ASPW about 'catastrophic breakdowns' ...

emax

Prolific Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Yes, I know the trial bikes from that time very well. I was a trial driver myself and had a Montesa 249.

As the avatar is quite small I first thought is was a Bultaco, but then detected the characteristic hump on the left motor cover and the typical shape of a TY front fender.

Very nice. Those were the days ... :)
 
Last edited:

Max

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Yes, I know the trial bikes from that time very well. I was a trial driver myself and had a Montesa 249.

As the avatar is quite small I first thought is was a Bultaco, but then detected the characteristic hump on the left motor cover and the typical shape of a TY front fender.

Very nice. Those were the days ... :)
No, we won't call it a 250...A classic Montessa 249...those were the days...
 

CountyV8

Contributor

There's two issues with this test.

1. He didn't go through the terrain response options to see if they were impacted and there was no testing of the e locking centre or rear diff (although I don't believe he has the rear e diff fitted).

2. He has an early new Defender with a 4x4 drive. Shortly after launch, JLR quietly moved to the AWD system, or Intelligent AWD as JLR called it, which is completely different and runs the system in 2wd as much of the time as it can.

View attachment 7793472

Note that there is now NO centre differential and the front axle is NOT solid as suggested by ASPW, there are more clutches.
Are you saying in these diagrams that the new Defender is not 4x4 but AWD ??? Im a LR owner but not a New Defender fan. Can never get a straight answer when ever you talk to LR sales people.
 

DCPU

Active Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Not a permanent 4x4, rather than 4x4, and yes AWD, which runs in 4x2 as much as possible for CO² and fuel saving measures.
 

CountyV8

Contributor
Not a permanent 4x4, rather than 4x4, and yes AWD, which runs in 4x2 as much as possible for CO² and fuel saving measures.
Thank you for explaining that it has led me to further research the subject sorry old school here lock all the diffs type of guy not select the terrain response on the ipad type
 

DCPU

Active Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Can never get a straight answer when ever you talk to LR sales people.
I listened as they've talked about the chassis and locking centre differentials. Even "locking" the rear e diff does not actually do what you think it does, but rather just limit slip according to an algorithm.
 

stickshifter

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Land Rover seems to have the best traction control in the business, but it is all computer controlled. This is the essence of why ASPW doesn't like the new Defender. A truly locked up rear diff will outperform a computer-controlled limited slip diff when the driver is seeking maximum traction.

Furthermore, the computer stuff works great when it works, but the potential for failure is higher than in an "analologue" vehicle (as ASPW so stridently argues). A 4x4 with a manual transfer case to lock the center diff is a more reliable way to distribute torque. Manually locking front and rear diffs are also more reliable.

As an aside, its a shame that the Grenadier uses electronic actuators to lock the front and rear diffs (as do most other brands). A true mechanical actuator would be better - but there is only one manufacturer of those (Ox Lockers), and I think they only make their lockers for Dana axles (and maybe some Ford axles). An Ox locker is actuated with a manual lever in the cabin, which is connected via steel cable to the locker in the differential housing.
 

emax

Prolific Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Though I do not like all this computer stuff in cars and in particular not in off road driving, I doubt that a computer controlled slip and torque distribution can easily be outperformed by an average or even an experienced driver in any non-acrobatic situation.

But even if there was a 100% guarantee that all the high tech computer and mechatronic stuff would absolutely and never fail in a cars life, I would still not want to have it.

If one seriously thinks about the question why people drive off road at all, he will have to admit, that in the majority of cases in which we go off road there is simply no imperative reason to do so. I am not talking about farmers, the military, S&R and such things.

But nobody drives the Rubicon trail because he has to for some urgent reason. Or ASPW & friends driving the CSR, Jim Ratcliffe crossing Namibia or most of us -including me- driving whichever trails in the Moab, through Corsica or the Scottish Highlands. No "need" to do so, bullshit.

We all do so because we simply love it, because of the challenge, the awesome nature and the magnificent experiences we encounter if we do so.

And so is the driving. A question of skill and an exciting experience of satisfaction when you have mastered a difficult section, arrived at a lonely peak or lit a fire at a dream campsite in the evening, We don't have to do any of this. On the contrary - we are even looking for it!

When I go for a walk or hike in the forest, I can always call for help on the phone and get something to eat in the supermarket in the evening. And yet I always take my Puma White Hunter or my KaBar USMC with me. Not because I really need it. But it just feels good. Because it simply corresponds to the genetic program that is (thanks god) still influencing us after more than 40,000 years. It is the desire to be able to act independently and to be equipped to do so at any time.

So why are Formula 1 vehicles equipped with sensors and software that always set the optimum slip of 7% when accelerating, measure lateral acceleration and determine the optimum speed on wet racetracks at any temperature? In the end, isn't it a competition between software engineers and mechatronics engineers instead of racing drivers?

If I now look at all this in a larger context, then I think that any kind of heteronomy, and thus also the taking over of decisions by computers or other instances, alienates us from ourselves. Things just seem to work. And we no longer remember how and why. And how could we find our limits when computers are quietly at work everywhere, pushing these boundaries and making us believe that this is our achievement?

I'm sure I've made a big detour here. But if you don't sit back and try to look at things comprehensively, you won't notice that you're becoming more and more dispossessed of reality and taken over by other regulatory mechanisms, so that being human might at a some point end up with being reduced to a "Total Recall", which has nothing to do with the real me anymore.

It may seem far-fetched to want to derive from this a rejection of electronic helpers in everyday life. After all, I am a software developer by profession. But my beliefs have changed with age: I think these supposed normalities have already begun to cloud our perception of life and of ourselves.

I don't think that this has anything to do with a conspiracy. Because engineers always build what is possible, including the JLR engineers, and they have developed outstanding solutions. But I have become much more aware of the consequences of such developments.

With this in mind, I love being in nature, being in control of things myself, and more and more try to avoid unnecessary frills. And that's what the engineers overlook: that I don't want these "helpers" at all, because I want to master things on my own - even if the computers in an off-road vehicle perform better than I ever could.
 
Last edited:

Max

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Though I do not like all this computer stuff in cars and in particular not in off road driving, I doubt that a computer controlled slip and torque distribution can easily be outperformed by an average or even an experienced driver in any non-acrobatic situation.

But even if there was a 100% guarantee that all the high tech computer and mechatronic stuff would absolutely and never fail in a cars life, I would still not want to have it.

If one seriously thinks about the question why people drive off road at all, he will have to admit, that in the majority of cases in which we go off road there is simply no imperative reason to do so. I am not talking about farmers, the military, S&R and such things.

But nobody drives the Rubicon trail because he has to for some urgent reason. Or ASPW & friends driving the CSR, Jim Ratcliffe crossing Namibia or most of us -including me- driving whichever trails in the Moab, through Corsica or the Scottish Highlands. No "need" to do so, bullshit.

We all do so because we simply love it, because of the challenge, the awesome nature and the magnificent experiences we encounter if we do so.

And so is the driving. A question of skill and an exciting experience of satisfaction when you have mastered a difficult section, arrived at a lonely peak or lit a fire at a dream campsite in the evening, We don't have to do any of this. On the contrary - we are even looking for it!

When I go for a walk or hike in the forest, I can always call for help on the phone and get something to eat in the supermarket in the evening. And yet I always take my Puma White Hunter or my KaBar USMC with me. Not because I really need it. But it just feels good. Because it simply corresponds to the genetic program that is (thanks god) still influencing us after more than 40,000 years. It is the desire to be able to act independently and to be equipped to do so at any time.

So why are Formula 1 vehicles equipped with sensors and software that always set the optimum slip of 7% when accelerating, measure lateral acceleration and determine the optimum speed on wet racetracks at any temperature? In the end, isn't it a competition between software engineers and mechatronics engineers instead of racing drivers?

If I now look at all this in a larger context, then I think that any kind of heteronomy, and thus also the taking over of decisions by computers or other instances, alienates us from ourselves. Things just seem to work. And we no longer remember how and why. And how could we find our limits when computers are quietly at work everywhere, pushing these boundaries and making us believe that this is our achievement?

I'm sure I've made a big detour here. But if you don't sit back and try to look at things comprehensively, you won't notice that you're becoming more and more dispossessed of reality and taken over by other regulatory mechanisms, so that being human might at a some point end up with being reduced to a "Total Recall", which has nothing to do with the real me anymore.

It may seem far-fetched to want to derive from this a rejection of electronic helpers in everyday life. After all, I am a software developer by profession. But my beliefs have changed with age: I think these supposed normalities have already begun to cloud our perception of life and of ourselves.

I don't think that this has anything to do with a conspiracy. Because engineers always build what is possible, including the JLR engineers, and they have developed outstanding solutions. But I have become much more aware of the consequences of such developments.

With this in mind, I love being in nature, being in control of things myself, and more and more try to avoid unnecessary frills. And that's what the engineers overlook: that I don't want these "helpers" at all, because I want to master things on my own - even if the computers in an off-road vehicle perform better than I ever could.
So many beautifully written points of the experience of the different facets of life let alone driving. To ride our trial section or drive our trial section, it's in our hands as is your knife, we are in control. Why even have an F1 driver, tradition maybe?
I had my series 2 out for a run and came across the military in their G Wagons, one Sergeant exclaimed he would rather be driving my series than just steering his steed, he explained that if they were to have a fault they have to wait for a tech to arrive, F1 military.

I am glad that some of us are still in the saddle and looking forward to our new steed.
 

DCPU

Active Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
As an aside, its a shame that the Grenadier uses electronic actuators to lock the front and rear diffs (as do most other brands). A true mechanical actuator would be better - but there is only one manufacturer of those (Ox Lockers), and I think they only make their lockers for Dana axles (and maybe some Ford axles). An Ox locker is actuated with a manual lever in the cabin, which is connected via steel cable to the locker in the differential housing.

I think I've only seen one mention of the system by Ineos that goes beyond describing them as simply locking differentials.

In the Press Pack from April, they are described as "two optional electronically
actuated diff locks are available, front and rear, with 100% mechanical engagement."

On Eaton's website it calls their ELocker electronic in one place and electric in another.

Where are the electronics? The wiring diagram for them shows a relatively simple switched circuit, including a relay to send power to energise an electromagnet in the diff itself. There appears to be a diode in the circuit, labelled as a "suppression device", but is this the sum total of the electronics?
 

DenisM

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
The diode is probably mounted on a printed circuit board....There may be other components on the board, the diode being there to "suppress" voltage spikes from operation of the relay and solenoid. Most of the relays probably have diodes in them anyway for the same purpose. The central display screen showing whether or not the diff locks are engaged, as well as real time measurements of torque apportioned to each wheel generally requires some clever signal processing = delicate electronics...

a physics professor who entertained us more than half a century ago was fond of observing "... once you start fooling with diodes things can only go one way.." :ROFLMAO:
 
Last edited:

DenisM

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Getting back to whether the new Defender would survive etc.... on the www.aulro.com website there was a story about 10yrs ago where a chap from Perth took his near new RR for a trip to the Gibb River rd. He was a long time LR owner and quite experienced in said travels. If I recall correctly, a combined "electronic" airspring/strut/ shock absorber failed spectacularly on the corrugations. What to do? Well he contacted JLR presumably by satphone hoping JLR would live up to their promise that if the vehicle broke down while under warranty they would recover it!!! JLR in turn sent a light aircraft (C-172? ) to collect the chap and his wife. They also despatched a tray-lift to recover the vehicle and took it back to either Perth or Geraldton (whatever, it was a VERY long way)... The part replacement unit cost was in excess of at least AUD$2k.... you don't carry such exotica unless you have a Dakar spares team in tow... but it's like Emax says above... it's the challenge to travel rugged terrain and be self reliant. So, simple as can be is the order of the day!
 

CountyV8

Contributor
I listened as they've talked about the chassis and locking centre differentials. Even "locking" the rear e diff does not actually do what you think it does, but rather just limit slip according to an algorithm.
Yes I understand the rear locking diff in a New Defender is an e-dif .I also think all this wheel spin caused by traction control damages tracks more so than locked conventional 4WD also less wear and tear on driveline components over time and far far les complicated .
 

stickshifter

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
I think I've only seen one mention of the system by Ineos that goes beyond describing them as simply locking differentials.

