Jeep Wrangler Forum - Reply to Topic
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum > Unfortunate design flaw

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Thread: Unfortunate design flaw Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
10-07-2011 01:28 AM
Second Wind Any engineer who has designed anything for any length of time knows that there are, and must be reasonable limitations to the performance which can be expected from the design. Everything is designed to some price point, and it is the engineer's job to provide economical solutions.

In a former life I was a guru of roadside design - all the stuff you crash into when you exit the roadway in your jeep. If an 18 wheeler loses control and strikes a typical traffic barrier or crash cushion, do you suppose it can be contained and redirected by that barrier? Hell no. The passenger car or light pickup truck is designed for, because statistically, the most "bang for the buck" can be obtained by addressing this larger percentage of vehicles. Sorry truckers, but we can't economically contain a 105,000 lb vehicle. Is this a design flaw? Again, Hell no. But the barrier, widget, (substitute any other item here) is designed to a standard of performance. If it does not perform to that standard, then we would refer to it as a design flaw. If the final product performs according to the standard, even though you'd like it to do something else, well, it seems you obviously weren't part of the design team, are not part of any governing body or standards establishing entity, and are left, well, making a lot of noise that few want to pay much attention to.

Any other engineers here that want to otherwise define a "design flaw" - have at it...
10-06-2011 09:28 PM
KSCRUDE
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
This is becoming a waste of time, really
Quote:
Originally Posted by lowdutch View Post
Things are WAYYYY to serious around here. Give the guy a break, he's entitled to his opinion. By the way, a serious design flaw is resulting in more than my share of splattered bugs being deposited on my windscreen. The windscreen on a Wrangler is too vertical! What the hell are they thinking?
Actually if you really look at the jk wrangler it is very aerodynamic in a lot of respects. The grill has a lot of slope to it as does the windshield. Give them a good side view looksie and you will be surprised. And the front fenders have a aero look as well. It's not a square brick like one would think.
10-06-2011 04:16 PM
lowdutch Things are WAYYYY to serious around here. Give the guy a break, he's entitled to his opinion. By the way, a serious design flaw is resulting in more than my share of splattered bugs being deposited on my windscreen. The windscreen on a Wrangler is too vertical! What the hell are they thinking?
10-06-2011 02:34 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky View Post
He tore up his driveline because he does not know how to drive, http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/um-...at-116174.html and now he's an expert on suspensions?
He is correct on how the track bar works. He is simply mistaken on what is and is not a "design flaw". The track bar is operating as designed...there is no flaw there. Is it an ideal design? Depends on your criteria...but as I said earlier, EVERYTHING on an automobile is a compromise of some form or another...even for the ultra exotics. He's shocked that his suspension operates in this way, yet not shocked that the rise of one tire tilts the other on end...he's not shocked that his brakes convert his kinetic energy into waste heat...not shocked that his engine is only about 30-40% efficient...not shocked that his Jeep sports a God-awful 0.5+ coefficient of drag (all in the name of style by the way)...

None of these are "design flaws". They operate as intended. They are certainly not ideal...but everything is a compromise of some form or another.

A true design flaw would be the use of rectangular windows on a pressurized airliner. A true design flaw would be the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. These did not operate as intended and experienced catastrophic failures as a result. And THAT is what we are trying to get through...
10-06-2011 02:11 PM
Barrie This is the last warning that will be posted, the back and forth ends or vacations WILL be handed out.
10-06-2011 02:08 PM
nycdude777
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky View Post
He tore up his driveline because he does not know how to drive, http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/um-...at-116174.html and now he's an expert on suspensions?
Oh wow, and you do? That's great!
10-06-2011 02:08 PM
oilwell1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by sparky View Post
He tore up his driveline because he does not know how to drive, http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/um-...at-116174.html and now he's an expert on suspensions?
I'm surprised he isn't blaming that on this horrible trackbar design.
10-06-2011 01:04 PM
lowdutch Ahh, this is so much fun. Simple geometry. I haven't measured, but let's talk geometry. Let's say the track bar is 24" long, and is mounted to the axle such that the angle between the axle centerline and the track bar is 15 degrees. A point directly below the upper mounting point is 6.2 inches below the mounting point. That point is 23.18" from the lower point, measured along the axle center line. Now, we compress the suspension 4 inches. The point directly beneath the upper mounting point is now 23.88" from the lower mounting point, and the front end of your Wrangler has been violently jerked 0.7" one way or the other, depending on whether you are talking about the axle or the body. Not bad for a 4-inch compression.
Aside from that, has anyone seen what the tire rod ends do when you compress the suspension?
10-06-2011 10:06 AM
sparky He tore up his driveline because he does not know how to drive, http://www.wranglerforum.com/f33/um-...at-116174.html and now he's an expert on suspensions?
10-06-2011 08:51 AM
oilwell1415
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
This is becoming a waste of time, really
This was a waste of time from the beginning and guess who started this worthless post?

If you could put any front suspension you wanted under the Wrangler what would it be? Please tell us so we can identify all the design flaws it has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
Is becoming? Try has been from post #1 bub.
Absolutely!
10-05-2011 11:33 PM
2012-Rubicon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joe002
Which is exactly what it's designed to do. Some may not like it, but that's what it is supposed to do.
Yup Yup simple geometry
10-05-2011 11:28 PM
joe002
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012-Rubicon View Post
...He is pointing out that on any suspenion with a track bar the axle moves side to side from one end of the travel to the other.
Which is exactly what it's designed to do. Some may not like it, but that's what it is supposed to do.
10-05-2011 11:26 PM
rics1997
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2012-Rubicon View Post
While your point is valid. He is pointing out that on any suspenion with a track bar the axle moves side to side from one end of the travel to the other.

Well he specifically mentioned a lift compounding the problem in his original post. As far as normal driving condition, worrying about the track bar shifting the axle during normal driving is like worrying about toe on a independent suspension when the vehicle rises and lowers over driving conditions.
10-05-2011 11:05 PM
2012-Rubicon
Quote:
Originally Posted by rics1997
It is no more a design flaw then any other item you have to replace with a lift. The sway bar links are not adjustable from the factory and has to be replaced with a lift. So are shocks and brake line. The track bar is set just right for factory settings. If you change factory setting with a lift, then you need to adjust the other parts to match with either extension brackets or buy adjustable links and track bars.
While your point is valid. He is pointing out that on any suspenion with a track bar the axle moves side to side from one end of the travel to the other.
10-05-2011 10:57 PM
rics1997 It is no more a design flaw then any other item you have to replace with a lift. The sway bar links are not adjustable from the factory and has to be replaced with a lift. So are shocks and brake line. The track bar is set just right for factory settings. If you change factory setting with a lift, then you need to adjust the other parts to match with either extension brackets or buy adjustable links and track bars.
10-05-2011 10:53 PM
joe002 nycdude777- It's not a design flaw at all - it's functioning 100% completely correct according to the design!

Now in your opinion itís a flawed design - that's debatable...
10-05-2011 10:28 PM
aelwero
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
Its superiority is due to the fact that its suspension is NOT independent like on most cars. But if the axle was not shifting side to side you would also have better highway handling, its just physics. I am not making this up.
that's exactly what I was saying, the issue people have is that they aren't willing to give up a system that works well off road in order to gain better handling on the street. If they were, they would have bought an IFS truck to wheel in...

For $30K, you can get a vehicle with more power, more speed, better handling, MUCH better gas mileage, carpet that's actually attached, a roof that's insulated, sound proofing, a much nicer interior, and on and on and on. There's a whole slew of amenities and features in a modern $30K car that you don't get in a wrangler... You can call all of that a flaw, but the truth is that you chose a jeep for a reason, and whatever the reason, it was (hopefully) worth what you didn't get, and most folks, having made that decision, would call it a compromise and not a flaw...
10-05-2011 09:43 PM
kjeeper10 Flaw-

My corroding door hinges

Hadim on my Yj and my Tj and now my Jk.

What's the dealio?
10-05-2011 09:23 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
This is becoming a waste of time, really
Is becoming? Try has been from post #1 bub.
10-05-2011 09:20 PM
nycdude777
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubba68CS View Post
Some would argue that the very fact that its held by a strap is a "design flaw". It does not prevent the door from opening into the fender when not attached (easy to do), it doesn't keep the door from closing on you when you are trying to get in or out...

By YOUR definition, that is a flawed design.



EVERYTHING on a motor vehicle is a compromised design. Don't kid yourself, nothing on any vehicle is perfect. The point of a suspension system is to keep the tires flat on the road...a solid axle is piss poor at accomplishing that (but has other advantages in very uneven terrain at very low speeds)...but fact remains even ultra exotic independent systems have their limits...



No one is arguing that a trackbar operates as such...they're arguing you calling it a flawed design. Its not...it is a characteristic of the design. If you're going to nit-pick about that, we absolutely must hear your opinion of a camshaft.
This is becoming a waste of time, really
10-05-2011 09:13 PM
Bubba68CS
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
Someone earlier in this thread said that why not remove the doors to reduce the noise, only then, how do you get in... Well, the doors are not designed to reduce the noise or have anything to do with the noise whatsoever. Their primary function is to swing out when you pull the handle, let you get in, shut tight and prevent you from falling out. As far as I know, they do just that, so there is no functional problem there, they are 100% functional to the spec.
Some would argue that the very fact that its held by a strap is a "design flaw". It does not prevent the door from opening into the fender when not attached (easy to do), it doesn't keep the door from closing on you when you are trying to get in or out...

By YOUR definition, that is a flawed design.

Quote:
With trackbar however, its purpose is to keep the axle from moving laterally. There are 3 dimensions in which the track bar can move, front-to-back which is limited by control arms in a rigid manner, up and down controlled by the coil springs and the shock absorber, and lastly prevent side-to-side movement with track bar. Well, track bar, due to the compromise, whatever it may be, simplicity, cost efficiency, iprovement potential for future up-sales or whatever, is not doing its job 100%. Its slight (an inch) latteral movement is tolerable yes, but it is not 100%. The reason for that, is geomerty. Can't use two bars to cross, or the axle won't move up at all.. Anything else is expensive, so yes, it is a compromise, with "acceptable" play. Nevertheless, it is imperfect due to that compromise. It is a compromised design. Perhaps that is the term. And don't take me wrong, I still love my Rubicon and will be first to defend it and tell everyone that its the vehicle to drive. But the truth remains, that the imperfect axle housing is due to a compromised design.
EVERYTHING on a motor vehicle is a compromised design. Don't kid yourself, nothing on any vehicle is perfect. The point of a suspension system is to keep the tires flat on the road...a solid axle is piss poor at accomplishing that (but has other advantages in very uneven terrain at very low speeds)...but fact remains even ultra exotic independent systems have their limits...

Quote:
It doesn't matter how you say it, you guys all know its true
No one is arguing that a trackbar operates as such...they're arguing you calling it a flawed design. Its not...it is a characteristic of the design. If you're going to nit-pick about that, we absolutely must hear your opinion of a camshaft.
10-05-2011 09:03 PM
sneck
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
Oh boy, this will go on forever...
But if the axle was not shifting side to side you would also have better highway handling, its just physics. I am not making this up.
I think I found your problem. Granted my jeep is a dd, but I bought it knowing it wasn't the gti or bmw i was also considering. I got it for an all around all terrain awesome vehicle. But to say the jeep, while handling offroad amazingly has a poor design because its highway handling leaves something to be desired is pretty much why everyone is all over you. its an offroad vehicle. dont complain about its on road performance.
10-05-2011 09:02 PM
kjeeper10 My iPhone has an antenna flaw
10-05-2011 08:45 PM
nycdude777
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
In the context of diamonds I suppose. But surely your position is not that, unless a mechanical design is "perfect" (whatever that may mean), it is "flawed"?? As I said earlier, that simply means every design is "flawed" in your eyes.

That's fine to hold that opinion I guess, but I don't think it's shared by most, as it's really more philosophical than practical. So you probably ought to make your position clear at the outset.

In any event . . .



Alright, so let's just back up a minute and say that what you were doing here wasn't really declaring something an objective "design flaw," but, instead, only questioning whether it was really the best overall design available.

Have you now received sufficient responses and explanation such that you are of the opinion that it probably is not a "design flaw," but, rather, is a sensible design that ultimately accomplishes its goals in the most practical manner while of course being subject to improvement as new design arises? Or do you still maintain that it is an irreparably foolish, outright, and objective "design flaw."
Oh boy, this will go on forever... its not about stances. I see lot of guys in here take my comments to the heart. I can understand that, when you love something, you identify with it, and any criticism is felt painfully as if it were towards you.

I am the same way.

But, okay, lets take a step back, and understand what is a design flaw...

Someone earlier in this thread said that why not remove the doors to reduce the noise, only then, how do you get in... Well, the doors are not designed to reduce the noise or have anything to do with the noise whatsoever. Their primary function is to swing out when you pull the handle, let you get in, shut tight and prevent you from falling out. As far as I know, they do just that, so there is no functional problem there, they are 100% functional to the spec.

With trackbar however, its purpose is to keep the axle from moving laterally. There are 3 dimensions in which the track bar can move, front-to-back which is limited by control arms in a rigid manner, up and down controlled by the coil springs and the shock absorber, and lastly prevent side-to-side movement with track bar. Well, track bar, due to the compromise, whatever it may be, simplicity, cost efficiency, iprovement potential for future up-sales or whatever, is not doing its job 100%. Its slight (an inch) latteral movement is tolerable yes, but it is not 100%. The reason for that, is geomerty. Can't use two bars to cross, or the axle won't move up at all.. Anything else is expensive, so yes, it is a compromise, with "acceptable" play. Nevertheless, it is imperfect due to that compromise. It is a compromised design. Perhaps that is the term. And don't take me wrong, I still love my Rubicon and will be first to defend it and tell everyone that its the vehicle to drive. But the truth remains, that the imperfect axle housing is due to a compromised design.

It doesn't matter how you say it, you guys all know its true, so stop attacking me please, making me feel very unwelcome here... what do you want a bunch of lambs joining this forum who don't think and just listen with their dropped unhinged lower jaws to you guys? c'mon...

And to say that this particular "flaw" is the reason for jeep's superiority on the trail is plain silly. Its superiority is due to the fact that its suspension is NOT independent like on most cars. But if the axle was not shifting side to side you would also have better highway handling, its just physics. I am not making this up.
10-05-2011 08:42 PM
distortedtj Keep the conversation civil. Only warning.

There is no need to be rude or proceed with name calling.
10-05-2011 08:37 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
What the hell is this thread about?
Your Jeep is flawed.
10-05-2011 08:36 PM
kjeeper10 What the hell is this thread about?
10-05-2011 08:31 PM
InvertChaos Still don't see what's flawed about it...it doesn't affect performance...
10-05-2011 08:22 PM
MTH
Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
Lastly, the definition of flaw is sinonymous with imperfection.
In the context of diamonds I suppose. But surely your position is not that, unless a mechanical design is "perfect" (whatever that may mean), it is "flawed"?? As I said earlier, that simply means every design is "flawed" in your eyes.

That's fine to hold that opinion I guess, but I don't think it's shared by most, as it's really more philosophical than practical. So you probably ought to make your position clear at the outset.

In any event . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by nycdude777 View Post
If you trust accountants, you get Wall Street. If you trust engineers blindly, well, idk, you will get Matrix. You gotta question.
Alright, so let's just back up a minute and say that what you were doing here wasn't really declaring something an objective "design flaw," but, instead, only questioning whether it was really the best overall design available.

Have you now received sufficient responses and explanation such that you are of the opinion that it probably is not a "design flaw," but, rather, is a sensible design that ultimately accomplishes its goals in the most practical manner while of course being subject to improvement as new design arises? Or do you still maintain that it is an irreparably foolish, outright, and objective "design flaw."
10-05-2011 08:20 PM
sirrobin4ever If the Wrangler's suspension setup is a flaw, you might as well say that Chrysler's use of steel in the vehicle is also a flaw; someday it will rust, and they could have built it out of stainless steel instead. As was said before this isn't a flaw: it's a compromise.
This thread has more than 30 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:50 PM.



Jeepģ, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC