Originally posted by porsche996:
1) Until then, the ONLY difference was one had revolvers, one didn't.
Wrong - the 2 vehicles also had different drivers. I have seen identical (and I mean perfectly identical with the exception of color) Xterra's with 2 different drivers taking the same line have completely different results because of driver skill.
You seem to conveniently leave that out of the equation in your argument.
2) For other situations other than off-camber, revolvers are worth about as much as a $3 bill, if you can't match the suspension flex in the front.
For the photo showing the X doing a nose-dive into a tree, when its rear passenger side wasn't on the ground... THIS PROVES MY POINT! If that Xterra had any travel up front other than the pathetic amount available from the IFS, it WOULDN'T have been nose-down in the first place!
Wrong - on multuiple counts.
First of all the only tire in the air is the drivers side rear, all of the other tires are on hard ground. The passenger side tires are all on hard ground. Secondly, the reason the vehicle is pointed nose down is because it is going down an obstacle, both front tires are on hard ground but the vehicle is pointed downhill. The reason the driver needed to back up was because (due to the spotters mistake)the driver had gone (as directed) too far forward to make the turn to clear the tree as it went down the obstacle. That is why the vehicle had to back up. Since the rear wheel in the air was turning, if it had been contacting the ground instead of airborn, that would have added traction and prevented the vehicle from rolling foward.
If the rear tire happened to be on the ground because it had revolvers flexing enough to let it touch, it wouldn't matter, because there wouldn't be any force going to the tire;
You contradict yourslef and make my point about changing your argument.
Now you claim that the rear tire wouldn't have had any traction, but the rear axle is a solid axle, and yuou posted this on the previous page about solid axles and why they are better than IFS
When one tire droops independent of the other, that tire is being PUSHED down by the OTHER tire. It's a fulcrum & lever. A tire doesn't just drop on a solid axle due to the weight of the axle; that's why IFS rigs have no traction at full droop. When a solid axle drops a tire, it's keeps the same traction, if not increased, because it has a nice long lever arm on a fulcrum PUSHING it down from the other side.
So which is it? The rear tire would have the same traction, if not increased - or no traction at all?
You've changed your argument and contradicted yourself. The solid rear axle with the tire drooping cannot have increased traction and no tractyion at the same time, now can it?
Previous Topic
Index
