Would rather have my weak part being......

StrizzyChris

StrizzyChris

New member
Ok so it has been driving me crazy lately reading all these posts of people having a preferred weak link in their drive train. Some are saying don’t go high grade axle shafts as it will break preventing damage to the ring/pinion or lockers. Others saying low strength drive shaft as it will break before damage to the tcase and ring/pinion. All of these to prevent difficult repairs while on the trail.

While I agree this in theory will help in you choose your breaking point, but why not build it bulletproof from end to end and not have breaks at all? Now I know there is no such thing as unbreakable and ANYTHING can and will break if you push it hard enough, but it sure as heck will be less likely to break and much less frequently as well. Am I the only person that feels this way, as to build everything as strong as you can? As long as it doesn’t compromise the Jeeps weight, function or abilities? Opinions? :idontknow:
 
wayoflife

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
i with you on this and try really hard to use the experience we've gained over the years to build up our jeep to the best of our ability. i'd prefer to not have any "fuses" or "weak links" - period.
 
Prime8

Prime8

New member
StrizzyChris said:
Ok so it has been driving me crazy lately reading all these posts of people having a preferred weak link in their drive train. Some are saying don’t go high grade axle shafts as it will break preventing damage to the ring/pinion or lockers. Others saying low strength drive shaft as it will break before damage to the tcase and ring/pinion. All of these to prevent difficult repairs while on the trail.

While I agree this in theory will help in you choose your breaking point, but why not build it bulletproof from end to end and not have breaks at all? Now I know there is no such thing as unbreakable and ANYTHING can and will break if you push it hard enough, but it sure as heck will be less likely to break and much less frequently as well. Am I the only person that feels this way, as to build everything as strong as you can? As long as it doesn’t compromise the Jeeps weight, function or abilities? Opinions? :idontknow:
Click to expand...

I think its more a function of rotating costs. If I upgrade A, then I'll also need to upgrade B, C, D, etc... For example if you do the 1350 instead of 1310 drive shaft. It could cause gear damage due to increased strength if you are wheeling hard. But what if you're in my current situation, 5.13 gears in a D30. This setup can be pretty weak given the axle/gearing has some small parts with heavy loads. So what do I do? I can get the 1310 and be safer for now, or I can add $5k to the price of a 1350 DS by getting a PR44 that can handle a larger ring and pinion and the stronger DS. Everyone would love to make their vehicles as bulletproof as possible, but MOST people don't have unlimited cash. So you have to make tradeoffs somehwhere...
 
StrizzyChris

StrizzyChris

New member
MTG said:
Preach on Tipsy. :)
Click to expand...

HAHA your gonna make that one stick arent ya!

Prime8 said:
I think its more a function of rotating costs. If I upgrade A, then I'll also need to upgrade B, C, D, etc... For example if you do the 1350 instead of 1310 drive shaft. It could cause gear damage due to increased strength if you are wheeling hard. But what if you're in my current situation, 5.13 gears in a D30. This setup can be pretty weak given the axle/gearing has some small parts with heavy loads. So what do I do? I can get the 1310 and be safer for now, or I can add $5k to the price of a 1350 DS by getting a PR44 that can handle a larger ring and pinion and the stronger DS. Everyone would love to make their vehicles as bulletproof as possible, but MOST people don't have unlimited cash. So you have to make tradeoffs somehwhere...
Click to expand...

I definitely agree with you to not push a part past its inhearant capabilities (i.e. 42's on a dana 30 and 4.10's). probably shouldnt go past 35's and def not 37's but thats only with sleeving, gussets, regear, etc. My arguement, I guess it wasnt clear, is people doing new axles, axle shafts and maybe 1310 drive shafts and when spending all this money they buy one or two lower grade products to build in a week link to prevent ring and pinion damage.

People who build smart wont go placing 40's on a Dana 30 stock just to also buy an aftermarket drive shaft(spending 450+). These people have money to spend, they are just doing it unwisely. And I would argue their common sence to invest 3 grand in tires and wheels with a less than capable axle. You dont build a mansion on sand.

Also this is not an argument for people who can not afford upgrading their jeep, as it is more than capable stock to handle itself. This is for people spending money unwisely and backwards. Kindof like a beach turd who exrecises their glory muscles and has chicken legs.

Again, just my opinion, but was curious if people could convence me that I was seeing it wrong. Thats why I'm still fairly stock, to build it from the differential outward.
 
