3WD Clarification of the Myth
Feb 3, 2000 | 06:06 PM
#11
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
TF,
1st, I get the impression you are making fun of my car. And while it's not an all out racer it still kinda pisses me off.
Yes my car is 2WD!!! That's what I've been getting at. Even though it is NOT moving foward! What you DID seem to be saying however is if my car were to spin it's tires it would be no wheel drive. Which isn't true at all. But, you finally appear to be agreeing with me. I have to ask, do you know what line locks are? They are the reason I go nowhere! With those on I can overcome friction enough to keep myself from being propelled foward. In fact the friction is at a loss big enough to allow my car to swing side to side. But Anyway I'm glad you finally seem to be coming around. After all a "driven" wheel is connected to the "drive" axle which is connected (through some type of diff) to the "drive" shaft which is part of the "drive" line. Line locks or no line locks, my car is 2WD! Whether I'm at a stand still spinning or approaching 150mph.
c-ya,
1st, I get the impression you are making fun of my car. And while it's not an all out racer it still kinda pisses me off.
Yes my car is 2WD!!! That's what I've been getting at. Even though it is NOT moving foward! What you DID seem to be saying however is if my car were to spin it's tires it would be no wheel drive. Which isn't true at all. But, you finally appear to be agreeing with me. I have to ask, do you know what line locks are? They are the reason I go nowhere! With those on I can overcome friction enough to keep myself from being propelled foward. In fact the friction is at a loss big enough to allow my car to swing side to side. But Anyway I'm glad you finally seem to be coming around. After all a "driven" wheel is connected to the "drive" axle which is connected (through some type of diff) to the "drive" shaft which is part of the "drive" line. Line locks or no line locks, my car is 2WD! Whether I'm at a stand still spinning or approaching 150mph.
c-ya,
Feb 3, 2000 | 07:09 PM
#15
Pro Rider
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 300
Likes: 0
Well guys, i never was a bad guy, i never wanted to get dissed, I did how ever post A FEW replies that i wanted to see people get off on, which were pretty futile also. Trust me guys, I provide valuable information in my area of expertise. Sorry to make you all mad, but hey i am serious about this 2wd 3wd 4wd thing, who cares, the only ppl who should care are the ppl that mud race and have to worry about this stuff, otherwise what would be the fun of an everday driver never getting stuck?? i mean really what is the fun in that??? well i guess that is what i have to say. see ya
Feb 3, 2000 | 07:28 PM
#16
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 1
Andrew, since we've drawn an appreciative and supportive reading audience, we MUST continue our discussion, right?
I'm NOT making fun of your car. You said, "Take my 5.0...please (no seriously)," I was trying to do just that, acknowledging the performance you infer.
Now, I confess--never a careful reader, I missed the line lock bit in your post, "Say I hit the line locks and just sit & burn rubber, 2 50 series Hoosier street slick black marks on the road. What was that?" I thought you were talking about laying down strips of rubber, digging-out down the strip.
However, I answered your question already; sliding coeffficient of friction is less than the static coefficient of fricion; you've just prove that fact: that braked front wheels (static) hold the spinning rear wheels (sliding).
Admitting I'm not a careful reader, I hope you are, because that characteristic will help you understand the following.
Even when your rear wheels spin, and your front wheels are locked, the rear wheels provide thrust to your vehicle, transmitted through the frame, and defeated by the static friction of the front tires.
By contrast, when a free wheel off a differential spins futilely in the air, and its mate remains stationary on the ground, NO THRUST IS PROVIDED THE VEHICLE.
"Drive" to you means wheels going around from motive force; "drive" to me (and others) means providing motive force TO THE VEHICLE.
Your definition is as good as mine; in my opinion, there's no right or wrong interpretation, and you're welcome to yours. I understand you consider all open-differential automobiles (like a Ford Crown Victoria) one-wheel-drive vehicles, and all open-differential "4X4" trucks and SUV's two-wheel drive vehicles, and you consider "4WD" quads with limmited-slip differentials three-wheel drive vehicles. Your privilege.
I've enjoyed this civil and interesting discussion.
Tree Farmer
I'm NOT making fun of your car. You said, "Take my 5.0...please (no seriously)," I was trying to do just that, acknowledging the performance you infer.
Now, I confess--never a careful reader, I missed the line lock bit in your post, "Say I hit the line locks and just sit & burn rubber, 2 50 series Hoosier street slick black marks on the road. What was that?" I thought you were talking about laying down strips of rubber, digging-out down the strip.
However, I answered your question already; sliding coeffficient of friction is less than the static coefficient of fricion; you've just prove that fact: that braked front wheels (static) hold the spinning rear wheels (sliding).
Admitting I'm not a careful reader, I hope you are, because that characteristic will help you understand the following.
Even when your rear wheels spin, and your front wheels are locked, the rear wheels provide thrust to your vehicle, transmitted through the frame, and defeated by the static friction of the front tires.
By contrast, when a free wheel off a differential spins futilely in the air, and its mate remains stationary on the ground, NO THRUST IS PROVIDED THE VEHICLE.
"Drive" to you means wheels going around from motive force; "drive" to me (and others) means providing motive force TO THE VEHICLE.
Your definition is as good as mine; in my opinion, there's no right or wrong interpretation, and you're welcome to yours. I understand you consider all open-differential automobiles (like a Ford Crown Victoria) one-wheel-drive vehicles, and all open-differential "4X4" trucks and SUV's two-wheel drive vehicles, and you consider "4WD" quads with limmited-slip differentials three-wheel drive vehicles. Your privilege.
I've enjoyed this civil and interesting discussion.
Tree Farmer
Feb 3, 2000 | 08:11 PM
#17
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 672
Likes: 0
Well I think when a Polaris quad gets one front wheel in the air and it's spinning, I think that's extra cooling for the motor, providing it's spinning fast enough!! That's about the only thing I can think of.
I have to agree with Andy's point of view on the drive thing. Basically, if the wheel is turning/spinning, it's driving, right? But it may not have traction, that's the thing. And a 4wd Polaris quad with the one front tire off the ground vs. a limited slip in the same position, with the one in the air spinning and the one on the ground not, the Polaris will be better. But now I've heard of Honda's new AP differential on the Ranchers spinning the tire with the most traction, so in the same case, they would be equal. This is where it gets difficult understanding it. The Polaris, with all 4 wheels spinning, is in one way 4 wheel drive and in another way 3 wheel drive. Go figure! All I know is that on level ground the limited slips do spin all fours. During our pull off between our Sportsman and ForemanES hooked back to back, the Foreman indeed dug 4 holes and did indeed wear the grass in 4 spots on the grass pull. The major advantage of limited slips I see is their reliability. I never worry about the 4wd on our Foreman not working, but our Sportsman's 4wd system seems to have a mind of its own. It gets kind of scary riding at a decent pace through the woods and one front hub will engage and aim you towards a tree, and it was in 2WD the whole time! All I'm saying is that the Polaris riders should lighten up about the limited slip of the competitor's machines, after all, Polaris could have a limited slip design someday too!
I have to agree with Andy's point of view on the drive thing. Basically, if the wheel is turning/spinning, it's driving, right? But it may not have traction, that's the thing. And a 4wd Polaris quad with the one front tire off the ground vs. a limited slip in the same position, with the one in the air spinning and the one on the ground not, the Polaris will be better. But now I've heard of Honda's new AP differential on the Ranchers spinning the tire with the most traction, so in the same case, they would be equal. This is where it gets difficult understanding it. The Polaris, with all 4 wheels spinning, is in one way 4 wheel drive and in another way 3 wheel drive. Go figure! All I know is that on level ground the limited slips do spin all fours. During our pull off between our Sportsman and ForemanES hooked back to back, the Foreman indeed dug 4 holes and did indeed wear the grass in 4 spots on the grass pull. The major advantage of limited slips I see is their reliability. I never worry about the 4wd on our Foreman not working, but our Sportsman's 4wd system seems to have a mind of its own. It gets kind of scary riding at a decent pace through the woods and one front hub will engage and aim you towards a tree, and it was in 2WD the whole time! All I'm saying is that the Polaris riders should lighten up about the limited slip of the competitor's machines, after all, Polaris could have a limited slip design someday too!
Feb 3, 2000 | 08:14 PM
#18
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
TF,
You are right we must continue. OK, I get you weren't making fun of my car. Want to see a pic of it? http://upload.pixhost.com/memberserv/upload2.asp
I know what you are saying about the friction. The only reason I say a 4WD Honda is 3WD is because Hondas "limited slip" isn't a very good unit obviously. If it worked like it should it would be "technically" 4WD. It seems to make steering easier, Honda has made a "weak" front drive unit.
you said...
"Drive" to you means wheels going around from motive force; "drive" to me (and others) means providing motive force TO THE VEHICLE."
YES!!! The wheels are the motive force! A Crown Vic has no control over you jacking it up, But whether on the ground or not, at least one wheel has motive force. That doesn't change.
Like I said before the only reason I consider a 4WD Honda 3WD is because of the poor performance of it's limited slip. If it's limited slip were a tighter unit it could then be considered 4WD if it were to prove itself (4WD) in the real world. If I was to jack my 5.0 up with only one side off the ground And I put it in gear it would pull itself off the jack, but if Honda made the rear end in the 5.0 it would just sit there & spin one wheel probably. WHY?? Because it seems Honda doesn't make a strong unit. Yes, it's advertised as 4WD, but no it doesn't work that way. Of course we are talking technically here. 99% of buyers of trucks, SUVs & quads just accpet 4WD for what the salesman & ads tell them it is. A very general description. If Honda made a "tighter" front unit we might not even be having this discussion.
I can put my 5.0's right tire in the grass in the ditch along the road while the left tire is on pavement. I dump the clutch both tires spin. 1st> That's one hell of a tight clutch pack in my opinion & 2nd it was just 2WD. Now lets say I sit on slippery ice on one side & pavement on the other. This time I may get single wheel. Why? Because the ice is sooo slippery. It's still a 2WD car as advertised, but for that few seconds "technically" it was single trac.
I know what you are saying... But it's really this simple. If I see a spinning tire I know it is driven & has a motive force. The reason any vehicle won't move with a spinning wheel isn't a lack of "drive" (as you suggest) but a lack of "traction" (as I suggest) In my opinion anyway...
Here is another can of worms, My '69 IH 3/4 ton 4X4 truck has an open diff front & rear. What does the badge on the truck say??? It says *All Wheel Drive*! Yes at times it is with equal traction, but in the creek where some places are a tight fit the tires up on the bank don't spin, but the tires in the mud do. 2wd at that moment. Maybe I should call IH & complain
Oh yeah, Just 'cause it's open in front & rear don't think it still won't kick a Ford, Chevy or Dodges ***
IH, Everything else is just a car.
c-ya,
You are right we must continue. OK, I get you weren't making fun of my car. Want to see a pic of it? http://upload.pixhost.com/memberserv/upload2.asp
I know what you are saying about the friction. The only reason I say a 4WD Honda is 3WD is because Hondas "limited slip" isn't a very good unit obviously. If it worked like it should it would be "technically" 4WD. It seems to make steering easier, Honda has made a "weak" front drive unit.
you said...
"Drive" to you means wheels going around from motive force; "drive" to me (and others) means providing motive force TO THE VEHICLE."
YES!!! The wheels are the motive force! A Crown Vic has no control over you jacking it up, But whether on the ground or not, at least one wheel has motive force. That doesn't change.
Like I said before the only reason I consider a 4WD Honda 3WD is because of the poor performance of it's limited slip. If it's limited slip were a tighter unit it could then be considered 4WD if it were to prove itself (4WD) in the real world. If I was to jack my 5.0 up with only one side off the ground And I put it in gear it would pull itself off the jack, but if Honda made the rear end in the 5.0 it would just sit there & spin one wheel probably. WHY?? Because it seems Honda doesn't make a strong unit. Yes, it's advertised as 4WD, but no it doesn't work that way. Of course we are talking technically here. 99% of buyers of trucks, SUVs & quads just accpet 4WD for what the salesman & ads tell them it is. A very general description. If Honda made a "tighter" front unit we might not even be having this discussion.
I can put my 5.0's right tire in the grass in the ditch along the road while the left tire is on pavement. I dump the clutch both tires spin. 1st> That's one hell of a tight clutch pack in my opinion & 2nd it was just 2WD. Now lets say I sit on slippery ice on one side & pavement on the other. This time I may get single wheel. Why? Because the ice is sooo slippery. It's still a 2WD car as advertised, but for that few seconds "technically" it was single trac.
I know what you are saying... But it's really this simple. If I see a spinning tire I know it is driven & has a motive force. The reason any vehicle won't move with a spinning wheel isn't a lack of "drive" (as you suggest) but a lack of "traction" (as I suggest) In my opinion anyway...
Here is another can of worms, My '69 IH 3/4 ton 4X4 truck has an open diff front & rear. What does the badge on the truck say??? It says *All Wheel Drive*! Yes at times it is with equal traction, but in the creek where some places are a tight fit the tires up on the bank don't spin, but the tires in the mud do. 2wd at that moment. Maybe I should call IH & complain
Oh yeah, Just 'cause it's open in front & rear don't think it still won't kick a Ford, Chevy or Dodges ***
IH, Everything else is just a car.
c-ya,
Feb 3, 2000 | 10:54 PM
#20
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 642
Likes: 0
Food for though...
What would you like, inaddition to both rear wheels driving?
1. The front tire with most traction pulling
2. The front tire with the least traction pulling
3. Both front tires pulling regardless of traction
I prefer #3. I personaly would take the Suzuki King Quad's 4wd flexability over any other out today.
What would you like, inaddition to both rear wheels driving?
1. The front tire with most traction pulling
2. The front tire with the least traction pulling
3. Both front tires pulling regardless of traction
I prefer #3. I personaly would take the Suzuki King Quad's 4wd flexability over any other out today.