Full IS is Better Than Solid Axles

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Thread Last Poster Posts Pages Last Post   Closed: New threads not accepted on this page

Author Message   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:48 am:    OK � Now that I have you attention I want to post some technical theory and I would like to see if it is plausible. In this theory we must assume three things: (a) That Air suspension can be made as reliable as possible (b) That electronics are as reliable as possible (c) That aftermarket diffs and ½ shafts would be available Given the first two factors (and we are close to both), it seems logical to ask what the limiting factors are in comparisons between IS and solid axles. LR has tried to address these limitations in the latest gen Rangie by using flow-through channels that allow for one wheel to push down while the opposing wheel presses upward. This is fine and dandy as far as solid axle emulation, but still does not make things better. It simply brings IS up to par with solid axles for off-road purposes. So lets take this one step further. If one were to actually balance the control between all four wheels to keep the vehicle on a level plane, it would be assumed that the vehicle would perform well off road. It would even maintain higher ground clearance. Furthermore, if manufacturers would enable manual control of the suspension (say through a joystick) to the driver, it would allow for variances in what the BCU Would perceive as the correct plane. If you can imagine traversing as 30 degree slope at a virtually level body to gravity-plane difference, you can see what I am talking about here. If you can imagine dropping or raising a wheel at will then we are one step further. I know this flies in the face of conventional Dweb wisdom, but I want to take a look at where we are going. It seems that with traditional off-roaders, we only look at what is proven�not what is theoretical. The fact is that IS is where the off-road industry is going. We may interpret the industry engineers as trying to appease to a broader market and ignoring the hardcore wheeler. The question is: can both be accomplished with better results for all? Curtis   GregH Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:15 am:    Sounds like a Citroen 4x4!! Actually, I've always wondered why LR didn't pursue a Wolf-type of active suspension for production vehicles. That always sounded like a neat system. GregH   nadim Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:36 am:    I like my springs, thank you.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:49 am:    nadim, That is nice that you like your springs. I like mine also. Now, can you articulate WHY you like your springs? Again - assume that (a) and (b) are absomutles. Curtis   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:55 am:    That is: "absolutes", not "absomutles" My bad. Seriously though: I want a flame war here. One with some meat and substance. This would mean that you could prove that IS with independently and manually controlled springs could be outperformed by solid axles. I like grilled cheese sandwitches, but that does not proves they are the best food You can do better than that...I hope. Curtis   Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 03:55 am:    Curtis, If an IS could be made to articulate as well as a a solid axil, and have the same type of ability to be modified for more travel through ingenuity and practicality, I think it would work. A big part of the IS resistance is the ability to make travel simple. Solid axles does make it simple, it is very one plane. Add bigger springs and you have lift. With IS...to perform well, you need to add longer axles, add a cv joint, additional gears and so on. Add a drive gear to the wheels and all is well. But, think of the complexity. Now you have redution gears from the engine to the transmision to the transfer case to the diferential, to the axle, to the wheel. I prefer to make things aq simple as posible. I vote out IFS. When I fixing my rig on the trail, MY goal is to get home.   Michael Noe (Noee) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 08:41 am:    I would echo the "simple" comments. Simplicity generally implies lower cost and higher overall reliability and specifically in this case, flexibility for repairs and modification. Now, is there a way to make and IS system that is as flexible and simple as solid axle? By flexible, I mean robust, able to handle multiple mods or fixes or configurations.   Brian Dickens (Bri) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 09:34 am:    KISS and COST. IMO the trophy trucks pretty much prove that IS can be very good. Unfortunately it is very expensive and complex as the others have mentioned. Add to it a complex control mechanism as you have mentioned and you have one very cool/complex vehicle to build, maintain and to drive (joystick+steering wheel). Better hope for an inheritance or sponsor on such a vehicle. And don't forget your trusty D1 to tow it home when it breaks ;-)   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:02 am:    Brian, Michael, & Brian, I agree with all of what you are saying, and in todays world, it is the truth. However, it is not the reality of where companies such as LR and Jeep are going. I guess the question I am trying to ask myself, is what ends these companies are hoping to achieve? It seem that there will have to be some revolutionary suspension concepts and vast improvements in reliability to make it work, but I can't help but wonder if they don;t have what I am proposing in mind. And yes, I would also rather stick with solid axles with the current technology, but I can almost guarantee that the suspension setups of tomorrow will be vastly different than today... Curtis   Michael Noe (Noee) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:39 am:    I hear ya. And you know, fuel cell technology is coming too, no question about. Forget suspension, it changes every single thing from design to manufacturing to deliver and support. The trend seems to be that to get these super-sophisticated, high-end IS suspensions, you ante up big for the latest big-dog machine (eg. RaRo, et al). Well, how often will these cars even go anywhere to use this stuff, so big deal, but some folks will still buy them and the makers have to "keep up" with the competition. My guess is that the market for simple, lower cost machines will not go unfulfilled in the end. Better chance than not, it won't be Land Rover.   Brian Dickens (Bri) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:59 am:    Curtis, I do not disagree, but to me this just means that my old Disco will remain an easier vehicle to offroad and maintain in the field as long as parts are available and I know what I am doing. Plus if I buy into this idea, I don't have to go out and buy the latest greatest technology and pay for these revolutionary changes. However, I do think that they are interesting, just impractical to me. If I wish to see one of these new revolutionary vehicles, I'll just go hit a trail and watch them at work, or rationalize a trip to spectate at the Baja 1000. Cheers and Happy researching. Bri PS: At some point, someone told me that the Rover suspension (possibly range rover) did have some heritage with the Citreon. Is this true?   James F. Thompson Jaime (Blueboy) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:08 am:    Citreon developed the Hydropneumatic Suspension in the late 1950's. Rather than separate shock absorbers and springs, each suspension unit has a hybrid shock absorber-type piston with a reservoir attached to the top of it. When the engine is switched off the car lies low to the ground. When it is started, the hydropneumatics pump fluid into the suspension units, increasing the height of the car to normal travelling height. Installed in the Citreon Activa using the latest technology the onboard computer can adjust the ride height several times a second to give a very smooth ride.   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:23 am:    Curtis, consider the length of the IS control arm with that of the axle (the solid axle doesn't have to pivot around the centerline of the vehicle), and all advantages of IS disappear quickly. The only good working IS setup was Ford's twin-beam (TTB for 4WD), and that was a bitch to keep aligned, and most likely, it was even heavier than the solid I-beam (or live axle) in the front. peter   Al Oliveira (Offroaddisco) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 12:09 pm:    (b) is one area that will not be attainable at reasonable costs. It's hard to beat a coil of steel when it gets to reliability. Even in a datacenter where temp and humidity are at a constant. Vibration is almost nill only caused by fans an the foot steps on raised floor. And most systems have redundant everything. Sounds like an ideal situation to have no electronic failures, right? I can tell you that even in those conditions billions of dollars are spent on electronic hardware failures. Now translate that to an enviroment where you have temperatures that range from -10F to 120F or more and dust, water, salt, bumps and vibrations that will knock that big gulp out of even the biggest and ugliest American cup holder and it's a wonder that our ECU's and ABS holds up as well as it does. I'm far from a tehno-phobe. I just think there is a place for it and that kind of suspension might be okay for demos and shows and maybe even rock crawling events where all you need to do is last a day or two before needing a major repair but for vehicles that are used day in and day out for 100's of thousands of miles? I'm not even against air suspension but you get to a point where it gets to be much more complex than it really needs to be and you miss the point. I think the new Rangie is a good example. Sure it's nice but I think most of that belongs on a RR (thats Rolls Royce not Range Rover). And not because RR is a premium product but because a Rolls is not a vehicle that implies use in extreme conditions (not anymore anyway).   