This is the kind of off-road course I'd like..

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBC_wARCR18

Ignore the vehicles, although it has to be said the humvees are doing
rather well, it's the course I'd like, rock throughout but not massive
boulders and not a patch of mud in sight. Any like it in the UK that
anyone knows of?

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #2

On or around Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:42:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBC_wARCR18
>
>Ignore the vehicles, although it has to be said the humvees are doing
>rather well, it's the course I'd like, rock throughout but not massive
>boulders and not a patch of mud in sight. Any like it in the UK that
>anyone knows of?

couple of thoughts. there's a bloke about 7 minutes in who's in a very
silly place, immediately downslope of an unstable vehicle. If the driver
had accidentally applied too much boot or lock and rolled it, that bloke was
underneath.

other general thought - the penalties for getting it wrong are usually a lot
more damaging than on softer terrain.

mind, I don't really, myself, see the point of gratuitous impassable
mudholes, except for winch-and-recovery training.

it's a pity that the Pontardawe site seems not to be operating any more.
there was excellent variety there.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There are three sorts of people in the world - those who can count,
and those who can't" (Anon)

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #3

On 2006-07-28, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> couple of thoughts. there's a bloke about 7 minutes in who's in a very
> silly place, immediately downslope of an unstable vehicle. If the driver
> had accidentally applied too much boot or lock and rolled it, that bloke was
> underneath.

TBH it looked to me like he was behind it rather than directly to the
side, it's hard to judge with cameras especially when you don't know
the zoom settings (the greater the zoom, the more flattening the
perspective).

> other general thought - the penalties for getting it wrong are usually a lot
> more damaging than on softer terrain.

Possibly, it's a bit swings and roundabouts, mud gives less grip which
gives less control, roll-bars can sink into soft ground, and turning a
vehicle over in water is not a good thing. Plus of course there's the
quite scary attitude to vehicle recovery usually seen on the mud sites.

That course in the vid wasn't too extreme either, I didn't see
anything in there that I felt was particularly dangerous, but would be
fun for sure. After all if unmodified humvee H2s can handle it then
how hard can it be! I've seen H1s off-road and they were far from
impressive, the h2s aren't any better.

> mind, I don't really, myself, see the point of gratuitous impassable
> mudholes, except for winch-and-recovery training.

No, mud plugging is dull, and if you don't regard your vehicle as
disposable then you have to clean it off the underside every time,
which is very messy. Plus of course for those of us with drum brakes
it's expensive!

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

R

Richard Brookman

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #4

Ian Rawlings wrote:

|| On 2006-07-28, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
||
||| couple of thoughts. there's a bloke about 7 minutes in who's in a
||| very silly place, immediately downslope of an unstable vehicle. If
||| the driver had accidentally applied too much boot or lock and
||| rolled it, that bloke was underneath.
||
|| TBH it looked to me like he was behind it rather than directly to the
|| side, it's hard to judge with cameras especially when you don't know
|| the zoom settings (the greater the zoom, the more flattening the
|| perspective).

He was looking under the vehicle with his head turned to the left,
presumably looking at the track of the rear wheels, so he must have been
ahead of the back axle, ie to the side of the vehicle rather than behind.
Unless there was a girl in a short skirt standing behind the Hummer. Who
knows.

--
Rich
==============================

I don't approve of signatures, so I don't have one.

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #5

On 2006-07-28, Richard Brookman <[email protected]> wrote:

> He was looking under the vehicle with his head turned to the left,

I thought he was looking forward and to the left, but I'm not about to
watch the thing again just to check! Us sitting here commenting on
the safety of a situation that we weren't present at is a waste of
time anyway given how hard it is to judge positioning from a video.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

A

Alex

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #6

On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 13:42:29 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> wrote:

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cBC_wARCR18
>
>Ignore the vehicles, although it has to be said the humvees are doing
>rather

I dont see much my SWB IIA couldn't cope with although i'd need to put
the 9.00x16s on it.

Alex

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 28, 2006

• #7

On 2006-07-28, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:

> I dont see much my SWB IIA couldn't cope with although i'd need to put
> the 9.00x16s on it.

I meant the humvees were doing quite well for the fat whales that they
are, I was surprised they could manage what they did.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 29, 2006

• #8

On or around Fri, 28 Jul 2006 20:29:30 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-07-28, Alex <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> I dont see much my SWB IIA couldn't cope with although i'd need to put
>> the 9.00x16s on it.
>
>I meant the humvees were doing quite well for the fat whales that they
>are, I was surprised they could manage what they did.

the H2 is some kind of chevy ain't it?

looking at it in action, it's got most of what you want - good articulation,
good ground clearance and the wheels are at the ends so there aren't silly
overhangs (which is a bugbear of rangies and discos). It's also presumably
got more than enough power and an auto box which is better for rockcrawling
provided you accept and understand the lesser engine braking. About the
only thing against it is the long wheelbase, which means it can be prone to
get hung up on big lumps - but if it's got suitably strong rocksliding
ability underneath then that's less of a problem in terms of damage.

The original H1 suffers mainly from being huge and heavy.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Ask yourself whether you are happy, and you cease to be so."
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)

 

I

Ian Rawlings

Guest

• Jul 29, 2006

• #9

On 2006-07-29, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:

> the H2 is some kind of chevy ain't it?

Chevvy Tahoe IIRC, it didn't sell well in its own clothes so they
dressed it up funny.

> looking at it in action, it's got most of what you want - good articulation,
> good ground clearance and the wheels are at the ends so there aren't silly
> overhangs (which is a bugbear of rangies and discos).

It's got rotten ramp-over angles though, and is extremely heavy, not
to mention physically too large for most things.

> It's also presumably
> got more than enough power and an auto box which is better for rockcrawling
> provided you accept and understand the lesser engine braking.

I think the most important thing is that like all the vehicles in that
video it doesn't appear to have open diffs, you don't see them
twirling wheels in the air. Having experience of the difference
locking diffs can make I'd not be without them any more. I'd imagine
that the jeeps/hummers have either traction control or some kind of
auto locking setup.

> The original H1 suffers mainly from being huge and heavy.

It's also still got the crap ramp-over angles and enormous width, it's
not an impressive vehicle other than in the McDonald's car park.

--
Blast off and strike the evil Bydo empire!

 

E

EMB

Guest

• Jul 29, 2006

• #10

Ian Rawlings wrote:
>
> It's got rotten ramp-over angles though, and is extremely heavy, not
> to mention physically too large for most things.

Yep - there was some plonker generally mouthing off about how good his
one was at an off road site I frequent. I suggested that he put his
money where his mouth was and follow me round for a bit and see who got
stuck first. He should have managed to leave me stuck in a swamp
somewhere..... if he'd got further than across the first field where he
wouldn't fit through the gateway.

 

A

Austin Shackles

Guest

• Jul 29, 2006

• #11

On or around Sat, 29 Jul 2006 11:35:22 +0100, Ian Rawlings
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>On 2006-07-29, Austin Shackles <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> the H2 is some kind of chevy ain't it?
>
>Chevvy Tahoe IIRC, it didn't sell well in its own clothes so they
>dressed it up funny.
>
>> looking at it in action, it's got most of what you want - good articulation,
>> good ground clearance and the wheels are at the ends so there aren't silly
>> overhangs (which is a bugbear of rangies and discos).
>
>It's got rotten ramp-over angles though, and is extremely heavy, not
>to mention physically too large for most things.

I did make that point, later.

>> It's also presumably
>> got more than enough power and an auto box which is better for rockcrawling
>> provided you accept and understand the lesser engine braking.
>
>I think the most important thing is that like all the vehicles in that
>video it doesn't appear to have open diffs, you don't see them
>twirling wheels in the air. Having experience of the difference
>locking diffs can make I'd not be without them any more. I'd imagine
>that the jeeps/hummers have either traction control or some kind of
>auto locking setup.

then again, the Americans who go off-roading fit detroit lockers or similar
as a matter of course - essential on that sort of terrain where you're very
likely to get wheels in the air.

>> The original H1 suffers mainly from being huge and heavy.
>
>It's also still got the crap ramp-over angles and enormous width, it's
>not an impressive vehicle other than in the McDonald's car park.

The width has at least got a valid reason - it's that wide so it can drive
in M1 Abrams tank tracks, AIUI. The width becomes a problem if you take it
into dense urban conflict areas, but to be fair, that wasn't really what it
was designed for.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Where they make a desert they call it peace" Tacitus (c.55 - c.117)
Agricola, 30

 

A

Alex

Guest

• Jul 29, 2006

• #12

On Sat, 29 Jul 2006 10:36:51 +0100, Austin Shackles
<[email protected]> wrote:

>>> I dont see much my SWB IIA couldn't cope with although i'd need to put
>>> the 9.00x16s on it.
>>
>>I meant the humvees were doing quite well for the fat whales that they
>>are, I was surprised they could manage what they did.
>
>the H2 is some kind of chevy ain't it?

It bears absolutly no resembelance to the Hummer/HMMVW other than
looks.

>
>looking at it in action, it's got most of what you want - good articulation,
>good ground clearance and the wheels are at the ends so there aren't silly
>overhangs (which is a bugbear of rangies and discos). It's also presumably
>got more than enough power and an auto box which is better for rockcrawling
>provided you accept and understand the lesser engine braking. About the
>only thing against it is the long wheelbase, which means it can be prone to
>get hung up on big lumps - but if it's got suitably strong rocksliding
>ability underneath then that's less of a problem in terms of damage.
>

I thing I did notice about the H2 is the ludicrous amount of body roll
and bounce. It's evidently set up like most american cars - soft and
squidgy - which means whenever he stops suddenly the bodywork lurches
about like a boat on the high seas. You'd think he'd have the springs
changed for serious off-road work.

Alex