I am wondering on what everyone thinks on this?

I keep hearing that people are trying to build rigs lighter. From my own wheeling I would have to say that being lighter helps, in the sand and the snow. What about the rocks, mud and general trails?

Anyone have an opinion? Anyone make there rig drastically lighter and notice a huge gain in off road performance?

later :jeep:

nope I dont think its possible to be too light, jus look at 4wheelers, a 2wd ATV can do hill climbs that would be damn near impossible in most 4x4 trucks

Just make sure your vehicle has a similiar weight front and rear. you dont want your front too light because you'll be poppin wheelies on every hill. and if your rear is to light than your rigs going to wanna be indo'ing going down hills... :D Just my thoughts.

I don't think it possible to be too light over all. Weight balance is important and you will want shocks, springs and tires to match the weight of the rig. I think the future winners of rock events will be lighter rigs.

LIGHTER IS BETTER. I retired my 4180lbs jeep a few months ago, and just did the maiden voyage of my new 3640lbs fj40 this last weekend. NO breakage. Wieght balance is criticle, and the less it weighs, the easier it is on drivetrain components, tires, etc. The two heavier rigs on the trip broke...:p

Originally posted by NE-RokToy
nope I dont think its possible to be too light, jus look at 4wheelers, a 2wd ATV can do hill climbs that would be damn near impossible in most 4x4 trucks

A 2wd pickup will too, given enough speed. :D

I'm quite positive that my 6000 lb Blazer is just about the ideal weight. At least for testing alxe strength, anyways. :smokin:

Pete

IMHO - there is such a thing as "too light", and it can hurt you on the trail. I have seen tims where some vehicles are just too light to get good traction on their tires, so they go nowhere.

Example: Watched 4x4TV this past weekend and say a hacked up Sammi in one of the rock crawl events just plain get SPANKED on one obstacle simple vecause he could not get traction to the ground.


As far as 50/50 weight distribution, I would question that as well. I think it is more than just shooting for an even split, and factoring in the front and rear suspensions and how they work would also play a part. For example a truck with a really flexy rear suspension may not need as much weight in the rear to make it work well, where-as a stiff front suspension on the same truck may need a little more weight up front to work right.

i have seen that sammi in action also and for big rocks like they were climbing in that episode he was just to light to get any traction. he just kept slipping and bouncing were a heavier rig would grab some rock and pull itself up, and instead of bouncing it would grab the rock plant down some traction and pull itself up. i think lighter is better to a certain extent. that rig prolly weighed a little over 2000lbs not sure. pesonally im betting that a rig between 3000 and 4000 lbs is the best.

:D :D 4400:flipoff2: :flipoff2: :usa:

Originally posted by DRM


Example: Watched 4x4TV this past weekend and say a hacked up Sammi in one of the rock crawl events just plain get SPANKED on one obstacle simple vecause he could not get traction to the ground.


What time and day is this 4x4TV? I want to see this :D

Lighter is always better. If a light vehicle is not working well its not because it is too light, its because the suspension is not set up right. Also the lighter the rig the narrower the tires should be.

Originally posted by Air Bag
Lighter is always better. If a light vehicle is not working well its not because it is too light, its because the suspension is not set up right. Also the lighter the rig the narrower the tires should be.

I agree. Just because the "lighter" Samurai couldn't climb the rocks that the heavier vehicle did doesn't mean that the weight was the only (or most important) factor. Wheelbase and suspension design were probably the causes, and maybe tires.

Originally posted by DRM
IMHO - there is such a thing as "too light", and it can hurt you on the trail. I have seen tims where some vehicles are just too light to get good traction on their tires, so they go nowhere.

Example: Watched 4x4TV this past weekend and say a hacked up Sammi in one of the rock crawl events just plain get SPANKED on one obstacle simple vecause he could not get traction to the ground.


As far as 50/50 weight distribution, I would question that as well. I think it is more than just shooting for an even split, and factoring in the front and rear suspensions and how they work would also play a part. For example a truck with a really flexy rear suspension may not need as much weight in the rear to make it work well, where-as a stiff front suspension on the same truck may need a little more weight up front to work right.

I feel both your examples suck ass :flipoff2: they are not examples of too light of a rig but of a rig not set up properly for the weight, by that I mean wrong tires and wrong spring rates. i will argue a properly set up light rig will always outdo a heavier rig, if you can logicly argue that I will be suprised.

[B]IMHO - there is such a thing as "too light", and it can hurt you on the trail. I have seen tims where some vehicles are just too light to get good traction on their tires, so they go nowhere.

Example: Watched 4x4TV this past weekend and say a hacked up Sammi in one of the rock crawl events just plain get SPANKED on one obstacle simple vecause he could not get traction to the ground.


An example you saw on TV? Um, just cause the say it does not make it true.

Ok so you have seen people not make obstacles, could it be they are poor drivers or their rigs are under powered or they did not let enough air out of their tires?

Simply put there are some people that are less skilled than others. I used to drive my 1980 Honda Accord around the sand dunes of Pismo Beach. One time I drove up next to a stuck CJ5 with my Honda. Helped the guy out with a little lesson on air pressure. Clearly the Jeep was a better rig for running the dunes, but it was the guys first trip and he was just learning the ropes. Skill is clearly a factor.

Back to the point at hand. Lets compare apples to apples. Take any rig, use this as a baseline. Now take that rig and remove 1000 lbs, and drop the tire pressure to get the same contact patch. Every time it's going to do better when lighter and poorer when heavy. The only example I can think of is some snow conditions where you need weight to break down through ice to get traction from the pavement below and demolition derby.

On the tire front:
It turns out that this is a pretty basic question in the race car environment as well. Tires do not operate in the same manner that smooth bodies do; i.e. (normal force)*(constant coefficient of friction) = lateral force. Tires can and often do have coefficients of friction higher than one (holds more lateral force than the weight on the tire) and the coefficient of friction changes with normal force (weight on the tire). I can't say anything about the tires on YOUR vehicle, but if they behave like any other tire data I've seen, the coefficient of friction will be higher when less normal force is on it (to a point). In other words, from a strictly theroretical tire standpoint, lighter is mathematically better.

well if i could get my rig as light as a toy helium ballon i am pretty sure i could climp any obstacle around.

lighter is better. just ask Ophra :D

Originally posted by DRM
IMHO - there is such a thing as "too light", and it can hurt you on the trail. I have seen tims where some vehicles are just too light to get good traction on their tires, so they go nowhere.

Example: Watched 4x4TV this past weekend and say a hacked up Sammi in one of the rock crawl events just plain get SPANKED on one obstacle simple vecause he could not get traction to the ground.


As far as 50/50 weight distribution, I would question that as well. I think it is more than just shooting for an even split, and factoring in the front and rear suspensions and how they work would also play a part. For example a truck with a really flexy rear suspension may not need as much weight in the rear to make it work well, where-as a stiff front suspension on the same truck may need a little more weight up front to work right.

Tell that to my Zuk...:rolleyes:

Originally posted by camo
lighter is better. just ask Ophra :D


Or Michael Jackson.

cp must be equal to weight
:D :D :D

I think that a lighter vehicle is always better. Adding to this, I think that some lighter vehicles may not do as well as heavier ones for various 'other' reasons (besides less weight). Some of these reasons are that lighter vehicles are often shorter vehicles, lighter vehicles require skinnier tires (blanket statement), and lighter vehicles always have poor drivers :p (I ran out of arguments).

whats the reference to lighter vehicles needing narrower tires??
shon

Originally posted by black99
whats the reference to lighter vehicles needing narrower tires??
shon

PSI. More pounds per square inch on the tire tread equals more traction. A fatter tire will have a bigger area and less PSI than a skiny tire. Honestly I think there are diffrent situations for each tire.
Chad

Originally posted by Chris Geiger


..... or they did not let enough air out of their tires?......

I think chris hit the nail on the head, here. When watching the arca/warn videos I noticed alot of people getting spanked simply because they were aired up too far. In a competition, there is a fine line between suffecient diff. clearance and too much air. This is the case in real world wheelin, too, but you can hop out and fix the problem and not accrue points for doing so.
LIGHTER IS BETTER!:D

I vote for lighter.

Noone mentioned the possible short wheelbase that may have stopped the Sammy from climbing. BIG factor there....not to throw in something else.

I think lighter is always better...with proper suspension retune.

What does Ophra drive anyway???

Jay

lol guys - yeah, I based my opinions SOLELY on 5 minutes of TV coverage :rolleyes:

So you get your rig down to 1000 lbs, you say that is better? Do you have any idea how small the contact patch if the tire would have to be to get ANY traction at all?

Not only that, by the time you make the tire so narrow what are you gonna do about the needed tire height to actually get over the obstacles?

Ok here is a good example... What kind of rig won cal rocs? and how did he do in ARCA???

I still hold my 4wheeler example, and by looking at fourwheeler you can see that the tire for a 1000lb vehicle really wouldnt have to be that small.

You must be crazy to think heavy is better then light. Throw 100lbs on your back and walk up a flight of stairs, then try it with no weight. Shoot my Polaris sportsman weighs less than 600 and gets great traction. It climbs sh_t that amazes me. Lighter is definatley better. The key is suspension setup and how it distributes weight.
Chad

Originally posted by clc900
You must be crazy to think heavy is better then light. Throw 100lbs on your back and walk up a flight of stairs, then try it with no weight. Shoot my Polaris sportsman weighs less than 600 and gets great traction. It climbs sh_t that amazes me. Lighter is definatley better. The key is suspension setup and how it distributes weight.
Chad

Where did anyone say heavier was better? Try to conceive "middle ground" here, mmmmkkkay? :p


I have a Polaris Sportsman as well, so I know what yo are talking about, but that thing only has 25" tall tires... and just how far do you think 25" tires would get you in these competitions?

Technically - YES, lighter is better. But there are other factors that must be addressed in the REAL WORLD where you CAN be "too light".

Originally posted by Chris Geiger
Back to the point at hand. Lets compare apples to apples. Take any rig, use this as a baseline. Now take that rig and remove 1000 lbs, and drop the tire pressure to get the same contact patch.

Maybe I am missing something here, but how is this possible?

The way I see it, if you remove 1000 lbs from the vehicle, to get the same Lbs. per Sq. in. where the tire touches the ground, the lighter rig would need to AIR UP :confused:

If by contact patch you mean the same physical AREA of ruber touching the ground, then the lighter lighter vehicle would have a LOWER PSI for that same contact patch, and therefore less traction.

So, to get the same traction, the lighter vehicle would need a SMALLER contact patch to retain the same PSI between the rubber and the trail....

That means the lighter vehicle would need NARROWER tires, right? But they would still need the HEIGHT to get over obstacles, right? So they are gonna run what - a 39x9.50 tire?

If I missed something here, please correct me because this just does not make sense to me...

Since you guys are talking about an ideal contact pressure, what is it:question: I would really like to know:D :flipoff2:

Originally posted by Lame
Since you guys are talking about an ideal contact pressure, what is it:question: I would really like to know:D :flipoff2:

I thnk that is the point :p

"Ideal" would be to have the highest possible contact pressure on the lightest possible vehicle... Unfortunately, it can't work that way :p:p:p

Originally posted by DRM


I thnk that is the point :p

"Ideal" would be to have the highest possible contact pressure on the lightest possible vehicle... Unfortunately, it can't work that way :p:p:p

I think this is where you are wrong, and your own vehicle is a good example. If highest contact pressure was ideal why do you run wide ass boggers? I think any one who has big ass swampers will attest to the fact that they get great traction, even though they have huge contact patches, if this wasnt the case they would all run 38.5x11 boggers

Yuo would need to run somthing like a military tire.. Who would of thought of that.:rolleyes:

the question of how light is to light can probally be answered by a factor other than traction. take a look at some of the "limited" classes of race cars in desert racing. they all have minimum weight rules to keep the vechile from being built so light that the cage work gets sacrificed and becomes a saftey issue.

just a guess here but i doubt that a rock crawler can be built safely under 2200 lbs. when guys start to approach that # i bet you will see arca envoke a minimum weight rule.

