If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
"Corey Shuman" > wrote in message oups.com... > Cruisers, seriously... well, at the risk of trolling I would venture > that a stock Rangie would eat a stock Cruiser for breakfast. You'd be venturing off course. Be careful of the hype....."Bigger Nuts"...."Best4x4xFar"....and all that jivin' cosmic debris. Land Cruiser is the preeminent full lineup of 4x4s in the world. I suspect you simply don't have any perspective for what types of vehicles they distribute throughout the world. Don't get hung up on the soccer-mom-mobiles you see here. The US, and in fact most Western countries, only get the pretty ones. I don't know anybody with any experience who would choose a LR over a LC, if capability and strength were the only issue. Unfortunately things like service and parts come into play and post-british colonial countries tend to be supplied for LR's in greater amount than they are LCs because of those relationships. If you hit the Middle East, which in my view is about as difficult as overall conditions get, you won't see many LR's. It is almost all Japanese from Pajeros, to Patrols, to LC's. Neither the Jeep nor the LR's measure up to those vehicles. And who knows precisely what the new Defender will bring to the table. I think it gets shown at Geneva in the next couple days, with a release later this year. Really, anyone who claims differently simply doesn't have the experience to know any better. Sorry. And just for purpose of being factual: The Defenders sold in Australia are actually South African models. The only model specific to Australia (I think) was the Defender fitted with BMW's 2.8 petrol engine...some years ago. The SA models will likely remain as the "Classic" and only sold in countries where they still will meet emission, safety and other vehicle legislation. Our British friends on this ng could correct me if I am wrong about models and release dates. |
Ads |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Big Bill wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:36:33 -0500, Max > wrote: > > >>Hakkapelittas are nuts. I had a set (Hakka 10's) once on a Saab 900 and >>nothing, nothing could stop me in the snow. Not even studded. They were >>awesome traction. > > > Obviously, you've only driven in light snow. > Be reasonable. When the snow is over your bumper, tires are not the > answer. You need more clearance. > Never had Hakkapelitas eh? -- ---------------------- http://www.saab-900.tk The Saab Tech Resource ---------------------- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:48:37 -0500, Max > wrote:
>Big Bill wrote: >> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:36:33 -0500, Max > wrote: >> >> >>>Hakkapelittas are nuts. I had a set (Hakka 10's) once on a Saab 900 and >>>nothing, nothing could stop me in the snow. Not even studded. They were >>>awesome traction. >> >> >> Obviously, you've only driven in light snow. >> Be reasonable. When the snow is over your bumper, tires are not the >> answer. You need more clearance. >> > >Never had Hakkapelitas eh? What good do they do when the snow lifts those wonder tires enough to lose traction? When the snow is high enough to lift the vehicle high enough that the tires don't any longer have enough weight on them to gain traction, better tires are *NOT* the answer. -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" > wrote in message news > On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:48:37 -0500, Max > wrote: > >>Big Bill wrote: >>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:36:33 -0500, Max > >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Hakkapelittas are nuts. I had a set (Hakka 10's) once on a Saab >>>>900 and >>>>nothing, nothing could stop me in the snow. Not even studded. They >>>>were >>>>awesome traction. >>> >>> >>> Obviously, you've only driven in light snow. >>> Be reasonable. When the snow is over your bumper, tires are not >>> the >>> answer. You need more clearance. >>> >> >>Never had Hakkapelitas eh? > > What good do they do when the snow lifts those wonder tires enough > to > lose traction? > When the snow is high enough to lift the vehicle high enough that > the > tires don't any longer have enough weight on them to gain traction, > better tires are *NOT* the answer. Snow will not magically elevate your car. The stuff is generally pretty light, especially if light and drifted, and can be pushed aside as the car plows through it if you have the traction to do so. Sorry, but you are wrong. Good traction *is* the answer. -Fred W |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
"The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no spam please*yahoo.com> wrote
> "Big Bill" > wrote >> What good do they do when the snow lifts those wonder tires enough >> to >> lose traction? >> When the snow is high enough to lift the vehicle high enough that >> the >> tires don't any longer have enough weight on them to gain traction, >> better tires are *NOT* the answer. > > Snow will not magically elevate your car. The stuff is generally > pretty light, especially if light and drifted, and can be pushed aside > as the car plows through it if you have the traction to do so. > > Sorry, but you are wrong. Good traction *is* the answer. Sorry, Fred, but *YOU* are wrong. I've been high-centered enough to know this. And my Pilot Alpines won't save me. However, the usual method is that the surface that the tires are packing in the snow - higher than the road surface - gives way leaving you high and spinning. Floyd |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:31:53 -0500, "The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no
spam please*yahoo.com> wrote: > >"Big Bill" > wrote in message >news >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:48:37 -0500, Max > wrote: >> >>>Big Bill wrote: >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:36:33 -0500, Max > >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Hakkapelittas are nuts. I had a set (Hakka 10's) once on a Saab >>>>>900 and >>>>>nothing, nothing could stop me in the snow. Not even studded. They >>>>>were >>>>>awesome traction. >>>> >>>> >>>> Obviously, you've only driven in light snow. >>>> Be reasonable. When the snow is over your bumper, tires are not >>>> the >>>> answer. You need more clearance. >>>> >>> >>>Never had Hakkapelitas eh? >> >> What good do they do when the snow lifts those wonder tires enough >> to >> lose traction? >> When the snow is high enough to lift the vehicle high enough that >> the >> tires don't any longer have enough weight on them to gain traction, >> better tires are *NOT* the answer. > >Snow will not magically elevate your car. The stuff is generally >pretty light, especially if light and drifted, and can be pushed aside >as the car plows through it if you have the traction to do so. Did you see the OP's photos? If not, I sugest you do so. Then you will see what I mean. > >Sorry, but you are wrong. Good traction *is* the answer. Well, I learned how to drive in the snow in Pa. I learned that when you simply plow into the snow, and it gets packed under the car, it lifts you up, and the tires lose traction. I haven't noticed any changes in show that would have changed this, and, seeing the OP's pics, I am confident in saying that. I wonder where you drive that this is not so. > >-Fred W > -- Bill Funk Change "g" to "a" |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" > wrote in message ... > Well, I learned how to drive in the snow in Pa. > I learned that when you simply plow into the snow, and it gets > packed > under the car, it lifts you up, and the tires lose traction. > I haven't noticed any changes in show that would have changed this, > and, seeing the OP's pics, I am confident in saying that. > I wonder where you drive that this is not so. I learned to (and currently) drive in the snow in northern New England. What you say is definitely true should you drive into a bank or pileup created by a snowplow. But if it is just unpacked deep snow, you can definitely go through snow as high or higher than the bumper. YM(and snow)MV, -Fred W |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The Malt Hound wrote: > "Big Bill" > wrote in message > ... > > Well, I learned how to drive in the snow in Pa. > > I learned that when you simply plow into the snow, and it gets > > packed > > under the car, it lifts you up, and the tires lose traction. > > I haven't noticed any changes in show that would have changed this, > > and, seeing the OP's pics, I am confident in saying that. > > I wonder where you drive that this is not so. > > > I learned to (and currently) drive in the snow in northern New > England. What you say is definitely true should you drive into a bank > or pileup created by a snowplow. But if it is just unpacked deep > snow, you can definitely go through snow as high or higher than the > bumper. > > YM(and snow)MV, > -Fred W Fred, you are a knowledgeable guy but you are wrong on this one. You are guaranteed to get stuck if you insist on plowing through snow that does not clear the underside of your car. It's one thing to go over a short bump on the road but you cannot plow through a distance on this stuff, regardless of what kind of wheels you are driving. Wheels have to touch "ground" with sufficient weight to provide traction. The reason is simple - if the underside of your car touches the snow, your car will become a very inefficient snowplow and the snow will bunch up against the underbody of your car and pack itself. The momentum of your car will eventually leave your wheels "hanging" from the "ground". As the weight of the car diminish from the packed snow, the amount of traction you get from whatevr tire or drivetrain will vanish. You will get stuck as you try to move through this kind of condition. Clearance is the issue if your tires can provide traction on the surface. Snow must not touch the underside of your car. Of course, if your tires are wrong then clearance doesn't matter. You're not even moving. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
"The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no spam please*yahoo.com> wrote in message ... > > "Big Bill" > wrote in message > ... >> Well, I learned how to drive in the snow in Pa. >> I learned that when you simply plow into the snow, and it gets packed >> under the car, it lifts you up, and the tires lose traction. >> I haven't noticed any changes in show that would have changed this, >> and, seeing the OP's pics, I am confident in saying that. >> I wonder where you drive that this is not so. > > > I learned to (and currently) drive in the snow in northern New England. > What you say is definitely true should you drive into a bank or pileup > created by a snowplow. But if it is just unpacked deep snow, you can > definitely go through snow as high or higher than the bumper. Interesting. I live above Vail Colorado. We see a lot of snow. We've been seeing a lot of snow all our lives. We are somewhat used to a lot of snow. Yet no one around here is able to plow down the road in their 3,500 lb car in over the bumper snow with the ease you suggest New Englanders enjoy. I don't buy it. In snow as deep as being spoken about here, cars tend to ride up and lose all or some of the contact patch. It's just the way it works when a car has limited clearance in deep snow. Plus, I don't think Hakka's are the best snow tires for where I live anyway (to keep context correct, the tires I have owned were the Hakkapelita Q). They are pretty effective in fresh snow (braking, acceleration), crappy in slush or heavily wetted snow and lateral traction in any snow is about as bad as I have ever experienced which cause them to not track well. Superb ice tire though. I got the sense the tire is designed for conditions where the temps are uncommonly low all the time and every snow fall eventually becomes hardpack and then ice. I can imagine these tires are spectacular in that kind of condition. For my money, for the area where I live, the Blizzak MZ-02 seems to suit the conditions best. But only when the car in question can maintain the contact patch. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
"Big Bill" > wrote in message ... > On Thu, 3 Mar 2005 08:31:53 -0500, "The Malt Hound" <Malt_Hound@*no > spam please*yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > >"Big Bill" > wrote in message > >news > >> On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 18:48:37 -0500, Max > wrote: > >> > >>>Big Bill wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 20:36:33 -0500, Max > > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>Hakkapelittas are nuts. I had a set (Hakka 10's) once on a Saab > >>>>>900 and > >>>>>nothing, nothing could stop me in the snow. Not even studded. They > >>>>>were > >>>>>awesome traction. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Obviously, you've only driven in light snow. > >>>> Be reasonable. When the snow is over your bumper, tires are not > >>>> the > >>>> answer. You need more clearance. > >>>> > >>> > >>>Never had Hakkapelitas eh? > >> > >> What good do they do when the snow lifts those wonder tires enough > >> to > >> lose traction? > >> When the snow is high enough to lift the vehicle high enough that > >> the > >> tires don't any longer have enough weight on them to gain traction, > >> better tires are *NOT* the answer. > > > >Snow will not magically elevate your car. The stuff is generally > >pretty light, especially if light and drifted, and can be pushed aside > >as the car plows through it if you have the traction to do so. > > Did you see the OP's photos? If not, I sugest you do so. Then you will > see what I mean. > > > >Sorry, but you are wrong. Good traction *is* the answer. > > Well, I learned how to drive in the snow in Pa. > I learned that when you simply plow into the snow, and it gets packed > under the car, it lifts you up, and the tires lose traction. > I haven't noticed any changes in show that would have changed this, > and, seeing the OP's pics, I am confident in saying that. > I wonder where you drive that this is not so. I think that comes down to the airdam. If you airdam is low enough, snow will either get plowed or pile up in front of the car. If it is higher than the undercarriage, snow will build up under the car, starting with the lowest points of the undercarriage and proceeding to all sections that occur lower than the airdam's lower lip. On the E30 if you have an iS lip, it's low enough. An i lip will still not allow any significant buildup under the car. With no lip, you will get buildup in front of the steering gear and the front crossmember, which will get into the belts eventually. Nothing behind the front crossmember is any lower than that so it won't build up back there. Regardless, snow in that seciton is not likely to lift the front up, and if it did, the drive wheels are still in traction. It would be very difficult to build up enough snow to lift the rears. Now, breeching a drift is another story... you can blast the front wheels up and over it, and then settle the car down on the crest of the drift and high center it just as the rears begin to get lifted up. Hit it hard enough and momentum will carry you through regardless Go slowly enough and you will tend to plow it out of the way and not allow anything under the car, but might get stuck when the rears get into the middle of it if you have bad tires -- with good ones, the rears will still bite and you'll continue on. -Russ. -Russ. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Winter tires vs offroad tires. | Goldhawk | 4x4 | 5 | January 5th 05 09:34 PM |
Winter tires | pjjohnsen[at]hotmail.com | 4x4 | 4 | December 21st 04 09:30 PM |
Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 versus Michelin X-ICE Winter Tires | John Navage | Honda | 2 | November 19th 04 01:37 PM |
Which winter tires for a Bimmer? | Kevin Oberle | BMW | 17 | October 25th 04 08:58 PM |
FS: BMW winter tire and rim package | Kevin Oberle | BMW | 1 | October 17th 04 11:53 PM |