Yes. Think of the possibilities. Land Rover Discovery Racing
Mercedes Benz World Racing had a great off road field, with lots of elevation changes. Racing some SUVs around that was a blast! I'm sure LFS physics will do a superb job modelling SUVs as it has great differential modelling.
LFS has too few rallycross tracks IMO.
I'm not interesting in racing anything where the tires are designed grip badly. They make SUV tires knobbly even for road use, because they roll over too easy if you put sticky performance tires on.
This thread is utterly ridiculous, if you wana race 4wd tanks go dig out yer PS2 & crank up TOCA race driver.
SUVs don't easily roll over. It's the idiot's skills at driving that make them roll over. Drive a car in the way you need to drive an SUV to make it roll over and you will still crash.
Well, lets see... the Land Rover Range Rover Sport has an AVERAGE of 0.78gs based on a road&track instrumented test. BTW, there are LOTs of very grippy SUV tires these days designed for SUVs like the Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Just google this:
Michelin Diamaris
Impressively grippy and VERY road biased pattern. BTW, the 2 tonne plus monster snaked through the slalom at around 58mph, which is impressive by any raod car standard. Porsche Cayennes go significantly over 60mph.
On the other end of the tech scale, Toyota Landcrusier has been safely run through the skidpad on normal (aka all-season tires) at 0.76gs. Those tires, though no summer tire or slick, aren't exactly knobbly. Just go to www.tirerack.com and check out the all-season highway tires and you'll get what I mean.
BTW, Do check the summer performance 4WD tires. They are WAY more technically impressive than the usual performance tires since they have to carry relatively high loads, withstand 200+kph of constant speed, provide excellent steering response and cornering grip wet and dry and still have enough comfort to not jar Mr. and Mrs Chelsea drivers to objectionable levels. And believe me, overprivaledged spoilt brats nitpick even on problems that simply aren't even physically there.
My point? Stop chanting stereotypical SUV b0ll0cks and do some research/testing before jumping to weeping and to be absolutely blunt, STUPID conclusions. SUVs are like humans, too much variation to draw sweeping conclusions.
That said, if LFS magically comes up with a Suzuki Samurai I'll cry foul. Give me a Pajero modified for class 8 racing (aka minimally modified production class) or better a Pajero EVO and that's a different story. Just remember to add LFS equivalents of BFG Baja T/A tires and of course, INCREASE the number and size bumps on the Blackwood Rallycross Track...
I don't think anyone dare deny the fact that SUVs have a higher center of gravity.
Anything that has a higher center of gravity will be more prone to body roll(especially with soft, off-roadable suspension) and roll-over for a given speed and steering input and tyres with a given level of grip.
Of course it was a massive sweeping statement, they're called "the laws of physics". An ye canny change the laws of physics jim!
Anything that has a higher center of gravity will be more prone to body roll(especially with soft, off-roadable suspension) and roll-over for a given speed and steering input and tyres with a given level of grip.
Of course it was a massive sweeping statement, they're called "the laws of physics". An ye canny change the laws of physics jim!
SUVs suck. They roll easily (although not so much as they used to) and they're neither an off-road nor a road vehicle. Make up your mind FFS! Low-pro tyres on a vehicle claiming to be off-road capable is the dumbest thing I've ever seen!
Off-road vehicles? Sure thing. Paris-Dakar trucks, stuff like a Dodge Ram or even a Ford F250? Why not? We'd need more RallyX tracks for them to be really worth it though.
Off-road vehicles? Sure thing. Paris-Dakar trucks, stuff like a Dodge Ram or even a Ford F250? Why not? We'd need more RallyX tracks for them to be really worth it though.
I am against unexciting cars. I see no fun in trying to "race" 3+ ton untuned trucks. How much more boring can it really get, I wonder.
