Heatwave

In article <74jk139kn3917prcnhu8sr4ouikefuu2cc@4ax.com>,
admin@snoman.com says...
> Once a troll always a troll as you just cannot get it out of your
> blood can you. You may think your are being cute but others can see
> you for what you are. Some come here looking for advise and some like
> you come here to make jokes and act like a troll. Knock yourself out!
> -----------------
> TheTrollMan.com

How is it when you are the one "casting the bait" that they are the ones
trolling?

Heatwave

In article <74jk139kn3917prcnhu8sr4ouikefuu2cc@4ax.com>,
admin@snoman.com says...
> Once a troll always a troll as you just cannot get it out of your
> blood can you. You may think your are being cute but others can see
> you for what you are. Some come here looking for advise and some like
> you come here to make jokes and act like a troll. Knock yourself out!
> -----------------
> TheTrollMan.com

How is it when you are the one "casting the bait" that they are the ones
trolling?

Heatwave

In article <d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com>,
admin@snoman.com says...
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.
> -----------------
> TheTrollMan.com

Clearly Snoboy is flustered.

In snoboy speak that translates to: "Cleraly Snoboy si flustured."

Heatwave

In article <d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com>,
admin@snoman.com says...
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.
> -----------------
> TheTrollMan.com

Clearly Snoboy is flustered.

In snoboy speak that translates to: "Cleraly Snoboy si flustured."

Heatwave

In article <d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com>,
admin@snoman.com says...
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.
> -----------------
> TheTrollMan.com

Clearly Snoboy is flustered.

In snoboy speak that translates to: "Cleraly Snoboy si flustured."

Jeff Strickland

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:40:56 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>You underestimate the depth and breadth of Roy's knowledge.
>>
>>Roy is more right than you are.
>
>
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.


I live with the physics involved, and they are not what you think they are.

I drive a CJ5 with a front locker, AND I leave the front hubs locked nearly
100% of the time. None of the issues you cite are real issues in the grand
scheme of things. Yes, I'm certain that the front end might behave
differently if the locker was not there, but it does not behave badly in any
situation where it matters. It is a bit noisey and clunky in a parking lot,
but it is easy to adjust my behavior so the vehicle remains calm and
comfortable. I'm sure the front end would behave differently if I bothered
to unlock the hubs too. But, my CJ with the hubs locked is exactly the same
as a TJ all of the time, and there are lots of TJs with a front locker. My
only point is, my life and your physics don't seem to mesh. I'll go with my
life, and hope you adopt new physics that are supported by reality.

Jeff Strickland

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:40:56 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>You underestimate the depth and breadth of Roy's knowledge.
>>
>>Roy is more right than you are.
>
>
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.


I live with the physics involved, and they are not what you think they are.

I drive a CJ5 with a front locker, AND I leave the front hubs locked nearly
100% of the time. None of the issues you cite are real issues in the grand
scheme of things. Yes, I'm certain that the front end might behave
differently if the locker was not there, but it does not behave badly in any
situation where it matters. It is a bit noisey and clunky in a parking lot,
but it is easy to adjust my behavior so the vehicle remains calm and
comfortable. I'm sure the front end would behave differently if I bothered
to unlock the hubs too. But, my CJ with the hubs locked is exactly the same
as a TJ all of the time, and there are lots of TJs with a front locker. My
only point is, my life and your physics don't seem to mesh. I'll go with my
life, and hope you adopt new physics that are supported by reality.

Jeff Strickland

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:d2ll13ps2h9a7k0ri4hp090p3n48cpbdha@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:40:56 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>You underestimate the depth and breadth of Roy's knowledge.
>>
>>Roy is more right than you are.
>
>
> My opion hsa been based on his stupid answer and if you think theey
> are intelligent than you are in the same boat as him. Ignoring the
> physics involved does not render them moot but you both seem to think
> it does.


I live with the physics involved, and they are not what you think they are.

I drive a CJ5 with a front locker, AND I leave the front hubs locked nearly
100% of the time. None of the issues you cite are real issues in the grand
scheme of things. Yes, I'm certain that the front end might behave
differently if the locker was not there, but it does not behave badly in any
situation where it matters. It is a bit noisey and clunky in a parking lot,
but it is easy to adjust my behavior so the vehicle remains calm and
comfortable. I'm sure the front end would behave differently if I bothered
to unlock the hubs too. But, my CJ with the hubs locked is exactly the same
as a TJ all of the time, and there are lots of TJs with a front locker. My
only point is, my life and your physics don't seem to mesh. I'll go with my
life, and hope you adopt new physics that are supported by reality.

Jeff Strickland

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:k6ll13pb31r3jj4tc67nrbe484haaf7la5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:39:01 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The torque steer problems you describe are of no consequence in my CJ. I
>>do
>>not live in the Snow Belt, and this clearly could play a role in my
>>expereinces, but lacking snow I would dispute that torque steer is
>>problematic. I have no torque steer problems in 4WD while offroading, but
>>I
>>am not able to address the affects in snow.
>
>
> Torque ster is less noticable in snow then hard surfaces and i have
> NEVER seen a 4x4 with a solid front axle with good traction that did
> not torque steer in a tractive suface in a tight turn, NEVER. You just
> take it as normal and do not know that there is a difference. I have
> been driving them for over 35 years now have you?


You have absdolutely no clue what I do and do not know. None. You apparently
think it is not normal, and therefore is a problem.

I told you that torque steer is not a problem. It is not a problem. I
certainly notice it, but it is not a problem from either a mechanical
standpoint or a control standpoint. Torque steer is of no consequence. Ever.
Loss of turning radius can be a problem, but my transmission allows me to
change directions and try again. I'm okay with this, and the added traction
is well worth the effort to turn twice.

I did not say one word about a solid axle, but I agree that a locker is as
close as you can get without actually having one.

Jeff Strickland

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:k6ll13pb31r3jj4tc67nrbe484haaf7la5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Apr 2007 16:39:01 GMT, "Jeff Strickland"
> <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>The torque steer problems you describe are of no consequence in my CJ. I
>>do
>>not live in the Snow Belt, and this clearly could play a role in my
>>expereinces, but lacking snow I would dispute that torque steer is
>>problematic. I have no torque steer problems in 4WD while offroading, but
>>I
>>am not able to address the affects in snow.
>
>
> Torque ster is less noticable in snow then hard surfaces and i have
> NEVER seen a 4x4 with a solid front axle with good traction that did
> not torque steer in a tractive suface in a tight turn, NEVER. You just
> take it as normal and do not know that there is a difference. I have
> been driving them for over 35 years now have you?


You have absdolutely no clue what I do and do not know. None. You apparently
think it is not normal, and therefore is a problem.

I told you that torque steer is not a problem. It is not a problem. I
certainly notice it, but it is not a problem from either a mechanical
standpoint or a control standpoint. Torque steer is of no consequence. Ever.
Loss of turning radius can be a problem, but my transmission allows me to
change directions and try again. I'm okay with this, and the added traction
is well worth the effort to turn twice.

I did not say one word about a solid axle, but I agree that a locker is as
close as you can get without actually having one.