Last edited:
0

07rub

New member
well Chris, from what i seen this weekend, there's alot of morrons out there and only belive/trust ppl u know what there talking about like Eddie
lol i ad a guy( who drives a liberty) this week end telling me to upgrade my clutch because i had trouble in a mud hole( i forgot my traction control on lol) and my jeep is auto lol

so ya just my 2 cent
 
Prime8

Prime8

New member
StrizzyChris said:
HAHA your gonna make that one stick arent ya!

I definitely agree with you to not push a part past its inhearant capabilities (i.e. 42's on a dana 30 and 4.10's). probably shouldnt go past 35's and def not 37's but thats only with sleeving, gussets, regear, etc. My arguement, I guess it wasnt clear, is people doing new axles, axle shafts and maybe 1310 drive shafts and when spending all this money they buy one or two lower grade products to build in a week link to prevent ring and pinion damage.

People who build smart wont go placing 40's on a Dana 30 stock just to also buy an aftermarket drive shaft(spending 450+). These people have money to spend, they are just doing it unwisely. And I would argue their common sence to invest 3 grand in tires and wheels with a less than capable axle. You dont build a mansion on sand.

Also this is not an argument for people who can not afford upgrading their jeep, as it is more than capable stock to handle itself. This is for people spending money unwisely and backwards. Kindof like a beach turd who exrecises their glory muscles and has chicken legs.

Again, just my opinion, but was curious if people could convence me that I was seeing it wrong. Thats why I'm still fairly stock, to build it from the differential outward.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood you. Essentially, you're asking why anyone would buy a Rough Country suspension, right? Haha. Because consumers are dumb, and while I'd like to think our little group is special, we're not. Inferior products exist because A. Some people are cheap B. Lots of people don't do any research and C. Some people are just plain dumb... I don't have a ton of mods (I'm still running the stock bumpers and flares!) But I make sure that every mod I DO have is well researched and the best value part out there for my needs. Not everyone cares though. Or they just don't think damage will happen to them... Some people buy just on physical appearance too, caring nothing about function or structural integrity. That's why Smittybilt stays in business... I'm glad that there are people out there buying that crap though, because that makes my jeep even more unique. If everyone had a double throwdown, it wouldn't be such a big deal anymore. That's what I think.
 
M

mmccurdy

New member
StrizzyChris said:
Now I know there is no such thing as unbreakable and ANYTHING can and will break if you push it hard enough, but it sure as heck will be less likely to break and much less frequently as well.
Click to expand...

I think you simultaneously answered your own question and demonstrated that you're missing the main point of the "weakest link" build philosophy. It's not about the overall strength of your drivetrain. By all means, you should build the strongest overall drivetrain you can. I don't think anyone would advocate putting intentionally "weak" components in the mix with the hope of breaking them. No one wants that.

In order to understand this, you need to assume something will break. You said it yourself: even the stoutest drivetrain will break eventually under hard wheeling conditions. The question is not whether you're going to break, but what your'e going to break when you do.

Next, you should consider the main components in the drivetrain and the implications of their failures. By way of illustration, let's take engine -> t-case -> driveshaft -> diff (ring & pinion + carrier) -> axle shaft -> wheel, and consider the consequences of a trail break at every step of the way, starting at the wheels.

Axle Shaft: Relatively easy to replace on the trail. Minimum of 3-wheel drive even if you don't carry spares (just pull the shaft).
Ring & Pinion: Difficult to replace on the trail. Spares are hard to come by. In practice you're looking at at 2WD limp home.
Driveshaft: Relatively easy to replace on the trail if you carry spares. 2WD limp home if not.
T-Case: Very difficult to replace on the trail. Zero wheel drive if you don't.
Engine: Even more difficult to replace on the trail. Never heard of anyone carrying a spare ;) Zero wheel drive if you don't.

So looking component to component, and assuming that you are going to break something, which would you rather break?

Personally, I've gone with axle shafts. Spares are easy to carry, trailside replacement is pretty straightforward, and at the worst I'm in 3WD for the drive out. Sure, I could get CrMo shafts or RCV's, but then something else is going to break farther up the chain.

This same exact argument applies even if you've upgraded all the way up the line. Let's say you're running an Atlas, 1350 driveshafts and D60's or larger. I'd still submit that it's better to break an outer axle shaft than a ring and pinion or your t-case. The equation shifts a little bit, but you're still better off taking a step back, determining what your weakest link is, and designing your system accordingly.

Alternatively, you can randomly buy the beefiest components you can afford, and hope you never break anything.

