How do you get "into" off roading?
Discussion
300bhp/ton said:
TBH, there really is no right or wrong here, use pro's and con's and a lot of personal preference or bias.
In the UK....
as a rule manuals have always been preferred. Indeed apart from a special edition Defender, you have not been able to buy a traditional Land Rover with an automatic gearbox since 1948 through to the end of production this year. So there must have been a reason for this.
Off road a manual box arguably offers more control, they will normally have a lower crawl speed, have much better engine breaking on descents and more instant throttle response.
For much of what we do off road wise in the UK, they work very well.
And for things like trialling and competitions they have normally been the preferred choice.
In the USA things are different. And auto's tend to be favoured, partly because the vehicles they use are often found with auto boxes readily, but it also suits mud running, bogging and rock crawling well.
To give a bit more info on the subject.
An auto box has a torque converter, this means you'll need to apply a little more throttle than you would in a manual to get the vehicle to move, as this is how a torque converter works. So even with identical gearing, off road you'll find a manual will generally have a more predictable crawl speed, being that the clutch means that essentially the gearbox and engine are fixed together. So if you hit some rough ground or obstacles, manuals will tend to keep on moving, while an auto may stop because it isn't over coming the torque converter anymore. So you need to apply throttle on and off more so with an auto or drive a bit quicker to prevent it stopping.
Not a major issue, but does make for a different technique and feel.
A big difference with auto's is going down steep hills. For most automatic 4x4's the torque converter won't be locked, so when you go down hill it'll largely feel like it free wheels down without much in the way of engine braking. So downhill can be a bit scarier and faster, with sometimes less control. It means you have to use the foot brake a lot more, but that can induce skidding and of course you'll need good working brakes.
I have even seen some people in auto's go down very steep hills with the gearbox in reverse, but the vehicle going forward. The logic here is, you can then apply load and engine braking through the torque convertor, but it's all rather convoluted. Most people just end up going down the slopes faster.
Modern technology can overcome this. If you have a vehicle equipped with Hill Descent Control, then the vehicle will use the ABS to maintain the speed you want. Much more effective than using the brake pedal yourself and much less lockup and skidding.
Some newer vehicles like the Discovery 2 (and I assume newer LR's) are meant to lock the torque converter when in low range. Lock up means it should use a physical clutch plate and lock up a bit like a manual. This will give you similar engine braking to a manual in theory. However I think in practice it may not work quite as well as a manual does.
On the flip side, there is no clutch to ride or burn out with an auto. So of particularly technical off road sections, such as rock crawling, where you may have the vehicle balanced between going forwards and rolling backwards. An auto can be very useful. And will generally be easier to drive on such terrain.
The other big advantage with an auto is you don't have to lift to change gear. So if you find yourself in sudden need of massive amounts more wheel speed and don't want to have to stop, then an auto can shift from 1st to 2nd no problem. Handy in muddy conditions or even sand.
A manual will require you to dip the clutch and off road as soon as you do this it'll stop your momentum. So you have to be more selective with which gear you choose in a manual.
IMO - there really is no right or wrong choice. If you are learning and first time, I'd say opt for a manual if you have the choice. You'll probably have to work a bit harder, but you'll learn more doing so.
But don't dismiss auto's. My current p38 Range Rover and past Jeep Cherokee are auto's and I could easily be a convert on picking an auto off road.
Other things to consider are the rest of the package. Many auto's are only 4 speed and if you haven't got an engine with some grunt or poke, you may find them a little lack luster when out on the open road at normal road speeds. And despite how good an auto can be off road, sometimes a manual is just more fun.
Another great post, thank you!In the UK....
as a rule manuals have always been preferred. Indeed apart from a special edition Defender, you have not been able to buy a traditional Land Rover with an automatic gearbox since 1948 through to the end of production this year. So there must have been a reason for this.
Off road a manual box arguably offers more control, they will normally have a lower crawl speed, have much better engine breaking on descents and more instant throttle response.
For much of what we do off road wise in the UK, they work very well.
And for things like trialling and competitions they have normally been the preferred choice.
In the USA things are different. And auto's tend to be favoured, partly because the vehicles they use are often found with auto boxes readily, but it also suits mud running, bogging and rock crawling well.
