4x4Mart: Challenge vehicles

[white90]

Nothing to do with me...

... well to be honest I do know Dave quite well, he's a good writer and this is a good article.

Still maintain my suggestion until proven wrong

and how did he get all those pictures of James event.

Strange he didn't credit James and mention his events as a place to get into the events themselves.

bit cheeky really using someone else's event to submit an article for a mag with no credits.

[JST]

Photos are Sean Farrows i think (or Darths) both of which asked me if they could use them for 'other' purposes so i am not fused about that.

I was more intrigued by the small tyres comments, hence the posting. i still think 35" are the way fwd when considering the condition of the terrain after others have been through there, i cant see 33 or 34 doing as well all Bull Bar Cowboy seems to do well on his 34" but then again maybe thats why he sank so much in that bog (sorry Ians bog!)

[honitonhobbit]

As I said, nothing to do with me.

I do believe he mentions 4x4Adventures though.

To be honest Tony, I think if there were issues then they would be down to James and to any of the people in the pictures.

[white90]

As I said, nothing to do with me.

I do believe he mentions 4x4Adventures though.

To be honest Tony, I think if there were issues then they would be down to James and to any of the people in the pictures.

I stand corrected Dave does mention James company and this forum.

I wonder if he is a member of the forum?

we have two Daves one DaveS and one Dave S unless a different username is being used of course

neither appear to be busy active members

but I'll keep my bet on

[white90]

Back to the text then what doe other think re the tyre size debate in the article?

I'm with the 35" and above school of thought but have seen thinner tyres doing well.

[Guest Matrix]

Sorry forgot to add as well that although the pics are from one of my comps and sites the article has nothing to do with me. Anyone know the author?

I happen to know he is extremely handsome with a terrific sense of humour

[ciderman]

In Fairness The author Dave Symonds did contact me a while back about this article and asked if it be ok to use the pictures of Simons , Scotts and my trucks for his article .

Sounded like a jolly nice bloke.

[Turbocharger]

On the tyre debate, I've usually considered that to finish first, first you have to finish. Since I can't afford to fill my axles with unobtanium bits, smaller tyres have always been the preferred choice and I've always finished an event. Usually last, but never DNF.

Except I just bought some 285/75 MTs. Anyone care to run a book on my CV joints?

[SteveG]

first of all, any article encouraging people to take part and doing a ground up backgrounder is good as too many articles assume a level of knowledge already exists. He also often adds that it's his personal opinion so can't be shot down for saying certain things as he's not preaching it as gospel.

Given that, I did find some of his comments strange and also to me, it showed a complete lack of competitive winch challenge eventing experience.

Traction Aids - His view they get you into trouble more often and you are better having two winches. My view - Diff locks get you further and hence you have less time winching. On some punches they also mean the difference between driving it and winching. Again a lot less time taken.

Winches - His view 'If it's doesn't have Superwinch or T-max Outback written on it, then it's not worth using. Mmmm interesting statement, the market in secondhand 8274's has just plummeted. In UK winch Chellenge events a lot of time is spent at punches and less time getting between them than on some of the events in Aus for example. Therefore the speed of a winch makes more difference. That's why you rarely see a winning challenge truck in the UK without either an 8274 or fast hydraulic on the front. Funny that he also makes no mention of benefits in time, ease of use and safety in using synthetic winch line over cable.

Drive Train - His view, keep it standard and simple. A 300TDi with stock drive train and 34" tyres is good enough. OK, he has a point, but people were still breaking half shafts and CV's before Simex became popular. By the nature of competitive winch challenges you are going to stress your drive train more and it's possible to break diffs, CV's and halfshafts with 32" and 33" tyres . The point about strengthening the drive train is to give reliability. Failures means lost time and sometimes withdrawal from an event. If you wish to consistantly finish high up the order or win, you need reliability. Simple as that. Stengthened drive train components like Ashcrofts give you that.

Tyres - His view - Doesn't like big tyres as as they cause over gearing, no good in liquid slurry and you have to strengthen your drive train. Over gearing, if viewed as problem can be cured with different R&P ratios or and underdrive.

