Fuso FG not made for off-road

[haven]

In a blog entry entitled "Why is she tilting?" Michel acknowledges
driving too fast over a wicked Mexican speed bump. This sounds to
me like the moment when the frame was twisted. I'm surprised that
the shock mount was not broken off by the impact.

Wednesdy July 2 2008
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-is-she-tilting.html

Michel's accident seems similar to the deep pothole that send Doug
Hackney's Fuso to the repair shop.

Chip Haven

 

[whatcharterboat]

From my understanding, the goose neck is what increases stress,

Yep, this is why they may Giblins have got away with pivot mounting on the crew cabs as the body/ tray would have been mounted down on the flat section only.

BTW, yes WCBoat, that is ours. Everyone tells me that it's ugly, but we don't care. They are built for a purpose, no for good looks (typical engineers point of view.).

Maybe ugly but in a good way. It certainly looks tough enough and I bet that top front area of the body has some useful storage and good vision for the clients out the little front window.

I've seen this done, and taking advantage of the goose neck, by running a straight line from the top of the goose neck through to the rear end of the chassis. This will give alot of room to place a rear trunion mounted above the rear axle (most obvious stress point) with the pivot axis running parallel with the chassis rails. The other obvious place to mount the other 2 trunions would be to the side of the goose neck where the gearbox is.
This would allow lots of room

IMO Too much room. Think how high the CoG will end up. Placing even more stress on everything.

Mitsubishi did not make any radical changes from the FE to the FG in regards to specification. They put a step in the frame to accommodate the 4 wheel drive system, and that was it as far as I can tell.

Hi Mog, Ours have slightly "specced" up components in the driveline and wheels but I believe as you say no "radical changes".

Enough people have used them as expedition / tour platforms, and will in the future judging from all our board member with FGs. Hopefully all will have sucess.

I only wish the same.

Not sure if the tray was twisted, it was scrapped.

Alan , Your Canter is with out a doubt the most abused specimen I've ever come across. Didn;t you say it was an ex - earthmoving company. Do you think it could have been a tipper looking at the old mounting holes?

 

[whatcharterboat]

Hi Mog, Ours have slightly "specced" up components in the driveline and wheels but I believe as you say no "radical changes".

Sorry I should be clearer here. By "ours" I mean Australian models. I know Kerry and I found out that the North American FG's indeed do have have the same wheels as the FE's.

 

[engineer]

Quote:
I've seen this done, and taking advantage of the goose neck, by running a straight line from the top of the goose neck through to the rear end of the chassis. This will give alot of room to place a rear trunion mounted above the rear axle (most obvious stress point) with the pivot axis running parallel with the chassis rails. The other obvious place to mount the other 2 trunions would be to the side of the goose neck where the gearbox is.
This would allow lots of room
IMO Too much room. Think how high the CoG will end up. Placing even more stress on everything.

Oh yes, i forgot to mention that the water tank on the fire tenders was low slung. If you ever get up to Hervey Bay, go around to Toppies yard. I think Shane Boyd still runs the whole show, they had 3 point mountings on the Unimogs with 7' headroom!!! The old Kangoala buses that Jake Pelling had to do Daintree. That's what i call top heavy. But thanks to the axles (yes even the portals) gearbox, transfer etc.. they still had a low CoG. It's only when you start putting bloody luggage on the roof, and other stuff that the CoG gets up there. I still maintain that the 2 axles on our canters weigh heaps more than the top 1/2 of our bodies.
IMO the room they gained underneath was advantagous to low sling the water tank, which in fact helped to keep the Cog low.

 

[KMTC]

My official word.

Ok. Let me be very clear so that people here can understand what I say as fact.
The stock Fuso FG is not designed to go to remote areas, with extreme road conditions. I will tell you that now and if you were interested in purchasing it. Nobody has ever taken a stock Fuso FG out to these areas without modifying it. This tells me that everyone already knows that its not designed for this type of work. However with the proper modifications it can be done. But to mount a camper at the front rigid, and then put a pivot at the rear without modifying the frame is asking for trouble. Every time you go through a big pot hole or rough terrain then the camper starts rocking and then twists the frame. Michel's frame was completely twisted from this motion. It was if the front and rear of his chassis was held and twisted much like you would ring out a wet towel. There was also no sub-frame in place nor any frame strengthening done at the original build. As any good off road engineer knows you must make the suspension on the vehicle do the work. In Michel's case this was not so. He has one of the best built campers I have ever seen as far as quality in construction goes, however this creates a problem. It is very heavy, and the weight was never distributed across the frame evenly. We are now doing this with a new custom fabricated sub-frame, and we are eliminating the pivot and mounting the camper with a torsion free mount. I think this will be a great fix and mount. I don't know what the Aussie's are doing and I will not comment any further on that because I don't know what their way of mounting is. I do not talk about what I do not know. A pivot idea in theory is great but then modifications must be made to the frame in order to not have frame damage later. Also in Dougs case: You can not compare these two vehicles. Doug was in some pretty amazing and severe road conditions, and beyond that he had some weight issues, and also a incident of pulling another vehicle out of a situation that proved fatal for him as well. We are all learning from each other here. I do not believe that my idea is better than anyone else's yet. But I do know that the way Michel's was mounted did not work. At less than 20,000 miles, and only 250 lbs over weight on the front axle, yet almost 400 lbs under GVWR I know that it was a design flaw and not owner error. This is what I have said to Michel, Doug, and anyone else that asks. For anyone here to say otherwise is wrong, and does not know me very well.

 

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

New images of the rebuilding of the Fuso Szulc can now be seen on:

www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Titled: "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 3"

For the moment this completes the visual documentation of the rebuilding process.
Because Eric Ferguson, the rebuilder, has indicated that a photographer around is "counter productive".

 

[kerry]

I know a fair number of people who don't like people looking over their shoulder while they work. Perhaps he would permit a few photos at the end of each day. I know the people on here are very curious about the design and building process and pictures could be very helpful to people planning their own FG build. Not to mention people who might be interested in having your fabricator do some work on their trucks.

 

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

New pictures

Progress on the building of the Fuso Szulc sub-frame after two days of work can now be seen on:
http/:www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com
Posting titled: "Rebuilding the Fuso Szulc part 3"

 

[haven]

Here's a brief history of the problems Michel has experienced with
the connection between camper and truck chassis, as described in
Michel's bolg.

Chip Haven

---------------

Michel's camper is built on a steel subframe. The subframe is attached to the truck chassis at three points. The right and left front corners are bolted to the chassis. A third point at the rear pivots on a bushing. Two shock absorbers connect the chassis rails to the subframe near the rear bumper. The shocks help control the side to side rocking motion of the subframe around the pivot.

When the camper was first constructed, two square tubes are welded to the sides of the subframe near the front of the camper. The tubes extend downwards, and are bolted to the truck chassis. Two bolts are used on each side. The bolts pass horizontally through a hole in the wall of the tube, and through an existing hole in the truck frame. A nut on the inside of the truck frame draws the assembly tight together.

The subframe does not rest on the truck chassis. The weight of the camper is carried exclusively on the two sets of bolts in the front, and on the pivot bushing in the rear.

After 3 months of service, including many miles on the roads of Baja California, the bolts failed.

Read about the problem here
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/failing-fuso-santek.html

And read about the repair here
http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/06/failing-fuso-santek-2.html

In August 2007, Michel returned to Santek Campers, the company that built the camper. At this time, the connection between sub-frame and truck chassis was changed. In place of the vertical square tubes and bolts described above, a steel bar was welded on each side under the subframe. These bars were attached to the truck chassis using a pair of U-bolts on each side.

http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2007/08/flying-forewards.html

The metal-to-metal contact between the bar and the truck chassis made scraping sounds when the subframe pivots. So, a few months later, Michel had a mechanic in Baja insert a thick piece of rubber between the bar and truck chassis. This eliminated the noise.

In July of 2008, Michel noticed that the truck was tilting. The explanation offered by several mechanics was that the truck was heavier on one side, and the springs on that side had sagged. The solution was to remove and re-arch the springs.

Michel thought that a bad crash over an unseen speed bump a few weeks ago might have played a role in the problem.

http://michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com/2008/07/why-is-she-tilting.html

The re-arching of the springs helped, but the problem returned by March 2009. This time the mechanics spotted the damaged truck chassis.

 

[haven]

Here's a photo of Michel's new camper subframe under construction.
What is the purpose of the short tubes in this photo? They are
welded to the end of the subframe. Perhaps a space to hold rubber
bushings to isolate the camper from the truck chassis?

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-iSeesP7yEw/ShwfG12dOaI/AAAAAAAAGAo/AC-eFkHnumA/s1600-h/_DSC3897.jpg

 

[kerry]

What is the purpose of the short tubes in this photo? They are
welded to the end of the subframe. Perhaps a space to hold rubber
bushings to isolate the camper from the truck chassis?

I was wondering the same thing.

 

[dzzz]

I was wondering the same thing.

Rocket pods I think.

The frames upside down, right? The connections are design for compression, so I think it must be a pivot point as Haven suggests. Interesting seeing the design unfold.

Edit: I see the frame is not upside down.

 

[KMTC]

The Tubes

The tubes are in fact for a bushing that is for a torsion free mounting for the camper. It is a new design concept.

 

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

Report on sub frame building

New report about how the building of the new sub frame is proceeding:
http:www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com
Posting titled: "Waiting for Ferguson".

 

[Michel Szulc Krzyzanowski]

What it costs

Also a new story about the current state of affairs, including what is being charged for the sub frame.

http://www.michelszulckrzyzanowski.blogspot.com

Posting called: "Waiting for Ferguson 2"