Roof Rack + Snorkel = Overland?

[Vulpine]

again with "simplicity" somehow being better. exactly what do you base your personal belief that a modded jeep overwhelms it and in what way? what scenario are you invisioning that would make an old stock land rover a better way to go?

Looking at modern engines, they are all controlled by computers one way or another. A broken wire may be fixed easily, but what about a broken circuit board? Would you even know where to look? Extreme conditions can be very harsh on computer electronics and even a mere cold solder joint could leave you stuck out in the boonies with no way back. That's the sort of simplicity that the old Jeeps and Land Rovers carried--as well as most other cars before the '70s. Fix a wire? Easy. Fix a carb? Still relatively easy. What about those computer-driven injectors? What about the electronic ignition as compared to the old physical distributer? Simplicity of repair is just as important in the event of breakdown as the overall reliability of the vehicle where you can't expect a tow truck (or a helicopter) to recover you. That still doesn't make the older rig the best choice, just the easiest choice when options are limited. Again, I'm offering the kind of argument said "overlander" would use, not my own personal opinions.

[Vulpine]

Absolutley there is a difference between the two, but we are talking vehicles and driving here. Driving across/thru/over/under obstacles and terrain are done the same way no matter what you carry for the mission. The basic offroad and on road driving principles do not change, whether it is stock or modified only allows you to tackle a tougher obstacle or make tackling it easier.




The test is the challenge you issued in your previous post with modified jeeps and the specified #'s. Below from Wayoflife, that is a lot of weight and it seems to be proof enough when you watch any of his video, most specifically any from the "Keep it Tight" series

wayoflife
ummmm, i don't own any "play" rigs. ALL my jeeps are daily drivers. as far as weight goes, a stock JK comes in at just under 5,000 lbs. my white JK weighs in at about 6,500 lbs. unloaded. with gear, it's more like 7,000 lbs. or more.




My apologies if I came across as being upset or irritated, but this is the internet and not TV, thats why I use the emoticons available for choosing on the left when posting, so you can gauge my disposition No hurt feelings here. But I do think you are showing a huge lack of understanding on the topic of offroading in general. My position still stands that it is all the same, you can church it up or make it more mysterious with special words, but "overlanding" and "overlanding rigs" are simply feel good words and definitions of something that did not need a new classification.

Cheers and heres to civility

G

What I'm trying to offer is the mind-set of these "overlanders", not whether they are right or not. I do understand the topic of offroading in general and I'll also admit to seeing a lot of idiots who think power will get you through anything when I've personally seen even stock Jeeps with a good driver succeed where that gearhead type failed. If you want to see upset, just watch one of those "superJeep" guys turn red when a near-stock Jeep or other 4x4 gets them out of a bind. I might point out that most of the type I'm trying to portray have almost no understanding of off-roading other than it's not on paved highways. To them, a dirt driveway or logging trail could be extreme off-roading. Based on some of the documentaries I watch, that type would even get stuck on what other countries call a highway.

At the same time, some of these "reality TV" programs put some people through those same situations just for the entertainment value of it to non-off-roaders. Ice Road Truckers is a prime example, especially when they do their off-season shows like "IRT-World's Most Dangerous Highways." When you consider what some of those drivers do for a living, maybe taking on dirt-road trucking might seem a lark, but the roads and conditions they have to overcome are also far different from their normal drives. I watched as several of those drivers gave up on IRT-MDH even though they were some of the toughest, self-confident and able drivers when it came to snow and ice. Again, it's all in the mind-set of the one choosing the vehicle for the task and their subsequent experience in making those runs.

I won't deny some of what you guys do regularly would scare me to death--at least until I'd succeeded at least once myself. There's a difference between skill and idiocy and while I may not have the skills, I certainly don't want to look like an idiot when push comes to shove.

[wayoflife]

Looking at modern engines, they are all controlled by computers one way or another. A broken wire may be fixed easily, but what about a broken circuit board? Would you even know where to look? Extreme conditions can be very harsh on computer electronics and even a mere cold solder joint could leave you stuck out in the boonies with no way back. That's the sort of simplicity that the old Jeeps and Land Rovers carried--as well as most other cars before the '70s. Fix a wire? Easy. Fix a carb? Still relatively easy. What about those computer-driven injectors? What about the electronic ignition as compared to the old physical distributer? Simplicity of repair is just as important in the event of breakdown as the overall reliability of the vehicle where you can't expect a tow truck (or a helicopter) to recover you. That still doesn't make the older rig the best choice, just the easiest choice when options are limited. Again, I'm offering the kind of argument said "overlander" would use, not my own personal opinions.

eh, sorry, i'm still not buying it. i've owned old, simply built, carburated jeeps that were easy to work on but, it always needed to be worked on. i have about 100,000 miles on my big white jk and, being that i work from home, virtually ALL of those miles are from driving out to far away destinations, putting them to the test and then driving it back home again. i have taken my jeep through extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dust and what i consider to be extreme deep water. to this day, i haven't had a single problem with the engine or any of the computer systems that would have prevented me from getting there and back. while old technology may have been simple and easy to work on, new technology has proven itself to me to be reliable and without need of being constantly worked on.

of course, this is all a moot point for the purposes of this thread which was intended to be JK specific.

[clarsen]

If you guys are planning a trip to Alaska3 things bring fuel containers 2 my house BBQ and 3 I'm in!

[MTG]

But wait, what about this....and what about that....and did you consider X multiplied by Y....blah blah blah.

I have enjoyed this thread, and will likely enjoy reading it further, but some of the recent posts are just getting ridiculous.

Vulpine does not seem like he will be satisfied until there is a double-blind controlled experiment performed by a group of engineers with the results published in the esteemed "Journal of Overlanding and Rockcrawling Quarterly" and even then will question the methodology and statistical validity.

So far, GCM has characterized it best: "This I know as a fact; my JK can go everywhere an 'overland rig' can go, but an 'overland rig' cannot go everywhere my rig can go." I'm going to put my money on the people who actually build their rigs and have put them to the test, particularly those that use the same rig to both "overland" (or "camp" as the case may be) AND crawl over rocks. Anything else is simply a discussion of minutia.

Nevertheless, please carry on. I need something to break up my day.

[GCM 2]

If you guys are planning a trip to Alaska3 things bring fuel containers 2 my house BBQ and 3 I'm in!

Chris, is it still cold up there....if so, then I am not going to visit you with my fuel cans.

[Vulpine]

eh, sorry, i'm still not buying it. i've owned old, simply built, carburated jeeps that were easy to work on but, it always needed to be worked on. i have about 100,000 miles on my big white jk and, being that i work from home, virtually ALL of those miles are from driving out to far away destinations, putting them to the test and then driving it back home again. i have taken my jeep through extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dust and what i consider to be extreme deep water. to this day, i haven't had a single problem with the engine or any of the computer systems that would have prevented me from getting there and back. while old technology may have been simple and easy to work on, new technology has proven itself to me to be reliable and without need of being constantly worked on.

of course, this is all a moot point for the purposes of this thread which was intended to be JK specific.

But then, I've had to repair some of those computers on other cars for myself (hate the high price so many shops charge to fix things.) I will grant you that today's cars tend to function far longer than their predecessors, but it seems Jeep is the only brand that has gotten it right. Of course, that's also one of the reasons I own a Jeep. The one brand I really liked for its reliability no longer exists. Still, not even a JK can do everything--unless you know an inexpensive modder that can turn it into a Gladiator?

Yes, I'm going off topic now and I'm going to stay there.

[Vulpine]

But wait, what about this....and what about that....and did you consider X multiplied by Y....blah blah blah.

I have enjoyed this thread, and will likely enjoy reading it further, but some of the recent posts are just getting ridiculous.

Vulpine does not seem like he will be satisfied until there is a double-blind controlled experiment performed by a group of engineers with the results published in the esteemed "Journal of Overlanding and Rockcrawling Quarterly" and even then will question the methodology and statistical validity.

So far, GCM has characterized it best: "This I know as a fact; my JK can go everywhere an 'overland rig' can go, but an 'overland rig' cannot go everywhere my rig can go." I'm going to put my money on the people who actually build their rigs and have put them to the test, particularly those that use the same rig to both "overland" (or "camp" as the case may be) AND crawl over rocks. Anything else is simply a discussion of minutia.

Nevertheless, please carry on. I need something to break up my day.

Besides, you haven't noticed that I quit the discussion. I tried to tell you all along that the arguments I was expressing were not my own but rather trying to bring up an outsider's point of view. I, personally, don't disagree with you, but you didn't want to realize I was taking a third-person viewpoint for the sake of debate.

[clarsen]

Chris, is it still cold up there....if so, then I am not going to visit you with my fuel cans.

Greg
It's always cold in Canada, but Palm Sping on the other had is a cool 95 today with a slight breeze.
You are welcome anytime time brother.

[clarsen]

Besides, you haven't noticed that I quit the discussion. I tried to tell you all along that the arguments I was expressing were not my own but rather trying to bring up an outsider's point of view. I, personally, don't disagree with you, but you didn't want to realize I was taking a third-person viewpoint for the sake of debate.

Whether you are arguing for the sake of a good debate or not GMC2 hit the nail on the head, I'll take Moby or GMC2 rig any where anytime and the best thing I'll get to come home too.