Does new technology make off-roading more fun?

[dks]

Most modern 4WD/AWD off-road vehicles seem to either have a large number of settings/adjustments/selections you need to make before driving off road (i.e. terrain, what to lock, speed, suepension...) or very few (full auto).

The end result seems to be that the driver becomes just a passenger in the vehicle which does all the work through the electronics.(OK, he/she steers, for the time)  You just let the vehicle "do its stuff" and "sort it out"

Is the point of off-roading to drive through the mud puddle or to have fun driving through it?  Is there any reason to drive through it, or can you go round it, if fun is not a factor.

Why drive over a rock to go somewhere (usually 2m higher) when you can just walk there - stay at home and watch it on video - even simpler.

I do need go off road in some cases (hunting, farming etc.), but mostly I do it for fun.

I usually just stay in 2WD when driving through muddy ground, because it is fun - switching to 4WD only if I start getting stuck.

(I remember the fun of driving older RWD regular cars on cheap tyres that were fun, even going slowly - opel ascona, etc new cars are safer and faster, but the fun factor may be missing)

And, I am always cautious of anything electronic that can not be fixed easily, overheating of viscous coupling etc, in newer cars.

I do have vehicles with manual 4WD and practically full auto AWD and use them off road, but the manual ones get used harder, even though to get you unstuck the Auto AWD system may be better...

what is your experience?

[4everYoung]

IMO, simplicity is better. It's not about if something fails but when. And when it fails, the simpler it is to fix it out on the trail, the better off you are.  Mechanical linkage can bend or break but most can still be shifter manually externally. Where as solenoid or actuator driven devices become more challenging to move. Especially those internally mounted.
Also upgrading to more comply used it sourced parts is a plus. Makes it easier to source the part in more places than from a specific vendor.
Just a few to think about.

[Etherealicer]

IMO, simplicity is better. It's not about if something fails but when. And when it fails, the simpler it is to fix it out on the trail, the better off you are.  Mechanical linkage can bend or break but most can still be shifter manually externally. Where as solenoid or actuator driven devices become more challenging to move. Especially those internally mounted.
Also upgrading to more comply used it sourced parts is a plus. Makes it easier to source the part in more places than from a specific vendor.
Just a few to think about.

I completely agree with you. However, that exactly means that modern tech could make a much better off-road vehicle.

Basically, a series hybrid.
Compact engine working at optimal RPM
Electrical engines delivering lots of torque from zero RPM
No drive-train, no gear-box, less stuff that breaks

Btw, it is not a new idea but hybrid tech has improved a lot over the past years. The Oshkosh HEMTT  A3 is superior to its conventional counterparts in every way, except price I guess.

[4everYoung]

IMO, simplicity is better. It's not about if something fails but when. And when it fails, the simpler it is to fix it out on the trail, the better off you are.  Mechanical linkage can bend or break but most can still be shifter manually externally. Where as solenoid or actuator driven devices become more challenging to move. Especially those internally mounted.
Also upgrading to more comply used it sourced parts is a plus. Makes it easier to source the part in more places than from a specific vendor.
Just a few to think about.

I completely agree with you. However, that exactly means that modern tech could make a much better off-road vehicle.

Basically, a series hybrid.
Compact engine working at optimal RPM
Electrical engines delivering lots of torque from zero RPM
No drive-train, no gear-box, less stuff that breaks

Btw, it is not a new idea but hybrid tech has improved a lot over the past years. The Oshkosh HEMTT  A3 is superior to its conventional counterparts in every way, except price I guess.

While I appreciate the enthusiasm, as someone who works daily with electro motive equipment, I can tell you 1st hand how poor and unreliable it truly is.

The Oshkosh model you reference is is basically a scaled down version of a diesel-electric locomotive, which have been using this technology for quite a while. And this is actually where my experience lies.
Current loco use diesel power to turn an alternator which supplies 3 phase AC power which is then converted to D.C. Power using large rectifiers. This high voltage D.C. Power is then put into  banks of IGBT's and converted a simulated AC signal. Which is actually just a pulsed DC signal creating an AC sine wave. This is then directed into AC motors which turn pinion gears to rotate a large ring and turn the wheels.
(Note this is the extremely shortened version).
With al that said, it works yes. However the amount of failures in this type of propulsion system are massive.
To obtain the usable efficiency that is require to meet EPA tier emissions for fuel management the engine (regardless of size) has to be an extremely efficient electronic controlled fuel injection controlled by multiple sensors and its own computer.
Then you have to have a separate computer to control excitation of the main alternator. After that another computer to control the pulse width modulation of the created sine wave.
Yet another to control operator input. And finally one computer to control them all. Have all this interfaces over an arc net/ Ethernet system to communicate. Except for the IGBT's which communicates via fiber optics for rapid response. However they have speed constraints as to how fast the could go due to the back EMF as speed would increase.
This all has to be on an isolated chassis with yet another complex system to monitor for grounds and short circuits.
Add in relays, contractors, gates and other various electrical components.
This is just to get you out of the realm of what a glorified gas powered golf cart could offer.
Now put it all into a package that is designed to move/articulate and take constant abuse from rocks, water, sand and other elements. All the additional weight makes this a very heavy beast

All that to say, yea electro motive, frequency driven electric vehicles do produce torque on demand, they are extremely complex with multiple points of failure. While they may stand up to a rough logging road or the dessert of Iraq, they are in no position to be remotely considered for offroad use(particularly recreational).

I'll stand by my initial point of simpler is better for offroad. I certainly wouldn't want to sink a 1100 amp alternator in a swamp and hope my ground detection/ protection system protects me.

[Don Pablo]

You do have to admit that pure electric, like a tesla, has the capability to be more reliable.
I believe that a tesla has about 25 moving parts in its drivetrain, from motor to wheel(can't remember exactly). No transmission, gearbox is single speed so wont break, etc.
And batteries are much easier to waterproof then alternators.

[lister]

Oh yes, electric cars are great in every aspect except for one, the batteries. Batteries are one giant clustersmurf. 

[Gerhard Gerber]

You can fix an old Hilux with wire & pliers, that's what I'm looking for, and that's what I have.

That said, I trust fuel injection and the electronics behind it more than a carburetor.

EMP's excluded of course.

A person I know got his Prado stuck in a detour where the road got washed out, same day I went past there and back with an old RAV4. 

The guy that came to help pushed the button that raises the Prado's suspension and drove out.......

[Don Pablo]

Oh yes, electric cars are great in every aspect except for one, the batteries. Batteries are one giant clustersmurf. 

300 miles of range does not sound like a clustersmurf. 

[Mr. Whippy]

If I'm offroading for fun, it seems to me that part of the fun is having the driving skills to navigate the obstacles.  The more technowizardry a vehicle has, the less it becomes about skill and the more it becomes about best tech.  I prefer my old Land Rover (or other old selectable 4WD with hi/lo range and manual transmission).  If it's about getting to work in heavy snow conditions, then sure, I'll take whatever tech I can reasonably afford.  (I still prefer manual transmission over automatic, but that's just my preference).

[dks]

a post answering the actual question, at last  

[Mr. Whippy]

a post answering the actual question, at last

[Whoey]

As a kid I hated manual transmissions, and when I first started learning to drive legally in Canada (at 16) I was always in an automatic. I never actually got (or really needed) a license tbh as I lived in big cites with decent transit systems to get me where I needed to go for the most part.

Fast forward many years and I found myself in need of both said license and a vehicle. Over here in Spain manual transmissions are more common than automatics, so I then learned to drive with a manual. That's the only thing I've driven so far since (granted it's only been about 5 years). I think I would now find automatics uncomfortable at times.

So while this has very little to do with off-roading, it does speak towards the tech or lack there of.

There are times when I'm sure it'd be handy, but others where skill level make it both fun and possibly quicker than easier than finding the right button setting to move on.

As for electric, I think it could be far better, but even more so when you combine it with some sort of smaller more efficient engine to charge the batteries, not for actual driving.

As for off-roading experience, I've only ever driven Grant's yellow jeep a few metres across his yard in the snow... 

[jzmtl]

None of those techs are added because they are better. They exist to justify the luxury status of the vehicle they were installed on, and nicely pad dealer profit when they break right after warranty ends.

Nothing beats a fully locked drivetrain and low crawl gear.

[Don Pablo]

As for electric, I think it could be far better, but even more so when you combine it with some sort of smaller more efficient engine to charge the batteries, not for actual driving.

I don't know, electric range is pretty good nowadays, especially at slow speed.

I always thought of hybrids as a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none.
Smaller fuel tank than in *ICE cars, smaller batteries than in electric cars, and smaller engines as well. 
Not to mention the extra complexity=something breaking.

For offroad, you want torque and reliability, right?
Electric cars have unbelievable torque, and are simpler than *ICE cars.
I bet if someone made an electric jeep, offroaders would be all over it. 

*ICE=Internal Combustion Engine

[Smashie]

A tough one to answer, as I've driven pretty much every generation of Range/Land Rovers and watched them gain so much electrickery they are pretty damn complicated, I learned to drive off road in an old school landie with no assistance what so ever, not even power steering.

The new 4x4's with all their gadgets, make it easier for people with very little clue get themselves into far more trouble quickly because they don't have to think anymore. The gadgets do it all yes? No. You are driving 2.5 tonnes (plus) of very expensive 4x4, you can accelerate better than the peasants in the 2wd cars and probably stop quicker on snow or ice. 2.5 tonnes with a high center of gravity is going to fair worse, than the peasants car that they look down, on on an icy corner.

My landie has some tech on it, ABS and traction control, but I have to select high or low range, or if I engage the center diff lock or the front or rear diff locks. I have to control the throttle and brakes (no clutch I've got an auto box).

Tech on cars in general is dumbing down the experience and the skill needed to drive, new BMW X5 if you pull up to park and just switch off the engine the handbrake is applied and the gearbox goes to park. What happens when that person drives another car without those features and parks on a hill?

I like driving off road and having it be challenging.

Electric 4x4's bring them on! but power them with fuel cells not batteries.

[Don Pablo]

So, extending your thoughts farther, what would you think of an offroader, basically as fancy(gadget wise) as an old landrover, but fully electric? *An electric old-style offroader! 
I know that if I could buy one, I'd like a small electric jeep with the least amount of gadgets! 
Maybe with a removable top!

*minus the gear shifter, 'cause electric vehicles only have one gear.

[Smashie]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

[Grant Lamontagne]

If I'm offroading for fun, it seems to me that part of the fun is having the driving skills to navigate the obstacles.  The more technowizardry a vehicle has, the less it becomes about skill and the more it becomes about best tech.  I prefer my old Land Rover (or other old selectable 4WD with hi/lo range and manual transmission).  If it's about getting to work in heavy snow conditions, then sure, I'll take whatever tech I can reasonably afford.  (I still prefer manual transmission over automatic, but that's just my preference).

Be careful of relying on Hill Descent Mode.  It only works in 4Lo, on alternate Tuesdays during a full moon if the temperature is between 74 and 77F with a relative humidity of below 67%.  If you touch the brake it will shut off.  If you don't touch the brake and Hill Descent Mode didn't activate itself for some reason, you will find yourself going down the incline at far too great a speed... and accelerating.  Ask me how I know that..... 

I have the best of both worlds- my JKU has all the gadgets- yes, I hate some of them, but I can drive 18 hours on the highway with it and have no issues.  My TJ on the other hand was easier to park and is bone stock, and I trust gearing down and using the clutch off road than putting the JKU in gear and steering, supposedly confident that some engineer somewhere may have had my exact situation in mind when he or she designed whatever software my Jeep is following.

