|
There might be a legitimate reason it is designed like that, maybe it is designed to bend in such a way in order to absorb more force in a rear end collision, or to alleviate some kind of vibration in the chassis.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
Motronic posted:My point is that I believe there is a significant amount of force between the frame bending and anything else breaking. The frame really is ridiculously weak in the problem aream and if it weren't you could do a lot more before you ran into problems. B-b-but we put our special this-poo poo-doesn't-really-work-but-it-will-if-we-half-rear end-it part on the rear end (sort of like using flimsy control arms and bushings to make up for the fact that the Fox 4-link rear is poorly designed)!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
Powershift posted:Did you watch the video in the article? That's damned impressive for a factory truck. I don't know that I'd feel comfortable in my rockcrawler on that road at 2/3's of that guy's speed. Motronic, I'm curious to hear about which other showroom stock light-duty truck on sale in the US could stand up to that kind of abuse better than the Raptor did? A little frame tweakage at the bumpstop is pretty good for the speed he was carrying through that section. And like the Ford rep said in the article above, he was able to keep driving safely, no busted shocks or springs, so I'd say the truck handled the overt abuse quite well. That single hit on the kicker was clearly abuse beyond what a stock truck should be designed to handle, even one sold by that evil, evil SVT group. Trying to take hits like that is going to require better equipment (more uptravel + air bumps). You're awfully worked up about one access hole in a frame.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:10
|
|
|
murphle posted:Motronic, I'm curious to hear about which other showroom stock light-duty truck on sale in the US could stand up to that kind of abuse better than the Raptor did? None that I'm aware of. I'm also not aware of any other factory truck that is marketed for the purpose the Raptor is. murphle posted:You're awfully worked up about one access hole in a frame. One completely unnecessary access hole (the bump stops could easily be surface mounted) in the one place you need the frame stronger? I'm not worked up about it, as I have no horse in this race. But I'm interested enough to voice my opinion that it's a design flaw that the Ford rep is doing everything he can to put a good spin on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:15
|
|
|
I haven't followed up much but are the bent frame heroes getting satisfaction from Ford or are they just having the frames straightened and reinforced?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
The design of the bumpstop area is flawed, in my opinion, but I agree with what Ford are saying about progressively exploring where the vehicle's limits are. I'd also say that a short kicker like that is one of the worse things to hit at speed - all it does is knock the front wheels in the air and the rear hits hard. If you watch Ford's video, it looks like a similar height of jump, but a much smoother transition into it - the ratio of the length of a kicker/ramp to your wheelbase makes a significant difference to the effect it has, especially when, unlike a bike, you can't actively shift weight around to compensate. Ford also seem to have screwed up with a bumpstop that is not aligned with the arc the axle actually travels in as the suspension compresses, which is why it's bending forward and exacerbating the load on the frame. I'd also be interested to know how progressive the suspension is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:22
|
|
|
Sponge! posted:Keeping along with the hot-bulb engine theme, I found this in the youtube thread. Not a horrible mechanical failure, but its totally AI and This is the most awesome thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
murphle posted:That's damned impressive for a factory truck. I don't know that I'd feel comfortable in my rockcrawler on that road at 2/3's of that guy's speed. You are assuming that video shows what it takes to bend a frame (and yeah from that its obvious something was going to break from that impact). That doesn't mean that poo poo doesn't get broke from less then an impact like that, and it really does seem like a design oversight on Fords part. Motronic's picture is worth a thousand words. I do understand that if you beat on something hard enough its going to break somewhere, and I think at least some of the Raptor owners understand that at least, but the "tough poo poo" reply to a small but highly visible and dedicated owners group seems completely retarded. The cost of looking into the issue, seeing what the aftermarket guys are doing to remedy the issue, and not loving your die-hard customers as company policy seems like it would be a lot better for them in the long run.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 22:46
|
|
|
If it wasn't designed like that, what would be the next part that failed in that sort of hit?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:26
|
|
|
Z3n posted:If it wasn't designed like that, what would be the next part that failed in that sort of hit? That depends on the suspension travel, which I'm not positive of. It could either asplode the bump stop, or destroy a shock/shock mount depending on how close the fully compressed shock height happens to be. Again, my supposition here is that some of the trucks with bent frames (4 of which were not involved with the run at all) might not have bent frames or ANYTHING else wrong with them depending on just how hard they were beaten. I'm all for "fusible links" in a system, but the frame seems like a poor choice (and I don't believe it was a choice, I believe it was a design oversight or miscalculation).
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I'm all for "fusible links" in a system, but the frame seems like a poor choice (and I don't believe it was a choice, I believe it was a design oversight or miscalculation). You don't think the SVT engineers would have caught something like this in testing? Or even way before it got to the prototyping phase? I find it strange that one guy looking under a Raptor can spot a supposedly enormous flaw that completely escaped the entire Ford development staff. It seems like the Raptor opened the door to anyone with $60 grand and a will to a 400hp sport truck. If you're going to just go balls-out on a trail with a bunch of other rich guys without being outrageously careful, then you're going to break something. Nissan had a similar problem with their GTR transmissions. Just because you can use the launch control to get from 0-60 in 2.8s doesn't mean you should do it once a week.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
wav3form posted:I haven't followed up much but are the bent frame heroes getting satisfaction from Ford or are they just having the frames straightened and reinforced? Neither, from the AutoBlog release, Ford has said that it's not a problem with the vehicle and owner's are on their own.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:You don't think the SVT engineers would have caught something like this in testing? Or even way before it got to the prototyping phase? I find it strange that one guy looking under a Raptor can spot a supposedly enormous flaw that completely escaped the entire Ford development staff. Apparently they either 1.) didn't or 2.) were overruled by the bean counters. I can't explain it, but it's pretty clear that it is happening. I never claimed to identify the structural weakness on my own. I just remember looking under the one my friend bought, thinking it looked odd (this was last summer) and now we hear all of this frame bending poo poo, and it's happening RIGHT THERE. It's not like I'm claiming I predicted it. Jesus there are a lot of straw men in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:11
|
|
|
Motronic posted:I'm all for "fusible links" in a system, but the frame seems like a poor choice (and I don't believe it was a choice, I believe it was a design oversight or miscalculation). In general, I would agree that the frame is a poor choice, but to me this case is different. My opinion actually hinges on a question that probably has no known answer yet: What is the threshold for this to happen? Obviously jumping a cattle crossing at 90mph will do it, but I don't think that's terribly absurd. If something relatively tame causes the frame damage, then I buy the argument that the access hole is unreasonably weakening the frame. If, on the other hand, it takes a serious amount of impact to bend like that, then we have to compare what the alternative would be: ie, what would break if the frame were stiff enough to survive? Spring perches? Crush the bump stop into dust? I think the last thing anyone wants is for the tail end of this thing to swing out, where 9 out of 10 of these nutjobs will crank the wheel thinking they're spinning out thus sending their truck careening off the ledge or (in this case) plowing up the side of that hill the road was cut into, which I guarantee would've flipped if it didn't just bounce off. Now you're looking at a totaled truck most likely, and possibly serious injury or death. I'd pick the crumple zone, personally. Edit: Also, there's no way this weak spot was unknown to Ford. There was way too much testing in this program for that to slip through the cracks. It was a conscious decision, either by the engineers saying "There's no way" or the beancounters. Godholio fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Buick Le Sabre>Ford Raptor  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5kMTHwjy6Z8 e: le shy boy from chess club fucked around with this message at 00:37 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:Just because you can use the launch control to get from 0-60 in 2.8s doesn't mean you should do it once a week. The hell it doesn't!
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:47
|
|
|
I'd put good money on Ford having wrecked a few Raptors in testing with poo poo breaking and decided to engineer some give into the frame and deal with the flak with some bending, rather than getting sued endlessly when morons roll their trucks jumping at 100mph and something actually completely breaks.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 00:54
|
|
|
After seeing how hard they're hitting the kicker I have to side with ford. You should never hit the bump stops anywhere near that hard. It doesn't matter if that's a weak spot in the frame or not, it's strong enough for its designed use and what was shown in that video was exceeding the design by quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:01
|
|
|
oxbrain posted:After seeing how hard they're hitting the kicker I have to side with ford. You should never hit the bump stops anywhere near that hard. It doesn't matter if that's a weak spot in the frame or not, it's strong enough for its designed use and what was shown in that video was exceeding the design by quite a bit. Yeah I have to side with ford here too. Sorry folks but the raptor is not a race-ready baja buggy. It is a very capable truck but it is still a street-legal DOT-approved passenger vehicle. It is more capable than any other off-the-lot vehicle but it is not invincible. These guys pushed the trucks far too hard and they broke poo poo. That's what happens. It costs far more than 60k to make a vehicle capable of flying over rocks and boulders at high speeds without getting damaged.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:19
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:There might be a legitimate reason it is designed like that, maybe it is designed to bend in such a way in order to absorb more force in a rear end collision, or to alleviate some kind of vibration in the chassis. Or it makes installing that bump stop a whole lot easier.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:33
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I think the last thing anyone wants is for the tail end of this thing to swing out, where 9 out of 10 of these nutjobs will crank the wheel thinking they're spinning out thus sending their truck careening off the ledge or (in this case) plowing up the side of that hill the road was cut into, which I guarantee would've flipped if it didn't just bounce off. Now you're looking at a totaled truck most likely, and possibly serious injury or death. I'd pick the crumple zone, personally. Well if you flip the truck and/or kill yourself I'm pretty sure Ford's warranty isn't going to do anything for you either. What are you going to do, show the court your Dukes of Hazzard dash camera footage? Probably a better outcome for Ford. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:Yeah I have to side with ford here too. Sorry folks but the raptor is not a race-ready baja buggy. It is a very capable truck but it is still a street-legal DOT-approved passenger vehicle. It is more capable than any other off-the-lot vehicle but it is not invincible. These guys pushed the trucks far too hard and they broke poo poo. That's what happens. It costs far more than 60k to make a vehicle capable of flying over rocks and boulders at high speeds without getting damaged. They probably should have dialled their marketing back a notch or two then. Not saying Ford necessarily owes anyone anything, but you have to be careful with your advertising.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
dissss posted:They probably should have dialled their marketing back a notch or two then. Those Professional driver closed course do not attempt things are in the commercials for a reason. Mainly rear end-covering.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 01:53
|
|
|
Yeah and come on now, it's advertising. You have to take it with a grain of salt. Car commercials show cars doing all sorts of warranty-voiding things, all with disclaimers to cover their rear end. Ford did nothing different from any other maker. Even econoboxes and family sedans have commercials that show them doing burnouts and powerslides and doriftu and poo poo. If you went and slid your mazda 3 around a wet parking lot and blew up the diff or something, should mazda be liable because their advertising was misleading? How about all those chevy commercials that show trucks towing giant trailers over boulders and up rocky cliffs? How about those toyota commercials where they show the tundra towing things on giant swinging ramps or driving underneath falling objects? It's marketing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:13
|
|
|
Billy Tully posted:Buick Le Sabre>Ford Raptor This is probably the reason for the confusion. The F-150 would obviously have had no problem with that jump. It's a gentle slope followed by a relatively long time in the air that allows the suspension to get to full droop. When you drive over a 18" bump, the suspension only has half the travel to begin with, and when the front kicks up, the rear suspension compresses, just in time for the bump to then hit the rear suspension which has even less than half the travel than the front did. I haven't seen all the Ford marketing for the Raptor but I'd be surprised if they actually showed the Raptor do something like drive over a 18" bump at 60mph because that's a far more serious impact than just catching a few feet of air. Judging from the responses here, it seems that smart people would already know not to do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:36
|
|
|
im gonna have to go with ford on this one too. if not the frame, then where would you rather the damage end up? would you rather have blown shocks, bent axle tubes, and internal damage? and seriously folks this isn't some half assed project truck, it was produced by a company who probably did extensive r&d, do you really think they would accidentally leave a hole right above the bump stop? take any vehicle, modified for offroad or not and bounce it off the bump stops all day. something will break.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:37
|
|
|
From the youtube thread:Bumming Your Scene posted:I want to see a Raptor drive over this really fast Well at least the frame isn't bent(?).  EDIT: That's an Explorer right? All these refrigerators on wheels look the same to me. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 02:45 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 02:42
|
|
|
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmuauSSmaTI This is the kind of donkey kick ford is referring to, and that is race prepped truck running the same speeds these guys were running in showroom stock trucks. This is from one of the companies with a fix for the problem quote:We have been questioned a few times for not reporting the frame damage to the Raptor community when we first became aware of the damaged frames. I felt like there was no reason to "blow the whistle" on the damage that was done to these trucks that came through our shop. These trucks were driven to the extreme and the owners understood that it was their abuse that caused the damage. We see trucks in our shop weekly that have factory components that are compromised, normally due to abuse, as a shop we repair these flaws and build them better... That's just what we do. These “pre-run” bent frame trucks were bent at the upper bump stop mount and all the trucks were involved in very heavy off road abuse. The worst had about a 3"-4" difference between the front of the bed and the rear of the bed. None of our customers took their truck into Ford to attempt to have them covered under warranty. In these cases they understood it was user abuse and they were willing to pay for the repairs themselves. When they left they had straight frames and our rear hydraulic bumps installed. Most guys who bent their frames took it strait to this guy instead of trying to get warranty on it because they knew they had seriously abused the truck to get it to that point. Really, the fact that the raptor hasn't claimed a life yet is astounding. doing 80mph+ offroad on a trail you've never driven before in a truck without a rollcage is nuts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:26
|
|
|
It's kind of amusing to see this sort of video (especially the intro) when Ford is telling us that these trucks were never really meant to be *that* tough: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P3DPkGSOK7M
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 03:29
|
|
|
joehein posted:and seriously folks this isn't some half assed project truck, it was produced by a company who probably did extensive r&d, do you really think they would accidentally leave a hole right above the bump stop? How can Ford have released a motor that had so many problems that step 1 of the recalls (over 40 individual items) was "remove cab from vehicle"? (I'm talking about the 02-ish 6.0L diesels). How could they have accidentally put a cruise control switch on the master cylinder that allows brake fluid to pass though it resulting in trucks catching on fire after they have been switched off? (96 through mid 2000s light trucks and most cars) How could they have put the wrong oil (maybe, there never was a real answer) in thousands of Probes back in the mid 90s causing them to need to have heads replaced at their 3rd or 4th oil change interval? How could they produce millions of heads for the modular motors over the ourse of several YEARS with insufficient spark plug thread depth? How did ANY of these issues get past "a company who probably did extensive r&d"? I don't have that answer, but they all did. None of these are even up for argument, as they are all very well known issues and/or published recalls. None of this is even unique to Ford. It happens to all major manufactures who we have to presume "probably did extensive r&d" as well.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
Motronic posted:How can Ford have released a motor that had so many problems that step 1 of the recalls (over 40 individual items) was "remove cab from vehicle"? (I'm talking about the 02-ish 6.0L diesels). How could they have accidentally put a cruise control switch on the master cylinder that allows brake fluid to pass though it resulting in trucks catching on fire after they have been switched off? (96 through mid 2000s light trucks and most cars) How could they have put the wrong oil (maybe, there never was a real answer) in thousands of Probes back in the mid 90s causing them to need to have heads replaced at their 3rd or 4th oil change interval? How could they produce millions of heads for the modular motors over the ourse of several YEARS with insufficient spark plug thread depth? So, everyone fucks up, but man gotta hate on Ford because going 80+ over 18" bumps caused a repair bill of LESS THAN $1000. Jesus dude get over it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 05:15
|
|
|
el topo posted:It's kind of amusing to see this sort of video (especially the intro) when Ford is telling us that these trucks were never really meant to be *that* tough: Nothing in that video comes close to what they did to damage their frames.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 05:38
|
|
|
EightBit posted:So, everyone fucks up, but man gotta hate on Ford because going 80+ over 18" bumps caused a repair bill of LESS THAN $1000. Jesus dude get over it. I will say I wonder how many times you could get away with causing the same damage before you utterly scrap the frame - but then again I would hope that anyone who doesn't decide to go slower after the first time they do it would reinforce the thing instead.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 05:43
|
|
|
What happens when you build a barbeque grill out of magnesium? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bp4ucQCjNvU Got the link from the Fix it fast thread
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:32
|
|
|
bidikyoopi posted:You don't think the SVT engineers would have caught something like this in testing? Or even way before it got to the prototyping phase? I find it strange that one guy looking under a Raptor can spot a supposedly enormous flaw that completely escaped the entire Ford development staff. You really think that its completely impossible a group of engineers overlooked something or hosed up in a low production project? Or that the "entire Ford development staff" worked on this? At any rate I'll drop it since tbh this probably deserved its own thread rather then hijacking this one, and I personally couldn't care much less about either Fords or Raptors but some of these arguments are pretty weak. RoboCriminal fucked around with this message at 07:06 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:49
|
|
|
Motronic posted:How can Ford have released a motor that had so many problems that step 1 of the recalls (over 40 individual items) was "remove cab from vehicle"? (I'm talking about the 02-ish 6.0L diesels). FWIW "remove cab from vehicle" pretty much covers any major engine-related repair outside of removing the turbo, changing the oil filter or removing the batteries on 6.0 powerstrokes. Geoj fucked around with this message at 07:09 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 06:53
|
|
|
peepsalot posted:What happens when you build a barbeque grill out of magnesium? I love how he goes for the video camera rather then an extinguisher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 07:08
|
|
|
Your average household extinguisher can't do poo poo for a magnesium fire, and a hose will make things worse, since magnesium decomposes water into oxygen and hydrogen gas. He did the right thing calling the fire department and staying away from it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Plus I'm sure the local fire department loved having an excuse to actually use their foam, considering most places end up just dumping it on car fires before it goes bad in the tanks. (Or they could have been boring and used a class D extinguisher or sand, but the former are loving expensive and the latter was probably unfeasible given the amount of metal there unless they brought in a front end loader.) corgski fucked around with this message at 07:44 on Jul 22, 2011 |
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 16, 2024 13:50 |
|
|
lazer_chicken posted:Yeah and come on now, it's advertising. Off topic a bit, but this is exactly right. I work in a very entry level market research position, and I now completely understand why products are marketed to the lowest common denominator. When you're interrupting people from their activities with the promise of a few bucks for watching a pre-release commercial and giving their opinion on it, guess who bites? It's not the guy with the masters making six figures a year, it's typically the guy who's been making barely above minimum wage doing temp work at the chicken plant. </market research rant> 
|
|
#
?
Jul 22, 2011 08:26
|
|
