Jump to content
Jamie_grieve

Thoughts and musings on the new defender

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Range Rover uses a viscous centre diff and can't be locked. Makes it very good when working for most things and a better turning circle off road, but as you found out, no good with a broken shaft/prop. This would be true for p38a's and some classic RR's too.

It's fine driving on just the rear axle as the chain drive is direct - only the front drive goes through the centre diff/viscous unit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FridgeFreezer said:

I remember Jez saying the LT230 actually let them drive open-diffed across swamp without tearing the surface whereas people running Jeeps etc. (with a locked transfer case) were tearing the surface when they tried to turn and dropping wheels through the very thin crust into the world of pain below.

It's funny how traction works out sometimes. I recall we were problem tracking an issue on my brothers 90 the other year, we decided to lift the bonnet off and drive up the field to a steep muddy ascent on the off road course. And put it in low 1st and let it tick over, we hoped it would just sit there and spin the wheels in the wet grass.

With diff lock out, it would slowly climb the slope. With difflock in, it would just spin two wheels and stay where it was. I think with the diff open, it was almost like a dumb tcs system, and the diffs slowly allowed power to easily be applied to one wheel at a time. Which kept varying, with the centre diff locked, of course the front and rears were forced to rotate at the same speed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Range Rover uses a viscous centre diff and can't be locked. Makes it very good when working for most things and a better turning circle off road, but as you found out, no good with a broken shaft/prop. This would be true for p38a's and some classic RR's too.

The RRC would retain its drive to the rear in the event of a front shaft letting go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jamie_grieve said:

There's nobody denying that TC ESP and ABS aren't useful attributes, as already said, it'll have them anyway because it's mandatory. My point is that to a bean counter those systems can be seen to negate the need for locker, and in the urban environment they probably could but I dispute the 99% claim, a typical customer could be the coal mine I was in, those vehicles weren't even road registered, Look to Land Cruiser registrations in Australia if you don't believe this, around 2/3rds of new vehicles are registered to companies, I don't have stats for the 70 series but I bet the global sales would reflect a similar picture. it comes back to the whole premium utility vehicle market argument. At least something like the Brabus unimog had the real deal under the obnoxious exterior. The defender replacement's on the back foot already with independent suspension in this segment, maybe the brakes will be magnetic or something that doesn't wear?

We all know the defender couldn't get them because of the feeble half shafts and diffs, the newer ones aren't that much better. An L322 snapped it's front half shaft a couple of weeks ago in Edinburgh and couldn't even drive up the tilt bed. I'm not sure why not?

With a decent drivetrain warranty claims wouldn't be an issue as with the hundreds of other vehicles on the road with lockers, They can put a sticker in the cab with the do's and don'ts for the ambulance chasers.

The ctis will be a bit of a game changer but it looks like they're making it too complicated in a bid to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator. 

 

I think you're a bit far from reality in your views - you don't see many Brabus Unimogs around and there's a reason for that!

Yes some TLC's have lockers but, again, how often will most users benefit from that Vs a good TC system (which LR undoubtedly has) - be it a coal mine, construction site, horsebox in muddy field, icy roads... all of those are served at least as well by an unobtrusive TC system that requires no training, no levers of buttons, and can't damage the drivetrain through misue / abuse by employees.

I also think you're unrealistic about CTIS (if it appears at all) - an automatic system that "just works" is a far better prospect than anything manually controlled as people will always find a way to set it wrong / break it / kill themselves.

Look at some of the use-cases quoted, from the army to construction to farming to chelsea tractors, all of those favour ease of operator use / protection from operator error and are getting higher tech all the time - modern plant and farm equipment has more computers than a Bentley, and if the market didn't like it it wouldn't be there. Yes it's not what a lot of us here would want, and we'll have to work around it just as people worked around the many, many flaws of the old Defender, but we are not the target market and never have been.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeep's Quada Drive II system looks appealing, the TCS controlled some E-diffs, rather than brake force distribution. I guess this sort of thing would work well on any new Defender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Road based cars might do this. But a proper off road tcs shouldn’t be removing power. Quite the opposite in fact. To make it work you’ll need to accelerate a bit. Some numpties can’t drive and will back off the power as soon as the tcs kicks in. Maybe this is what you’ve seen?

No.  The TC will completely stop the vehicle is the correct situations.  Using brakes and cutting engine power to increase traction has its limits.

Having TC and lockers is the best solution.  Jeep can do it....  Rubicons have manual lockers on both axles and TC. It is not rocket science.

Edited by Red90

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FridgeFreezer said:

I think you're a bit far from reality in your views - you don't see many Brabus Unimogs around and there's a reason for that!

Yes some TLC's have lockers but, again, how often will most users benefit from that Vs a good TC system (which LR undoubtedly has) - be it a coal mine, construction site, horsebox in muddy field, icy roads... all of those are served at least as well by an unobtrusive TC system that requires no training, no levers of buttons, and can't damage the drivetrain through misue / abuse by employees.

I also think you're unrealistic about CTIS (if it appears at all) - an automatic system that "just works" is a far better prospect than anything manually controlled as people will always find a way to set it wrong / break it / kill themselves.

Look at some of the use-cases quoted, from the army to construction to farming to chelsea tractors, all of those favour ease of operator use / protection from operator error and are getting higher tech all the time - modern plant and farm equipment has more computers than a Bentley, and if the market didn't like it it wouldn't be there. Yes it's not what a lot of us here would want, and we'll have to work around it just as people worked around the many, many flaws of the old Defender, but we are not the target market and never have been.

I think you're the one who is a bit out of touch with reality but let's not get personal. I spend my entire working life working with fleets (150 vehicles minimum to secure a visit) of light and heavy off road vehicles, remind me what you do again? Your defence of traction control systems is commendable but either you aren't reading my posts or aren't understanding them.

Firstly to save you reading back through my posts you didn't bother to read, I think traction control is good. The problem with traction control systems in remote area fleet management is THEY DO NOT HAVE THE DUTY CYCLE OR RELIABILITY to function for the life time of a vehicle and be cost effective in certain circumstances where it's use is required a lot. You've been told how users in the desert are required to turn it off, I was telling you about coal mines, you've been told about the D2's well known issues with tc and open diffs. Remove yourself from the urban environment for a minute and also from the extreme winch challenge two day or one week event type of activity which is almost more irrelevant than the urban one.Imagine now that you're an untrained driver driving an ambulance on unmade roads or a vehicle on a mine site etc, with no additional user input whatsoever compared to a vehicle without the system, now your brakes only last a month and you don't know why but you do know the parts wont be cheap if you can find them. Compare that scenario to either locking diffs or any version of an improved differential, be it ATB, limited slip, unlocking type, roller cam etc perhaps combined with TC and we can have an informed discussion.

I mentioned the brabus unimog as it's an ostentatious obnoxious utility vehicle which will never do a days work and there are relevancies there to the new defender. I shouldn't have to spell that out.

I am representative of the market, I've bought over 60 vehicles for various organisations, remind us how many did you buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Red90 said:

Rubicons have manual lockers on both axles and TC. It is not rocket science.

Exactly!!
Common sense at last....

Subaru, audi and mitsubishi do some cool stuff too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Red90 said:

No.  The TC will completely stop the vehicle is the correct situations.  Using brakes and cutting engine power to increase traction has its limits.

Having TC and lockers is the best solution.  Jeep can do it....  Rubicons have manual lockers on both axles and TC. It is not rocket science.

Off road TCS shouldn't be cutting engine power, it only applies the brakes. At least that is how it works on my p38a and on late model Defenders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Off road TCS shouldn't be cutting engine power, it only applies the brakes. At least that is how it works on my p38a and on late model Defenders.

Go drive a modern Land Rover off road and get back to me.  They can stop completely dead.  I know it may seem crazy, but I'm only making statements based on real world experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is an example.  This is a winter trip.  There is around two feet of compacted snow on the trail.  The Disco 3 was not making it up this little hill, so we stopped and put chains on him.  He still kept on digging in.  The root cause being the low profile tires and heavy vehicle.  He could probably make it with more momentum, but the TC was killing him.  When you watch it, you think he is backing off on the throttle.  He is not.  I talked to him about it as this went on for quite a few tries and he has his foot to the floor the whole time.  The TC completely stopped all four wheels.  After this attempt, I pulled him up.  The other vehicles (three Defenders and a Disco 2) drove up the hill with no issue.

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Disco 3 the traction control applies the brakes only. It does not limit engine power unless the yaw sensor detects a potential spin ( of the vehicle not a wheel ) This can be overridden by the button on the dash so you can “drive it like you stole it” 😆 HTH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Roverdrive said:

On the Disco 3 the traction control applies the brakes only. It does not limit engine power unless the yaw sensor detects a potential spin ( of the vehicle not a wheel ) This can be overridden by the button on the dash so you can “drive it like you stole it” 😆 HTH

I don’t know for sure. But my expectation would be the tcs would behave differently in the different terrain response modes. As well as a difference between high and low range. 

 

@Red90 do you know if they were in low or high and what mode they were using for the terrain response in the LR3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, Roverdrive said:

On the Disco 3 the traction control applies the brakes only. It does not limit engine power unless the yaw sensor detects a potential spin ( of the vehicle not a wheel ) This can be overridden by the button on the dash so you can “drive it like you stole it” 😆 HTH

Well that is not what I see.  It seems to keep cutting power to try and stop wheel spin until you go no further.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

 

@Red90 do you know if they were in low or high and what mode they were using for the terrain response in the LR3?

Low range.  We are 30 kilometers from the nearest road.  I think he tried all the modes.  He did not know the procedure to turn it off completely and I have no clue.  After that video, I threw a strap on him and pulled him up.  There are much worse hills further on, so we ended up turning around because of the Disco 3.  Ran the whole trail without stopping the next week plus some actual hard ones with locked Defenders and proper chains.

This is just one example that I have video on.  Get the same issue with newer RRs and Disco 4s.  I'm sure they have fancier programming to help, but, in the end, removing power to gain traction is a bad idea....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Red90 said:

Low range.  We are 30 kilometers from the nearest road.  I think he tried all the modes.  He did not know the procedure to turn it off completely and I have no clue.  After that video, I threw a strap on him and pulled him up.  There are much worse hills further on, so we ended up turning around because of the Disco 3.  Ran the whole trail without stopping the next week plus some actual hard ones with locked Defenders and proper chains.

This is just one example that I have video on.  Get the same issue with newer RRs and Disco 4s.  I'm sure they have fancier programming to help, but, in the end, removing power to gain traction is a bad idea....

No arguments from me. I admit I’m not so familiar with the newer stuff. The older tcs systems don’t reduce the engine output, other than through increased load that is. But no actual cutting of the power. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe not the best vid for this. But one I had uploaded. At 3 min there is a DSE p38 with rear axle tcs. You can hear the engine revs increase when it’s in use and no power is being cut. 

There is a bob tailed V8 p38 at the beginning Of the vid. I think it too has rear tcs on it. And again you can see when it goes through the hole the engine revs aren’t restricted by use of the tcs (when the left rear wheel spins at 1m 12sec). 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I see from those time spots is the TC not working at all.  The wheels should not spin.  Power cutting comes after two or more wheels are being braked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had to edit the video really short as the 20mb forum limit was at odds with the original 16mb file size which was too big?

 

This is my friend's disco 5 showing the use of traction control cresting a very gentle off camber climb. Like I said earlier, I'm not too familiar with the modern versions of traction control but I'm also not entirely ignorant of it either and try to keep myself up to date although luckily now I've got Fridge Freezer to keep me right on all aspects of land rover traction control (but obviously not differential locks or anything useful like rope tie downs or any other nasty utility type stuff).

Sadly this car was written off a few months after this video when an electrical fault caused a fire and we didn't get the chance to play with it any more although a mornings play was enough to have a pretty good idea of its capabilities.

I'd be interested in any observations anybody would like to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Red90 said:

All I see from those time spots is the TC not working at all.  The wheels should not spin.  Power cutting comes after two or more wheels are being braked.

Tcs worked. Especially with the dark p38. It wouldn’t have driven through the axle twister if not. But the older systems don’t always seem to work first time. You have to back off the the throttle completely and try again. Same with the Jeep JK system. 

You can hear the tcs in the p38 from inside and it flashes the light on the dash when active. I have it in my p38. Although mine is 4 wheel rather than the earlier 2 wheel system. But I don’t have it on video. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Chicken Drumstick said:

Range Rover uses a viscous centre diff and can't be locked. Makes it very good when working for most things and a better turning circle off road, but as you found out, no good with a broken shaft/prop. This would be true for p38a's and some classic RR's too.

 

20 hours ago, Snagger said:

It's fine driving on just the rear axle as the chain drive is direct - only the front drive goes through the centre diff/viscous unit.

Even better, both the Classic (with Borg Warner viscous) and P38 can drive with either front or rear propshaft removed. The chain drive goes to the body of the center diff. The viscous coupling locks front and rear outputs, so drive remains available to the side that has traction even if the other side has no resistance at all. This is different to the torsen center diff in the L322. I was very disappointed to find those are immobilized if the front or rear prop fails. So much for progress...

As for TC, just want to add that I do see the many advantages of the system. It was a great help in my Defender TD5 and I've seen it at work a lot in P38, D3/4 and FL2. It really makes a differences and can get those cars through obstacles you wouldn't think possible. So I'm sure the new Defender with the latest terrain response will be a great performer, as as FF says accessible to all. But for ultimate offroad performance, it will never match a mechanical locking diff. As a fit-and-forget solution, an ATB or torsen is probably the best compromise. Personally I like to play with buttons and feel in control. Which is why I also prefer an old notchy gearbox to the flappy paddles of today's sports cars.

Filip

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, FridgeFreezer said:

 

I also think you're unrealistic about CTIS (if it appears at all) - an automatic system that "just works" is a far better prospect than anything manually controlled as people will always find a way to set it wrong / break it / kill themselves.

Look at some of the use-cases quoted, from the army to construction to farming to chelsea tractors, all of those favour ease of operator use / protection from operator error and are getting higher tech all the time - 

A good point, and one that Tesla are suffering badly from with their driver assistance devices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On a different note, I have booked a test drive in the new Jimny for 2 weeks time. To me this is far more what I'd want from a new Defender.

suzuki-jimny-sierra-japan_625x300_153088

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We are hoping to get a go in one next Wednesday, I'm not going to buy one but I really want to love it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

We use cookies to ensure you get the best experience. By using our website you agree to our Cookie Policy