If you think a center differential does at all the same job as a transfer case then you definitely need to do a lot more reading. They are entirely different components with completely different roles in a vehicle. There are AWD systems that can selectable, that doesn’t make them 4WD. And you still haven’t sourced anything. You just keep saying I’m wrong. So if I’m wrong then provide some actual evidence.
There is an answer and it’s the one I already gave. There are always edge cases and exceptions because there are an absurd number of variations and vehicles types. By and large I already gave the deciding definition, and it is in what I linked as well as many others places.
Edmunds - “Traditional 4WD systems have a two-speed transfer case with high- and low-range modes that can be selected by the driver, either with an electronic switch or a mechanical lever.”
CARMAX - “Key to how a 4x4 works is a piece of equipment called a transfer case. This connects the vehicle’s front and rear wheels, splitting the engine’s power evenly between them and making both axles turn at the same speed.”
And the article didn’t list the rules because it was wrong about everything. The rules are listed by the National Park Sevice. “A four wheel drive vehicle is defined as a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or truck with at least 15-inch tire rims and at least eight inches of clearance from the lowest point of the frame, body, suspension, or differential to the ground. Four wheel drive vehicles have a transfer case between the front and rear axles that locks the front and rear drive shafts together when four wheel drive is engaged. All wheel drive (AWD) vehicles do not meet this definition.”
So again, repeating yourself doesn’t make you more right. It does however increasingly make you look like an ignorant ass that has no desire to actually learn anything.
I’d love to see something other than you just saying no to back up your argument. Because just repeating wrong information doesn’t make you any more right. I didn’t even have to really look hard for sources that mention a transfer case as a key component of a 4wd system. And I’d say all of these folks probably know more than you.
https://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/awd-vs-4wd-whats-the-difference-and-which-to-choose.html
https://www.carmax.com/articles/awd-vs-4wd-which-to-choose
https://www.motortrend.com/features/4wd-vs-awd/
Oh, and on top of that, in the rules that this whole thread is about, they specifically mention the transfer case as the requirement for a system to be 4wd.
That’s not true though. There are plenty of AWD vehicles that can swap between driving all of driving two. And there are plenty of examples of 4wd vehicles that drive all 4 full time. The humvee is a perfect example of a full time 4wd. It cannot switch to 2wd unless you remove a driveline. What it does have is a 2 speed transfer case that allows switching from 4 hi to 4 lo.
So there are a few things that make a transfer case and most 4WD systems generally better for off-road. The biggest two are gearing and how durable/robust the systems are.
The ability to change the final drive gives incredibly low gearing to 4WD vehicles. This provides increased torque for traversing obstacles and better low speed control.
In the durability front, that is largely due to design considerations. AWD vehicles are typically designed for on road use, so the engineers built them with that in mind. This means lighter and weaker drive shafts, weaker steering racks, less robust suspension, and generally lighter duty pieces throughout the entire system. 4WD vehicles usually designed with heavier duty used in mind (even if the majority of people won’t use them that way). This means the entire drive train is built stronger and more capable of abuse.
This is a huge generalization though. You could build a purpose built AWD off road vehicle with low gearing, and locking differentials if you wanted. And there are plenty of 4WD vehicles that wouldn’t survive even moderately difficult trails. So the NPS probably made the rule because generally 4WD is more capable for that use case, and it would be difficult to make an all exhaustive list of what vehicles or components would give you the capability to navigate the trail.
Generally if there is a question of AWD vs 4WD, the only thing you need to look for as an ability to shift to 4 low. It changes the final drive ratio so all of your gearing is dramatically lower. It’s a capability that requires having a transfer case. Though I’m sure there are some weird exceptions out there of 4WD vehicles that don’t have 4 low, it’s a pretty simple rule of thumb to decide which side a vehicle falls on.
It’s possible to have an AWD vehicle that has a clutch or some other way to disengage two of the drive wheels. So you can have a selectable RWD or AWD. This is different than how a transfer case works though, and does not allow a change in final drive ratio.
Almost nothing in this article is accurate. AWD vs 4WD has nothing to do with locking front and rear differentials. It is that one has a transfer case, and the other does not. Most 4WD vehicles have open front and rear differentials.
The National Park Service doesn’t require locking differentials, so I’m not sure where this person got that idea from. They do however require that they have a transfer case, which the Cybertruck and Rivian do not. So despite the author claiming those would be 4WD, they are not. And do not qualify by the definition used by the NPS.
I think they are correct that there may be a need to update the rules since EVs have no need for a transfer case since there is no mechanical connection between the front and rear axles typically. It’s terrible to try and make that argument with all of your other information incorrect however.
Totally get that. And I’ve not been trying to push people to accept the bot, or saying that MBFC isn’t flawed. Mostly just trying to highlight the irony of some people having wildly biased views, and pushing factually incorrect info about a site aimed at scoring bias and factual accuracy.
The bot wasn’t assessing the individual articles. It was just pulling the rating from their website. If you look at the full reports on the website they have a section that discusses bias, and gives examples of things like loaded language found in the articles they assessed.
With your own reply you show that they have given you most of the information needed to make your own assessment. Like I’ve said other places in this thread, you don’t have to agree with them. I have never claimed they are correct. I’m saying that they provide information about how they arrived at their conclusion, you can assess that information and decide whether you agree.
It still stands that it is at least a reasonable place to look to gather basic information about a media source. And provides you with a solid starting point to research and make an assessment about a news source.
I agree that using the US political spectrum pretty significantly skews things since US politics is almost all center to right if you compare it to the wider spectrum globally. But since they gave their information, and what spectrum they are using it makes it pretty simple to get a baseline for most media outlets at a glance if it’s not one I’m familiar with.
And with the number of outright insane news sources people like to share, it’s useful to have a way to get at least a decent snapshot of what to expect.
MBFC doesn’t only count how factual something is. They very much look at inflammatory language like that, and grade a media outlet accordingly. It’s just not in the factual portion, it is in the bias portion. Which makes sense since, like you said, both stories can be factually accurate.
Why does any opinion get promoted on here? Because somebody posted it. And then there is a voting system and comments for people to express their agreement or disagreement.
I honestly don’t care either way if the bot exists. I just think it’s silly that people are claiming that MBFC is terrible based on basically nothing. You can disagree with how they define left vs right, or what their ratings are, but they are pretty transparent about how their system works. And no one has given any example of how it could be done better.
Consistently factual is exactly that. Both of those words mean actual things. And they go on to say that they can’t fail fact checks. And prompt corrections likely means that as a story develops, that if there were incorrect things reported, they are corrected as soon as the new information is available.
As for who defines extreme bias, it’s literally them. That is what they are saying they are doing. And they spell out what their left vs right criteria are. And how they judge it. Of course this is subjective. There isn’t really a way to judge the political spectrum without subjectivity. They do include examples in their reports about what biased language, sources, or reporting they found. Which allows you to easily judge whether you agree with it.
As for VOA, they say in the ownership portion that it is funded by the US government and that some view it as a propaganda source. They also discuss the history and purpose of it being founded. And then continue on with the factual accuracy and language analysis. You may not agree with it, but it is following their own methodology, and fully explained in the report.
Again, there isn’t anything saying you have to agree with them. It is a subjective rating. I’m not sure how much more transparent they can be though. They have spelled out how they grade, and each report provides explanations and examples that allow you to make your own judgments. Or a starting point for your own research.
If you can define a completely objective methodology to judge political bias on whatever spectrum you choose, then please do. It’s inherently subjective. And there isn’t really a way around that.
They cover what they consider left and right. This way you can judge whether it aligns with what you believe. And it allows you to interpret their results even if they don’t follow the same spectrum you do.
And if you know of a way to discuss political spectrum without subjectivity I would love to hear it. Even if you don’t use a 2d spectrum, it’s still subjective. Just subjective with additional criteria.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/left-vs-right-bias-how-we-rate-the-bias-of-media-sources/
There is definitely some subjectivity. Language isn’t something that is easily parsed and scored. That is why they give examples on the actual report about the kind of biased language they saw, or whatever other issues led to the score given.
I don’t think they mean for their website to be the end all bias resource. More of a stepping off point for you to make your own judgments.
They literally publish their methodology and scoring system.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/
So they do say exactly what their criteria is, and how it is scored. None of that is buzz words, it’s just a summary that fit in a few sentences. You can look at the full methodology if you want more than just that small bullet description.
I’m not saying that you have to agree with their scoring, or that it is necessarily accurate. I just think if you’re going to critique a thing, you should at least know what you’re critiquing.
Why do you say they’re opaque? They detail the history of the publication, the ownership, their analysis of bias within their reporting, and give examples of failed fact checks. I’m not sure what else you could want about how a publication is rated? I’m not saying it’s perfect, but they seem to be putting a solid effort into explaining how they arrive at the ratings they give.
There is no horse neck on a centaur though, so not sure why there would be on a giraffetaur. Since they are all imaginary creatures, I suppose anything you want is the right answer.
Agreed. The human part of a centaur doesn’t have any horse features, so why would a giraffe centaur? It would just be a giraffe body with a person torso attached.
You’ve been studying and building transfer cases and differentials for decades? Are you just running down the list of shitty internet troll tropes?
I was responding on this thread for people who wanted answers about something they didn’t understand. Not to argue with someone who just wants to argue.