RE: INEOS Grenadier officially unveiled
Discussion
RoverP6B said:
The Smart factory is only just inside the current French borders, it's in the Saarland, which is majority German speaking, five miles from the border. Anything built there is not going to be "French" in the way that a PSA or Renault car is.
So, is being near the German border better or not? I'm assuming that there is some sort of spectrum of foreign-ness?
RoverP6B said:
The ones who are willing to swallow any old marketing b
ks out of blind loyalty to a product and manufacturer are the ones who need to get lives...
I agree but wouldn't go as far as describing Ineos as a manufacturer given they are yet to actually manufacture anything.ks out of blind loyalty to a product and manufacturer are the ones who need to get lives...Everyone else in both this and the Defender thread has been quite objective.
RoverP6B said:
Max_Torque said:
RoverP6B said:
and I can't wait to see how that monocoque stands up to being air-dropped.
er:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGI8llbeGKo
looks like it manages being "airdropped" just fine!
(try doing that in an old defender and see how you get on...... ;-)
t from JLR.MC Bodge said:
RoverP6B said:
The Smart factory is only just inside the current French borders, it's in the Saarland, which is majority German speaking, five miles from the border. Anything built there is not going to be "French" in the way that a PSA or Renault car is.
So, is being near the German border better or not? I'm assuming that there is some sort of spectrum of foreign-ness?
...so no, I don't really care too much where a car comes from, I tend to judge it on its own merits. What I do object to is JLR acquiring an EU-subsidised factory on the mainland while they've got three car factories on this little island sitting half-empty, and Bridgend closing...
ettore said:
RoverP6B said:
Max_Torque said:
RoverP6B said:
and I can't wait to see how that monocoque stands up to being air-dropped.
er:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGI8llbeGKo
looks like it manages being "airdropped" just fine!
(try doing that in an old defender and see how you get on...... ;-)
t from JLR.AngryPartsBloke said:
RoverP6B said:
The ones who are willing to swallow any old marketing bks out of blind loyalty to a product and manufacturer are the ones who need to get lives...
I agree but wouldn't go as far as describing Ineos as a manufacturer given they are yet to actually manufacture anything.ks out of blind loyalty to a product and manufacturer are the ones who need to get lives...Everyone else in both this and the Defender thread has been quite objective.
ettore said:
The engineering team (note, not marketing) involved in that confirmed that it was pretty much standard IIRC. P6B would benefit from reading up about the Defender.
I've seen the stunt cars, they do have an additional internal safety cage, but it is not connected to the suspension or in fact the body other than at the floor and roof, and is in place to prevent excessive deformation if the car was to roll multiple times at high speed. Unlike the classic defender, where you need a full roll cage to prevent you being squashed should the car roll at all (ie at any speed). The new defender passes the roll over crash tests in standard form (like mostly all modern uni-body cars) without an additional roof support, but as normal for the stunt/film industry, extreme situations demand a safety based approach and so an additional internal safety cage was fitted to add extra protection in the case of an unforseen or extreme event.The pyrotechinc airbags were also removed, a multipoint harness and composite race seat fitted and some additional interior padding (mostly around the additional roll cage) to prevent injury to the driver during the extreme G force they would be subjected to.
The suspension was broadly standard, running at standard ride height with standard components, with the exception of a larger, more heavily voided bottom out bump stop being fitted to try to cushion the hard landings a bit. Tyres were also run at slight higher pressures to keep them on the rims
The new defender has both the stiffess and strongest structure (torsionally (29 kN/deg) and in bending) JLR have ever produced across all it's range across all the time it hase been making cars, both ladder chassis'd and uni-bodied, and no body deformation occured during these extreme stunts. All the doors still opened and shut normally, no glass broke (glass is structural in a modern uni-body). The cars remained full operative,
But lets not let actual facts get in the way, once more, of P6's biased and entirely fictional opinion.
RoverP6B said:
Another blatant lie. That will have required a seam-welded shell, a full welded-in roll cage, heavily reinforced shock towers with billet top mounts, long-travel coilovers... try doing that with a standard car and you will break it in many places, including punching holes through the top of the shock towers. Do Land Rover really expect us to believe that a stock Pretender can jump like a Baja trophy truck without sustaining any damage? Is anyone really that gullible?!
“Watching the footage makes it pretty hard to believe the Defenders are in stock configuration but Nick Collins, Land Rover Defender vehicle line director, says there was no modification to the body structure except the installation of a roll cage”https://www.carscoops.com/2020/02/watch-new-land-r...
RoverP6B said:
Another blatant lie. That will have required a seam-welded shell, a full welded-in roll cage, heavily reinforced shock towers with billet top mounts, long-travel coilovers... try doing that with a standard car and you will break it in many places, including punching holes through the top of the shock towers. Do Land Rover really expect us to believe that a stock Pretender can jump like a Baja trophy truck without sustaining any damage? Is anyone really that gullible?!
It's a transitional step down jump, not just slamming flat into the ground, probably one of the more gentle ways to make a jump, and deliberately set up and filmed to make it look larger scale.I'd be surprised if they didn't have a roll cage in for safety, but in structural terms, I can't see why the vehicle couldn't handle it.
Not without risk of damage, but certainly I'd not doubt a statement that they were structurally standard.
Max_Torque said:
ettore said:
The engineering team (note, not marketing) involved in that confirmed that it was pretty much standard IIRC. P6B would benefit from reading up about the Defender.
I've seen the stunt cars, they do have an additional internal safety cage, but it is not connected to the suspension or in fact the body other than at the floor and roof, and is in place to prevent excessive deformation if the car was to roll multiple times at high speed. Unlike the classic defender, where you need a full roll cage to prevent you being squashed should the car roll at all (ie at any speed). The new defender passes the roll over crash tests in standard form (like mostly all modern uni-body cars) without an additional roof support, but as normal for the stunt/film industry, extreme situations demand a safety based approach and so an additional internal safety cage was fitted to add extra protection in the case of an unforseen or extreme event.The pyrotechinc airbags were also removed, a multipoint harness and composite race seat fitted and some additional interior padding (mostly around the additional roll cage) to prevent injury to the driver during the extreme G force they would be subjected to.
The suspension was broadly standard, running at standard ride height with standard components, with the exception of a larger, more heavily voided bottom out bump stop being fitted to try to cushion the hard landings a bit. Tyres were also run at slight higher pressures to keep them on the rims
The new defender has both the stiffess and strongest structure (torsionally (29 kN/deg) and in bending) JLR have ever produced across all it's range across all the time it hase been making cars, both ladder chassis'd and uni-bodied, and no body deformation occured during these extreme stunts. All the doors still opened and shut normally, no glass broke (glass is structural in a modern uni-body). The cars remained full operative,
But lets not let actual facts get in the way, once more, of P6's biased and entirely fictional opinion.
RoverP6B said:
Another blatant lie. That will have required a seam-welded shell, a full welded-in roll cage, heavily reinforced shock towers with billet top mounts, long-travel coilovers... try doing that with a standard car and you will break it in many places, including punching holes through the top of the shock towers. Do Land Rover really expect us to believe that a stock Pretender can jump like a Baja trophy truck without sustaining any damage? Is anyone really that gullible?!
The problem with assumptions...M
LimaDelta said:
Max_Torque said:
ettore said:
The engineering team (note, not marketing) involved in that confirmed that it was pretty much standard IIRC. P6B would benefit from reading up about the Defender.
I've seen the stunt cars, they do have an additional internal safety cage, but it is not connected to the suspension or in fact the body other than at the floor and roof, and is in place to prevent excessive deformation if the car was to roll multiple times at high speed. Unlike the classic defender, where you need a full roll cage to prevent you being squashed should the car roll at all (ie at any speed). The new defender passes the roll over crash tests in standard form (like mostly all modern uni-body cars) without an additional roof support, but as normal for the stunt/film industry, extreme situations demand a safety based approach and so an additional internal safety cage was fitted to add extra protection in the case of an unforseen or extreme event.The pyrotechinc airbags were also removed, a multipoint harness and composite race seat fitted and some additional interior padding (mostly around the additional roll cage) to prevent injury to the driver during the extreme G force they would be subjected to.
The suspension was broadly standard, running at standard ride height with standard components, with the exception of a larger, more heavily voided bottom out bump stop being fitted to try to cushion the hard landings a bit. Tyres were also run at slight higher pressures to keep them on the rims
The new defender has both the stiffess and strongest structure (torsionally (29 kN/deg) and in bending) JLR have ever produced across all it's range across all the time it hase been making cars, both ladder chassis'd and uni-bodied, and no body deformation occured during these extreme stunts. All the doors still opened and shut normally, no glass broke (glass is structural in a modern uni-body). The cars remained full operative,
But lets not let actual facts get in the way, once more, of P6's biased and entirely fictional opinion.
Max_Torque said:
LimaDelta said:
Max_Torque said:
ettore said:
The engineering team (note, not marketing) involved in that confirmed that it was pretty much standard IIRC. P6B would benefit from reading up about the Defender.
I've seen the stunt cars, they do have an additional internal safety cage, but it is not connected to the suspension or in fact the body other than at the floor and roof, and is in place to prevent excessive deformation if the car was to roll multiple times at high speed. Unlike the classic defender, where you need a full roll cage to prevent you being squashed should the car roll at all (ie at any speed). The new defender passes the roll over crash tests in standard form (like mostly all modern uni-body cars) without an additional roof support, but as normal for the stunt/film industry, extreme situations demand a safety based approach and so an additional internal safety cage was fitted to add extra protection in the case of an unforseen or extreme event.The pyrotechinc airbags were also removed, a multipoint harness and composite race seat fitted and some additional interior padding (mostly around the additional roll cage) to prevent injury to the driver during the extreme G force they would be subjected to.
The suspension was broadly standard, running at standard ride height with standard components, with the exception of a larger, more heavily voided bottom out bump stop being fitted to try to cushion the hard landings a bit. Tyres were also run at slight higher pressures to keep them on the rims
The new defender has both the stiffess and strongest structure (torsionally (29 kN/deg) and in bending) JLR have ever produced across all it's range across all the time it hase been making cars, both ladder chassis'd and uni-bodied, and no body deformation occured during these extreme stunts. All the doors still opened and shut normally, no glass broke (glass is structural in a modern uni-body). The cars remained full operative,
But lets not let actual facts get in the way, once more, of P6's biased and entirely fictional opinion.
Gassing Station | INEOS | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff