The New Defender

Two observations from that video that I round interesting. Firstly the claim from the Land Rover rep that the new Defender is 10 times as rigid as the old ladder chassis, really ? 10 times ? Secondly there didn't seem to be much wheel travel at all with a heavy reliance on traction control to get through the course, I wonder if this will be a problem in term of body fatigue over the years with it being a bit too rigid and frequently lifting wheels then slamming down as the weight transfers.

I'm really trying to like this model but am struggling. I hope they've got it right.

I like THIS video... YouTube

Especially the last bit.

best thing I've seen happpen to a new defender so far.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zcoota

..... Firstly the claim from the Land Rover rep that the new Defender is 10 times as rigid as the old ladder chassis, really ? 10 times ?......

---

This claim is very likely to be correct. It would have been relatively easy to achieve this with the monocoque structure, simply because of its larger dimensions.

Whether it is any significant advantage is another question, and the more important thing is, as you are perhaps hinting, is whether it is strong enough. Increased rigidity does not necessarily mean increased strength, and in one sense it needs to be stronger if it is more rigid, as the less rigid chassis will deform elastically when subject to impact (such as the suspension bottoming), reducing the strain on the structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JDNSW

This claim is very likely to be correct. It would have been relatively easy to achieve this with the monocoque structure, simply because of its larger dimensions.

Whether it is any significant advantage is another question, and the more important thing is, as you are perhaps hinting, is whether it is strong enough. Increased rigidity does not necessarily mean increased strength, and in one sense it needs to be stronger if it is more rigid, as the less rigid chassis will deform elastically when subject to impact (such as the suspension bottoming), reducing the strain on the structure.

---

Fair point John, I guess in terms of absolute rigidity, increased rigidity is not necessarily a good thing. It will be interesting to see over the long term how the bodies do hold up from a cracking/fatigue perspective. Then again with the more modern materials, production techniques (welding/bonding) perhaps it isn't going to be an issue.

Not so much a matter of materials and construction technique as how well these have been accounted for in the design stage. With the computer design techniques that are available today, this should be realatively easy, but it would not be too surprising to find that assumptions about the vehicle use were not quite right.

For example, one of the common shortcomings in the past in new vehicles for Australian conditions is that the designers had no concept of the Australian habit of driving at high speed on very rough roads, which is apparently unusual anywhere else, or the tendency in quite a few places (but less in the home market of the UK and Europe) to grossly overload the vehicle regardless of what the placards say.

Landrover should have no excuse for missing this in view of their history, but you always wonder how well corporate knowledge is passed on to the next generation, and it is quite possible that something has been missed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoClax

I like THIS video... YouTube

Especially the last bit.

---

From the video comments:

The EU: it is illegal to portray reckless driving in advertisements.

Brexit Land Rover: hold my beer.

Regards,
Tote