>>> Don't sweat what isn't broken, redesign from failure.
>>
>> Words I live by.
>
> That's actually quite scary - Do you adopt the same strategy for
> brakes? ;-)
Looks like. The system failed from a pin hole rust through break in
the hydraulic line before I put in dual circuit brakes.
That plus experiencing the edge of the envelope:
I've experienced the pressure needed on the pedal to keep a 109 stopped
on a steep uphill incline and the lack of brakes after a water
crossing, therefore I would like to convert to disk front brakes to
expand the boundary of what the vehicle could do.
> Redesigning from failure isn't something I would be proud of in any
> respect,
Designing from failure AND from meeting the edge of the vehicle
capabilities and wishing to exceed known limit parameters. I have no
problem saying I do this with pride.
When you buy a vehicle do you just go out and install a different brake
system just in case the original might fail? There are lots of people
out there trailing with stock series LR brake systems who have never
felt a need to redesign and replace the system. Are you implying that
anyone driving a series rig with a stock brake system is living
dangerously and foolishly?
> especially on an expedition style vehicle that may take you very far
> off the
> beaten path.
Ah you should realize I didn't design an expedition rig from a lack of
learning where the limits are and what is weak on the vehicle. I owned
and drove The Green Rover for 15 years BEFORE converting her into a
long range expedition vehicle. During that 15 years she was a working
farm vehicle and weekend off road trail rig. She carried equipment,
hay, live stock, fire wood and has been filled to the roof line with
wet manure more often than I would care to count. Her winch spent more
time pulling fencing tight than pulling other vehicles out. All this
on a hill side. And I had experience in mud runs, deep sand, rock
crawling and being out for up to a week at a time camping in many
adverse weather conditions BEFORE I started designing the expedition
mods. Yes I learned what the vehicle could and could not do in
relation to my driving style then took a systems approach to extending
the factory design parameters that I exceeded whilst driving.
> Granted, we all resort to this type of "R&D" sometimes, but
> there's something completely boneheaded about keeping parts that are
> known
> to be weak and inadequate.
No one said anything about retaining known weak or inadequate
parts/assemblies, just discovering which they are in relation to the
way you drive before going out and "upgrading" stuff that you may or
may not ever break.
Well I do admit I went through too many rear axles before converting to
a Salisbury but at least 4 of those axles broke before I even learned
about the existence of a Salisbury diff.
But I did learn the limits of my vehicle before modification. I
learned where the designers made compromises that failed and what
worked just fine FOR THE KINDS OF DRIVING I DO. I see absolutely
nothing wrong with learning the capabilities of a vehicle and fixing
known problems areas as they are identified instead of spending gobs of
money and time shot gunning modifications in an effort to prevent a
failure that might or might not have ever happened.
I've seen what happens when someone pours endless funds into upgrading
and kitting out a rig they do not know the parameters of. I will not
name names nor model. Suffice it to say He and new Rover product.
He bought a new Rover and decided to turn it into a super gonzo off
road rig. So he went through the catalogues, bought and installed a
small fortune of after market goodies each promising that it will make
the vehicle outperform all others and protect it from damage/breakage.
And golly gee, things started breaking right and left, and he was not
the instant king of the trail. He experienced weak points the
engineers left in from design compromises AND the ones he created by
installing lift/suspension/drive train mods without understanding how
they work with the original system and each other.
Well, he had a deep pocket book, endless energy and a strong helping of
tenacity. Over time he kept strengthening parts that broke, swapping
out after market off road stuff that didn't work with his style of
driving and did not play fair with the other parts on the vehicle. And
of course he learned along the way. In about 4 years and more money
than I've ever had available to spend during that time frame he ended
up with a rugged, capable off road rig. Of course it was a patched up,
many times broken, many times remodified rig that looked it, but it was
a good capable off road rig.
I figure there are 2 main approaches. You can learn which vehicle
limits your style of driving meets or exceeds and then extend those
limits, or you can just take a guess and make a preemptive fix. I've
seen lots of people preemptively make modifications to strengthen
something that they will never ever break. If that is how they want to
spend their money that's fine by me. I indirectly make my income off
Rover parts and off road parts sales profits.
> in my mind if I can save myself the experience of having to
> change out a halfshaft, CV, or diff on the trail
That's one of those funny things. You removed the stock series Rover
front axle assembly and replaced it with a known weaker coiler
assembly. Duh, of course you are going to have problems and will need
to modify the modification. All you needed to do on this one was a
side by side visual comparison. Rover really degraded the strength of
the coiler front axle assembly. And it doesn't take a whole lot of
reading LR list emails to notice that coiler folks experience a lot
more hub CV failures than series U joint failures and most of the U
joint failures are from people switching to a cheaper/easier to get
different U joint that has been drilled for a grease fitting. And yes
I agree a 101 CV joint is the best of the Rover breed that I'm aware
of. And yes with enough effort and tenacity you will likely end up
with a very capable trail rig.
> Breakage sucks.
It does doesn't it. I just maintain that gaining experience through
learning the limits then taking a systems approach to addressing those
limits you meet is less expensive than throwing parts at something in
the hopes of making an assembly/part that may or may not ever break
stronger, then discovering a created weakness that will require
throwing even more parts at.
I'm not saying any approach is wrong, just that the approaches are
different and with enough diligence and $$$ both will eventually reach
the same place.
TeriAnn J. Wakeman
Santa Cruz, California
http://www.cruzers.com/~twakeman
A member of the internet community since 1985.
_______________________________________________
LRO mailing list
LRO@land-rover.team.net
http://land-rover.team.net/mailman/listinfo/lro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Feb 09 2003 - 13:36:37 EST