RE: [ihc] COE 4x4 Loadstars

[Tom Harais <THarais@xxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Borck [mailto:tborck@domain.elided] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 7:07 AM
To: Ryan Moore
Cc: John M. Adams; Joel Furtek; Rocky Lear; ihc-digest@domain.elided
Subject: Re: [ihc] COE 4x4 Loadstars

> Ryan:

> The problem with a too heavy duty drive train, i.e. heavy axles, wheels, 
> etc, is Unsprung Weight.

> O.K. guys, two thoughts here:

1) Although I know this flies in the face of the "can't be overbuilt mantra
of this IH group; and probably most Americans actually where "bigger is
better" is a slogan we live by, there is also just plain economy.  That is
NOT just initial capital outlay as well as maintenance and operation, but
effective use of other resources as well such as materials and available
space.  If "heavy duty" was our only consideration, we'd all be swapping our
Dana 44's and even 60's for 2-1/2 ton military axles.  A 304 or even a 392
would be "inadequate" and we'd go for a MV engine instead.

2) Sheer size.  Those of you that have been on the digest since I originally
showed up, might remember that my one of my basic premises for buying a
Scout variant was reasonable size.  Half ton, 4WD pickups (which weren't as
big as a small house and were pretty Spartan. - Leather wasn't even an
option!) were the standard "camping, hunting and fishing" rigs at the time.
But, in my experience, they were too big (width, height and wheelbase) for
many of the fire trails I frequented while fishing or hunting. These trails
were usually wide enough, but there were narrow sections and low hanging
branches. Jeep CJs were more appropriate for such use, but they lacked the
passenger, cargo and towing capacity that the Scout had.  Highway travel to
and from home to the places I wanted to go, were also better handled by the
Scout over the Jeep.  I spent more than a few hours in a friends CJ5 heading
out to the central valley to do some pheasant and duck hunting and I can
tell you, my Scout isn't that much bigger, but it sure rides and hauls loads
that the CJ couldn't even think of, to say nothing of high speed road travel
stability.  And yes, that is even with the 0 caster, IH steering wander.
The comfort level on cold, foggy mornings was also superior.  

It comes down to "it depends on how you are planning to use it".  For
instance, for the uses I am interested in, the Humvee has some serious
limitations.  IMHO it's off road capabilities are fantastic in the desert or
on open plains and prairies, probably even through bogs.  But it's sheer,
overall size, wheelbase length and weight make it unsuitable for Cascade or
Sierra mountain fire trails that my compatriots and myself are interested in
traversing.  Because of that, I've never quite understood folk's fascination
with that machine.  My brother in-law drove one for a year or so and the
thing was just huge!  In this case, size does matter.

By the same token, if rock crawling was my game, I'd have to give up the
Traveler and find a Scout.  The shorter wheelbase would mean the difference
between "go" and "no-go".  Function is important.

Just my $0.02 worth.

Tom H., '76 Traveler