RE: Frankfurt: Land Rover DC100 Sport
Discussion
Trommel said:
markh1 said:
I spy IFS. Not good
It looks like something the tea boy at a Chinese toy manufacturer designed but I don't think IFS is any real disadvantage. The modern LR stuff has plenty of articulation.grammalta said:
Trommel said:
markh1 said:
I spy IFS. Not good
It looks like something the tea boy at a Chinese toy manufacturer designed but I don't think IFS is any real disadvantage. The modern LR stuff has plenty of articulation.IFS is fine IMO and works well in certain conditions, but where it sucks is flex. With IFS you'll always have more likelihood of a wheel off the ground. Fancy TCS and lockers can help to an extent to keep the vehicle moving, although not as stable as it flops from one wheel to the other.
I know current IFS Landy's like the Disco/RR employ an air system to replicate live axles, as in when one wheel goes up, the air bag on the other side extends to push that wheel does like a live axle would. But this is complex, heavy, costly and prone to compressor issues.
A Defender just doesn't need it.
CY88 said:
In fact, I think its bloody great.
JLR is on a roll right now. I'll have mine in flat green with a great big union jack on the doors please.
Epsom green metallic for me. I like the open roof concept - there are a couple of pheasant drives on my shoot where I could stay seated in the car....JLR is on a roll right now. I'll have mine in flat green with a great big union jack on the doors please.
Now if they could also do a folding, 'Series Landy esque' windscreen that would give me somewhere to rest my gun.
300bhp/ton said:
A Defender just doesn't need it.
It definitely needs it for better road manners (although I agree that the full air set-up is too complicated for a basic version of the Defender) - the only people who really need extreme articulation are the Yank rock-crawlers and the "ONE LIFE. LIVE IT IN A COUNCIL HOUSE" weekend quarry crew.
Trommel said:
300bhp/ton said:
A Defender just doesn't need it.
It definitely needs it for better road manners (although I agree that the full air set-up is too complicated for a basic version of the Defender) - the only people who really need extreme articulation are the Yank rock-crawlers and the "ONE LIFE. LIVE IT IN A COUNCIL HOUSE" weekend quarry crew.I still can't see what the issue is with the current ones road manners tbh. It's a 4x4 not a sports car. And I've driven worse handling IFS 4x4's.
300bhp/ton said:
I still can't see what the issue is with the current ones road manners tbh. It's a 4x4 not a sports car. And I've driven worse handling IFS 4x4's.
Even the staunchest defender of the Defender would have to admit that its road manners aren't good. Bouncy and uncomfortable ride, vague steering and lots of body roll. That's without considering how unrefined they are.It doesn't need to be a sports car, but it needs to be much better.
Trommel said:
Even the staunchest defender of the Defender would have to admit that its road manners aren't good. Bouncy and uncomfortable ride, vague steering and lots of body roll. That's without considering how unrefined they are.
It doesn't need to be a sports car, but it needs to be much better.
But live axles are not the cause of 99% of what you've just stated.It doesn't need to be a sports car, but it needs to be much better.
The bouncy ride maybe, although the swb of the 90 has more affect.
Steering, thats more down to using a steering box not rack and pinion and the fact the axles are located by large rubber bushes. If an IFS was located similar it would have the same affect.
Refinement has nothing to do with the axles, a p38a was very refined and comfy yet had live axles.
And again with body roll, IFS has zero affect on this. Jeep and several other run detachable anti roll bars, so road use offers up little body roll, off road you push a button on the dash an it disconnects the ARB's and gives you more flex.
I think its great. Its about time they gave us something new.
Not sure why people think it will be any less rugged or practical than the old one. They know how to engineer a decent vehicle.
Yes parts will cost more for a time as there will be no interchangeability with old models, but in 5-10 years there will be plenty available for them.
If it has 95% of the capability of the old one and is 70% better place to be (on road off road comfort) then they will sell bucketloads.
Not sure why people think it will be any less rugged or practical than the old one. They know how to engineer a decent vehicle.
Yes parts will cost more for a time as there will be no interchangeability with old models, but in 5-10 years there will be plenty available for them.
If it has 95% of the capability of the old one and is 70% better place to be (on road off road comfort) then they will sell bucketloads.
On paper a defender is probably the worst off road vehicle in land rovers line-up.
What gives it the edge is its quite happy to bounce off stuff without doing a grands worth of damage to a piece of pretty plastic.
So if they make the exterior plastics from recycled wheelybins it would be damn good.
However folk want shiny not recycled wheelybns
What gives it the edge is its quite happy to bounce off stuff without doing a grands worth of damage to a piece of pretty plastic.
So if they make the exterior plastics from recycled wheelybins it would be damn good.
However folk want shiny not recycled wheelybns
thinfourth2 said:
On paper a defender is probably the worst off road vehicle in land rovers line-up.
What gives it the edge is its quite happy to bounce off stuff without doing a grands worth of damage to a piece of pretty plastic.
Sorry but your are totally wrong, on paper the Defender 90 has the best approach, departure and ramp over angles. It's also probably go the best real world usable ground clearance, it has the shortest overhangs, better RTI rating, better suspension flex and better off road wheel choices.What gives it the edge is its quite happy to bounce off stuff without doing a grands worth of damage to a piece of pretty plastic.
On paper it's far superior to any of the other Landy products.
300bhp/ton said:
But live axles are not the cause of 99% of what you've just stated.
The bouncy ride maybe, although the swb of the 90 has more affect.
Steering, thats more down to using a steering box not rack and pinion and the fact the axles are located by large rubber bushes. If an IFS was located similar it would have the same affect.
Refinement has nothing to do with the axles, a p38a was very refined and comfy yet had live axles.
And again with body roll, IFS has zero affect on this. Jeep and several other run detachable anti roll bars, so road use offers up little body roll, off road you push a button on the dash an it disconnects the ARB's and gives you more flex.
You could argue that defenders are primarily green lane vehicles, and that the loss of articulation is balanced by the increased central ground clearance I.e. No more catching the diff whe you're driving through deep rutsThe bouncy ride maybe, although the swb of the 90 has more affect.
Steering, thats more down to using a steering box not rack and pinion and the fact the axles are located by large rubber bushes. If an IFS was located similar it would have the same affect.
Refinement has nothing to do with the axles, a p38a was very refined and comfy yet had live axles.
And again with body roll, IFS has zero affect on this. Jeep and several other run detachable anti roll bars, so road use offers up little body roll, off road you push a button on the dash an it disconnects the ARB's and gives you more flex.
The "loss" of articulation has nothing to do with the fact a IRS system has replaced a beam axle. In fact, the "pure" moment of an IRS system actually could provide more cross axle performance than a beam axle (because the typical beam axle location systems actually result in the beam itself becoming an antiroll bar in extremis)
The reason IRS cars don't generally articulate as much as beam axled ones is purely down to the spring rates and anti roll rates used. Manufacturers fit IRS to improve road manners, and as a result the car is more road biased, and has stiffer springs and much much high roll stiffness!.
The reason thid defender can do this:
is due to the long, soft springs and soft axle location bushing, rather than because it has a beam axle ;-)
The only true downside to IRS cars is that ground clearance varries with payload, whereas on a beam axle the diff is ALWAYS the lowest part. But if your IRS starts with more clearance than the beam axle then i hardly see the issue.
The other fact is that "extreme" axle articulation is really only useful when you haven't got cross axle diff locks (like the defender...... ;-) Even with 5feet of axle twist, how much weight do you think is actually pressing down on the lower tyre? Not a lot is the answer, in fact, it gets to the point where the only thing keeping the wheel down is the weight of the wheel and tyre/hub. Which on a ground with a friction co-efficient of say 0.2, means it's contribution to forward motion is practically zero.
These days, with lockers (true mechanical or electrically simulated), even vehicles with literally no articulation can get places:
The advantage of the air suspension and active ARB's on the latest Disco/RR is that you don't have to compromise as much on your on-road/off-road capabilites. If the new defender is steel sprung and passively ARB'd, then i think it is safe to say we would expect to see a reduction in cross axle performance in line with it's improved road handling. (although if they add diff locks that's fine by me ;-)
The reason IRS cars don't generally articulate as much as beam axled ones is purely down to the spring rates and anti roll rates used. Manufacturers fit IRS to improve road manners, and as a result the car is more road biased, and has stiffer springs and much much high roll stiffness!.
The reason thid defender can do this:
is due to the long, soft springs and soft axle location bushing, rather than because it has a beam axle ;-)
The only true downside to IRS cars is that ground clearance varries with payload, whereas on a beam axle the diff is ALWAYS the lowest part. But if your IRS starts with more clearance than the beam axle then i hardly see the issue.
The other fact is that "extreme" axle articulation is really only useful when you haven't got cross axle diff locks (like the defender...... ;-) Even with 5feet of axle twist, how much weight do you think is actually pressing down on the lower tyre? Not a lot is the answer, in fact, it gets to the point where the only thing keeping the wheel down is the weight of the wheel and tyre/hub. Which on a ground with a friction co-efficient of say 0.2, means it's contribution to forward motion is practically zero.
These days, with lockers (true mechanical or electrically simulated), even vehicles with literally no articulation can get places:
The advantage of the air suspension and active ARB's on the latest Disco/RR is that you don't have to compromise as much on your on-road/off-road capabilites. If the new defender is steel sprung and passively ARB'd, then i think it is safe to say we would expect to see a reduction in cross axle performance in line with it's improved road handling. (although if they add diff locks that's fine by me ;-)
I'm really looking forward to a new defender, based on D3 underpinnings with less of a road bias. I think it will beat the current model offroad (even with the TCS switched off) and on. They WILL make the plastics out of a decent material and it will withstand hard use.
Off topic I think land rover missed a big trick not giving the public the P38 based 100 inch Wolf-spec Defender! Would have made great interim car.
Off topic I think land rover missed a big trick not giving the public the P38 based 100 inch Wolf-spec Defender! Would have made great interim car.
300bhp/ton said:
Refinement has nothing to do with the axles, a p38a was very refined and comfy yet had live axles.
I looked at a P38 with a coil spring conversion (to replace faulty air suspension), the ride was sublime.
They might as well launch an off road Discovery model with unpainted trim and simplified spec as a complex Defender.
Max_Torque said:
The "loss" of articulation has nothing to do with the fact a IRS system has replaced a beam axle. In fact, the "pure" moment of an IRS system actually could provide more cross axle performance than a beam axle (because the typical beam axle location systems actually result in the beam itself becoming an antiroll bar in extremis)
The reason IRS cars don't generally articulate as much as beam axled ones is purely down to the spring rates and anti roll rates used. Manufacturers fit IRS to improve road manners, and as a result the car is more road biased, and has stiffer springs and much much high roll stiffness!.
The reason thid defender can do this:
is due to the long, soft springs and soft axle location bushing, rather than because it has a beam axle ;-)
The only true downside to IRS cars is that ground clearance varries with payload, whereas on a beam axle the diff is ALWAYS the lowest part. But if your IRS starts with more clearance than the beam axle then i hardly see the issue.
The other fact is that "extreme" axle articulation is really only useful when you haven't got cross axle diff locks (like the defender...... ;-) Even with 5feet of axle twist, how much weight do you think is actually pressing down on the lower tyre? Not a lot is the answer, in fact, it gets to the point where the only thing keeping the wheel down is the weight of the wheel and tyre/hub. Which on a ground with a friction co-efficient of say 0.2, means it's contribution to forward motion is practically zero.
These days, with lockers (true mechanical or electrically simulated), even vehicles with literally no articulation can get places:
The advantage of the air suspension and active ARB's on the latest Disco/RR is that you don't have to compromise as much on your on-road/off-road capabilites. If the new defender is steel sprung and passively ARB'd, then i think it is safe to say we would expect to see a reduction in cross axle performance in line with it's improved road handling. (although if they add diff locks that's fine by me ;-)
You should go and try some proper rock crawling.... you might then see how much of your post is wrong The reason IRS cars don't generally articulate as much as beam axled ones is purely down to the spring rates and anti roll rates used. Manufacturers fit IRS to improve road manners, and as a result the car is more road biased, and has stiffer springs and much much high roll stiffness!.
The reason thid defender can do this:
is due to the long, soft springs and soft axle location bushing, rather than because it has a beam axle ;-)
The only true downside to IRS cars is that ground clearance varries with payload, whereas on a beam axle the diff is ALWAYS the lowest part. But if your IRS starts with more clearance than the beam axle then i hardly see the issue.
The other fact is that "extreme" axle articulation is really only useful when you haven't got cross axle diff locks (like the defender...... ;-) Even with 5feet of axle twist, how much weight do you think is actually pressing down on the lower tyre? Not a lot is the answer, in fact, it gets to the point where the only thing keeping the wheel down is the weight of the wheel and tyre/hub. Which on a ground with a friction co-efficient of say 0.2, means it's contribution to forward motion is practically zero.
These days, with lockers (true mechanical or electrically simulated), even vehicles with literally no articulation can get places:
The advantage of the air suspension and active ARB's on the latest Disco/RR is that you don't have to compromise as much on your on-road/off-road capabilites. If the new defender is steel sprung and passively ARB'd, then i think it is safe to say we would expect to see a reduction in cross axle performance in line with it's improved road handling. (although if they add diff locks that's fine by me ;-)
t styling job on a car that should'nt have any styling. Another blinder. Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff