What is your two cents. Honda owners
Jan 7, 2000 | 08:17 PM
#64
Trailblazer
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Okay, I would like to apologize for my sarcastic sense of humor. But without humor what do you have? You've got to admit one thing though, these forums aren't boring with a little light from someone who likes to jab a little in the ribs. Like the immortal words of Mr. Rodney King,"Whys kan't wees all jus' git along?"
------------------
a Fast Boy from Illinois -(FBI)- Riding a 2000 Honda 400EX
------------------
a Fast Boy from Illinois -(FBI)- Riding a 2000 Honda 400EX
Jan 8, 2000 | 08:19 AM
#65
Trailblazer
Joined: Nov 1999
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
"Why can't we all just get along?"
How many times have we heard this, here in these forums and elsewhere?
Guys, I think we are getting along! We're debating (calm discussion), and sometimes arguing (heated discussion) subjects in which we share a common interest. That common interest is why we're here. And even when it degrades to the point of name calling, we're still not shooting at one another. I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for these forums because of the new software, which I dislike, but I still consider our discussions here as somewhat like talking during a riding break, or a campfire discussion at night between riding days. We're here to discuss our common appreciation for quads. I consider very few of the disagreements here tobe downright "unfriendly". Bill and I, for example, disagree about numerous aspects of the different features of our quads, but instead of wanting to shoot him, I'd love to go riding with him! I'd enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate some of my theories and claims, and I'd welcome the opportunity to see the same from him. I think it would be fun and educational.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I think we're getting along just fine. I wish more people would totally ignore those who get out of hand with their personal insults and wildly exaggerated claims, instead of lowering themselves to the other's level, and exchanging juvenile behavior. But I enjoy discussion with disagreements, and I think we generally learn more from people who disagree with us, than we do from those who share our opinions.
I'm all for keeping discussions clean, calm, and rational, but let's not automatically condemn disagreements as an indication of "not getting along". Forums participants are here by free choice, and presumably because they enjoy it. And if we're all enjoying ourselves here, then how can it be said that we're not getting along? I'd love to meet and buy every one of you a drink, and then spend a day on the trails together.
Well... except for Tree Farmer. I've already ridden with him. And the only reason he never gets stuck is because he's so ugly the mud holes reject him as foreign matter! (And he also tried to get me drunk by forcing me to consume alcoholic beverages!)
Gordon Banks
Huntsville, AL
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-08-2000).]
How many times have we heard this, here in these forums and elsewhere?
Guys, I think we are getting along! We're debating (calm discussion), and sometimes arguing (heated discussion) subjects in which we share a common interest. That common interest is why we're here. And even when it degrades to the point of name calling, we're still not shooting at one another. I've lost a lot of my enthusiasm for these forums because of the new software, which I dislike, but I still consider our discussions here as somewhat like talking during a riding break, or a campfire discussion at night between riding days. We're here to discuss our common appreciation for quads. I consider very few of the disagreements here tobe downright "unfriendly". Bill and I, for example, disagree about numerous aspects of the different features of our quads, but instead of wanting to shoot him, I'd love to go riding with him! I'd enjoy the opportunity to demonstrate some of my theories and claims, and I'd welcome the opportunity to see the same from him. I think it would be fun and educational.
Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, I think we're getting along just fine. I wish more people would totally ignore those who get out of hand with their personal insults and wildly exaggerated claims, instead of lowering themselves to the other's level, and exchanging juvenile behavior. But I enjoy discussion with disagreements, and I think we generally learn more from people who disagree with us, than we do from those who share our opinions.
I'm all for keeping discussions clean, calm, and rational, but let's not automatically condemn disagreements as an indication of "not getting along". Forums participants are here by free choice, and presumably because they enjoy it. And if we're all enjoying ourselves here, then how can it be said that we're not getting along? I'd love to meet and buy every one of you a drink, and then spend a day on the trails together.
Well... except for Tree Farmer. I've already ridden with him. And the only reason he never gets stuck is because he's so ugly the mud holes reject him as foreign matter! (And he also tried to get me drunk by forcing me to consume alcoholic beverages!)
Gordon Banks
Huntsville, AL
[This message has been edited by GLBanks (edited 01-08-2000).]
Feb 1, 2000 | 10:53 AM
#68
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 1
Mr. Andrew Thomas; I certainly wouldn't prolong an argument, one I've no chance of winning, anyway!
Earlier in this topic you informed us you possessed the One True and Perfect Definition of a differentialed 4x4 quad with one wheel spinning, "Three-wheel drive."
In my error, I said that since neither the spining front wheel nor the stationary one provided any "drive," as in motive force along the ground to the quad, I considered the condition "Two-wheel drive," because only the two rear wheels were providing any "drive," by my specialized (yet erroneous, as you point out) definition.
The editorial staff and writers of "4-Wheel ATV Action" need your counsel.
In that magazine's January, 2000 issue, where the Rancher's differential was described as superior in performance to the old (page 44), describing the old-style differentials' performance, the article says,
"When riding over uneven terrain that puts one front wheel in the air, the four-by quickly turns into a
2WD as all the power goes to the airborne wheel."
Notice the magazine says "2WD," describing the operation of previous "limited-slip" differentials, not
3WD. While this definition "proves" nothing, I agree with the magazine's viewpoint (in my error).
Gordon Banks earlier said on this topic, "The term "3 wheel drive" is a poorly devised phrase used by Polaris and Polaris fans to describe the
true four-wheel drive systems used by most 4x4 manufacturers. It stems from the true fact that when
one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in
mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power. Most or
all of the power fed to the front wheels will go to the one wheel that's freely spinning, so at that point
you are really on a 2WD machine, not 3WD (Polaris people apparently don't count well)."
And, later, "'m not going to debate the "3WD" issue. I don't believe there is any such thing in four-wheel ATV's,
and I consider it nothing more than poorly devised ad hype terminology from Polaris." Gordon thus joins me in my heresy.
In the March "4-Wheel ATV Action" magazine (page 32) says, regarding a 4X4 with front differential "The problem is that the differential puts power to the front wheel without traction. This means your 4X4 becomes a 4X2 [note: NOT 4X3. T. F.] when one wheel is in the air, such as when traversing rock gardens or cresing an off-camber climb." Thus, I remain in good company with my misunderstanding.
Now, does all this prove anything? Settle anything? Absolutely not!
Except, possibly, there's more than one way of looking at and interpreting the same situation.
Tree Farmer
Earlier in this topic you informed us you possessed the One True and Perfect Definition of a differentialed 4x4 quad with one wheel spinning, "Three-wheel drive."
In my error, I said that since neither the spining front wheel nor the stationary one provided any "drive," as in motive force along the ground to the quad, I considered the condition "Two-wheel drive," because only the two rear wheels were providing any "drive," by my specialized (yet erroneous, as you point out) definition.
The editorial staff and writers of "4-Wheel ATV Action" need your counsel.
In that magazine's January, 2000 issue, where the Rancher's differential was described as superior in performance to the old (page 44), describing the old-style differentials' performance, the article says,
"When riding over uneven terrain that puts one front wheel in the air, the four-by quickly turns into a
2WD as all the power goes to the airborne wheel."
Notice the magazine says "2WD," describing the operation of previous "limited-slip" differentials, not
3WD. While this definition "proves" nothing, I agree with the magazine's viewpoint (in my error).
Gordon Banks earlier said on this topic, "The term "3 wheel drive" is a poorly devised phrase used by Polaris and Polaris fans to describe the
true four-wheel drive systems used by most 4x4 manufacturers. It stems from the true fact that when
one front wheel (on a 4x4 with a limited-slip front differential quad) is allowed to spin freely (be it in
mud, on ice, or off the ground), the front wheel still having traction will get little or no power. Most or
all of the power fed to the front wheels will go to the one wheel that's freely spinning, so at that point
you are really on a 2WD machine, not 3WD (Polaris people apparently don't count well)."
And, later, "'m not going to debate the "3WD" issue. I don't believe there is any such thing in four-wheel ATV's,
and I consider it nothing more than poorly devised ad hype terminology from Polaris." Gordon thus joins me in my heresy.
In the March "4-Wheel ATV Action" magazine (page 32) says, regarding a 4X4 with front differential "The problem is that the differential puts power to the front wheel without traction. This means your 4X4 becomes a 4X2 [note: NOT 4X3. T. F.] when one wheel is in the air, such as when traversing rock gardens or cresing an off-camber climb." Thus, I remain in good company with my misunderstanding.
Now, does all this prove anything? Settle anything? Absolutely not!
Except, possibly, there's more than one way of looking at and interpreting the same situation.
Tree Farmer
Feb 1, 2000 | 04:59 PM
#69
Pro Rider
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 2,193
Likes: 0
TF,
First, I can't say I've ever been impressed with that magazine anyway. (ATV Sport is the real mag) I can see someone saying if you got a Honda with one front wheel in the air spinning it is LIKE a 2WD. Because at that point with 2 wheels only having traction it is LIKE a 2WD. But it is still a 3WD. Like I said before. It's not the quads fault the rider put it in that position where it's 3rd driven wheel is useless. All I need to believe a 4WD drive Honda is 2WD instead of 3WD is for someone to explain to me why the wheel in the air is going around!!!! My point as before... If it's turning it's being driven! Yes there are different ways of looking at things, but no one has yet been able to explain to me how if three wheels are turning it is only 2WD drive.
2wheel traction??? That I agree with. but... just because a tire doesn't have traction doesn't mean it isn't driven. What if your buddy came along & did nothing more then sit on the front rack, the front wheel grabs traction & you drive out. Now, what was that? 3WD! Just like it always was, all you did was apply traction with the weight of your friend. If I was to believe you & Gordon I would think... Damn that friend must have put a TC, shaft drive & hub on that quad to get 3WD right there on the trail! Quite a mechanic...
It's no big deal. Go ahead & stick with your opinion & I'll stick with mine. It's just I happen to believe I'm right.
c-ya,
------------------
Andrew Thomas
'99 Scrambler 400 & '99 Trailblazer, both with RCR mods.
First, I can't say I've ever been impressed with that magazine anyway. (ATV Sport is the real mag) I can see someone saying if you got a Honda with one front wheel in the air spinning it is LIKE a 2WD. Because at that point with 2 wheels only having traction it is LIKE a 2WD. But it is still a 3WD. Like I said before. It's not the quads fault the rider put it in that position where it's 3rd driven wheel is useless. All I need to believe a 4WD drive Honda is 2WD instead of 3WD is for someone to explain to me why the wheel in the air is going around!!!! My point as before... If it's turning it's being driven! Yes there are different ways of looking at things, but no one has yet been able to explain to me how if three wheels are turning it is only 2WD drive.
2wheel traction??? That I agree with. but... just because a tire doesn't have traction doesn't mean it isn't driven. What if your buddy came along & did nothing more then sit on the front rack, the front wheel grabs traction & you drive out. Now, what was that? 3WD! Just like it always was, all you did was apply traction with the weight of your friend. If I was to believe you & Gordon I would think... Damn that friend must have put a TC, shaft drive & hub on that quad to get 3WD right there on the trail! Quite a mechanic...
It's no big deal. Go ahead & stick with your opinion & I'll stick with mine. It's just I happen to believe I'm right.
c-ya,
------------------
Andrew Thomas
'99 Scrambler 400 & '99 Trailblazer, both with RCR mods.
Feb 1, 2000 | 05:09 PM
#70
Range Rover
Joined: Jul 1999
Posts: 178
Likes: 0
I gotta say this is a great set of posts. Lots of info and ideas and hardly anyone really got out of hand. I know what would be real cool is if we all could get together for a huge ride. Just together as a bunch of people in it for the ride! Who cares what your riding as long as your riding.
It was commented that the AWD Polaris doesn't slide its rear wheels when decending hills, but I own a Y2K Sportsman 500 and I have it happen to me a lot. I ride the foothills of the Rockies and it gets quite steep. With the quad in AWD the rears will slide considerably when desending the real steep stuff I wish there was an override to engage the front wheels. The sliding never gets out of hand (swapping ends) though, but that is mostly due to experience. Wouldn't want to be a newbie trying it though, then again newbies shouldn't be up there.
I also would love a set of those split brakes for coming down on those failed hill climbs, but my quad NEVER fails hill climbs, cause I usually chicken out way before!
Glenn.
It was commented that the AWD Polaris doesn't slide its rear wheels when decending hills, but I own a Y2K Sportsman 500 and I have it happen to me a lot. I ride the foothills of the Rockies and it gets quite steep. With the quad in AWD the rears will slide considerably when desending the real steep stuff I wish there was an override to engage the front wheels. The sliding never gets out of hand (swapping ends) though, but that is mostly due to experience. Wouldn't want to be a newbie trying it though, then again newbies shouldn't be up there.
I also would love a set of those split brakes for coming down on those failed hill climbs, but my quad NEVER fails hill climbs, cause I usually chicken out way before!
Glenn.