten, no cars, and several of the ones on your "list" is not even in production.
1. While cars can often mean "sedans, crossovers, and coupes" here, the terms cars and trucks are also often used interchangeably. They're both used to get a pint, drop the kids off, pick up groceries, etc. SUVs are just as large in volume, and sometimes even heavier. There's no difference in paperwork, taxation, or license to an owner. When someone asks who's "car" they're taking to the game, no one cares if it's got a bed in the back or not.
1574490156468.png
hmm..

2. We were going back and forth and your first request for cars I thought was kind of stupid, because no cars, as in "sedans, crossovers, and coupes", use solid axles. They shouldn't. I never said they should. It's a dumb question.

3. Later when you said this (I've quoted this before)..
Oh, and I'm still waiting for that list of solid front axle "overlander" vehicles from you.
.. I realized maybe you didn't want a list of "sedans" and this (see above) is what you wanted, so that's exactly what I gave you. There was no stipulation in your statement there about vehicles with beds, or that they still had to be in production.

Lies. Again. I never asked for "cheap cars". I said "even cheap cars have independent suspension", and I said that since solid axles are cheaper, I said sarcastically it should be "easy for you to find lots of them with solid axles", as I knew you would not find any even there.
Oh, and I'm still waiting for that list of solid front axle "overlander" vehicles from you.
Calm down man. What I quoted were your words. It sounded like you wanted such a list.

Not really. Neither here, nor where you are does "Heavy Duty Truck" mean "car" or vice versa.
It does. No one says "lets take your Heavy Duty Truck to the market", they say "let's take your car to the market", and when it happens to be that "your car" is a Heavy Duty Truck, no one cares and you go to the damn market.

It is when you try to argue that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS.
Dishonest. Quote me. I've been saying exactly the opposite consistently. How many times have I told you IS/air is appropriate for Range Rovers, for example? It's got to be nearly a dozen times. No wonder you're so worked up if that's somehow what you're getting out of what I'm saying. I could say "The ball is red", and you'd say "Stop being dishonest! You keep telling me the ball is blue!"

That it is everywhere from cheap slow cars to super cars should tell you something.
Already covered this many times. It tells me they are appropriate for those applications. However, a Defender is not in the category of "cheap slow cars to super cars". It is in the category of utility/offroad, where coincidentally much of its competition still uses solid axles, because they too are in the same niche where solid axles work well. <--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"

you refuse to understand that cutting the axle over an independently suspend each wheel is the only way to solve the problem of the two wheels being connected and the problems that arise from that.
I've stated many times that IS has advantages. That is obviously one of them. However, (I've said the following before many times as well) it is not always necessary. Where a solid axle is used, it is because the issue of coupled wheels and unsprung weight are not a high priority. Those issues are high priorities on most vehicles, but not all. <--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"

I have still to see you come up with even a suggestion as to how to solve the problem of having the two wheels connected, which leads to the problem that whatever the one wheel hits, the other also reacts to
I've told you over, and over... and over, that in the context of improving solid axles, it cannot be changed. You cannot decouple the wheels and keep a solid axle. Proof:
2. You refine a better solution. You cannot decouple the wheels, that compromise will always exist with a solid axle, but you can reduce unsprung weight with material science and engineering, just as LR began to in the P38.
, and the problem of ridiculous amounts of unsprung weight. How DO you solve that without actually separating the two?
But I'm sure you will once again move the goalposts, lie, and be further dishonest in general.
Again, I addressed this directly already. Proof:
2. You refine a better solution. You cannot decouple the wheels, that compromise will always exist with a solid axle, but you can reduce unsprung weight with material science and engineering, just as LR began to in the P38.
Notice, I did not state you could "eliminate" unsprung suspension weight (which IS does not completely do either, although it does decouple), I said you could "reduce" it. Will it be enough of an improvement? That depends on the application. The intended market might not care (trucks and 4x4s), or they might demand further refinement to the point where IS is considered, which is what happened in the L322. <--- Disclaimer: This is not arguing "that unless you have a race car or a super fast car, solid axles is better than IS"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top