No extra benefit in liquid slurry - No s**t sherlock! No worse off though too.

1" extra or more under the diff does make a difference on UK winch Challenge events. There are so many times that less clearance would result in getting the waffles out or winching, or both - all time lost. The extra grip offered by a tread pattern like Simex's also has benefits in a number of places. No good in liquid slurry, bog or sand but they make up for it elsewhere and for UK events are the best tyre choice in tyres up to 36" tall.

As for the drive train, I've already stated the benefits of running a strengthened and reliable drive train, so if you can run 35" tyres with a strengthened drive train and not affect reliability - what's the problem.

The point he has missed is that all of these make the difference between winning and not. What he should have pointed out is that to compete in and enjoy winch challenge events you don't need bigger aggressive tyres, superfast winches, strengthened drive trains, and traction aids. However, if you want to compete at the top level and try to win outright it all helps.

Cheers

Steve

[robhybrid]

Steve you make a good point about that article.

I belive any publicity is better than no publicity.

The problem with all sports is that if you ask 10 people you are quite likely to bet 10 different answers.

The best way to learn is to take part, the comments in the article are probably quite good to get started, but you might end up starting again if you decide to get more competative.

[pugwash]

brilliant article for us- let's not knock it (or be seen to knock it)

i think the article will do erally wwell to draw more people to the sport and inform them as to how they can get started.

[SteveG]

brilliant article for us- let's not knock it (or be seen to knock it)

Yeah yeah, let's all be PC and nice to everyone and not be allowed to express an opinion.

As I said at the beginning of my post it was good, and dave mentioned several times it was his own personal opinion so can't be shot down for doing that. I then expressed my personal opinion, the basis of which is that Dave missed the point that people make these mods for reliability and to save time in an effort to win.

What's wrong with that Jim?

Steve

[Lewis]

i still think 35" are the way fwd when considering the condition of the terrain after others have been through there, i cant see 33 or 34 doing as well all Bull Bar Cowboy seems to do well on his 34" but then again maybe thats why he sank so much in that bog (sorry Ians bog!)

I'm with the 35" and above school of thought but have seen thinner tyres doing well.

Do you both think that 35's are the upper limit for tyres in the uk, or would you use larger tyres given the opportunity? - if 35's are 30% better than 33's, for example, does that not mean that 37's are the same percentage better again?

On a vaguely related matter I think the COR 35" tyre limit is a real shame as I see any restriction on tyre size to be a step backwards. Assuming you have the power and the strength then bigger will almost always be better

Note - I said almost always

Lewis

[Bull Bar Cowboy]

if 35's are 30% better than 33's, for example, does that not mean that 37's are the same percentage better again?

Lewis

Really ?

The tyre debate can go on forever……………….

I guess that it all comes down to the fact that a lot of the UK has a very varied terrain even in a small area (such as a challenge site) , consequently tyre choice will always be a compromise. In some areas, 35” simex would not be the tyre of choice……….. this equally applies to 33” BFG’s or 39” Boggers…………….

Many of the punches can be approached from a technical standpoint ………. In these instances its teamwork together with driver ability and ground reading skills that count ………….. tyres are just and aid ………….. not the end all, be all.

Ian

[JST]

Lewis,

my original comment is based on 33 to 35 therefore i see 35 as the way fwd, if i was looking to go compare 35"s then:

as a competitor i think bigger is generally better especially for deep mud etc, but side slopes and narrow tree spacing (taller tyres are generally wider) can influence the decision as well. i run 35s as i know that my drivetrain will cope with that plus i can cope with most of the terrain on a 'std' UK challenge, if i was doing MTs or something similar i would prob think bigger but would then worry that drivetrain may not be upto it, plus descents and gearing etc may need to be changed.

as an event organiser i run a 35" max tyre size to limit the damage to the terrain i am using and wish to continue to use. bigger tyres (taller) would make some of the ground far worse off and it would take longer before i could put another vehicle in there. i do not limit tyre width.

a 35" limit yes maybe a step backwards from an engineering perspective but not from a maintenance of site perspective!