Andy Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:11 pm:    You point out rock crawlers, I read somewhere that rock crawlings future lies in IFS and IRS setups. I would like to see those set ups that already exist. Okay those trucks don't get driven 100k but they get treated very hard, particlary in competion. I use to mountain bike race, I would destroy bikes and parts all the time from wear, stress and impacts. Now that I don't race anymore and just ride, the miles put on my bikes are about the same, but they seem to be lasting longer. I think rock crawling buggys could be looked at for reliblity of IFS and IRS. Besides, on our trucks, if you say in 100k of its life it spent 10% of those miles offroad, that still is alot of miles on road. I would also question if 10% was the figure, how it was possible if it isn't a work truck or you profession involves wheeling full time. (If that is your profession, let me know where to apply forthat job, I'll take a paycut.) Look at the Dweb videos, how many miles was the hole in rock video for say Kyle, and how many of those miles was spent off road? I'll drive hundreds of miles to drive only 50 offroad miles.   GregH Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 01:41 pm:    What I was referring to was the military experimental suspension designed by LR that used hydraulic (I think) rams in place of springs and shocks (ala active suspension). It still used live axles NOT independent susp. I felt that if perfected they could offer the best of both worlds having adjustable suspension that allowed great onroad driving as well as incredible articulation offroad at the touch of a switch or dial. My understanding is that Austalian Army was only pursuer of this technology because of cost and problems the Brits abandoned it. I've always been curious what would have happened if funding would have perfected this technology.   mantaray (Mantaray) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:06 pm:    Curtis - you were wondering what ends these companies are hoping to achieve? just look at the current market, flooded with worthless SUVs, some of which can't even attack a gravel fire road without wincing. the ends they are looking for is to seel more vehicles than the other guy, period. if that means making an SUV's suspension into a car's and sacrificing off-road performance to do it, that's were it's heading. Jeep and Land Rover used to have the integrity and exclusivity of being able to be geared towards the off-road enthusiast. now that every car company on the planet has a line of SUV's and they are trendy, they can no longer do that. so they water down their line to appeal to the masses. it's how we got the Libby over at Jeep and how the new Rangie came about. i applaud LR for trying to do IS one better with the air crossover to improve articulation and contact, but bottom line is as far as reliability and touchness for the average off-road enthusiast, you aren't going to beat a solid axle set-up. personally, i like the way solid axles feel on the road. i WANT to know where every imperfection in the pavement is, it's part of the driving experience to me. i feel safer knowing that i'm not isolated from the road. of course, i've been driving a Jeep YJ for a good while now too...... if the market ever gets bad enough that everything is IS, i won't be buying any new vehicles unless it's a car ever again. there's too much that can go wrong the more parts and complexity you add to the suspension regardless of how reliable those systems have become. besides, do you really want an electronically managed 4WD system on your Rover when you have a Lucas electric system? i think not. i won't touch anything with electronically engaged 4WD either. gimme a lever or forget it.   Craig M. Highland (Shortbus) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:19 pm:    Curious- If each wheel travels independently, how does articulation apply? Travel and articulation are two different games altogether... Craig   Andy Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 02:30 pm:    What if you could build a IFS/IRS full time 4x4 that didn't need all the electronics to make it work? Of course asking for a simpler set up from a modern auto manufacturer would be impossible. It seems to me that the auto industry has to add electronic goodies to keep up. Look at the CDL on the d1. They got rid of it in favor of an electronic gizmo. Which one works better? I itdoubt matters, what matters is how will the auto buying market receive less gizmos in a brand new vehicle. The cost of a good offroad truck is going to push the price up, to sell said vehicles to the mainstream means you cater to it. So if something like a true trac diff works great and is idiot proof, and reliable, will a current US consumer prefer it over something that is electronically controled and has the ever coveted lighted switch on the interior that can impress your friends? I think the Range Rover is a good example of this. The rest of the market was creaming the old one. Why? Because I contend it didn't keep up with the techology of the competion. BMW knew if the rr was updated it needed to be "leading edge". I think, probably just like Curtis, (maybe we have both lived in Utah to long and we losing our minds) that the future is IFS/IRS will becoming. How bad is that? Andy 95 d1   Peter Carey (Pcarey) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 03:14 pm:    I have to chime in on the KISS and COST issue. As stated earlier, IFS is more complex and should therefor cost more to make. So why are more SUV "companies" doing it? Also, KISS isn't always followed. How much more complex is a laser beam shined on a piece of plastic rotated at fairly high RPMs more simple than an old record player with needle and a tube? KISS is great, but imporvements and advances usually require more complex systems. So what if you have to figure out more gear ratios to make it work. Get better at math. I'm not for one or the other because I really don't care, as long as I can drive to my bus and back each day. but it seems people are against IFS because of what it does now, not what it COULD do as Curtis originally pointed out. I mean hell, cars have only been around for less than a 120 years or so. They are always evolving. I know there were a lot of peole who looked at a "car" back at the turn of the century and wondered how that "thing" is better than a cart and team of mules. Imagine if you told people in in the 1800s that one day things Henery Ford made like http://www.hfmgv.org/exhibits/showroom/1896/quad.html would carry more people across this country than trains. they would have laughed at you. Oh yeah, is Amtrak still in service? pwc   Nate Jedinak (Ducati) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 03:50 pm:    mantaray: IS doesn't mean you lose road feel. Drive a modern sporting sedan and you can still feel every bump and nook in the road; in fact, it's more precise because your arse can determine more about the road surface, as the two sides of the suspension aren't tied together (except for the swaybars). Offroad, the problem I have with any IS truck I have driven is the suspension doesn't have the travel of a good solid axle setup. You obviously can't read the surface if your wheels aren't touching The way the suspension moves also feels a bit goofy to me; it's all straight up-and-down motion, and since we don't drive up and down 90 degree perpendicular surfaces all day this feels a bit odd. Think about a side slope, say your right wheels ride up on it. instead of the axles forcing the tire in contact with the whole surface, the IS rises perpendicular to the ground and you have half a contact patch over there. You can feel this, and it's odd. Of course, I haven't driven a new Rangie offroad, and the IS vehicles I have driven offroad are far below it's price/sophistication... Dunno, maybe it has better "feel" and traction.   Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 04:05 pm:    Obviously car companies can't make products consumers won't buy. Independent suspension is being driven by the marketplace, not pushed by the car companies. Most consumers do not use SUVs offroad, and independent suspension provides a lot of advantages on road. Face it, us LR folks are a minority. Ford and Dodge heavy duty pickups, which aren't as often purchased by yuppies and actually are used for work, use live axles. Presumably that's because their (often commercial) buyers want/need them. The legal system comes into play here too, since rollovers are costly for automakers. (Funny how in the States, litigation takes the place of government regulation). Live axles tend to force the chassis to roll on an axis at the center - "tippy" - whereas with independent suspension the car can take a more diagonal "squat". Personal experience in the bush keeps me in the live axle group. I like the simplicity and corresponding field serviceable components. Durability is obvious too, and the export versions of many makes such as the current Toyota Landcruiser, are available with live axles front and rear in some overseas markets where the buyer more typically uses them offroad.   Peter Carey (Pcarey) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 04:30 pm:    This is going to sound like a dumb question to some, but why the hell is it called a "live" axle? pwc   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 04:43 pm:    this is a question to Kyle and Musky. IIRC, it took them a while to settle on it peter   Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 04:59 pm:    A "live" axle has gears, axles, and axle housings that move with the suspension. The components aren't fixed to the chassis but are instead sprung and therefore move about - they're live. Kinda dumb, but it stuck sometime long ago.   adtoolco Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:04 pm:    Well now that we are talking theory here...I had this early morning epiphany the other day. Why not have each individual wheel be turned by its own individual electrical motor? Eliminate the axle,lockers,shafts, trasfer case, and ••••••. Talk about KISS...and think about what kind of clearance and articulation you could get. Power would be supplied by generator via a small gas turbine. -Chris   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:09 pm:    Chris, this is how these gigantic mining trucks work. BTW, this idea belongs to Ferdinand Porsche. ChryCo toyed with this idea when they had plans on remaking the Wagoneer. My guess is that the electric motor required to turn the wheels is waaay heavy, eliminating all the benefits of independent suspension. peter   adtoolco Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:16 pm:    Man, any good ideas I have are already thunk up. Oh well back to killing brain cells with beer. -Chris   Michael Noe (Noee) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:29 pm:    BTW, that's exactly how GM's "skateboard" prototype fuel cell car gets power to the road.   GregH Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 06:38 pm:    Has anyone heard what happened to the LR experimental military vehicle I referred to above? I'm curious now what happened to it. BTW-in the Lohner-Porsche (circa 1899-1900) Porsche designed the hub motors and it won several land speed records (about 35 MPH!!) GregH   Joe M. (Little_Joe) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 07:51 pm:    One other major disadvantage to independent suspension is as one side is compressed, the effective ground clearance is reduced. Where the live axle pivots and inproves clearance, the IS lever moves and the chassis remains stationary. If you forced travel on the extended side, you've lost the balance you theorized about. If you've never driven an IFS vehicle in rocks or stumps or berms, try it sometime and you'll realize how much it sucks as you clang&bang or rip off components. joe (my other 4WD is IFS)   Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:36 pm:    Here is my continued take on this... With either live axles or independent suspension there is a going to be compromise of some sort. Independent systems, like on the Humvee, allow for a smoother under belly and a lot of vertical wheel travel. Running fast over varied terrain is more controllable just like on the road. A bump to one wheel doesn't necessarily affect the opposite one. Huge wheel travel is possible. Look at desert racing trucks, they are all IFS. Actually, most of the post war US military jeeps went to 4 wheel independent suspensions as the live axle versions bounced all over the place, flipped over, and weren't stable gun platforms. Would you rather run a rally race in a slightly lifted Audi Quattro or a LR Defender? Live axles have an edge in off camber articulation and in certain limited traction conditions like snow or mud. Saabs and Volvos purposely used live rear axles for years, until they became more export driven. They also support loads easily, so most trucks use them. I like 'em on trails because the ground clearance is constant under the axle no matter how you twist it.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:49 pm:    Joe, You are 1/2 right or 1/1 right depending on the rig and the suspension setup. The better IS setups start with better ground clearance to begin with and it reduces to that of a solid axle on compression. The bad IS setups start with about the same GC as a solid axle and reduce themselves down to the ground on compression. The Toyota Tacoma is an example of a decent IFS and the Ford Exploder an example of the crappy IS. What I am suggesting is that with a fully IS vehicle and airbags on each corner, you could control the spring rate and travel on each wheel. You could do this maually or automatically. As long as you had the right control arm setup I believe some amazing things cound come of it. It will be interesting to see what lies ahead. When you think that there are now only three vehicles available in the states with solid axles, you can bet that there will be some suspension tuners focusing on good IS setups.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 10:55 pm:    Peter C, Geoff, & Others, I am not an authority on this, but it is my understanding that a live axle is directly attached to the drivetrain all of the time. My ATV's have "live" axles as it is basically a solid bar all the way across that is connected directly to the transmisssion via chain, belt or shaft. Go-Karts also have live axles. This also means that they have no differential and are essestially locked. This would also mean that most vehicles (and all LR's) do not have live axles. Again though - I ma be wrong. Curtis   Geoff 93 RRC (Geoff) Posted on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 - 11:04 pm:    Another discussion on this.. http://www.4wdonline.com/A.hints/Suspension.html   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:00 am:    Good site Geoff, I followed those links a long way within that site. Very well developed. I still prefer to use the term "solid" rather than "live" when referring to axles that have housings and diffs, but that is just me. There are so many terms in off-roading that many seem pretty loose when pressed for a definition. Cheers, Curtis   Brad Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:05 am:    Also the independent suspension when you have a heavy load you will loose ground clearance. It would work good in a rock buggy something where there is no load put on it.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:10 am:    Brad, That makes no sense. All vehicles with wheels have loads on them. The load is countered by the spring rate. Maybe you are going back to the compression issue, but what I am saying is that that can be countered with adjustable rate springs. Curtis   Russian Landy Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 03:54 am:    Well, the main and huge advantage of independent suspension is unsprung weight. When travelling at any kind of speed, an independent setup will keep the wheels in contact with the ground where solid axles will not. So for road use, or driving at speed in a rally situation, there is simply no comparison. That is why live axles disappeared from street cars 50 years ago. But at rock-crawling speeds, this advantage disappears. Then you have the natural advantage of live axles automatically lifting the diff up and out of the way when encountering an obstacle, maintaining ground clearance no matter what the wheels are doing. With no technology or electronics at all, a live axle suspended vehicle behaves almost ideally at rock-crawling speeds (provided you've disconnected the sway bars). The best suspension must be an independent setup which somehow emulates live axle response to obstacles. But at what cost of complexity and expense! Would you trust the British to do that right? I didn't think so.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:06 pm:    "The best suspension must be an independent setup which somehow emulates live axle response to obstacles. But at what cost of complexity and expense!" The new RangeRo already does this by having an equalizing channel between the airbags on each end of the vehicle. What I am suggesting is an active system with some sort of manual override. This type of spring system could be used with solid axles, portal axles, or IS, but I my thinking here is that it could make IS truly functional. As far as who to trust to do it? First assume that it will be done (it will). I would think the first companies to pull it off will either be Jeep, LR, or maybe MB.   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:13 pm:    Quote: That is why live axles disappeared from street cars 50 years ago. either i don't understand what a live axle is, or my 2101 had independent rear suspension... peter   GregH Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 12:31 pm:    Yep, those are actually '52 CrownVics at your Ford dealer.   Milan (Milan) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 01:31 pm:    Carter, My understanding of "live" axles is the same. I.e No differential, always connected (chain driven quad was the example I was using but my post got lost somehow). What rovers have are "solid" axles.   Carter Simcoe (Carter) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 02:07 pm:    When did I say anything in this thread????   Greg Davis (Gregdavis) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 02:13 pm:    My understanding was a "live" axle is a solid axle that is transmitting power. The old beam axles on the front of the early "buggy sprung" cars, heavy duty trucks, etc. are sometimes referred to as "dead" axles because they are solid axles but they don't transmit any power.   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 02:39 pm:    My understanding was the same   Milan (Milan) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:22 pm:    I was talking to Curtis, obviously. Sorry.   Milan (Milan) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:26 pm:    By "always connected" I implied it was powered. However, diffed axle I thought was not "live".   Milan (Milan) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:30 pm:    Come to think of it "live" probably just means driven. Regardless of diff or solid or IS.   Curtis N (Curtis) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 05:34 pm:    Probably so, and live or solid is juust semantics. I just have this mental block against using "live when referring to a diff'd axle.   Carter Simcoe (Carter) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:20 pm:    That's allright Milan, you had me going crazy for a minute searching through here for something I said   Brian Friend (Brianfriend) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:24 pm:    Why don't they call them straight axles, since they are not live or solid, but generally they are straight?   Peter Matusov (Pmatusov) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 06:41 pm:    if you look under the front of your local tow or UPS or garbage truck, he'll likely have a... solid axle up front, but it ain't straight. peter   Milan (Milan) Posted on Thursday, December 19, 2002 - 07:31 pm:    Carter, No problem. I just wasn't paying attention. Both you and Curtis are quite active on this board, and so I typed in the name I thought I remembered. Curtis, Same here. I bet it may have started as live=driven and then got screwed up somewhere and these days it's usually used to refer to solid axles. I reserve live for stuff like the quads or go-carts. Brian, Generally. But what if it's bent? I prefer solid as it means it's one solid chunk but I really use either and even though I'm discussing the terms here, I don't really care what people call them.