Just to be clear, I'm all for well tuned SUVs such as the Group 8 Pajero (3rd generation model aka fully independent suspension, monocoque body, etc) and of course Dakar Rally Raiders and Baja Racers (aka F-1 cars of the off-road world. 36 inches of travel, 3 stage spring/damper setups, the cutting edge in passive off-road suspension technology). And I have yet see anyone roll these vehicles through a result of nothing more than fast cornering on flat and grippy surfaces.
And of course, no CR-Vs, RAV4s, and all the crossover pile of poo that they're trying so hard to shove down our throats these days. BTW, it's amazing what a latest model 5-door Suzuki Grand Vitara, with well selected suspension, wheel and tire upgrades can do. And I have yet to see anyone roll one over without doing something REALLY stupid.
Speaking of rollovers, it's surprising how rollover prone today's fat, tall and overweight "compacts" are. For instance, those Honda Civics sold in the southeast Asian market have body profiles more tall and narrow than many SUVs. The fact that their center of gravities are quite high AND the fact that they have really narrow tracks doesn't help. The worst vehicle I can think of ATM is the Mercedes A-class. As usual, the manufacturer took the cheapest route and used a software solution to cover up a serious fundamental flaw in the hardware. So much for the theory that SUVs are all a bunch of hopelessly roll-prone vehicles in particular. This of course does not apply to silly individuals with 4-6 inch lifts without widening the track to compensate. Judging by what they'll pump out these days, I won't be surprised that he day comes when your average compact sedan or small town car is much more roll-prone than any decent SUV.
No one in their right mind denies SUVs have higher centers of gravity than most cars, but well designed suspension, good wheels/tires and appropriately wide tracks mean they're actually quite hard to roll with nothing more than just cornering in one direction a bit too fast. BTW, the Cayenne did the skidpad at an average of over 0.85g, so the instantaneous maximum g is of course significantly higher than this, which one could make a rough estimate of say 0.95g peak. This cannot be achieved if the car was simply unstable. Of course, it'll never outdo 911 GT2, but then again when was the last time the GT2 went seriously off-road and lived to tell the tale. Despite of the low profile tyres, they still could still keep up with Landcruisers over most tracks that one could reasonably negotiate, at least until the tyres get ripped. It's only a matter of time before tyre manufacturers make off-road tyres for them. It wasn't so long ago when the hopelessly closed door off-road community used to bash 265/65/17 tyres. In reality, this had more to do with tyre manufacturers failing to produce decent all-terrain tyres of that size then anything else. This of course applies to well design and tuned vehicles (aka Suzuki Samurais and their like need not apply).
And of course, no CR-Vs, RAV4s, and all the crossover pile of poo that they're trying so hard to shove down our throats these days. BTW, it's amazing what a latest model 5-door Suzuki Grand Vitara, with well selected suspension, wheel and tire upgrades can do. And I have yet to see anyone roll one over without doing something REALLY stupid.
Speaking of rollovers, it's surprising how rollover prone today's fat, tall and overweight "compacts" are. For instance, those Honda Civics sold in the southeast Asian market have body profiles more tall and narrow than many SUVs. The fact that their center of gravities are quite high AND the fact that they have really narrow tracks doesn't help. The worst vehicle I can think of ATM is the Mercedes A-class. As usual, the manufacturer took the cheapest route and used a software solution to cover up a serious fundamental flaw in the hardware. So much for the theory that SUVs are all a bunch of hopelessly roll-prone vehicles in particular. This of course does not apply to silly individuals with 4-6 inch lifts without widening the track to compensate. Judging by what they'll pump out these days, I won't be surprised that he day comes when your average compact sedan or small town car is much more roll-prone than any decent SUV.
No one in their right mind denies SUVs have higher centers of gravity than most cars, but well designed suspension, good wheels/tires and appropriately wide tracks mean they're actually quite hard to roll with nothing more than just cornering in one direction a bit too fast. BTW, the Cayenne did the skidpad at an average of over 0.85g, so the instantaneous maximum g is of course significantly higher than this, which one could make a rough estimate of say 0.95g peak. This cannot be achieved if the car was simply unstable. Of course, it'll never outdo 911 GT2, but then again when was the last time the GT2 went seriously off-road and lived to tell the tale. Despite of the low profile tyres, they still could still keep up with Landcruisers over most tracks that one could reasonably negotiate, at least until the tyres get ripped. It's only a matter of time before tyre manufacturers make off-road tyres for them. It wasn't so long ago when the hopelessly closed door off-road community used to bash 265/65/17 tyres. In reality, this had more to do with tyre manufacturers failing to produce decent all-terrain tyres of that size then anything else. This of course applies to well design and tuned vehicles (aka Suzuki Samurais and their like need not apply).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmko3952548
He's really skilled, but it just shows how easily an SUV can flip on its own, on flat tarmac.
edit: more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XpObaKeOw
He's really skilled, but it just shows how easily an SUV can flip on its own, on flat tarmac.
edit: more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_XpObaKeOw
I've seen the 1st one before and that's a Nissan Patrol BTW. Notice the strong, uncontrolled spring rebound on the front suspension in response to suspension unloading.
Let's assume that the Patrol's suspension was absolutely OEM. If it was with those super cheap dampers, such behavior is no surprise. BTW that is NOT a high speed cornering maneuver in the proper sense (say taking a fast corner at 140km/h). Such driving is akin to trying to feign drift the vehicle and the results were no surprise. OEM SUV dampers, unfortunately, are notorious for stupidly stiff compression but little in the way of rebound damping, so it's no surprise the suspension bounces the car up so much as it rebounds uncontrollably. Change that to a carefully selected heavy duty spring set and adjustable dampers tuned for maximum tarmac handling and it's a different story. Take it from a guy who owns and drives an SUV with dampers calibrated by himself. And yes, the ride is quite kidney friendly. The only items I'm missing are stiffened front springs and the vehicle will be perfectly setup. The results before and after the damper upgrade were extremely significant. Since I've pushed both OEM and my current upgraded setup to their limits (on a closed former runway), having done multiple handbrake 180 turns too, I have 1st hand experience of what the vehicle can and can't do. If it gets unstable, there is plenty of margin to recover as the vehicle gives excellent feedback. That was with the hopeless OEM dampers. With the upgraded units, I had to push MUCH harder before the vehicle suffers from mild instability, again, providing plenty of feedback, though there was little danger of overturning. Resistance to feint induced instability also increased significantly with proper rebound damping.
In Malaysia, SUV drivers are well known for cornering on pothole ridden highways at 120-140+km/h. Yet few have actually flipped from high speed cornering. Most rollovers actually occur on the straights, usually when say trying to dodge stuff, getting off the road (on the side) without much issue, only to flip when trying to get back on tarmac as the car turns into the curb. In such a situation, even a sports car could flip. Unsurprisingly, most rollovers occur early morning (3-6a.m.) with lone drivers, usually under sleep deprivation or alcohol intoxication.
On the 2nd video, one SUV actually skidded and spun without ever getting close to flipping (until some other car hit it). On the other hand, some others simply flipped. Again this was very model and setup specific. The shorty tripped over a a solid ledge, i.e. it was levered. Notice that it survived bouncing up the curb unscathed until one of its wheels caught a solid ledge and subsequently tripped. The 1st SUV flip was no surprise, since a combination he severe feint action pretty much guaranteed that. The same maneuver on the latest double wishbone coilover front 200 series would have a much lower chance of such a flip. Assuming of course it is properly sprung and damped. The worst case I can think of right now is the latest prado. They lowered the ground clearance to a stupidly low 180mm, but also chose to make the springs/dampers 30% SOFTER in the name of "comfort". Can't see how a wallowy spongebag that threatens to leave terra-firma all the time is comfortable and reassuring. In order to cope with this disastrous setup, they installed a stability control system, again software to deal with hardware calibration flaws. No wonder the Australian 4WD aftermarket suspension industry is booming, since they tend to lift the vehicles just a tad whilst actually improving handling, stability and wheel travel.
More feint induced rollovers...
As for the shorty on a race to the hilltop? Well, it hit some REALLY bad bumps at high speed. I won't be surprised if a dune buggy flipped because of that. BTW, shorties THAT short and tall make lousy hillclimbers and descenders.
Another feint induced Nissan Patrol flip. This is getting old. Patrols are notorious for that, with their hopelessly primitive suspension that is good for nothing more than snail paced off-roading.
Crash whilst climbing a sideslope. As if climbing a hill sideways isn't stupid enough. Notice again it flipped because the driver suddenly changed direction and managed to dig into the ground, again leveraging the car to a rollover. This could easily happen to a sedan based rallycar too.
Again another antique SUV with seriously outdated dynamics...
Again, another Landcrusier flip. The poor thing was shunted from behind pretty hard at a high point, so a flip is no surprise.
More feint flips... Landcruisers again.
The poor sedan lost its wheels! That thing might have been rusted through...
And unknown case since we didn't see HOW it flipped...
More of the same feint flips....
Nice driving... Survived the curb pretty well. Notice that there was quite a bit of time to react.
A bunch of head-on crashes...
My real point is to try to analyze each situation carefully before jumping to conclusions. Notice that the vehicles shown are mostly those that are old and already known to be more rollover prone (Landcruisers and Patrols). Patrols are the worse and that's no surprise.
With some of the driving I see here, ANY car could flip. There are plenty of what NOT to dos in this video.
May I just ask why you quoted me, then stated "stop chanting stereotypical SUV bollocks......" I'm not exactly the one who is chanting the SUV easy roll over crap.
FTR, I drive an SUV, more accurate, a crossover. The type that you state later that they are "trying to shove down our throats." Welcome to my world. See, they shove automatic transmissions down my throat. I pretty much have no choice of a manual transmission anymore. It's the demand. The demand is for larger vehicles to transport families, yet have better fuel milage than the truck based SUVs. In comes the crossovers, car based SUVs. Same for auto trans. for me. It's easy so that anyone can "drive" a car, thus everyone gets auto trans. That leaves me in the minority who actually uses a vehicle for more than a piece of equipment to get from point a to point b.
I had to get rid of my truck earlier this year. Thus, I bought the "Crossover" vehicle for the wife to carry the kids easier and to get through the winter snow that I get. So, I'm stuck with the million mile car that barely works. I haven't driven a car in 15 years. I'm not looking forward to driving to work in the 24 inches of snow that will be here in a few months. On top of the fact that it's a car, it's also an auto transmission, thus leaving me even less control over my driving. It's not a lot of fun drivng any more
No you are not. I just quoted you because you made a good point.
SUVs bad, m'kay.
Off-road race cars (Dakar, Baja, Outback challenge etc.) good.
Unfortunately we would need tracks to drive them and they would be next to useless on the tracks we have now. So I can't see them coming very soon.
Off-road race cars (Dakar, Baja, Outback challenge etc.) good.
Unfortunately we would need tracks to drive them and they would be next to useless on the tracks we have now. So I can't see them coming very soon.
FYI, the T1 racers (Pajero Evolutions, Dakar Touregs) are chrome molybdenum tubed spaced framed race machines, but the T2 class cars are ALL based on production SUVs. The same for group 8 racers in Australia. And no, they're no slouches off road or on it. 200+kph on teh straights (OFF road!) and 120-160kph through the fast corners isn't exactly slow. And if SUVs are as magically super roll-prone as some here claim that simply wouldn't be possible. Note that the group 8 vehicles all have seriously modified springs and dampers and off course tires too, but they're slightly TALLER than OEM. Yet they're actually more stable thanks to superior suspension tuning and spring/damper behavior. BTW, group 8 specifically prohibits ANY major changes to major suspension components (e.g. wishbones) i.e. the actual suspension geometry must NOT differ from OEM.