To give a bit more info on the subject.
An auto box has a torque converter, this means you'll need to apply a little more throttle than you would in a manual to get the vehicle to move, as this is how a torque converter works. So even with identical gearing, off road you'll find a manual will generally have a more predictable crawl speed, being that the clutch means that essentially the gearbox and engine are fixed together. So if you hit some rough ground or obstacles, manuals will tend to keep on moving, while an auto may stop because it isn't over coming the torque converter anymore. So you need to apply throttle on and off more so with an auto or drive a bit quicker to prevent it stopping.
Not a major issue, but does make for a different technique and feel.
A big difference with auto's is going down steep hills. For most automatic 4x4's the torque converter won't be locked, so when you go down hill it'll largely feel like it free wheels down without much in the way of engine braking. So downhill can be a bit scarier and faster, with sometimes less control. It means you have to use the foot brake a lot more, but that can induce skidding and of course you'll need good working brakes.
I have even seen some people in auto's go down very steep hills with the gearbox in reverse, but the vehicle going forward. The logic here is, you can then apply load and engine braking through the torque convertor, but it's all rather convoluted. Most people just end up going down the slopes faster.
Modern technology can overcome this. If you have a vehicle equipped with Hill Descent Control, then the vehicle will use the ABS to maintain the speed you want. Much more effective than using the brake pedal yourself and much less lockup and skidding.
Some newer vehicles like the Discovery 2 (and I assume newer LR's) are meant to lock the torque converter when in low range. Lock up means it should use a physical clutch plate and lock up a bit like a manual. This will give you similar engine braking to a manual in theory. However I think in practice it may not work quite as well as a manual does.
On the flip side, there is no clutch to ride or burn out with an auto. So of particularly technical off road sections, such as rock crawling, where you may have the vehicle balanced between going forwards and rolling backwards. An auto can be very useful. And will generally be easier to drive on such terrain.
The other big advantage with an auto is you don't have to lift to change gear. So if you find yourself in sudden need of massive amounts more wheel speed and don't want to have to stop, then an auto can shift from 1st to 2nd no problem. Handy in muddy conditions or even sand.
A manual will require you to dip the clutch and off road as soon as you do this it'll stop your momentum. So you have to be more selective with which gear you choose in a manual.
IMO - there really is no right or wrong choice. If you are learning and first time, I'd say opt for a manual if you have the choice. You'll probably have to work a bit harder, but you'll learn more doing so.
But don't dismiss auto's. My current p38 Range Rover and past Jeep Cherokee are auto's and I could easily be a convert on picking an auto off road.
Other things to consider are the rest of the package. Many auto's are only 4 speed and if you haven't got an engine with some grunt or poke, you may find them a little lack luster when out on the open road at normal road speeds. And despite how good an auto can be off road, sometimes a manual is just more fun.
A good summary by 300.
I would add my opinion that pay&play usage is very different to expedition off-roading and hence the ideal choice of transmission too. Pay&Play sites tend to have loads of short but extreme gradients, big mud pits and crazy axle twisters and the like. IMO this makes the manual the best choice, it offers better control on the steep downhills and ultimately it's more fun as it's more challenging.
With expedition and trail off-roading there tends to be less extreme obstacles but often long gradients, river crossings and the like. I therefore think an auto is probably the logical choice. I took my last Landcruiser (manual) on a month long expedition to Iceland and came to the following conlusions:
I would add my opinion that pay&play usage is very different to expedition off-roading and hence the ideal choice of transmission too. Pay&Play sites tend to have loads of short but extreme gradients, big mud pits and crazy axle twisters and the like. IMO this makes the manual the best choice, it offers better control on the steep downhills and ultimately it's more fun as it's more challenging.
With expedition and trail off-roading there tends to be less extreme obstacles but often long gradients, river crossings and the like. I therefore think an auto is probably the logical choice. I took my last Landcruiser (manual) on a month long expedition to Iceland and came to the following conlusions:
- There were many long gradients where I was stuck in a gear and couldn't make the change up where an auto could have
- When crossing rivers you shouldn't depress the clutch as you don't want water getting between the clutch plate and the flywheel. Picking the right gear before you commence the crossing is hence vital whereas an auto would change on the fly quite happily and avoid the risk of bogging down.
- On long difficult trails there is a huge number of gear changes required to keep decent rate of progress, the driver workload is high (but it's great fun). An auto would be much easier for long distance drives (and/or novice drivers).
Edited by TurboHatchback on Tuesday 9th August 14:28
Nesty said:
Thanks for the comments on auto v manual - very thorough and interesting. So it sounds like a v8 manual discovery, with the front and rear bumpers removed and chunky tyres would be a good, relatively inexpensive and reliable / have plentiful spares place to start? Awesome!
I was thinking the same, although all this talk of Mitsubishi Shoguns / Pajeros is interesting!JD
300bhp/ton said:
TBH, there really is no right or wrong here, use pro's and con's and a lot of personal preference or bias.
In the UK....
as a rule manuals have always been preferred. Indeed apart from a special edition Defender, you have not been able to buy a traditional Land Rover with an automatic gearbox since 1948 through to the end of production this year. So there must have been a reason for this.
Off road a manual box arguably offers more control, they will normally have a lower crawl speed, have much better engine breaking on descents and more instant throttle response.
For much of what we do off road wise in the UK, they work very well.
And for things like trialling and competitions they have normally been the preferred choice.
In the USA things are different. And auto's tend to be favoured, partly because the vehicles they use are often found with auto boxes readily, but it also suits mud running, bogging and rock crawling well.
To give a bit more info on the subject.
An auto box has a torque converter, this means you'll need to apply a little more throttle than you would in a manual to get the vehicle to move, as this is how a torque converter works. So even with identical gearing, off road you'll find a manual will generally have a more predictable crawl speed, being that the clutch means that essentially the gearbox and engine are fixed together. So if you hit some rough ground or obstacles, manuals will tend to keep on moving, while an auto may stop because it isn't over coming the torque converter anymore. So you need to apply throttle on and off more so with an auto or drive a bit quicker to prevent it stopping.
Not a major issue, but does make for a different technique and feel.
A big difference with auto's is going down steep hills. For most automatic 4x4's the torque converter won't be locked, so when you go down hill it'll largely feel like it free wheels down without much in the way of engine braking. So downhill can be a bit scarier and faster, with sometimes less control. It means you have to use the foot brake a lot more, but that can induce skidding and of course you'll need good working brakes.
I have even seen some people in auto's go down very steep hills with the gearbox in reverse, but the vehicle going forward. The logic here is, you can then apply load and engine braking through the torque convertor, but it's all rather convoluted. Most people just end up going down the slopes faster.
Modern technology can overcome this. If you have a vehicle equipped with Hill Descent Control, then the vehicle will use the ABS to maintain the speed you want. Much more effective than using the brake pedal yourself and much less lockup and skidding.
Some newer vehicles like the Discovery 2 (and I assume newer LR's) are meant to lock the torque converter when in low range. Lock up means it should use a physical clutch plate and lock up a bit like a manual. This will give you similar engine braking to a manual in theory. However I think in practice it may not work quite as well as a manual does.
On the flip side, there is no clutch to ride or burn out with an auto. So of particularly technical off road sections, such as rock crawling, where you may have the vehicle balanced between going forwards and rolling backwards. An auto can be very useful. And will generally be easier to drive on such terrain.
The other big advantage with an auto is you don't have to lift to change gear. So if you find yourself in sudden need of massive amounts more wheel speed and don't want to have to stop, then an auto can shift from 1st to 2nd no problem. Handy in muddy conditions or even sand.
A manual will require you to dip the clutch and off road as soon as you do this it'll stop your momentum. So you have to be more selective with which gear you choose in a manual.
IMO - there really is no right or wrong choice. If you are learning and first time, I'd say opt for a manual if you have the choice. You'll probably have to work a bit harder, but you'll learn more doing so.
But don't dismiss auto's. My current p38 Range Rover and past Jeep Cherokee are auto's and I could easily be a convert on picking an auto off road.
