Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3 (still present in 16.5)

When a Heavy Crane or a Fuel Tank addons is installed on Tayga 6455B, the rear suspension fully compresses - there is no suspension travel left.
SnowRunner Screenshot 2021.11.13 - 14.02.30.jpg

Tayga 6436 also has this issue, but it can be combated by installing Double wheels. In Snowrunner heavier wheels make the suspension stiffer. Dual wheels in the back are twice as heavy as single wheels (400kg vs 200kg), making the rear suspension stiffer. This can be seen in this gif:
ezgif.com-gif-maker (19).gif

So Tayga 6455B needs either stiffer rear suspension or ability to install Double Heavy wheels.

last edited by Amynue

@amynue said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3:

ability to install Double Heavy wheels

No!!
Its rear suspension and frame already looks like a piece of unrealistic shit, dont kill it with doubles, which was never installed on KRAZ 255B!

Its an offroad vehicle, and soviet engineers made many field tests before making decision to install only singles on offroad vehicles like Zil 157 or Kraz 255.

@stazco It's Tayga 6455B, not Kraz 255B. Nobody will be forcing you to install Dual wheels, you can drive with collapsed suspension if you prefer.

kraz.jpg

kraz2.jpg

kraz3.jpg

@amynue said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3:

@stazco It's Tayga 6455B, not Kraz 255B. Nobody will be forcing you to install Dual wheels, you can drive with collapsed suspension if you prefer.

kraz.jpg

kraz2.jpg

kraz3.jpg

Well there goes Stazco theory of the truck never having doubles.

I to hope it gets a set of doubles.

@amynue

Well done sir! My bad!

Although 255’s with doubles was never put into serial production, field tests proved significant advantages of doubles against singles in offroad forestry and heavy pull applications.
So there were many SO (“Special order”) vehicles produced, and for sure they are very welcomed in Snowrunner!)

But i still prefer your first variant, with proper tweaks by devs.

http://www.gruzovikpress.ru/article/13549-nestandartnye-dvuskatnye-varianty-lesovoznyh-krazov-laptejniki-bez-laptey/

@stazco said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3:

@amynue

Well done sir! My bad!

Although 255’s with doubles was never put into serial production, field tests proved significant advantages of doubles against singles in offroad forestry and heavy pull applications.
So there were many SO (“Special order”) vehicles produced, and for sure they are very welcomed in Snowrunner!)

But i still prefer your first variant, with proper tweaks by devs.

http://www.gruzovikpress.ru/article/13549-nestandartnye-dvuskatnye-varianty-lesovoznyh-krazov-laptejniki-bez-laptey/

One thing that bothers me about singles in SnowRunner, and Sabre has since added spacers to fix this on some of the trucks but it's still a issue on others. Is that a lot of the time the singles sit so freaking narrow. Not only do I hate the look of it, but on say the Paystar which is already a tippy truck with doubles, it gets even more tippy with singles.

If singles where made to sit relatively flush with the front wheels. Then I wouldn't mind using them.

Look at the small Zikz (I forget the numbers on it), they added the AMSH I super mud tires to that, but they forgot the spacers in the back. So the front has this nice wide stance but the mud tires in the back sit right narrow and it just looks so bad. I went back to doubles on that truck just because I can't stand the look of it.

For me if Sabre made the singles flush with the front tires and not have them sitting narrow hugging the frame of the truck so much, then yea I'd be all for trying out a set of singles
more often. But because Sabre does make singles sit narrow so often, I'll take doubles anywhere I get them.

Problem still exists in PTS 16.5

@justinlynch3 said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3 (still present in 16.5):

Is that a lot of the time the singles sit so freaking narrow.

That really fucks me up too! I might even use singles on the P12, if they didn't sit so grotesquely narrow. Odd because with the stock tires it does have a sensible stance, but they fucked it up with all other singles.

@Amynue Good work on all your research, captain.

last edited by Timmy Gun

@timmy-gun said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3 (still present in 16.5):

@justinlynch3 said in Tayga 6455B rear suspension collapses under the weight of Heavy Crane/Fuel Tank - PTS 16.3 (still present in 16.5):

Is that a lot of the time the singles sit so freaking narrow.

That really fucks me up too! I might even use singles on the P12, if they didn't sit so grotesquely narrow. Odd because with the stock tires it does have a sensible stance, but they fucked it up with all other singles.

@Amynue Good work on all your research, captain.

Good to see it'snot just me then bothered by the narrow stance singles. lol

@stazco

field tests proved significant advantages of doubles against singles in offroad forestry and heavy pull applications.

What a 'surprise' with lowering the ground pressure. But there are few applications where a high ground pressure is helpful. And thats "chains on ice". It can 'push though' and 'bite in'. Making no sense with mud.

Some 3D models are simply made for duals, others are made for singles. See the "Vorons" which are designed for singles and the 5070A which is designed for duals. Making it unstable with singles as hell, especially when there is a heavy US minicrane having 3.5 tons of weight.

last edited by JTT