Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
island, the question isn't one of whether or not Jeep owners DO use their vehicles off road. The question is whether or not they CAN. The Rubicon is named after the famous trail, which you can run with.........a bone stock Rubicon. I've seen several articles where they have done it, so it's not just clever marketing. I couldn't find any such information on the Cayenne after a quick Google search, maybe you can have better luck?...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by jurhip
island911,
You are right, Cayenne's are the ultimate offroader. ...
|
Oye.
I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that one has to split some pretty fine hairs to say the Jeep is a better off-road vehicle than a Cayenne OR EVEN A LEXUS (Toyota). --they all are pretty close in metrics. Even on the Rubicon trail. An image search shows even the "mighty / modified / "Rubicon trail ready" Jeeps . .. turtled on some rocks. You will also see places where boulders have rocks stacked against a face to
Just allow a short wheel base to pass.
So my point is the driver skill will have much more to with the go/no-go of these vehicles than whether the thing has a "trail ready" badge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy
...there's no arguments that solid axles and locking differentials are absolutely the way to go. Your understanding of articulation is flawed, because while you are correct about friction being a function of normal force you ignore one important point - you don't get any friction from one wheel spinning in the air. Look at the pictures of stogie's Jeep in extreme off camber situations, a Cayenne would be up on the high wheel on compressed suspension with the other side hanging in the breeze. ...
|
you don't get any friction from one wheel spinning in the air. . . uhm, but when all the wheels are locked, the only way one is spinning in the air is if the others are spinning on the ground. (the ones with massive load/friction/grip)
btw, is this design all wrong too?