Other things to consider are the rest of the package. Many auto's are only 4 speed and if you haven't got an engine with some grunt or poke, you may find them a little lack luster when out on the open road at normal road speeds. And despite how good an auto can be off road, sometimes a manual is just more fun.
I've done quite a lot of competitive off roading (winch challenges and trials in the past decade and will never go back to a manual- an auto is better in just about every situation:In the UK....
as a rule manuals have always been preferred. Indeed apart from a special edition Defender, you have not been able to buy a traditional Land Rover with an automatic gearbox since 1948 through to the end of production this year. So there must have been a reason for this.
Off road a manual box arguably offers more control, they will normally have a lower crawl speed, have much better engine breaking on descents and more instant throttle response.
For much of what we do off road wise in the UK, they work very well.
And for things like trialling and competitions they have normally been the preferred choice.
In the USA things are different. And auto's tend to be favoured, partly because the vehicles they use are often found with auto boxes readily, but it also suits mud running, bogging and rock crawling well.
To give a bit more info on the subject.
An auto box has a torque converter, this means you'll need to apply a little more throttle than you would in a manual to get the vehicle to move, as this is how a torque converter works. So even with identical gearing, off road you'll find a manual will generally have a more predictable crawl speed, being that the clutch means that essentially the gearbox and engine are fixed together. So if you hit some rough ground or obstacles, manuals will tend to keep on moving, while an auto may stop because it isn't over coming the torque converter anymore. So you need to apply throttle on and off more so with an auto or drive a bit quicker to prevent it stopping.
Not a major issue, but does make for a different technique and feel.
A big difference with auto's is going down steep hills. For most automatic 4x4's the torque converter won't be locked, so when you go down hill it'll largely feel like it free wheels down without much in the way of engine braking. So downhill can be a bit scarier and faster, with sometimes less control. It means you have to use the foot brake a lot more, but that can induce skidding and of course you'll need good working brakes.
I have even seen some people in auto's go down very steep hills with the gearbox in reverse, but the vehicle going forward. The logic here is, you can then apply load and engine braking through the torque convertor, but it's all rather convoluted. Most people just end up going down the slopes faster.
Modern technology can overcome this. If you have a vehicle equipped with Hill Descent Control, then the vehicle will use the ABS to maintain the speed you want. Much more effective than using the brake pedal yourself and much less lockup and skidding.
Some newer vehicles like the Discovery 2 (and I assume newer LR's) are meant to lock the torque converter when in low range. Lock up means it should use a physical clutch plate and lock up a bit like a manual. This will give you similar engine braking to a manual in theory. However I think in practice it may not work quite as well as a manual does.
On the flip side, there is no clutch to ride or burn out with an auto. So of particularly technical off road sections, such as rock crawling, where you may have the vehicle balanced between going forwards and rolling backwards. An auto can be very useful. And will generally be easier to drive on such terrain.
The other big advantage with an auto is you don't have to lift to change gear. So if you find yourself in sudden need of massive amounts more wheel speed and don't want to have to stop, then an auto can shift from 1st to 2nd no problem. Handy in muddy conditions or even sand.
A manual will require you to dip the clutch and off road as soon as you do this it'll stop your momentum. So you have to be more selective with which gear you choose in a manual.
IMO - there really is no right or wrong choice. If you are learning and first time, I'd say opt for a manual if you have the choice. You'll probably have to work a bit harder, but you'll learn more doing so.
But don't dismiss auto's. My current p38 Range Rover and past Jeep Cherokee are auto's and I could easily be a convert on picking an auto off road.
Other things to consider are the rest of the package. Many auto's are only 4 speed and if you haven't got an engine with some grunt or poke, you may find them a little lack luster when out on the open road at normal road speeds. And despite how good an auto can be off road, sometimes a manual is just more fun.
1. At low speed they are far far far more controllable- the torque converter multiplies torque at low speed, and they way you drive is to increase the revs and use the brakes to control the speed- you basically have a tonne of power and lots of low speed ability.