As I've stated from my own experiences, stability for a given SUV is VERY suspension tune dependent, though much more so than many cars thanks to higher COG. And contrary to popular belief, softer isn't always better off-road. What works best is extremely case dependent.
I bet those group 8 cars are not using the chassis from street model and are much lighter with lower center of gravity. Neither it is suprising that real offroad car sits higher than SUV that has ground clearance designed to go over speedbumps instead of rocks and ditches.
I agree with you on that suspension tuning depends on where the car is designed to go, however most SUVs are designed to be used as a people carriers in city area. At low speeds soft suspension is more comfortable and target audience is not really that interested in how it drives rather than how it feels like to sit in. For complaining husbands car manufacturer's have come up with "sport SUVs" such as Land Rover Sport which still handles like a pig but 4.2 V8 has more horsepower than neighbour's Honda CR-V.
I agree with you on that suspension tuning depends on where the car is designed to go, however most SUVs are designed to be used as a people carriers in city area. At low speeds soft suspension is more comfortable and target audience is not really that interested in how it drives rather than how it feels like to sit in. For complaining husbands car manufacturer's have come up with "sport SUVs" such as Land Rover Sport which still handles like a pig but 4.2 V8 has more horsepower than neighbour's Honda CR-V.
To be absolutely honest, those group 8 cars I talked about are ALL based on 100% OEM chassis. The current reining champion happens to be a Pajero (independent suspension and reinforced unit chassis aka 3rd generation) driven by Geoff Pickering. If you google around you could find quite a bit about this guy and his car. The only significant structural changes were a roll cage (absolute must since it improves both stiffness and safety besides the fact that it is compulsory under racing rules) and seam welding, nothing more and nothing less. I happen to have seen the car up close and personal so I know.
And I don't care about all the urban myths circulated around about using some special chassis that is not available for sale. The blunt truth is that the car is nothing more than a production chassis seam welded, stripped out and mounted with a roll cage for racing. Try as you can but given group 8 rules that specifically prohibit the use of specially built race chassis that is all blown out of the water. Suspension geometry changes beyond factory specified limits are absolutely verboten. Springs and dampers are almost completely free.
In case you were wondering why this race Pajero is TALLER than OEM, it's got nothing to do with suspension ride height setup. The rear springs have close to OEM spring rates whilst the fronts are stiffer than stock. Has a lot to do with jumping around and landing front first really often in conditions where dips can swallow an entire car. The bumpstops and bushings are left stock since there is no point changing what works so well. the spring material used is, however better than stock. The dampers are Donner Dieres aka the same manufacturers that make dampers for Dakar T1 rally raiders.
Now, as to WHY it is taller than OEM: Tires. The OEM tires were 265/70/16, swapped with 16 inch forged aluminum alloy rally wheels and 235/85/16 tires which are about 32 inches tall vs. the 30.5 inches of the stock tires, it IS taller, but by millimeters. The chassis donor was from a production Mitsubishi Pajero, 3rd generation GLS 3.5L petrol engined manual model. Interestingly, they left the gearbox and transfer case stock. The latter hasn't had a serious problem to date, though the stock gearbox was swapped for a proper racing sequential box since it blew after few races of merciless abuse. The suspension travel is practically stock, though OEM 3rd generation Pajeros aren't exactly short legged shopping trolleys. For reference, the rear suspension travel is about 260mm long. That is just slightly more than what is allowed in the Dakar T1 class (250mm).
i can hold out no longer
lfs does not need a bloody suv
they are by no means used in motorsport, the only related vehcales are proper 4x4s like landrovers but suvs like the bmw x3 are by no means welcome
my rant complete
lfs does not need a bloody suv
they are by no means used in motorsport, the only related vehcales are proper 4x4s like landrovers but suvs like the bmw x3 are by no means welcome
my rant complete
which will drop the cog on a modern suv by lemme see ... 2 metres sounds about right
http://www.suvrollovernews.com/index.html
It could be propaganda in some parts, but you'll never see some "passenger sedan rollover news" site.
Or try this one:
http://automallusa.net/car-ratings.html
Take a look at the rollover ratings for suvs and sedans.
By stripped out I mean the usual interior stripouts carried out in racing cars of all types (removal of unnecessary seats), sound deadening, A/C, stereo, trim, etc. NOT deliberately trying to remove serious weight off the roof in attempt to lower COG significantly. Of course, lack of roof scondary A/C unit might lower COG a few millimeters max, but than there are those large steel tubes that strengthen the roof and chassis in general, which does weigh a bit. There might be some tiny lowering of COG but don't expect it to magically transforms things significantly. It's a matter of hair splitting, and even if you end up with COG of say 5mm lower than stock, the higher than OEM tires will just about cancel that out. BTW, I happen to be familiar with Pajero roofs and believe me besides some OEM structural bracing, some lightweight sound insulation and maybe a roof A/C system on the more luxurious models, there isn't that much weight that you can strip off up there. Lowering COG by any serious amount would entail either drastic surgery or using a purpose built base chassis (i.e. not publicly available), which in group 8 is absolutely forbidden.
Oh, BTW, to turn ANY vehicle into a rollover hazard, simply load the roof rack to WAY beyond sensible levels (e.g. beyond OEM limits) and drive like a maniac. Works on any car that you can mount a roof rack on. Get an Subaru station wagon, load all the heavy cargo to the top and next thing you know your view of the world turns by 180 degrees on the Y-axis (standard engineering definition for the longitudinal axis), assuming you lived that long. Now who was the moron who came up with the idea to load our 2 100lb dumbbells and 10 gallons of fuel on the roof...
And for your own sake don't say something as silly as lowering the COG by 2m for a typical SUV. Never can and never will as it defies the laws of physics. BTW, most SUVs are well below 2 meters in height, even if lifted sensibly (e.g. 25-50mm). This nonsense only serves to make yourself appear less intelligent then you might be.
Ford weakening roofs? Oh come on, that's REALLY old news. Must be a slow news day. Yes, I am aware of the Firestone/Explorer debacle. The car was no sports car, though it wasn't THAT bad. Roof weakening is of course just another of Ford's long line of stupid or just insane ways to cut cost, no surprise here. This is what happens when sensible engineers get overridden by bean counters and marketing agents with no respect for the laws of physics. Then there were the manufacturing errors and worst of all, STUPIDLY LOW OEM tire pressure specs. If it wasn't for all those thread separations caused by tires built to less than satisfactory quality and the stresses of high speed running at highways speeds (excessive tire body flex at speed generate TREMENDOUS heat) and all those consistent rollovers of similar nature caused by this, chances are the media won't be getting an easy meal ticket out of this.
What I can't believe is that I actually bothered to check a bunch of articles that accuse a lot and come up with practically nothing concretely scientific. And yes, there is quite a bit of propaganda, half truths and even pure balderdash in those articles. Some of what they say is of course true, but only to a certain extent. Listen to what the media says, but always take things with a grain of salt and try to dig deeper than what is popularly raved about to ascertain the truth.
Of course, SUVs do have higher COG in general, but narrow tracks? How narrow? Last time I checked, most manufacturers are widening track whilst keeping COG constant or even lowering it. Some have actually widened the track, lowered COG whilst maintaining or even increasing off-road usability by keeping the ground clearance constant or greater than previous models. The most high tech have the ability to actively recalibrate their suspension according to user input to suit conditions and actually lower themselves automatically when driven above a predetermined speed. A car that mechanically and aerodynamically re-engineers itself to suit conditions.
If you believe everything the media says, SUVs would be so magically roll-prone they will flip over on anything that resembles a high speed corner or a quick swerve. While some SUVs do drive more like sedans running on their sides instead of the usual way, such vehicles are a TINY group and are in fact very rare in the western world. They're too small for any practical family use so they're not going to proliferate any time soon. I've even slalomed SUVs and find them quite stable in general (aka can't say the same for all) unless you are absolutely devoid of useful g-sense, which seems to be the norm these days (along with absolute lack of common sense).
What troubles me is that none of those articles mention the fact that most rollovers aren't a simple matter of swerve and flip. Most involves going off the side of the road, getting out of control, trying to get back on the road ASAP and actually end up making things worse. This applies to all car classes, SUV, sports cars or sedans. The fact that some drive more recklessly in SUVs since they actually reduce your perception of speed quite a bit (seat height dependent, higher is greater), it's no surprise they end up rolling more. For the worst examples, just take a look at South East Asia and the middle east in general. Remember that video of some guy trying to climb hills sideway or skidding up a vertical concrete curbs?
@Jamexing
Do you or do you not want a SUV in LfS? And I don't mean a race tuned dakar car but a Chelsea Tracktor = BMW X3/5, Audi Qx, Volvo XCy, H2, H3, Chevrolet Suburban, Cadillac Escalade, Dodge Durango, Mitsubishi Pajero, Toyota Land Cruiser, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg etc.
Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing. In that case you are off the bleeding topic so bugger off.
Please make a short answer as I can't be bothered to read your lengthy and infact very boring drones about cogs and stuff. A simple yes or no will do.
Thank you.
Do you or do you not want a SUV in LfS? And I don't mean a race tuned dakar car but a Chelsea Tracktor = BMW X3/5, Audi Qx, Volvo XCy, H2, H3, Chevrolet Suburban, Cadillac Escalade, Dodge Durango, Mitsubishi Pajero, Toyota Land Cruiser, Porsche Cayenne, VW Touareg etc.
Or are you arguing just for the sake of arguing. In that case you are off the bleeding topic so bugger off.
Please make a short answer as I can't be bothered to read your lengthy and infact very boring drones about cogs and stuff. A simple yes or no will do.
Thank you.
Point 1:
WTH IS YOUR PROBLEM? No one is forcing you to read anything if it bores you. Last time I check there is NO compulsory need to say yes or no to toorak tractors in LFS. WHO THE HELL ARE YOU TO MAKE RULES UP? Unfortunately for the likes or you, like so many things in life, a simple yes/no answer is simply invalid, unless you have the mentality of a spoilt 10 year old brat.
Point 2:
I've seen so much SUV related balderdash and it's about time someone sets things straight. There's popular stereotype, and then there's how things REALLY are. There's one sided bullshitting, and then there's telling things as there are. I prefer to explain and clarify rather than just saying: "ME WANT XX CAR IN LFS!" or worst still "Car type XX SUCKS..." like an individual that is nothing more than the product of pop culture. Got a problem with that boy? Speaking of boring, I find short and meaningless rants on "this car type SUCKS more than anything else" tedious to say the least. And like it or not, to say all SUVs must be excluded from LFS is just too much of a blanket term, since, so many off-road racers are built using production SUV chassis. In Australia, 300+hp Pajeros, Landcruisers, Prados, etc. that race SERIOSULY off road is the norm. In the USA, there are production class off-road racers that use production chassis of anything from the Ford F-150s to 2006 Ford Explorers. Like it or not, those racers are STILL either an SUV or Pickup truck. These cars WILL be a lot of fun with proper tracks, so we should just say "SUVS! BAN THEM ALL!"? What confounds me is how so many are so willing to run simple minded blanket mentalities without considering the consequences.
Point 3:
DO NOT tell me or any one to bugger off a PUBLIC forum open to all LFS demo users and players. It is EXTREMELY RUDE to put it mildly. Enough said.
Couldn't make it short then.
lfs needs a suv ?
(106 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG