The parts are smaller and weaker and there are also more parts that can break. A SFA is a pretty simple system. As Adny pointed out, the links from the steering rack to the tires are small.
Christo summed it up. I was there, stacking rocks after banging the crap outta my rear qtr panel on the rock to the right in Alvaro's picture. Why? Because there's no way my IFS 4runner would have made it through that V.
Watching Amando trying to drive thru that was nerve wracking. I honestly thought he was on the verge of his front end exploding. Assume a 50-50 weight distribution, which is probably generous since the engine sits above the front end. So about 3000 lbs of force plus the force generated as Amando nursed it forward, further wedging his tires deeper into the V. The CV's probably have enough articulation but the steering rack, knuckles and ball joints don't. All the solid axle rigs rolled thru with no issues- the nature of the solid axle keeps the tires fairly parallel and the forces much lower. If you strain gauged the knuckles on Amando's 100 and any of the 80's through this section, even with ~ the same weight, my guess is the forces experienced by the 100 knuckles would be MUCH higher. And on the steering gear too.
It was ugly. And comparing an IFS desert race truck to an IFS 100 series is total nonsense.
The parts are smaller and weaker and there are also more parts that can break. A SFA is a pretty simple system. As Adny pointed out, the links from the steering rack to the tires are small.
As a freebee. That's why. He wrote down that there was some play. I couldn't tell. I was in for oil and service. I was handed the stuff free. My boots were fine too. They were just inspected but he ordered me new ones and billed ext warr.
Gotcha. SFA is stronger. When my IFS busts I'll then be concerned. Until then....it's been those damn front wheel bearing that loosen up. Robbie tightened them up this time in Moab. I should go and inspect them.
Regarding the "Walker Hill Incident" there was no incident. Amando got his wheels pinched in the rut, which was putting severe strain on the steering components and A arms. As he would attempt to move
When viewed from the front, both tires were pitched down in a "V" shape along the walls of the gulley, i.e. they were no longer parallel to each other. And not jsut one tire, but both. As Andy said, not only was this very bad for the steering rack, but the ball joints were under extreme pressure. Pop one of those, and you'd better call the helicopter to lift you out, or weld up the A-arm to the hub, which would be almost as bad...
Alvaro and Drew,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts/experience on what happened with Amando's 100. I definitely have a better understanding of what happened and why.
I am curious if some beefier components would be able to handle this type of wheeling and eliminate the problem. For instance, when you show the pic of Amando's front end getting pinched in the rut. Did this happen because the A-arms aren't strong enough to handle the side-loads generated from the rut? It seems like that is what really controls the location of the wheels. The steering shouldn't have as much load on it if the A-arms aren't flexing/giving like that. So, would heavy duty A-arms and ball joints fix this problem?
EDIT: After thinking about this for a minute, I guess the steering would still have a lot of load on it even with larger a-arms and ball joints since it controls the direction of the wheel.
I realize you guys aren't IFS experts, just wondering what your thoughts were on the subject since you are some of the very few that have seen a 100 do this first-hand.
The parts are smaller and weaker and there are also more parts that can break. A SFA is a pretty simple system. As Adny pointed out, the links from the steering rack to the tires are small.
Can these be upgraded or is it more a matter of upgrading the whole rack? I guess upgrading one part only passes the weak link to somewhere else in the rack?
The upgrade would be a SFA from an Australian 100 series, and a new steering box.
I'm not sure the rack and pinion system could be upgraded. The steering links are small (thin) and relatively exposed. It would be worth seeing if you could carry a spare link, or if you would have to carry a whole rack with the links attached.
You could certainly carry a spare ball joint or 2, and the means to press them in and out.
The rack and pinion steering seems like a glaring weakness on these otherwise superb trucks. A more traditional "truck" type steering with a tie rod and drag link would have been preferable, similar to an early generation IFS mini-truck. The 100 has what is basically a "car" type system like you might find on a Camry.
Its not that easy. I don't believe the frame of the 100 is designed the same as a 105. I believe people in the past have looked at this and the frame designs are very different requiring quite a bit of fabrication. Not saying you can't do it, just saying that it is pretty complicated and would be very expensive.
You guys that are familiar with the trail: Maybe y'all can tell from the article, did the FJC take this route? From what I could tell the 100's followed the smaller FJC everywhere, even if they shouldn't have. Just trying to put it together if the 100's in the article, and the IFS FJC for that matter did this obstacle.
The rack and pinion steering seems like a glaring weakness on these otherwise superb trucks. A more traditional "truck" type steering with a tie rod and drag link would have been preferable, similar to an early generation IFS mini-truck. The 100 has what is basically a "car" type system like you might find on a Camry.
This is also a pretty complex issue. The whole point of an IFS is that the wheels are independent of each other. You can't tie them together with a tie rod and then use a traditional steering box and drag link and still keep them independent. I would think that the stronger a-arms and ball joints would help keep the wheels the same distance apart and not let the "pinching" occur so badly. Anyone else have opinion on this?
And as Alvaro stated "Ouch" on the Camry comment. The truth hurts sometimes.
shotts,
There is nothing about IFS that is "stronger" or "powerful" compared to the 80 SFA. IFS has SMALLER components=less unsprung weight=more comfortable ride. By design, IFS is more complex & lighter than SFA. That is a GOOD thing in many instances, but not on rocks.
If you don't understand that or deny reality, it doesn't make it true- it simply makes you a less-adept wheeler.
GregB,
I think the tie-rods were looking sketchy when Amando was in that V-gully but I think it is just inherent in the design of IFS to have this weakness. I can't see a way to fix it...
To answer the question- yes, Amando was a great driver and we had a kick ass crew spotting and stacking. Amando very well knows the strengths and weaknesses in his rig. I believe these factors are what made the difference.
In my eyes, there is a difference between a Corporate 100 thru the Rubicon and a Private Owner 100 thru.
You guys that are familiar with the trail: Maybe y'all can tell from the article, did the FJC take this route? From what I could tell the 100's followed the smaller FJC everywhere, even if they shouldn't have. Just trying to put it together if the 100's in the article, and the IFS FJC for that matter did this obstacle.
GregB,
I think the tie-rods were looking sketchy when Amando was in that V-gully but I think it is just inherent in the design of IFS to have this weakness. I can't see a way to fix it...
To answer the question- yes, Amando was a great driver and we had a kick ass crew spotting and stacking. Amando very well knows the strengths and weaknesses in his rig. I believe these factors are what made the difference.
In my eyes, there is a difference between a Corporate 100 thru the Rubicon and a Private Owner 100 thru.
I was spotting for Amando's 100 as he went thru V gully (Alvaro was shooting with my video camera close up).
The wall of V gully is not 45 degree but more like 75 to 85 degree (abrasive rock) on the right side and 60 degree (compact loose dirt) on the left side.
It was a eye opener experience for me (I used to have 80 and IFS 4runner) to watch both front wheels twisted in two axises at once, squeeze and inward by as much as 3 inches. It is like a ice skating blades coming closer, nothing will stop this wheels from going inward direction except backing up.
No problem; I wasn't offended. Like I said before, the truth hurts sometimes.
I really have to watch it sometimes though because it seems like some of you guys are bashing on 100's. In reality, a lot of it is just you guys yankin' Shott's chain. It's easy to get defensive when you own the same type of vehicle that someone is bashing. But, at the same time, I also have to remind myself that Shott's brings it on himself with some of the comments he makes.
I realize that the 100 has some weaknesses and strengths. I am not in denial about its weaknesses and am willing to discuss them as long as the discussion can stay objective.
I do appreciate all the feedback that you guys have provided. A lot of us here in the 100 forum want to make our 100's capable enough to tackle some of the difficult trails in the future. I do plan on tackling the Rubicon some day. Since I live in KY, I'm limited to how many trips I can take out west. I am going to Cruise Moab this year. So, next year, maybe the Rubicon can be my annual drive across the country. Who knows...
