https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGWp8R-IqoE

 

I have had a Spot since they first came out, and a satellite phone as well. When the novelty of having people track your position via Spot wore off, I let the $99 per year subscription expire. From a safety point of view, I think you are better off directly talking via voice with the help you are enlisting rather than hoping a message gets through via Spot.

I also use the sat phone to stay connected with family and work when I travel off grid. The sat phone certainly costs more than the Spot, but it has more utility and meets my needs the best. If you are doing solo Jeeping, (or backpacking, etc.) I think it is important to have some form of communications safety net. With the combination of the sat phone and my Garmin GPS, I know I can tell people my exact position and talk with them about what help is needed, whether a broken axle or broken bones.

 

After watching the Camel Trophy video posted by Hooligan, I think anyone who claims that it is not a desirable overlanding/expedition build is either insane or in denial.

Wow. Incredible machines, incredible skill.

 

It would be really cool to see something done like that with a 4 dr Rubicon. I'll bet it would do pretty good.

 

Yes the Camel Trophy is a cool trophy is a cool expedition. But it is not a realistic expedition like we are used to taking sure we can equip to conquer the same terrain {a lot of us are}. WE are driving our vehicles without support vehicles full of parts & mechanics and cant beat the s#%t out of them and still get home. It was sad to see what it morphed into befored it died { a yuppie scavenger hunt}. the early ones were cool. Kinda got to wonder why the Defender 110 was the support vehicle to the end. {real competition for a Jeep}

 

Well...

Which stock 4x4 should we choose, to make it a 'desirable overlanding/expedition' vehicle:

Should we choose the one which, as stock, has better offroad capabilities or the less capable one?
Would we prefer the one with more ground clearance, wider wheels and more bhp, or would we prefer the one with less ground clearance, narrower wheels and weaker engine?
The Jeep wins over the Discovery in every aspect, so what's the enthusiasm to adopt the Land Rovers' Camel Trophy Discovery way?

Install a Gobi roof rack and a snorkel, seal all the electronics & electrical connections, lengthen the breather pipes -- but do it on a Jeep instead of a Discovery.
Wouldn't you get a much more 'desirable overlanding/expedition build'?

Now, you can choose:
Pack 150 lbs on a Gobi roof rack, or use a small & light trailer (which allows more load and better access). Which one would be better for side slopes, steep uphill slopes, etc'? Which one would be less capsize-prone?

If there were 10 Discoveries with those heavily loaded roof racks, and 10 Discoveries with small, light trailers – which would have the better chance to win?
(Think of the height of the center of gravity, and the reduced load on each wheel in deep sand or mud, not to mention side inclines.)

If there were 10 Discoveries and 10 JEEPS in each Camel Trophy, which would have won most of the times?

"desirable overlanding/expedition build" - compared to what?

 

I think as far as a stock overland vehicle, It would be difficult to debate that the Rubicon has a pretty sweet balance between capability and servicablity...

Of course 'stock' is a relative term... I'm referring to the chassis, drive train, lift kit, etc... I don't see anyone 'overlanding' without some mods... I'd say at minimum a winch, and some other recovery related gear... I guess you could overland as if on a motorcycle and skip the roof rack, sleeping quarters, etc...

The main advantage I see with stock defenders, trucks, etc is storage and payload... I've seen some Defender builds that looked down right luxurious inside.. It's difficult to do that with a JK.. really need a pop-up... or as you say, a trailer (yuk)

 

Did I say it was the best? Did I say it was better than Jeep? Did I say "GJeep, if you don't build your Jeep like these Rovers you won't be able to keep up."?

NO. I said it is DESIRABLE... Desirable defined: 'Wanted or wished for as being an attractive, useful, or necessary course of action.' Obviously, it is a very solid build as proven by the footage in the video. And, even if the obstacles are designed specifically for the Rover (which I doubt), you can't deny that they are very capable off-road machines... Tested by time and explorers from all over the world.



That said, I own a Jeep. I plan on building MY version of an overlanding machine using all the data I can find, and it is clear to me that the Rovers in the video are a DESIRABLE build for ANY form of overlanding.

 

OK, I'll say it again:
This is a carefully edited promotional footage, for a car manufacturer.
They don't show you everything that happened. They show you a small fraction of the time.
They show you what looks good, the highlights - what sells.
They included some breakages or overturns, just enough to make it look realistic and believable.
How many driveshafts or axles broke? How many times did Discoveries flip over?
How many of them could get all the way through without the massive support of technicians & parts?
This is a commercial, an advertisement. Therefore, nothing is actually "proven by the footage in the video".

It is fun to watch, but it is not convincing to put that much weight on top, or that the Discovery can survive this kind of abuse (without a wealth of repairs).

If this video is convincing, then Bear Grylls must be using the best knife there is...

BTW, I didn't say that "the obstacles are designed specifically for the Rover".
I said that the routes were carefully chosen.

 

An impressive journey for Land Rover. I'd love to do something of the like someday in a Jeep. Awesome vehicles, no doubt.