"Hachiroku ????" <Trueno (AT) e86 (DOT) GTS> wrote

Ah, but what about an aquintence..!

Haven't had to in years, but I did have an old 60's firebird that I
had to use a breaker bar on once....

Steve wrote:
rubbish. that's pure gullibility if you believe that. there are
absolutely no conditions, ever, under which it's acceptable for a
vehicle to roll just because of a flat. AND there are no conditions
ever where it's acceptable for the roof to collapse killing the
occupants. the exploder had both from inception. they were known
problems, and ford chose to proceed on the basis that the exploder was
quick and cheap to bring that market, and the margins exceeded their
calculated losses from wrongful death lawsuits.

it was a cold blooded bastard that made that call. nothing less than
jail time for manslaughter is appropriate for the individual[s] and
deeply punitive damages for the company and board that condoned it.
it's also a sad indictment when politicians allow themselves to be
bought off on this issue too - they decided to sacrifice innocent
americans to wall street. the whole thing is an utter disgrace.

jim beam wrote:
OK, smart guy... then tell me exactly what in the Explorer's engineering
design is responsible for the problem. I mean if it exists and could
have been remedied, then it must be precisely definable and must be a
particular engineering quirk or deficiency that other trucks don't have.
So what is it? I've never heard any explanation that was satisfactory yet.

"Steve" <no (AT) spam (DOT) thanks> wrote

A slightly wider stance, better spring loading and a few other things
eventually done to the newer Ford SUV front suspension.

Steve wrote:
well, you're not addressing the cabin crush problem with this question -
kind of important if the vehicle rolls in the first place.

but moving on, it's a suspension dynamics problem. part of the problem
with leaf springs is that they can have side-to-side movement, not just
up and down. add to that a high center of gravity, narrow wheel base
and soggy damping, and you have a vehicle that will kick on recovery
from one sideways movement /into/ the lunge of the next. the two
combined tip the vehicle. and that brings us back the cabin crush
problem again...

jim beam wrote:

Granted.
Uhhhh.... NO. Leaf springs have LESS lateral movement than trailing-arm
suspensions, typically. They also have inherent anti-roll forces because
they don't like being twisted when one side of the car compresses more
than the other.

And besides, there weren't ever complaints of Jeep Grand Wagoneers
flipping, and they have leaf spring suspensions front and rear.
Cherokees have leading arms front and leafs rear, but they do have solid
axles front and rear which place the roll center in a less
rollover-prone position than independent suspensions do for the most part.

I don't know much about the dynamics of the oddball independent front
suspension that 4x4 Explorers of that vintage used, but it didn't seem
to cause a problem on full-size Fords.

The old Mitsu Montero had a higher CG and narrower track- where are the
complaints there.

"Soggy damping" might be a valid complaint, but I still don't see
anything that makes the Explorer distinctly different than countless
other similar vehicles with essenstially the same layout- Jeeps, the
midsize GM (Trailblazer/Envoy), first-gen Durangos, Pathfinders,
Foreskinners, Xterribles, FJ Poseurs, etc. etc. etc.

Steve wrote:
sorry, that's a misconception. look under the vehicle. see the dampers
set at 45 degrees. that's to try adding a damping component to the
known sideways problem.


sorry, they can roll too.


and most of those vehicles fail modern roll tests. we use a "j" bend
stability test which specifically avoids, the kick back problem i
described. in europe, more rigorously and safely, they use an "s" bend
stability test, and that's where the problems get revealed. our tests
are a fudge. and we fudge our laws in favor of producers, not consumers.

jim beam wrote:
I don't have an explorer to look under, but other leaf-spring designs
are EXTREMELY stiff side-to-side. There's no "damper set at 45 degrees"
whatsoever in 90% of leaf spring designs... You're talking about trying
to deflect a 3" wide stack of spring-steel plates.... AINT gonna happen.
Conversely, 4-link systems have to have panhard rods to alleviate
sideways deflection, and most passenger applications have pretty thick
bushings that allow significant axle shift left-to-right, which is why
there are aftermarket Heim joints and delrin alternatives.


Well of course... ANY vehicle CAN roll, even a Viper under the wrong
conditions. And high CG vehicles are more likely to do so... which is
why it all comes back to the loose nut behind the wheel more than the
vehicle, unless there's a proven, specific design defect. I suppose it
could be a "synergy" of a lot of little deficiencies, and that may well
be the case with the Explorer. I never drove one, so I really don't know
if they handle far worse than my Cherokee, which will take any corner
far faster than anyone should take it out of consideration for others on
the road. My 190 horsepower high-sitting, (relatively)
skinny-tire-equipped SUV gets me to and from work *exactly* as fast as
my 400-horsepower, urethane-suspended and sway-bar upgraded muscle car.
And it takes me places the car couldn't go even with 800 horsepower.

Nice hat you pulled that "fact" out of. Got one in felt? Or would you
care to answer the question that was asked: where are the complaints
about those cars compared to the Explorer?

I don't drink pop-culture Kool-aid easily, and the whole Explorer
rollover thing smells a *lot* like a probable handling deficiency not
unlike *many* mediocre vehicles on the road, which then grew into a
media feeding frenzy when the paparazzi smelled a story. It will
continue to do so until someone can give me some engineering-based
reasoning, not silliness like "leaf springs deflect sideways."

Steve wrote:
er, you don't need to /have/ an explorer - you simply need to look at one.


untrue, both as a matter of fact and as a matter of comparison.


untrue.


<...>

there's a fundamental knowledge gap with everything you're saying. i
don't see you being able to bridge it, so i'm done. have a nice day.

jim beam wrote:

This from the guy who doesn't understand the concept of viscosity index
and thinks that 30-weight oil is "always thicker" than 10w30 oil at high
temperatures.

You really need to get a clue. Lots of clues, actually.