Front Drive Shaft Update

[TCMColorado]

RTI does not account for weight, tires size or ground clearance. RTI is based on height a tire can be lifted without others lifting and then adjusted for wheel base. You could literally start with your vehicles frame on the ground and no tires and still get a relevant RTI or CTI score.

You can also achieve high RTI with zero compression or even zero extension. You can achieve a high RTI with a rigid from suspension and a slinky rear.

RTI/CTI scores are only a tiny fraction of what tells you if a truck is good Offroad.

The examples you give are extreme cases that would never be applicable to production vehicles. In actual production cars that can be purchased by consumers a rig with a higher RTI score is very likely to be better off road than one with a very low RTI score. It is by no means the only vaild metric but it certainly serves as a way to identify the relative capability of OEM vehicles. Otherwise we would all be driving lifted Subarus and Audis. That said there is very much a point of diminishing returns and anything above 700 is not likely helpful to the typical off road driver under normal driving scenarios. There is also an inverse relationship between increasing RTI score and on road handling and stability. So a very high RTI score can make a vehicle completely unsuitable for high speed highway travel, if not outright dangerous. None the less, it is a valid way to compare the relative off road performance of stock OEM cars.

 

[LRNAD90]

The examples you give are extreme cases that would never be applicable to production vehicles. In actual production cars that can be purchased by consumers a rig with a higher RTI score is very likely to be better off road than one with a very low RTI score. It is by no means the only vaild metric but it certainly serves as a way to identify the relative capability of OEM vehicles. Otherwise we would all be driving lifted Subarus and Audis. That said there is very much a point of diminishing returns and anything above 700 is not likely helpful to the typical off road driver under normal driving scenarios.

I'd argue front to rear balance is more important, and agree that retained springs are better than dislocating ones in the real world. IMO, CTI is far better at showing the front rear balance in articulation..

 

[TCMColorado]

I'd argue front to rear balance is more important, and agree that retained springs are better than dislocating ones in the real world. IMO, CTI is far better at showing the front rear balance in articulation..

I did specifically call out front rear balance as an important metric in a prior post. I just find it misleading to say that RTI/CTI is meaningless for production rigs. It is a valid way to compare relative capability. It is almost universally agreed upon that Jeep Wranglers are the most capable off road vehicles currently for sale not including things like Unimogs. They also have the highest RTI/CTI score in factory form.

 

[Dokatd]

K.C.? (or should I say "Mighty K.C.")

This One? I can't remember, this may have been the third one. Article is light on photos unfortunately. I'll have to dig back through old magazine articles now, more to come..

Yep, I have been unmasked. . Somewhere I have the original magazine article too.

 

[Dokatd]

I did specifically call out front rear balance as an important metric in a prior post. I just find it misleading to say that RTI/CTI is meaningless for production rigs. It is a valid way to compare relative capability. It is almost universally agreed upon that Jeep Wranglers are the most capable off road vehicles currently for sale not including things like Unimogs. They also have the highest RTI/CTI score in factory form.

Well you kinda changed the goal posts a bit. But I'd still argue that Jeeps high RTI scores are coincidental or at least predictable. Naturally a production vehicle made to offroad at the level of a stock jeep is going to have a high if not the highest RTI. As well it's one of few that still have solid axles. But the high RTI does not make it a superior vehicle Offroad. I believe the Range Rover classic used to have one of the highest RTI's of stock production vehicles.

But attrition of off-roaders and jeeps having the highest production RTI does not make the numbers more valuable than they really are. Take away the lockers and a Jeeps RTI is utterly pointless. A less vehicle with lockers will go far further down the trail.

Anyways, I don't think we are really in disagreement after your subsequent posts, but you just didn't care for my direct frank statement.

 

[TCMColorado]

Well you kinda changed the goal posts a bit. But I'd still argue that Jeeps high RTI scores are coincidental or at least predictable. Naturally a production vehicle made to offroad at the level of a stock jeep is going to have a high if not the highest RTI. As well it's one of few that still have solid axles. But the high RTI does not make it a superior vehicle Offroad. I believe the Range Rover classic used to have one of the highest RTI's of stock production vehicles.

But attrition of off-roaders and jeeps having the highest production RTI does not make the numbers more valuable than they really are. Take away the lockers and a Jeeps RTI is utterly pointless. A less vehicle with lockers will go far further down the trail.

Anyways, I don't think we are really in disagreement after your subsequent posts, but you just didn't care for my direct frank statement.

I did not change the goal post. We can agree to disagree. I like a good debate.

 

[Dokatd]

I did not change the goal post. We can agree to disagree. I like a good debate.

Fair enough, but adding in "Production Vehicles" changed the goal posts a little bit. That becomes very limiting these days. We just don't build production vehicles like we used to. So again the best production Offroad vehicle becomes predictable in 2026 but not because of RTI. A locked CJ2A would spank an unlocked Wrangler. Have you seen how stiff CJ2A's are?