Hope that helps illustrate the point.
 
wayoflife

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
mmccurdy said:
I don't think anyone would advocate putting intentionally "weak" components in the mix with the hope of breaking them. No one wants that.
Click to expand...

actually, you'd be surprised what some would advocate. :crazyeyes:

still, i understand what you're saying and agree with it. IF anything and of all the things, an axle shaft failure is the easiest drivetrain trail break you can deal with. still, i would prefer to build up my drivetrain as beefy as possible to prevent ANY breaks from occuring and that would include doing things like running a ring and pinion that offers strength over optimal ratio.
 
StrizzyChris

StrizzyChris

New member
mmccurdy said:
Personally, I've gone with axle shafts. Spares are easy to carry, trailside replacement is pretty straightforward, and at the worst I'm in 3WD for the drive out. Sure, I could get CrMo shafts or RCV's, but then something else is going to break farther up the chain.
Click to expand...

I dont think that I could agree with you more, and I would be hard pressed to find anyone would disagree with you that an axle shaft would be a more desireable break over a ring or a tcase. But I dont think that it is that simple. I am sure there are people out there who have put a 1310 Dshaft rather than a 1350 and a standard axle shaft rather than chromoly and still destroyed the rings teeth with these built in "fuses". BUT there also may have been people successful with this way of designing their failure plans. IDK as i have no experience with this philosophy.

I guess the only thing I have real life experience in comparing this to is knowing that eventually your roof is going to leak and will need to replace. Do you place an inferior shingle on that roof for them to blow off or visually wear quickly because replacing them individually and more frequently will prevent you from 30years down the road having to replace the whole roof? Or do you build it like a brick $#!+ house and hope to get 50 years out of it?

Prime8 said:
Essentially, you're asking why anyone would buy a Rough Country suspension, right? Haha. Because consumers are dumb, and while I'd like to think our little group is special, we're not. Inferior products exist because A. Some people are cheap B. Lots of people don't do any research and C. Some people are just plain dumb... I don't have a ton of mods (I'm still running the stock bumpers and flares!) But I make sure that every mod I DO have is well researched and the best value part out there for my needs. Not everyone cares though. Or they just don't think damage will happen to them... Some people buy just on physical appearance too, caring nothing about function or structural integrity.
Click to expand...

I will admit I was the rough country guy who knew nothing about lifts, and didnt research enough at one point :eek: On the other side I would never claim someone to be cheep or dumb if thats all they can afford. Always got to build within your budget or means and thats why Jeepers are (usually) so great. We love our stock brothers as much as our extreme ones(as long as they are not on 24" chrome rims and low profile tires:banghead:) I just debate spending $400 on a product that you PLAN on breaking when you can spend 500 and know its extremely unlikely to break.
 
Last edited:
MTG

MTG

Caught the Bug
This is a good thread. :thumb: I mean it's not as practical as one about say, which booze is better, but I like it. :cheesy:
 
StrizzyChris

StrizzyChris

New member
MTG said:
This is a good thread. :thumb: I mean it's not as practical as one about say, which booze is better, but I like it. :cheesy:
Click to expand...

lol :honey: every time i see the honey dance, it makes me want to go make a PB&J
peanut-butter-jelly-time.gif
 
M

mmccurdy

New member
StrizzyChris said:
I guess the only thing I have real life experience in comparing this to is knowing that eventually your roof is going to leak and will need to replace. Do you place an inferior shingle on that roof for them to blow off or visually wear quickly because replacing them individually and more frequently will prevent you from 30years down the road having to replace the whole roof? Or do you build it like a brick $#!+ house and hope to get 50 years out of it?
Click to expand...

I'm having a hard time following this analogy. Again it seems to miss the point of the "weakest link" design philosophy. It's not about installing overall crappy components so that when they break they're cheap to replace. Whether it's a low end or super beefy system overall, it's about knowing where in the system failures are more likely to occur, and building accordingly. Of course it's not a perfect science, and breaks can and do occur in unanticipated places. The overall theory still holds.

Concrete example: I will not be installing CrMo front axle shafts with CTM u-joints, because I know that if I do, I'll be much more likely to blow out the R&P on my D30. If a break is going to occur, a blown R&P is less desirable than a broken axle shaft. Therefore, according to the weakest link philosophy, it's not in my best interest to upgrade the axle shafts (only). Instead I just carry spares.

Now, would I be less likely to break at all if I upgraded everything from engine to axle? Probably.* But I would still want my R&P and transfer case to be relatively stronger than my axle shafts and drive shaft.