2. Constant power- on a steep climb if you need to maneouvre (or you are in the wrong gear) you can easily kick down without losing momentum
3. Engine braking- this is reduced, but autos can do something that manuals never can- if you lock all four wheels you can slip the trans in and out of reverse to give a ridiculous amount of engine braking
4. Traction- the slightly softer power delivery tends to improve traction in my experience- bliupping the throttle in low traction scenarios, in an auto, really seems to help find every last iota of grip
5. Drive train maintenance- autos are a lot softer on the transmission- i tend to find fewer CVs and halfshafts get busted with an auto than a man
6. Winch control- only needing one hand to steer, and one hand to use a winch controller makes an auto much easier than a manual!
If i was learning i'd go auto- the biggest skill you need when driving off road is learning to read the ground- specifically what traction you are likely to have and how the vehicle will react in the lie of the land (ie sideslopes, up, down, etc etc). The less you can do to learn how to drive a vehicle, and the more you can do to learn how to read the ground then the more fun you will have.
Nesty said:
Thanks for the comments on auto v manual - very thorough and interesting. So it sounds like a v8 manual discovery, with the front and rear bumpers removed and chunky tyres would be a good, relatively inexpensive and reliable / have plentiful spares place to start? Awesome!
IMO - yes. 
That would be a pretty good starting point.If I was advising on vehicle selection these would be on my list:
-Land Rover Discovery, Series 1 or 2. For the reasons posted above. If you plan to RTV in them, they are a little bulky compared to a 90, but usually run in a different class. (classic Range Rover is essentially the same as a D1, so they could be good too, just harder to buy these days)
-Land Rover Series 88. Prices are starting to rise, but you can still pick them up for sensible money. Much more raw and old school, but extremely capable and lots of upgrade options.
-Land Rover Defender for obvious reasons. But if you aren't competing, then a Discovery is arguably just as capable off road and better on it.
-Jeep Cherokee XJ. They will need a lift, but a 2" budget boost lift (£100 or under) will give them equal ground clearance to a Land Rover and they are just as capable. And almost the same size as a Defender.
-Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJ or WJ. Slightly bigger than the XJ and more comfy. But still smaller than a Disco or RR. Will need a lift like the XJ, but then makes them equal to a Land Rover product off road.
-Jeep Wrangler. Again will want a lift. But will match a Defender easily. But so do the prices.
-Suzuki Jimny. Because they are the size of a Series 1 Land Rover, but with Defender style suspension. Very capable little machines.
-Suzuki SJ. A bit like the Series Land Rover is to the Defender. Older school and rawer, but capable. But somewhat rare and suffer rust these days.
-1st or 2nd Gen Vitara. Personally I'd go for a Jimny over a Vitara, but there is no denying people make these capable machines. Especially if you are thinking more about speed events, where the IFS can give an advantage.
-Range Rover p38a. Carries all the design traits that make a Defender good off road. But certainly more ECU's... so maybe not so good for lots of water work. There also seems something slightly perverted about bashing them up and getting them all muddy inside. That said, arguably a slightly better drivetrain than a Discovery off road, but a slightly longer vehicle too. Post 99 models also have 4 channel traction control, which makes them extremely capable.
This isn't to say other vehicles can't be good too. But these are the ones I'd probably promote more so.
Left field options if you fancy something different.
-Lada Niva. Maybe a little hard to find these days and spares might be an issue. But very rugged with capabilities matching a Vitara. There is some aftermarket, but you'll have to chase it.
-UAZ 469. Pretty cool Russian 4x4. But again supply and parts for them in the UK might be an issue.
-G-Wagen. 3 locking diffs make them capable. Very cool, but probably expensive to maintain. And prices are on the up.
-Mercedes Unimog. Bit more pricey, hugely capable. But far more tractor than car.
-Ford Bronco/Full size Chevy Blazer. Many of the Yank trucks are pretty capable. Sometimes a little large for green laning, but doable. But would be good for pay and play and often robust. Lots of parts and upgrades too.
Ones I'd probably avoid:
-Nissan Terrano/Ford Maverick. You'll need to R&D all your bits for them most likely. No aftermarket.
-Most modern pick ups; L200, Navara, etc. Too long, too big overhangs and compromised suspension. They can be made capable, but a lot of work.
-Most soft roaders, Rav4, X-Trail, Kuga. They just aren't to a proper hammering off road.
-Most luxury SUV's from VW, BMW, etc. Too on road biased, expensive to maintain and limited off road ability.
-Korean 4x4's for the same reasons as soft roaders/luxury 4x4's.
I admit there are some that I'm not as familiar with that you could consider. But you may want to do your own research. I think aftermarket parts can be limited, and while the vehicles can be capable, they may require more work. For laning and overland however they are probably not a bad choice. But P&P or competition I think there are easier ways.
-Mitsubishi Shogun. I quite like these and I'm genuinely interested in them. But IFS and big plastic bumpers, along with less ground clearance than a Land Rover, mean they are probably more vulnerable off road. Some might have a rear LSD or even a locker however. But not all. However I need convincing that you can drive a standard one the same places a standard Land Rover can go.
-Isuzu Trooper. Similar to the shogun. Early ones I think are live axle front and rear, but very rare in the UK. Newer ones (which are still old these days) are IFS, like most Jap trucks. Again they can be made to perform, but would seem more hard work and money than to achieve than just getting a Discovery.
-Toyota's. Many of these are actually very good. The FJ40 is very cool. But they are all rare and often expensive in the UK. The older Hilux's are pretty cool as they are live axle front and rear. Although leaf sprung. And have big rear overhangs. But can be made very good off road. Newer ones are all IFS pretty much. Again, good for laning and overland. But you might find shortcomings at P&P and trials. The big Toyota's often have LSD or locking rear diffs. This can make them capable. But they are often big vehicles.
_________________
But as I've said before. In the UK there are sound reasons for seriously looking at Land Rover products. Land Rover's will be welcome at most off road events, but because of their popularity, have an entire calendar of events just for them.
List of ALRC clubs:
http://www.alrc.co.uk/member_clubs.htm
Edited by 300bhp/ton on Wednesday 10th August 10:54
PugwasHDJ80 said:
I've done quite a lot of competitive off roading (winch challenges and trials in the past decade and will never go back to a manual- an auto is better in just about every situation:
1. At low speed they are far far far more controllable- the torque converter multiplies torque at low speed, and they way you drive is to increase the revs and use the brakes to control the speed- you basically have a tonne of power and lots of low speed ability.
2. Constant power- on a steep climb if you need to maneouvre (or you are in the wrong gear) you can easily kick down without losing momentum
3. Engine braking- this is reduced, but autos can do something that manuals never can- if you lock all four wheels you can slip the trans in and out of reverse to give a ridiculous amount of engine braking
4. Traction- the slightly softer power delivery tends to improve traction in my experience- bliupping the throttle in low traction scenarios, in an auto, really seems to help find every last iota of grip
5. Drive train maintenance- autos are a lot softer on the transmission- i tend to find fewer CVs and halfshafts get busted with an auto than a man
6. Winch control- only needing one hand to steer, and one hand to use a winch controller makes an auto much easier than a manual!
1. At low speed they are far far far more controllable- the torque converter multiplies torque at low speed, and they way you drive is to increase the revs and use the brakes to control the speed- you basically have a tonne of power and lots of low speed ability.
2. Constant power- on a steep climb if you need to maneouvre (or you are in the wrong gear) you can easily kick down without losing momentum
3. Engine braking- this is reduced, but autos can do something that manuals never can- if you lock all four wheels you can slip the trans in and out of reverse to give a ridiculous amount of engine braking
4. Traction- the slightly softer power delivery tends to improve traction in my experience- bliupping the throttle in low traction scenarios, in an auto, really seems to help find every last iota of grip
5. Drive train maintenance- autos are a lot softer on the transmission- i tend to find fewer CVs and halfshafts get busted with an auto than a man
6. Winch control- only needing one hand to steer, and one hand to use a winch controller makes an auto much easier than a manual!
Agree with all of that. And as I say, I could easily be an automatic convert off road
That said, there is still more satisfaction somehow when piloting a manual. And like driving on the road, I think it's still the better starting point.
Lol we'll have to agree to disagree- lets be honest the auto v man is more a taste/style thing than anything else.
OP a V* disco in either manual or auto would be a good start- just make sure you get one with a properly locking centre diff.
I would also include an 80 series landcruiser- a lot of trials penalise you for having diff lockers UNLESS they are standard- which they were in the 80
you will also spend FAR FAR FAR less keeping an 80 series maintained. I had 9 Range Rovers in a row before buying a landcruiser 80 and wouldn't go back. They are big though and not really the thing for trials (although even there they are surprisingly capable).
OP a V* disco in either manual or auto would be a good start- just make sure you get one with a properly locking centre diff.
I would also include an 80 series landcruiser- a lot of trials penalise you for having diff lockers UNLESS they are standard- which they were in the 80
you will also spend FAR FAR FAR less keeping an 80 series maintained. I had 9 Range Rovers in a row before buying a landcruiser 80 and wouldn't go back. They are big though and not really the thing for trials (although even there they are surprisingly capable).
With regard to the Auto v Manual discussion, most of the serious accidents I have seen whilst off road have been caused by the vehicle getting sideways and then rolling over (and over!) on a steep slope.
Most of these rolls are caused by either the vehicle descending to fast and the driver applying the brakes and losing control with the vehicle slewing sideways, or whilst ascending a steep slope losing traction or stalling and then rolling back and losing control in a similar manner.
For a novice using a manual box stalling at the top of a steep climb presents quite a challenge and selecting third thinking it's first at the start of a steep decent can give you a bit of a fright. An auto makes it a bit safer until you build up more experience of using your vehicle in some of the more difficult off road conditions.
As for vehicles as long as it's got a low ratio box, some kind of locking diff(s) and proper off road tyres you should be able to get where you are going.
I drive a mix of auto and manual off road vehicles and my preference is definitely for an auto box but you can have fun in both.
Most of these rolls are caused by either the vehicle descending to fast and the driver applying the brakes and losing control with the vehicle slewing sideways, or whilst ascending a steep slope losing traction or stalling and then rolling back and losing control in a similar manner.
For a novice using a manual box stalling at the top of a steep climb presents quite a challenge and selecting third thinking it's first at the start of a steep decent can give you a bit of a fright. An auto makes it a bit safer until you build up more experience of using your vehicle in some of the more difficult off road conditions.
As for vehicles as long as it's got a low ratio box, some kind of locking diff(s) and proper off road tyres you should be able to get where you are going.
I drive a mix of auto and manual off road vehicles and my preference is definitely for an auto box but you can have fun in both.
Edited by bigblock on Wednesday 10th August 23:30
bigblock said:
For a novice using a manual box stalling at the top of a steep climb presents quite a challenge
On foot brakeOn clutch
Into reverse
Off clutch
Off footbrake
Straighten wheels
Ignition On
Reverse down in a straight line
Try climb again with more welly or a lower gear.
Did I pass?
Benefit of manual as I see it is that I have 12 forward and 2 reverse speeds in my Defender, so can pick the appropriate one.
In my automatic Land Cruiser I have Auto, 1,2,and 3. No low range options. No control over when the box decides to change by itself (in Auto). No choice but to ride the brakes (possibly inducing a slide) if too fast on the descent.
One other point to consider if you are looking at, for example, a discovery that is already partly modified then there is a temptation for people to bolt lots of shiny parts on without making sure that the vehicle itself is sound.
I got caught out with this before buying a discovery that looked good, plenty of bolt on bits that I was planning to fit anyway. Got it home and had a closer look and found the top of the chassis was cheese and every bush on the chassis needed replacing. Luckily there was enough bolt on bits, and I had access to a workshop to break it to break even!
I got caught out with this before buying a discovery that looked good, plenty of bolt on bits that I was planning to fit anyway. Got it home and had a closer look and found the top of the chassis was cheese and every bush on the chassis needed replacing. Luckily there was enough bolt on bits, and I had access to a workshop to break it to break even!
Bought an MOT failure Jeep Cherokee Turbo Diesel for peanuts and had a friend weld up the sills.
Chucked on a cheap set of AT's & an ebay special raiser kit (handled like a pig on this) then had hours of fun. Went everywhere and was incredibly reliable until I ripped the fuel tank off it (no fault of it's own).
Planned to mount a new tank in the boot but never got round to it and ended up scrapping it as I I needed the space.
All in it cost me about £500, loved every minute.
Chucked on a cheap set of AT's & an ebay special raiser kit (handled like a pig on this) then had hours of fun. Went everywhere and was incredibly reliable until I ripped the fuel tank off it (no fault of it's own).
Planned to mount a new tank in the boot but never got round to it and ended up scrapping it as I I needed the space.
All in it cost me about £500, loved every minute.
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Ayahuasca said:
And will all this talk off off-roading equipment that is likely to kill you... I give you the Hi Lift Jack:
I'll second that only perhaps trumped by KERRs
300bhp/ton said:
PugwasHDJ80 said:
Ayahuasca said:
And will all this talk off off-roading equipment that is likely to kill you... I give you the Hi Lift Jack:
I'll second that only perhaps trumped by KERRs
It would have been really helpful to ask why i said that? but no, you had to resort immediately to being patronising. Its the one thing that i've seen change about PH over the past 10 years, and your post is a prime example of people trying to belittle others because they don't agree with them. Next time I'd really appreciate the basic courtesy of asking why someone has made a post before you jump in with both feet.
OP, so you know a KERR isn't dangerous in itself, but the mounting points are put under huge strain, and unless you are recovering safely (with a bridle and securly attached recovery points) a KERR can, and almost has, killed. Most people neither understaned the risks, nor how to use them properly, and i would NOT be using as a beginner without training.
300bhp if it makes you feel any better I'm LANTRA and BORDA trained, have taken part in numerous winch challenges, been offroading for 25 years and spend 3-4 weeks every year on expedition- i don't pretend to be an expert but hopefully i know enough not to be dangerous.
300bhp/ton said:
OverSteery said:
Much wisdom from 300.
I would just add a cautionary note on a kinetic recovery ropes. These basically allow the tow car doing the recovery to take a run up and use their vehicle's momentum to pull out a seriously stuck 4x4.
These can exert massive forces on the mounting points. If the a mount tears off, then all that kinetic energy in the rope is used to make it a high velocity lump of metal.
As has been said, most 4x4 injuries are down to stupidity, its basically a safe hobby unless you are an a*se. But snatch recoveries need to be treated with caution.
This picture demonstrates the damage that a broken mounting point can do.
Thanks for the comments.I would just add a cautionary note on a kinetic recovery ropes. These basically allow the tow car doing the recovery to take a run up and use their vehicle's momentum to pull out a seriously stuck 4x4.
These can exert massive forces on the mounting points. If the a mount tears off, then all that kinetic energy in the rope is used to make it a high velocity lump of metal.
As has been said, most 4x4 injuries are down to stupidity, its basically a safe hobby unless you are an a*se. But snatch recoveries need to be treated with caution.
This picture demonstrates the damage that a broken mounting point can do.
Edited by OverSteery on Friday 5th August 12:46
But I'm not convinced on the argument of KERR's.
In my use of them, they are far kinder to the recovery points. Because you don't get a sudden jolt, as the tension is not suddenly taken up. A regular nylon rope or strop has no give at all, so even a slow recovery can transmit an instant high load to the recovery point, let alone a snatch recovery.
A KERR means there is no shock loading to the recovery points, as the rope will stretch. This IMO is far kinder to everything concerned.
Any incident from using a KERR would likely have resulted the same with any other type of rope.
you do get sudden jolt from the KERR if the vehicle you are trying to recover is very very stuck- when the KER has reached its point of maximum elasticity it becomes entirely taught- the problem you have then is that the recovery point is under huge load, more than a normal rope, at that point, if the recovery fails, and then the recovery POINT fails then you had aeound 6,000-10,000lb of thrust acting on something weighing 2-3 lb. Its incredibly dangerous.
With a normal winch rope, if the recovery point fails it tends to travel a short distance with relatively minimal force.
It is the same argument as to why dyneema (and its ilk) is safer than wire winch rope- no storage of energy.
If you don't understand why KERR's are dangerous for novices then i would suggest you need to consider whether you should be making suggestions to novices.
KERRs are great for specific jobs, at specific times, but not all and not frequently. In the UK a Winch is a much more controlled solution.
Gassing Station | Off Road | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff