I believe your story, but I want to defend the rubicon, and blame Jeep/ Mopar, for constricting the rubicons locker ability, being you had to be in 4 lo to use them, then that limits the speed. Rrs probably had limited slip diff so it might be able to work better than rubies open diff. in that situation. The rubicon has to rely on brake lock differential when in 4 h and I don’t think it’s as quick to respond as clutch pack or whatever rrs uses. That’s why I wired my lockers to my aux switches and bypassed the computer, I can be locked in 2wd , 4 h or 4 lo and speed is not a factor. I guarantee if you would’ve had this capability it would have been another story. IMO.
The open differential most certainly also plays into it, yes. But I'm not certain that the ability to lock-at-any-time would have truly made a difference in the ultimate outcome. Say, for example, that the terrain is constantly changing and I'm moving at a decent speed. Now I have to manage the differential manually and make sure I'm not locked up in a full-traction turn at anything but the lowest speeds (so as to avoid terrible binding). Sure, it can absolutely be done. But the computer wizardry managing detecting the slip and managing this full-time is vastly more capable than the binary nature of all-or-nothing lockers in nearly all situations.I’m not saying that the RRS still wouldn’t have won, but at least the rubicon wouldn’t be bringing a knife to a gun fight
Ultimately, my posts weren't intended to refute the Wrangler's capability. It is almost certainly more capable when things get really hairy. Rather, my point is that the vast majority of Jeep owners will absolutely never need the extra capability -- even the ones who use their Jeeps "as intended" off road. They simply want the bragging rights. Like bragging about 0-60 times, it's kind of pointless 99% of the time. So why not have the luxury vehicle that does everything it needs to and does it better while making things far more live-able for the driver and passengers?