FW: Too much articulation?

["Shubin, Pete" <PShubin@domain.elided>]

----------
From:  Shubin, Pete
Sent:  Friday, February 06, 1998 8:53 AM
To:  'ihc@domain.elided'
Subject:  FWD: Too much articulation?  

I found this on the jeeptech list.  Don't cringe too much.  It
originated
on the Hummer Mailing List.  It discusses a few ideas that I used when
setting up my '75 Blazer which has very stiff springs.  I plan on going
with the same idea on my '72 Scout II I'm working on right now.  Not
too tall and use relatively stiff springs.  It might teter-totter a
little in
rocks (the Blazer sure did) but it should be able to carry a pretty
heavy
load in the bed without sagging or affecting the handling of the Scout.
Of course towing capabilities need to be considered also.

Begin cut....

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 1998 14:33:40 -0800
From: Larry Soo <lhsoo@domain.elided>
Subject: Too much articulation?  

I read the following post on the Hummer Mailing List.  I'm presenting it
here in the interest of real discussion, not flaming Hummer owners.

>It seems that most four-wheel publications (which tend to Jeep-centric)
and
>Jeep owners carry on quite a bit about "awesome articulation."
>Articulation, of course, is the ability for a vehicle to have one wheel
>raised above the plane of the other three without any of those other
three
>leaving that original plane.
>
>Now, a certain amount of vertical wheel travel seems desirable (smooths
out
>the ride quite a bit).  However, in order to achieve significant
travel,
>the spring rate (relative to vehicle weight) is going to have to be
rather
>low.  This means that when on an incline, the downhill springs are
going to
>compress considerably and the uphill springs will extend.  This will,
in
>turn increase the leaning of the vehicle and shift its C.G. towards the
>downhill wheels; making the vehicle more prone to rollover.  Also, in
order
>for such travel to be possible, the vehicle must sit higher off of the
>ground in order to allow fender clearance; thus further reducing the
>vehicle's stability.
>
>With reduced wheel travel comes the increased likelihood of a wheel
being
>lifted off of the ground.  Is this really such a problem?  In a highly
>articulated vehicle, two of the wheels (though still on the ground) are
not
>going to be bearing much weight and, hence, won't be contributing much
to
>traction.  With the two diagonal wheels off of the ground (worst case
>scenario), the other two will each be carrying twice their normal load.
>This means that they will have roughly double the traction.
>
>I acknowledge that arguments can be made for cases where the
>low-weight-bearing wheels might be the only ones with traction.
However,
>I, personally, would rather slip a little bit and possibly need to use
a
>winch on occasion than ever face the prospect of a rollover.
>
>Are the fans of articulation actually reducing their rigs' abilities?


...lars

===> Message End <=============================================
This mailing list is proudly sponsored by Off-Road.com, Inc.
http://www.off-road.com