[pugwash]

Yeah yeah, let's all be PC and nice to everyone and not be allowed to express an opinion.

As I said at the beginning of my post it was good, and dave mentioned several times it was his own personal opinion so can't be shot down for doing that. I then expressed my personal opinion, the basis of which is that Dave missed the point that people make these mods for reliability and to save time in an effort to win.

What's wrong with that Jim?

Steve

nothing chap- it might be a good idea if this thread didn't descend into a bit of an article bashing though- your post wasn't that, but once everyone starts saying why he was wrong then it's certainly going to look like that, which would be a shame. You will of course express your opinion as will everyone else, but it would be nice not be negative over something that was very positive.

[JST]

Jim/Steve i think you are both reading between the lines, both the author and Steve have both freely expressed their opinions - nothing wrong with that.

I think Steve has some valid points and i didnt read it as an article bashing hes just putting fwd his points.

[white90]

Steves post just lays out clearly his real world experiences

he having had traction aids/8274s etc

and I can't see it as bashing/knocking HH's article at all.

[pugwash]

neither did I.

My first post wasn't (although it reads that way) a snipe at steve, it was a flag to try and put people off starting a long thread opining why the article was wrong.

again, this very positive article shouldn't be denigrated by what could come across as negative comments

[bishbosh]

I'd agree with the article on the rear winch over a locker for challenge events.

Without a rear winch a significant number of punches are normally completely unattainable. Yes, you might need to winch more for some of the others, but IMHO a rear winch greatly outweighs that. Even on some of the "forward" punches the rear winch is handy for pulling the ar$e around or re-aligning the vehicle as you come back down.

For the record - I have a front winch and a rear locker. If I was doing it again I'd get the rear winch before the rear locker every time.

Of course, 3 winches and two lockers is better, but that's another discussion.....

Portals anyone........

[JST]

yeah Jim, dont upset Steve you may need him if you want to ever for offroading as he normally has a spare passenger seat....

[JST]

For the record - I have a front winch and a rear locker. If I was doing it again I'd get the rear winch before the rear locker every time.

and 33" tyres???? but you manage OK with them?

[bishbosh]

More like 32" tyres now they've worn a bit!

Yes I do OK, but as with all things you need to make decisions based on the terrain, the punch, the scoring method and the time it will take you to get that punch. The important thing to know is the limitations of yourself and your vehicle. Loosing two hours on a difficult punch not only pi$$es you off, it also ruins any chance you may have had to get on the podium (if that is your goal) You are far better off evaluating it and saying "No" than thinking "Who needs lockers and Simex" and spending the rest of the day up to your doors in the cack.

I never really thought Simex offere a huge amount over other tyres other than clearance under the diff (extreme gloop excepted), but having spent a day with Tony I will be eating my words as he climbed slopes relatively easily that I think I would have struggled on and clearance wasn't the issue, it was purely down to getting traction.

For someone entering winch challenges as a novice the order of preferance (front winch a given) would be 1. Tyres 2. Cage / bodywork protection 3. rear winch 4. locker(s) / drivetrain.

I personally look at a challenge event as time to test myself. If along the way I inadvertantly do better than someone better equiped (very rare!!!) then I might have a small smile to myself.

You make a very good point about tyre size and land management, which is important given the small number of sites that are available to us.

[dollythelw]

Bish you sound just like Keith Code (dont worry its a compliment!)

he always said "you race the track, not the other riders"

[Lewis]

Lewis,

as an event organiser i run a 35" max tyre size to limit the damage to the terrain i am using and wish to continue to use. bigger tyres (taller) would make some of the ground far worse off and it would take longer before i could put another vehicle in there. i do not limit tyre width.

a 35" limit yes maybe a step backwards from an engineering perspective but not from a maintenance of site perspective!

James - yours is an interesting perspective that had not occured to me before. Ground damage has yet to be a concern of mine

Having entered challenge events they now appeal to me less than before I had tried them, I actually prefer to just fight the terrain - therefore bigger tyres are something I consider to be an important upgrade

I would however like to try one of your events in the future - are there any exceptions to the rule? - for example tall but narrow tyres (you say the width is the problem?)

Lewis