In the Press Pack from April, they are described as "two optional electronically
actuated diff locks are available, front and rear, with 100% mechanical engagement."

On Eaton's website it calls their ELocker electronic in one place and electric in another.

Where are the electronics? The wiring diagram for them shows a relatively simple switched circuit, including a relay to send power to energise an electromagnet in the diff itself. There appears to be a diode in the circuit, labelled as a "suppression device", but is this the sum total of the electronics?
I don't know how much experience you have with electronically actuated locking diffs, but some engage well, while others sit there blinking at you - stubbornly refusing to engage. Here in the U.S. market, the fastest to engage are found in the new Ford Bronco. In the older model of the Wrangler - the JK - the electronics were rather fiddly, and sometimes the diffs locked-up promptly, and other times they did not. Since 2018, the newer version of the Wrangler - the JL - has been much better, but still not as reliably quick as the Bronco. The electronic actuator in the Ram Power Wagon is frustratingly slow to engage.

Slightly off-topic, but I have a similar complaint about electronic actuators for the transfer case. I own a 2017 Tacoma - my first 4x4 that does not have a manual lever to engage 4-high and 4-low; instead, it has a crappy little dial that successfully activates a beeping noise and a flashing light, but does not always actuate 4-low. I do the old creep it forward and back to better align the gears, but the system just stinks. My wife's 2019 4-Runner with a manual lever is infinitely better.

About 15 years ago, I installed fully-mechanical Ox lockers in my JK, and they were awesome. Not only did they engage the lockers flawlessly, they engaged that part of one's soul that revels in that sense of being connected to one's vehicle in a physical way. See emax's post above (post #28).

So it isn't just about the degree of complexity of the electronics; its about (1) positive engagement when you require it, and (2) what I believe is the ethos of the Grenadier - namely, being as "mechanical" as possible - both with the goal of reliability, but also because many people still crave that physical engagement with their vehicle.

Going back to the transfer case: (1) I think the manual lever works better, (2) I think it is more reliable, and (3) it just feels good to me.
 

RoadBuilder

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
Land Rover seems to have the best traction control in the business, but it is all computer controlled. This is the essence of why ASPW doesn't like the new Defender. A truly locked up rear diff will outperform a computer-controlled limited slip diff when the driver is seeking maximum traction.

Furthermore, the computer stuff works great when it works, but the potential for failure is higher than in an "analologue" vehicle (as ASPW so stridently argues). A 4x4 with a manual transfer case to lock the center diff is a more reliable way to distribute torque. Manually locking front and rear diffs are also more reliable.

As an aside, its a shame that the Grenadier uses electronic actuators to lock the front and rear diffs (as do most other brands). A true mechanical actuator would be better - but there is only one manufacturer of those (Ox Lockers), and I think they only make their lockers for Dana axles (and maybe some Ford axles). An Ox locker is actuated with a manual lever in the cabin, which is connected via steel cable to the locker in the differential housing.
About two years ago, I sent an email to Ineos, asking them to consider Ox Lockers. I never received a response.
 

bemax

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
About two years ago, I sent an email to Ineos, asking them to consider Ox Lockers. I never received a response.
Two years ago probably everything already has been sorted out.
I still hope that they found a reliable solution. IG has chosen good and reliable parts in every aspect. So I hope they did figure something reliable out for the lockers as well.
 

DCPU

Active Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
It would be interesting to see who were in the running, what the selection process was and who decided the winner.
 

emax

Prolific Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
I think that the e-lockers will be fine for me. I'm not a hard core offroader and just want to have them as a backup in case I've overestimated my skills. And maybe for water crossings it's nice to have. In such a case I consider having better than needing.

Whatever Ineos has built in: it will be able to do more than I can exhaust.
 

stickshifter

Contributor
Grenadier Ordered
About two years ago, I sent an email to Ineos, asking them to consider Ox Lockers. I never received a response.
As bemax said, they probably had all their suppliers lined up by then - which is too bad. The Ox locker fits perfectly with the goals laid out by Sir Jim and Ineos with regard to the Grenadier.
 
Top