Originally posted by NE-RokToy


I think this is where you are wrong, and your own vehicle is a good example. If highest contact pressure was ideal why do you run wide ass boggers? I think any one who has big ass swampers will attest to the fact that they get great traction, even though they have huge contact patches, if this wasnt the case they would all run 38.5x11 boggers

My choice of tire had NOTHING to do with determining optimum tire contact patch.... I got as good deal on a set of tires - period :p:p:p

So your little example of my truck is pretty irrelevant.

Also, we are talking about "optimum" setups, and although 35x16's seem to work on my truck, it is quite probable that there is some other specific tire setup that would work better (As far as size is concerned).

Originally posted by camo
the question of how light is to light can probally be answered by a factor other than traction. take a look at some of the "limited" classes of race cars in desert racing. they all have minimum weight rules to keep the vechile from being built so light that the cage work gets sacrificed and becomes a saftey issue.

just a guess here but i doubt that a rock crawler can be built safely under 2200 lbs. when guys start to approach that # i bet you will see arca envoke a minimum weight rule.

This is very true, we will never see weight get down to a point that current tire options will not meet the needs of the user. Also everyone is only considering PSI as the deciding factor of traction, personally I don't see how that oculd be true. More rubber on the ground means more biting edges means more traction. I mean even a improperly setup drag car that doesn "Plant" the tires on launch and actually squats down in the rear will still benifit from a wider tire... hmmm interesting

What's with this fascination about "Contact pressure"???
If this was the main thing, everyone would be airing their tires up as much as possible to get the the smallest contact patch possible. All the weight would be distributed over a smaller area, thus more pressure.
I think it all equals out..

Skinnier tire = slightly more contact pressure
Wider tire = slightly less contact pressure, but more ground contact...

I'm not getting the light weight being an issue..

My analogy :rolleyes:

Say you're a heavy guy, 225-250lbs. Now walk up a steep rock slope. No problem.
You have a young son, weighs maybe 50-60lbs. Tell him to walk up the slope with you. Does your son have trouble walking up the slope due to his much lighter weight??? I don't think so.

The analogy is lame, but it makes sense, right :flipoff2:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by DRM
[B]

Where did anyone say heavier was better? Try to conceive "middle ground" here, mmmmkkkay? :p

Well you said, "middle ground", and "middle ground " is heavier than lighter. Therefore you have HEAVIER.





I have a Polaris Sportsman as well, so I know what yo are talking about, but that thing only has 25" tall tires... and just how far do you think 25" tires would get you in these competitions?

I thought we were talking about weight. Not height.




Technically - YES, lighter is better. But there are other factors that must be addressed in the REAL WORLD where you CAN be "too light".

I agree. Factors like suspension and weight distribution and wheelbase.

I have never seen rockcrawlers throwing rocks or other objects in the truck to add more weight so they can get over an obstacle. Next time I go wheelin, maybe I should take along a few sand bags and fill them up when I cant make an obstacle. :confused:

Chad

Originally posted by DRM


I thnk that is the point :p

"Ideal" would be to have the highest possible contact pressure on the lightest possible vehicle... Unfortunately, it can't work that way :p:p:p

Gimmie data.

How does the coefficient of friction increase as conatact PSI is increased????? Exponential increase, linear? At what point does the increase in contact pressure not net a worth-while increase in traction?

Wheelin has too many situations and variables to allow for a answer to this specific question......i.e. you guys are beating a dead horse.:p

Originally posted by NE-RokToy


I think this is where you are wrong, and your own vehicle is a good example. If highest contact pressure was ideal why do you run wide ass boggers? I think any one who has big ass swampers will attest to the fact that they get great traction, even though they have huge contact patches, if this wasnt the case they would all run 38.5x11 boggers

Ask some one who runs skinny 38" boggers how they like them. They flat out get it. People dont run them becuase they look wimpy compared to the wide ass 39" bogger. Dont get me wrong, the wide 39" bogger is a great tire and probably much more popular than the skinny 38" bogger, especially on this list. BUT, I have never seen a wide 39" go where the skinny 38" bogger cant.
Chad

Originally posted by NE-RokToy


More rubber on the ground means more biting edges means more traction.


Not always. Ever try going up a wet muddy hill covered with wet leaves? Wide tires, no matter how many "biting edges" will sit there and spin. Skinny tires will dig down and find traction and pull itself up the hill. Been there, done that.

Chad