Def

[Don Pablo]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

[Smashie]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

4 motors = 4 points of failure, keep it simple

[Grant Lamontagne]

Or three points of redundancy?   

Def

[4everYoung]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

If each wheel has a motor then each motor would have to be individually controlled for timing. Not so much an issue in loose terrain at slow speed like crawling but at high speed this could cause a pull that could be deadly.
For slow speed the motors would have an advantage over conventional mechanical axles. They could detect wheel slip or free wheeling and cut off the power. This would prevent shock loading the drivetrain. 

[Smashie]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

If each wheel has a motor then each motor would have to be individually controlled for timing. Not so much an issue in loose terrain at slow speed like crawling but at high speed this could cause a pull that could be deadly.
For slow speed the motors would have an advantage over conventional mechanical axles. They could detect wheel slip or free wheeling and cut off the power. This would prevent shock loading the drivetrain.

I understand what you are saying, but the added cables and electronics would be a weak point on an off road vehicle surely, I understood the point of this thread to mean does new tech make off roading more fun? as it stands now, no it doesn't. Increased points of failure, increased maintenance costs (and believe me the hours I've put into my landrover and the cash I've had to pay others for a traditional 4x4 knock that argument out of the ball park). Alternative energy isn't ready yet, for city cars yes, for anything else no it isn't

[4everYoung]

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

If each wheel has a motor then each motor would have to be individually controlled for timing. Not so much an issue in loose terrain at slow speed like crawling but at high speed this could cause a pull that could be deadly.
For slow speed the motors would have an advantage over conventional mechanical axles. They could detect wheel slip or free wheeling and cut off the power. This would prevent shock loading the drivetrain.

I understand what you are saying, but the added cables and electronics would be a weak point on an off road vehicle surely, I understood the point of this thread to mean does new tech make off roading more fun? as it stands now, no it doesn't. Increased points of failure, increased maintenance costs (and believe me the hours I've put into my landrover and the cash I've had to pay others for a traditional 4x4 knock that argument out of the ball park). Alternative energy isn't ready yet, for city cars yes, for anything else no it isn't

Don't get me wrong,  I'm not advocating for this just simply stating the facts to answer his question.
I daily drive a 12 wrangler with manual trans, manual transfer case, manual OX lockers, manual sway bar disco's and the traction control disabled. I know first hand the importance of keeping it simple when miles deep into a trail/back country.

[Smashie]

Doesn't get much simpler than that. Or this.

[Don Pablo]

Smashie, that 4×4 still has 100's of moving parts. 

you would still need locking diffs (at least 2) to prevent transmission wind up. but a fuel cell powered electric I would go for

I'm a little hazy here. Are the locking diffs necessary if each pair of driven wheels has its own motor?

If each wheel has a motor then each motor would have to be individually controlled for timing. Not so much an issue in loose terrain at slow speed like crawling but at high speed this could cause a pull that could be deadly.
For slow speed the motors would have an advantage over conventional mechanical axles. They could detect wheel slip or free wheeling and cut off the power. This would prevent shock loading the drivetrain.

I understand what you are saying, but the added cables and electronics would be a weak point on an off road vehicle surely, I understood the point of this thread to mean does new tech make off roading more fun? as it stands now, no it doesn't. Increased points of failure, increased maintenance costs (and believe me the hours I've put into my landrover and the cash I've had to pay others for a traditional 4x4 knock that argument out of the ball park). Alternative energy isn't ready yet, for city cars yes, for anything else no it isn't

Don't get me wrong,  I'm not advocating for this just simply stating the facts to answer his question.
I daily drive a 12 wrangler with manual trans, manual transfer case, manual OX lockers, manual sway bar disco's and the traction control disabled. I know first hand the importance of keeping it simple when miles deep into a trail/back country.

Ah, finally something that I know about. 
4 motors are a bad option in most cases, but not quite for the reasons stated!
A/C Induction motors, the type used in electric cars like Teslas, are rather fantastical.

Show content

Invented by Nikola Tesla +120 years ago, they suffer from no traditional wear/tear, as the moving parts experience no friction aside from several sets of ordinary ball bearings.
Motors from the 40's are still working^{needs citation}.
The lifespan before failure is indefinite.
And they can deliver max torque at ANY rpm.
Let that sink in. Max torque at 10 rpm? Here you go!

4 motors are bad because of the possible positions in the car.
1. In the wheels. Fancy, rare and bad for suspension(heavy wheels). Great for Mars rovers though.

2. In the chassis. Still need 4 short axles, and overall heavier and more complex than 2 motors.

And the timing issue that 4everYoung raised is important.
I don't think the added cables etc are a problem though, we're talking THICK wire, easy to secure.


I was originally talking about 2 motors, one for the front wheel pair, one for the back pair.
Two simple motors, 2 gearboxes(single speed, giving our jeep a top speed of 100 mph?), two diffs, and those other things like steering and suspension that a petrol/diesel jeep has.



Sorry for long post!   
Did we derail yet?

[lister]

Oh yes, electric cars are great in every aspect except for one, the batteries. Batteries are one giant clustersmurf. 

300 miles of range does not sound like a clustersmurf. 

There is so much more to the batteries than the range. The price, the number of recharge cycles, the environmental damage from lithium mining and recycling (do we even do that yet?), the fire hazard, the weight...

Everything else about electric car is more or less figured out, but the batteries are a long way from being ready for use. Right now we will make more long term harm by forcing the lithium batteries in to use, rather than use what we have now. Not to speak of the momentum that lithium batteries will gather in terms of related infrastructure and economic interest which will just make it harder to phase them out and replace with a technology that is actually good for the planet and the user...

[firiki]

[Don Pablo]

Oh yes, electric cars are great in every aspect except for one, the batteries. Batteries are one giant clustersmurf. 

300 miles of range does not sound like a clustersmurf. 

There is so much more to the batteries than the range. The price Dropping all the time, the number of recharge cycles (see spoiler)

Show content

Tesla has sold 2000 Roadsters, and many have passed the 8 year mark, and the batteries in them are still purring along. It looks like they will last +10 years.

, the environmental damage from lithium mining What damage? Its orders of magnitude less than fossil fuel mining, see article below. and recycling (do we even do that yet? YES! Lithium batteries are VERY recyclable. ), the fire hazard Much less than for petrol/diesel cars!, the weight Does it really matter if the electric cars still have better performance than petrol/diesel cars?...

Everything else about electric car is more or less figured out, but the batteries are a long way from being ready for use. Right now we will make more long term harm by forcing the lithium batteries in to use, rather than use what we have now. Not to speak of the momentum that lithium batteries will gather in terms of related infrastructure and economic interest which will just make it harder to phase them out and replace with a technology that is actually good for the planet and the user...

Can you cite your sources please? 
I inserted my counter-arguments in your post.
My source: https://cleantechnica.com/2016/05/12/lithium-mining-vs-oil-sands-meme-thorough-response/.
The comments in that article, (which are an indicator of validity, right? People are quick to correct.  ) agree with the article.
And for bonus points, here is one lithium mine:


I concede that Electric cars are not for people(like Grant.  ) who live in gigantic countries and drive 500 km to the pub.
But the range is more than adequate for most people(UK, continental Europe, etc. Distances are smaller).

[lister]

But you have to add the pollution form those mine to the pollution from the fossil fuels, as a large percentage of electricity is still produced from those. Electricity is not really a energy source, just a way of transferring it. So we basically need fusion / renewable energy.

The weight matters as you use energy to accelerate it, granted that with regenerative breaking you get a large amount back, but still...

I have nothing against electric cars, but I have a few things against the lithium batteries. If they get that sorted out, I am all for having an electric car as they are superior in most other ways. But not before. 

As for sources... meh. I's not like you cant get a source for almost any position you want to defend.