* This is off topic, but I say "probably," because there is also a psychological phenomenon that says that as I increase the capability of my rig, I'm going to drive harder obstacles and be more aggressive so I'm always driving at the edge of my and my rig's capabilities, holding my personal breakage rate constant. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation (read the paragraph on Sky Diving). I don't know if anyone's written a paper about how this applies to wheeling... maybe I should get on that...
 
StrizzyChris

StrizzyChris

New member
mmccurdy said:
I'm having a hard time following this analogy. Again it seems to miss the point of the "weakest link" design philosophy. It's not about installing overall crappy components so that when they break they're cheap to replace. Whether it's a low end or super beefy system overall, it's about knowing where in the system failures are more likely to occur, and building accordingly. Of course it's not a perfect science, and breaks can and do occur in unanticipated places. The overall theory still holds.

Concrete example: I will not be installing CrMo front axle shafts with CTM u-joints, because I know that if I do, I'll be much more likely to blow out the R&P on my D30. If a break is going to occur, a blown R&P is less desirable than a broken axle shaft. Therefore, according to the weakest link philosophy, it's not in my best interest to upgrade the axle shafts (only). Instead I just carry spares.

Now, would I be less likely to break at all if I upgraded everything from engine to axle? Probably.* But I would still want my R&P and transfer case to be relatively stronger than my axle shafts and drive shaft.

* This is off topic, but I say "probably," because there is also a psychological phenomenon that says that as I increase the capability of my rig, I'm going to drive harder obstacles and be more aggressive so I'm always driving at the edge of my and my rig's capabilities, holding my personal breakage rate constant. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_compensation (read the paragraph on Sky Diving). I don't know if anyone's written a paper about how this applies to wheeling... maybe I should get on that...
Click to expand...

Wow...I hate to play devils advocate(not really I actuallly like it), but I think you also validated both points. I did like the point you brought up about the risk compensation, I havent thought about that since college psych class. To paraphrase though, it sounds like in summary that....A (near)bomb proof system, when coupled with common sence(fear of breaking) and safety in mind, will create the best approach to a build. Would you agree?

I am not saying everyone can afford Dynatrac/Currie/G2 Dana 60's and reel/coast 1350's and EVO or Rebel or Rock Krawler Coilovers and everything else. BUT if you are spending all that money do you still build in a fuse? Or do you build it hard and use your brain and decide what your rig can and cant handle?
 
Prime8

Prime8

New member
StrizzyChris said:
Wow...I hate to play devils advocate(not really I actuallly like it), but I think you also validated both points. I did like the point you brought up about the risk compensation, I havent thought about that since college psych class. To paraphrase though, it sounds like in summary that....A (near)bomb proof system, when coupled with common sence(fear of breaking) and safety in mind, will create the best approach to a build. Would you agree?

I am not saying everyone can afford Dynatrac/Currie/G2 Dana 60's and reel/coast 1350's and EVO or Rebel or Rock Krawler Coilovers and everything else. BUT if you are spending all that money do you still build in a fuse? Or do you build it hard and use your brain and decide what your rig can and cant handle?
Click to expand...

You don't know what your rig can and can't handle until you've taken it past the threshold by breaking things. Otherwise, if we just wanted to stay within the realm of perfect safety, we would only drive on well groomed dirt roads with a double throwdown setup. I'm sure that even Eddie breaks stuff now and then. I would imagine he breaks stuff less than I would in the same situation, but that's because he's either broken or seen it broken a bunch of times before. I guarantee that if I handed Eddie my keys, with my setup that is unfamiliar to him, and said "do the max you can with my rig without breaking something" that he would break something anyways, or just pussy-foot around in it. I can use my brain all day, but even if I'm the best wheeler in the world, I can't possibly know how my rig is going to react on every potential obstacle. There are FAR too many variables. So, the way a lot of guys remedy that is by engineering in a "containment" mechanism, where they try to control what breaks so they can still get home or spend less time in the shop. A small portion of the community that does this for a living, has a different daily driver or who is wealthy enough can just put the best stuff on, not worry about any containment plan, and beat the hell out of their rig. Unfortunately, most of us don't seem to be in that position, but its where I'd like to be someday. Haha.
You are speaking in ideals, whereas the rest of us are actually talking about real life where cost/benefit analysis and lack of funds are the overriding factors. We would ALL love to have an indestructible (nearly) rig, but for most of us it just isn't possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom