TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

********************************************


2. The Load Capacity of Very Ordinary Cargo Trays


********************************************


Now in the TerraLiner we need to imagine the cargo-trays that hold the generators -- lets call them "generator trays" -- as oriented parallel to length of the vehicle, placed on what Tembo Tusk and other manufacturers call a "side-pull" tray, as opposed to a "front-pull" tray -- see http://tembotusk.flyingcart.com/index.php?p=home and http://tembotusk.flyingcart.com/index.php?p=detail&pid=3&cat_id= :








Most participants on ExPo are probably familiar with "bed slides" of the kind often used to render tools stored in the back of a pick-up truck more accessible:






But this is still a "front pull" cargo tray. What's wanted instead is a tray that is wider than it is deep, and that pulls from the side of the TerraLiner, as per such trays often installed in fire trucks.

To provide a vivid illustration: instead of a long tray coming out of the nose of the vehicle (the first image), what's wanted instead are two comparatively shallow side trays, one on each side of the TerraLiner, located inside the low-slung side-lockers that lie between the front and rear axles, with the TerraLiner's "basement" frame rails running between them (the next four images):











That way the weight of the two diesel generators, or a diesel generator + turbine APU, will be located as close to the ground as possible. The underside of these side-lockers would be about 65 - 70 cm above grade, a bit higher than the ground clearance of the axles. The WhisperPower MGV-200 generator is 80 cm high, so if the underside of the side-lockers starts at 70 cm, and structural members + insulation add another 5 cm, and the separation from the floor due to the cargo tray adds another 2 or 3 cm, then the top of the generator would be 1.57 or 1.58 m above grade. If we add more structural members and floor insulation above that in turn, we then obtain a camper-box floor height of roughly 1.65 m above grade, which would be workable.

But of course ideally the TerraLiner's generators would be shorter, thinner, and to compensate, longer. Recall that the Jenoptik generator is 85 cm high, but only 60 cm wide, and 1.375 m long, which is almost exactly the same length as the WhisperPower MGV-200, i.e. 1.4 m -- see https://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf?Open . However, the Jenoptik produces only 120 kW, whereas the MGV-200 produces 200 kW. And because the MGV-200 does not weigh that much more -- 480 kg versus the Jenoptik's 350 kg -- the MGV-200 has a significantly higher power density.

The first video below very clearly shows how side-pull cargo trays mount in firetrucks; notice the narrator's comment that such cargo trays can handle loads up to 1000 lbs. The fifth and sixth videos show very heavy-duty pull-out trays that can handle up to 2000 kg:






See in particular the webpages at http://www.fireapparatusmagazine.co...t-compartments-fixing-equipment-in-place.html and http://www.800toolbox.com/service_body/service_bodies , which are packed with excellent imagery detailing how cargo-trays and shelving can be configured to maximize usable storage space on the sides of fire truck and service vehicles.

Once one begins researching cargo trays, turns out that very heavy duty products that can handle upwards of 2000 lbs in front-pull format are quite common:







The geometry of a side-pull cargo tray is even better, because there is not as much cantilever, so in principle a side-pull tray should be able to handle even more weight than a front-pull tray, using the same basic components.


********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

********************************************


3. The TerraLiner's side-ways mounted "generator trays"


********************************************


Mounting a WhisperPower MGV-200 generator on such a side-pull cargo tray, a generator that weighs 480 kg or roughly 1060 lbs,, will not be a problem:







The only tricky part might be engineering the mechanism that allows the cargo tray to "change altitude" and match the load-bed height of a given pick-up truck, in much the same way as the fridges in the videos above change altitude. But companies that custom-fabricate cargo trays for fire trucks are a dime a dozen, and this strikes me as a relatively undemanding engineering problem that just such a company could easily solve.

Note that this "sideways mounting" format is already quite common in motorhomes and firetrucks when it comes to cargo trays that carry heavier items, like batteries, "al fresco" fridges for tailgating parties, and of course generators:










So what we talking about here are two side-ways mounted generator trays. But generator trays that are very robust, and that can support the weight of a 480 kg generator, or a 245 kg turbine APU + associated paraphernalia and sound-muffling housing; and that can "change altitude" after being pulled out, so that they line up level with the diverse load-bed heights of a wide range of pick-up trucks.


********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

********************************************


4. Making the TerraLiner's generators movable


********************************************


The generator itself would be mounted on a secondary tray that would slide off the cargo tray, and onto the load-bed of a pick-up truck. How best to do this is an open question. What's wanted is to keep the bottom of the generator as close as possible to floor of the side-locker, and we will have already added 2 - 3 cm of height to account for the cargo tray. So adding even just another 5 or 10 cm of height for wheels located directly underneath the generator, as per a low-rise dolly cart, is still 5 to 10 cm too much:







Instead, what seems to be wanted is a dolly cart where the wheels are located to the sides. Sure, this will increase the length of the compartment that stores the generators from 1.4 m to 1.6 m or thereabouts. But better to increase the length than the height. Here I have in mind a miniature version of something called a "Low-Boy" trailer, the kind of semi-trailer used to move heavy, oversized cargo. In this trailer the load bed drops down very close to the ground between wheels at the front and the back -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lowboy_(trailer) and http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/camion,heavyhauler/Interesting . So far I have been able to find only one decent image of this idea "miniaturized" in the form of a dolly cart; it's the first image below:







A much simpler solution might be to permanently mount (i.e. weld) the generator to a something known as a "pallet truck" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pallet_jack and pallet truck . These are available in very low-profile versions that again would not add much height to the generator -- see http://vestilmfg.com/products/mhequip/pallet_truck.htm , http://vestilmfg.com/products/mhequip/pt-lowprofile.htm , and low profile pallet truck . When the piston is depressurized, the backs of these trucks sit directly on the floor without wheels, and if they are carrying a heavy load, they are impossible to move. But the piston is easily pressurized by pumping the handle up and down, which would be easy to do once the cargo tray carrying the generator has been pulled out of the TerraLiner. When the piston rises it lifts the back of the pallet truck so that it no longer sits on the floor, the back rotating wheel becomes engaged, and the load becomes mobile. One can move very heavy loads using a pallet truck: loads in the range of 2000 - 4000 lbs using the smaller, manual versions, and much heavier loads with larger and more automated versions. Very small wheels or roller ball-bearings are located underneath the fronts of the two forks:









The "super-low-profile" version made by Vestil is just 1.5 inches high when lowered, so it would add only 3.8 cm to the overall height of the generator when stored inside the TerraLiner -- see http://www.vestildocs.com/drawings/PM2-2044-SLP.pdf and http://www.vestildocs.com/drawings/PM2-2044-SLP.pdf.

Yet another solution might be to embed roller ball-bearings to the underside of the secondary tray that carries the generator. Here the most common application is something known as a "ball transfer table" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_transfer_unit , http://www.lewcoinc.com/conveyors/products/ball-table.aspx , http://www.globalindustrial.com/c/material-handling/conveyors/ball-transfer , http://www.directindustry.com/cat/c...its-ball-transfer-table-ball-bars-BD-803.html , http://www.balltable.co.uk , http://www.omnitrack.co.uk , http://www.ashlandconveyor.com/categories/ball-transfer , and http://www.ashlandconveyor.com/categories/ball-transfer/ball-transfer-ball-transfer-tables :









So imagine a ball transfer table reversed, rotated "upside down", and permanently affixed to the underside of the generator.

Or, some combination of the above three solutions might make it possible to add at most 1 cm to the height of the generator, while even still rendering it completely mobile, just as long as it's traveling on a relatively smooth metal or asphalt surface or similar, e.g. the concrete floor of an auto repair shop. Assuming that the bottom of a WhisperPower MGV-200 generator is sufficiently load-carrying, wheels or roller ball-bearings could be welded to one end, so that only 1 cm of ground clearance is left underneath the generator itself; and a pallet truck rotating wheel + piston could be welded to the other end. So in effect we could construct a "low-boy pallet truck" by custom-fitting the important bits to ends of the generator housing, as opposed to affixing anything underneath it.

The goal in all of this is to keep the height added to the generator down to the absolute minimum possible, while still allowing the generator to be easily removable because it has wheels or roller ball bearings somehow attached; and is in turn sitting on a cargo tray that can be pulled out of the TerraLiner.



********************************************


5. Providing unprecedented engine access and service flexibility


********************************************


Now the main reason why one would want to mount a generator on a slide-out cargo tray in the first place, is because that way one might have 360-degree access with the engine remaining in situ. The TerraLiner's generators will be its engines. So in effect mounting the generators on slide-out cargo trays provides 360-degree engine access for a mechanic, something that few (or perhaps no?) currently available motorhomes provide. This is actually one of the better arguments for the Class-C format of motorhome: that because it is built on a CBE truck that has a bonnet, engine access is simply a matter of popping the bonnet. The following video is not professionally made, and most of his arguments against the Class A format can be easily addressed via intelligent design:






But his argument about engine access is an important one, and deserves to be taking seriously.

Premium-luxury class motorhomes solve the engine-access problem by relocating the engine to the back of the coach. In this video his comparison is a bit unfair, because he only contrasts a Class C with a down-market Class A that still has the engine located up front. Whereas more up-market class A motorhomes are usually full integrated "pushers", with the engine mounted in back, where a very large panel at the rear of the coach provides much better access. But placing the engine in the rear would make it impossible for the TerraLiner to have a rear deck, as per the Wothahellizat 1 and 2. So that's why a hybrid drive-train is quite a gift, from a design point of view. It allows placing the TerraLiner's ICE-driven generators on the sides of the vehicle, instead of the front or the back. By doing so, in the front we eliminate the engine-tunnel that would have made a flat-floor cab difficult, or even impossible; and in the back, there is no engine to block the possibility of rear deck. Furthermore, with the generators mounted on slide-out cargo trays, engine access will actually be superior to any motorhome format developed thus far, including pop-the-hood CBE.

However, here I am suggesting that things could be taken one step further. Not only should the TerraLiner's generators slide out on cargo trays, but those cargo trays should be designed such that they can "change altitude" easily, and removing the generators completely for transport on the back of a pick-up truck will prove relatively simple.

Logistically speaking, this would allow the TerraLiner's generators to be serviced and/or repaired separate from the vehicle itself. The TerraLiner could continue to camp in a beautiful spot, recharging its batteries periodically using just one generator, while the other generator is off at the Steyr service depot, or at a marina that knows how to repair a marine generator. In the case of a turbine APU, the servicing and/or repair would take place at an airport. The TerraLiner itself would not need be parked at a marina or an airport while one of its generators was being repaired. The pick-up truck could be locally rented, or provided by the shop that does the repair.



********************************************


6. Service and Repair of the TerraLiner's Electric Drive-Train: Using Tesla's Emergent Global Network?


********************************************


Of course, the electrical side of things is another story. But there too, if the entire electrical portion of the drive-train was Tesla technology, including the electric motors, then perhaps the TerraLiner would have access to Tesla's fast-growing international network of service centers. By 2020 Tesla should have service centers throughout China and Japan, and perhaps soon thereafter throughout Latin America. Although global cars exist -- cars that are sold in almost every country worldwide, and that can be serviced just about anywhere -- the same is not true for trucks. There is no such thing as a truly global truck, whereas certain car companies have established distribution and service networks that are fairly universal, for instance, Mercedes. And presumably Tesla will want to do the same.

In short, if Tesla were responsible for all of the TerraLiner's electric drive-train technology, and if Tesla continues its meteoric rise as a car company, and expands into markets where it is currently not present (e.g. South America, the Middle East, most of Asia), then the TerraLiner could tap into what will soon become a truly global service network for electric vehicles.

So far Tesla has mainly an American phenomenon, only selling its first car in Europe in 2013 -- see http://marketrealist.com/2015/08/investors-guide-tesla-motors/comments . And at present, Tesla seems to have mainly an American and European presence -- see http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...rs-incs-international-expansion-to-hit-1.aspx. But Tesla has plans to massively expand into China, and to expand massively, period -- see http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/aec36734-18f3-11e4-80da-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3zhp2sD1L , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...e-500m-to-fund-ambitious-expansion-plans.html , http://www.fool.com/investing/gener...-not-tesla-is-expanding-across-the-globe.aspx , and http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ns-will-stretch-tesla-beyond-its-comfort-zone :






And so it does seem plausible that the network of Tesla service centers may become truly global over the next 10 years.

Again, because all drive-line elements in the TerrraLiner will be fail-safe redundant, even if a Tesla, Steyr, or Boeing service center is not right around the corner, the TerraLiner will be able to drive the extra 1000 or 2000 km that might be required to get to the nearest Tesla depot, marina that services generators, or international airport that services jets.



********************************************


7. How the use of car-sized modular components in hybrid trucks may change the service/repair landscape


********************************************


As a transportation design specialist, what then interests me is how the electrification of the world's fleet of cars and trucks may have a profound effect on how automotive and truck service centers function.

In the world of traditional mechanical drivetrains, differently sized vehicles need to be serviced in different kinds of shops, not just because trucks are much bigger than cars, but also because their engines and transmissions are much bigger and different, too. Whereas in the world of electric drive-trains, even in a very large vehicle such as the TerraLiner the electrical components can be individually much smaller. The same electric motors used in a Tesla sports car, for instance, just need to be multiplied by three. Indeed, perhaps all of the electrical elements of the TerraLiner's drive-train and its controlling software might be identical to those found in a Tesla...?

Maybe I am wrong about this; but it would be very interesting if I were right. Of course there would still be the issue of vehicular size. But I wonder if the Terraliner could be designed in such a way that any Tesla service center could diagnose, repair, and/or replace its electric motors and other electrical components, without the TerraLiner needing to actually enter a covered shop?

I wonder if anyone has written about how driveline "modularity" in a serial hybrid truck may radically change the service landscape available for such a vehicle, because all of its components will be car-sized, instead of truck-sized?

The above is just a very rough sketch as to how TerraLiner servicing and/or repair might occur. It's merely preliminary, but it may be useful because it suggests that contrary to one's initial assumptions, a hybrid TerraLiner may actually prove more globally serviceable than, say, a more ordinary kind of MAN TGS truck. The Steyr motor used in the WhisperPower generators, for instance, is basically a small-car motor, not a truck motor. So it stands to reason that it should be more widely repairable. And the same will be true of the TerraLiner's electrical components, if Tesla does in fact create a truly global service network, and the TerraLiner could use it.

All of this has gotten me thinking: how do large Class A motorhomes get serviced in the United States? It must be a bit awkward for a full-timing couple if their motorhome's engine or transmission needs 2 or 3 days' of service, and hence, they have to leave their home and not just their vehicle with the auto mechanic. On web-forums some Class A motorhome owners write that they just continue living in their motorhome in the parking lot of the auto shop, while it was being serviced or repaired. However, what I am imagining above is a more "modular" approach, an approach that might cut down on the number of days that the TerraLiner's owners need to camp in such parking lots. If instead the TerraLiner's generators were easily and completely removable, then the TerraLiner's owners could continue camping in their mobile home on farmland, while one of the "engines" -- i.e. one of the diesel generators, or a turbine APU -- gets fixed at an auto shop, or at an airport's APU service depot.



********************************************


8. Servicing Camper Box Systems


********************************************


Of course, servicing the camper box systems of the TerraLiner would be another matter, but no different from servicing an ordinary, mainstream Class A. Like all large motorhomes the TerraLiner would want to check into speciality "Motorhome service centers" from time to time -- see http://www.approvedworkshops.co.uk/approved-touring-caravan-motorhome-servicing and http://www.approvedworkshops.co.uk/search/ for the UK, for instance, and for the United States, see http://www.rvservicelink.com , http://www.funroads.com/coachcare/ , and http://www.funroads.com/rv-repair/ . Motorhome-specailized service centers are abundant in First-World countries, rare in Second-World countries, and pretty much non-existent in Third-World countries. In this respect the TerraLiner's camper box will be no worse off than any other motorhome. All of them need to be relatively autonomous, reliable, and hassle-free when traveling in Third-World countries.

But the good thing is that the camper box systems are not as "mission critical" as the generators, the electric motors, and the electrical system that delivers power from the generators to the motors. The electrical motors will be redundant. So presumably if one electric motor fails, the TerraLiner will sill have two running, and will be able to drive to the nearest Tesla depot.



********************************************


9. The TerraLiner: Innovative, but not Sci-Fi, and designed to use "off the shelf", reliable, proven technologies, combined in a new way


********************************************


In any case, "serviceability" is a critically important question, which is why I discussed it at length. So even though innovative ICE technologies are fascinating, what continues to interest me most is finding more manufacturers of tried-and-tested diesel generators intended for use on yachts, i.e. more manufacturers like WhisperPower.

A while back in the thread the TerraLiner was specified as vehicle that should be made from components that are "off the shelf" and ready-to hand. The TerraLiner will simply combine those components in new ways. In other words, the TerraLiner will be innovative, but not Sci-Fi. Hence, the TerraLiner will not require constructing a completely new ICE from scratch, and not even a Gen-Set. Rather, the TerraLiner will want to use two diesel Gen-Sets, or one diesel Gen-Set + a turbine APU, that are proven, reliable technology, and that could be serviced and/or repaired worldwide. If what I have written above in this posting series is at all reasonable, then there is some chance that a serial hybrid TerraLiner might actually prove more serviceable worldwide than a typical MAN TGS or Mercedes Actros truck, not less. Even though the TerraLiner will be a hybrid, that does not automatically mean that it will be a service and repair nightmare. So if this possibility exists, then the last thing one would want to do is undermine this possibility by having the TerraLiner use a still somewhat experimental ICE as the motor powering its primary generator.

In short Silverado, although cutting-edge developments in ICE technology are interesting, they won't really apply to the TerraLiner, at least not unless they get bundled with a generator to create a comparatively lightweight and reliable package, such as the MGV-200 by Whisperpower; a generator package that has been on the market long enough, such that it could be serviced and repaired just about anywhere.

Again, to summarize: think "innovative", but not "experimental" or "Sci Fi". Think "off the shelf", proven, reliable technologies, brought together and combined in a new way, a way that will make a new form of global motorhoming possible.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[IdaSHO]

On the subject of diesel engines,,
these Coates rotary valve heads blow away any old diesel with popet valves,,(and even the new ones too)not only in increased performance but in reduced
emissions too,due to the fact it doesnt need oil circulating in the upper part of the engine,heads,valves etc..
Whats particularly depressing is that not one domestic auto manufacturer has any interest in using these in their trucks or cars.

www.coatesengine.com
http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv-advantages.html

That's because its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

No need to fix something that isn't broken.

 

[back woods]

Doesn't seem plausible to travel with something that needs to be repaired by airplane mechanics. Their shop rates/schedule must be insane.

 

[back woods]

Have you put any thought into a fully hydraulic drive? Diesel motor running a hydro pump that drives hydraulic hubs, like a big tractor. Then run a pump off of one of the electric motors to achieve "hybrid" status. All 6 wheels can be individually controlled and hydro can a multitude of other things. Could even run a bypass so an axle could be driven mechanically via driveshaft, would take a fancy transfer case. Run all the cooling systems into one area in the back with huge coolers. It's easier to find a Komatsu dealer over seas than a certified APU mechanic with free time. Parts can be removed and hoses unattached for service.

 

[biotect]

Hi backwoods,

Yes, hydrodrive has been disused a number of times in the thread. Hydro-drive is now a fairly standard product that MAN offers on its trucks. Its main application seems to be slow-speed driving, i.e. driving at less than 30 kph. It's a way to provide a 6x2 with something approaching AWD drive at slow speeds, but without the expense of AWD, and the penalty in reduced fuel economy. In effect, at slow speeds with hdyrodrives powering each wheel a 6x2 truck becomes a 6x6. But at high speeds it's still a 6x2, and gets better mileage.

The APU is being imagined merely as a power-booster, a booster for some very specific scenarios, for instance, climbing long extended inclines for 2 hours. In such scenarios a battery pack + 200 kW generator would prove insufficient, if one wants the TerraLiner to be able to climb at an aggressive speed. Battery packs are good for recovering energy on downhill runs and then giving it back again on ascents in moderately hilly, up-and-down country. But they are much less useful when dealing with a really long, sustained, uphill climb, for instance, climbing from Nepal up to Tibet. The distance is about 151 km, and the grade is 3 %.

Because the need is so specific, I thought it might be best if the TerraLiner's secondary generator were as light as possible, so that when not in use it is not weighing things down. The Boeing APU is about half the weight of a WhisperPower MGV-200 Gen-Set, and yet while the latter produces 200 kW, the Boeing APU produces 450 kW. As for servicing, you are most certainly right that an aircraft mechanic would cost more than a marine mechanic (the Whisperpower is a marine generator primarily intended for the yachting market). But as for finding an APU mechanic and a shop equipped with a wide variety of parts: that is potentially one of the attractive aspects of having a Boeing APU. Wherever there is an airport that handles big jets, one should be able to find an APU mechanic. The Boeing DreamLiner is a truly "global" vehicle in a way that no MAN or Mercedes truck is. I have been trying to find web-disucssions about how easy or hard it might be to get a MAN TGS dump truck or Mercedes Actros dump truck serviced in Russia, China, or India. These are platforms upon which large expedition motorhomes are usually built, but if neither Mercedes nor MAN has much presence in these countries, then these they could not exactly be described as "global" trucks.

With all that said, I hear you, and that's why I am now inclining towards perhaps a less "high performance" TerraLiner, one that simply uses two MGV-200 generators, as suggested by Haf-E.. As Haf-E wrote, this marine generator uses a Steyr engine that could be serviced around the world, because basically it's a car engine, not a truck engine. There are "global" cars and SUVs, smaller vehicles that are sold almost everywhere, and that can be serviced almost everywhere, e.g. certain models of the Toyota Landcruiser. Whereas the global truck market is much more fragmented, with home-grown producers completely dominating most continents. For instance, I wonder just how easy or hard it might be to get a MAN cab-over-engine TGS truck serviced in the United States, a land where large COE trucks are rare, and where MAN has no presence in trucks, even though it does sell Neoplan buses?

Note that as regards the overall issue of how much potential driveline HP the TerraLiner should have, I find myself ambivalent. On the one hand, the TerraLiner is intended for slow travel by retired couples, not fast travel. So there should not be any need for the TerraLiner to climb the Eisenhower pass in Colorado at the top speed allowed for trucks, which in Colorado is 120 kph. But on the other hand, it is evident that as truck diesel motors become ever more powerful, top-of-the-line Class A motorhomes are being equipped with the largest HP diesels available at any given moment. Even if these vehicles are being bought by retired wealthy couples who want to "slow-travel" with them, staying one month here, two months there, six months somewhere else, it's also clear that when driving from long-term campsite A, to long-term campsite B, these retired couples want to be speed demons.....:sombrero: ... So, as I said, I am ambivalent, and I am not completely clear how much power would be best from an overall "marketing" point of view.


********************************************


So returning to hydrodrive, I get the feeling that it might not provide much of a supplement to electric motors. At the low-end a very big electric motor will have plenty of torque in any case, and in the configuration that Haf-E sketched, the TerraLiner will have AWD, via three electric motors driving axles with cross-axle differentials and diff locks. So I am not sure how hydrodrive might add to that? Honestly, I don't have enough technical background to know whether hydrodrive might still serve as a useful supplement for a hybrid diesel-electric drivetrain. So if Haf-E and others want to chime in on this question, please do!!

backwoods, you mentioned that hydrodrive might be useful for other things as well. What did you mean by that? For instance, could hydrodrive serve as a form of supplementary brake on long downhill descents? Again, imagine that the descent is 151 km long, with a 3 % sustained grade, from Tibet down to Nepal. Could hydrodrives on each wheel serve as something like a retarder? As you must know, big heavy semi-trailer rigs have a terrible time making long descents, and that's why many of them are equipped with supplementary retarders so that they don't burn out their brakes when descending. These retarders employ a range of technological solutions -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarder_(mechanical_engineering) . So one question that has emerged is how much braking energy the electrical motors themselves could provide. They turn into generators recovering energy on descents in hilly country, hence, "regenerative braking". And I've read on various websites that Wrightspeed hybrid garbage trucks use their disc or drum brakes only very seldom; that a garbage truck equipped with a Wrightspeed serial-hybrid drive-train can be stopped almost dead in its tracks via regenerative braking alone. Wrightspeed equips equips them with 4 x 250 HP electric motors, thereby providing potentially 1000 HP of "braking power".

But this stuff is way out of my depth, and so I really have no idea how big the TerraLiner's electric motors should ideally be, in order to provide good supplementary braking power on long descents, much like a retarder would have. All I know is that in diesel-electric serial hybrid transit buses, the rating of the electric motors in kW tends to be about double the combined maximum power output of the generator + the battery pack. This would appear to make no sense, until one realizes that the over-sized electric motors are there for regenerative braking, not to facilitate forward motion. So if hydrodrives on each wheel might function as a form of retarder that would be much less likely to "burn out" on long descents than drum brakes or disc brakes, that would make them most interesting indeed -- see http://www.truckinginfo.com/article/story/2014/07/brake-trends-drums-vs-discs.aspx.

Any of your thoughts on this subject would be greatly appreciated!

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[Silverado08]

That's because its a solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
No need to fix something that isn't broken.

You must be joking,right?

Have you even looked at how advanced these CRSV heads are compared to old obsolete poppet valve diesels?

For one it has Better breathing capacity then any 4 valve heads,,no valve spring presure to overcome making more hp in the proces,
No need to change oil for 50 thousand miles or more,able to use most any fuel and so on..

Im guessing that only reason no manufacturers have any interest in these is,,they are in cahoots with big oil corporations...
There are certainly some strange politics involved
The folowing quote from their site tells an interesting story,,why would goverment under Clinton back then tried this weird move trying to put
a stop to Coates co,,using these drastic tactics

QUOTE

WWW.COATESENGINE.COM

Wall Township, NJ – (Marketwired – February 11, 2016) For Immediate Release: Coates International, Ltd. (OTC PINK: COTE) (the “Company&#8221 has decided to post on its website, www.coatesengine.com, independent test results on a number of its CSRV products.

Company President and CEO comments: “In 1993/1994 when President Clinton was running for his second term, I viewed him on TV where he announced that he was giving $300,000,000 to Detroit to try and lower vehicle emissions. I posted a package to him at The White House showing the emission results that we just received on our CSRV retrofit in a 380SE Mercedes Saloon Car.
I thought that I was doing a great thing showing the lowest emission tests ever recorded. Two weeks later a SWAT team arrived in our car park at the Coates Headquarters.
They accused me of fraud and said that the results were impossible. They took me in front of a Federal Judge in New York who asked were these tests correct and I said yes. The Judge ordered that they take the 380SE Mercedes to the test laboratory and give it a full test program. This was carried out. The vehicle was put on chassis dynamotor and fully tested. The results were all the very same. The lowest emissions. The case was dismissed immediately. However, the SEC, post office and the inland review service kept the Company stalled for a number of months until Mr. Clinton was reinstated for his second term.”

“This, to me, was very strange. The SEC Judge was disgraced Judge Kimble Wood, a Clinton appointee, who held the Company in limbo for approximately eight months. The New York Times made a big deal of it but they never mentioned that the case was dismissed. I received a letter from the SEC that said welcome to the SEC. I am still wondering about this episode.
/QUOTE

Btw now its the Chinese who own the rights to use and build this engine..

 

[Silverado08]

Biotect
I think that most class A motorhomes Americans drive are built on same platform chassis as buses coaches for public transport and these
Can run half a milion miles or more without any serious issues.
Some people even buy old buses and build their own motorhomes on those,,there was a site called Busnuts if I recall corectly,devoted to this..
http://www.busnut.com/home.html

Also rv.net has plenty of class A drivers if you need to ask any more info on this
www.rv.net
Of course quality of some smaller units may be different...however I understand that even the lowly school buses are
Built to very high safety standards..so there are even skoolies converted by crafty individuals into live aboard units..
http://www.skoolie.net/forums/

http://www.americanschoolbuscouncil.org/love-the-bus/educators-toolkit/school-bus-safety-mandates

http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/listings/forum/22.cfmi

 

[Amphibeast]

I built my "Hummer Bus" on a 85 Carpenter Chassis w/ Industrial GM V8…. Automatic… it's a monster and some of the thickest steel I've ever fabbed on!

Its a Skoolie!

 

[safas]

By the way, I've written a huge posting series in response to your very interesting lead about the German 2011 solar racer, a racer that uses gallium arsenide solar cells. The racer raises lots of interesting issues, but there is one very simple question that I could not seem to answer via web-research: where did it gets its solar cells from? What company makes them? Same question for the the two more recent vehicles produced by the same Bochum university team, in 2013 and 2015: any idea what brand of solar cells they use?

The link that I posted answers that.

SOLARWORLD's Devon and Kelsey were on hand to share info on photovoltaics,of which they provided space-grade 29% gallium-arsenide cells for the GT.

 

[biotect]

Hi safas,

Thanks for that. If you ever come across more detailed information about exactly the kind of Gallium Arsenide solar cells used in Bochum's Solar Racers, please post. Whatever webpages I've found provide only very vague information. For instance, that Bochum's Solar Racer in 2011 was one of the only cars in the Solar Challenge race to use Gallium Arsenide cells -- see http://www.sunisthefuture.net/tag/solarworld/ . Most of the other racers used silicon solar cells of one kind or another.

Solar World's website is useless: it contains no information whatsoever about Gallium Arsenide solar cells -- see http://www.solarworld-usa.com/products-and-services/sunmodule-solar-panels , http://www.solarworld-usa.com/commercial-and-government/government-military-solar , SolarWorld GovernmentSolutions brochure , and https://www.google.co.uk/?gws_rd=ssl#q=http://www.solarworld-usa.com/+gallium+arsenide .

Furthermore, when using Gallium Arsenide as a search term in Google, most of the first hits are now Alta Devices, which we've already discussed -- see http://www.altadevices.com/technology-overview/ , http://www.altadevices.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/single_cell.pdf , http://www.altadevices.com/applications/applications-overview/ , http://www.altadevices.com/applications/automotive/ , and http://www.altadevices.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/automotive.pdf .

In the course of research I came across the following very useful list of more or less all manufacturers of solar cells and panels worldwide, organized by country -- see http://www.solar-facts.com/panels/panel-manufacturers.php . Using "gallium" as a search term, gallium products by the following companies now seem commercially available:


(1) http://www.solar-facts.com/manufacturers/show-manufacturer.php?id=118 , https://www.q-cells.com , http://www.q-cells.com/products/technology/qantum.html , https://www.q-cells.com/products/solar_panels/qplus_g4.html , and https://www.q-cells.com/products/solar-panels/qpro-g4.html

(2) http://www.solar-facts.com/manufacturers/show-manufacturer.php?id=145 , http://www.heliovolt.com , http://www.heliovolt.com/files/hvc-data-sheet-2014.pdf , and http://www.heliovolt.com/technology/

(3) http://www.solar-facts.com/manufacturers/show-manufacturer.php?id=81 , http://www.nanosolar.com

(4) http://www.solar-facts.com/manufacturers/show-manufacturer.php?id=142 , http://semprius.com , http://semprius.com/the-semprius-difference/cpv-technology/ , http://semprius.com/products/ , http://semprius.com/products/applications/ , http://semprius.com/products/performance/ , and http://semprius.com/products/reliability/

(5) http://www.solar-facts.com/manufacturers/show-manufacturer.php?id=112 , http://solopower.com , http://solopower.com/technology/ , http://solopower.com/products/solopower-sp3/ , and http://solopower.com/wp-content/uploads/DataSheetSolopanelSP3L-06-12-15.pdf


Unfortunately, most of these companies seem to be concentrating on"Copper Indium Gallium Selenide" (CGIS) thin-film semi-flexible solar technologies, with a view to selling to large commercial power installations where power density is not such a big concern, but rather, cost per KW. Even the best of these solar cells still seem to achieve efficiencies below 20%. However, for very large commercial solar power installations in the middle of the desert, power density is not so important. Even if thin-film is less "efficient" or "power dense" than monocrystalline, if thin-film costs much less than monocrystalline for a given KW of output, and the available real estate for a solar array is cheap, then thin-film is strongly preferred. For large commercial installations what matters most is cost per KW, not power density. Whereas in residential applications where roof surface is limited, power density becomes more important, hence, monocrystalline panels with the best power densities are usually preferred.

The same will be true in a vehicular application: what's wanted is maximal power density. Here non-flexible monocrystalline panels made by Sunpower still have an efficiency "edge", about 21 %, and may still be the best choice for the TerraLiner's roof. But for the sides of the TerraLiner, where durability and flexibility are also considerations, thin-film flexible Gallium Arsenide of some kind seems the way to go, again with a view to maximizing power density. So none of the above examples of CGIS technology seem all that applicable.

This is why the solar cells used in Bochum University's Solar Racers are so interesting: they are a vehicular application of Gallium Arsenide technology, and promise to have efficiencies much better than CGIS as well as the monocrystalline technology as used by SunPower. Hence my query. Perhaps they are solar cell technology first developed for satellites, and that's why they cannot be found on Solar World's "consumer" or "commercial" website? If Bochum University's Solar Racer cells were first developed for satellites, I wonder how much they cost? Or, I wonder whether they are a cheaper version of the same technology first developed for satellites, technology that Solar World is perhaps now trying to transfer to the automotive world, for mass-market, vehicular applications?

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

..
********************************************


1. The Land Rover Sentinel


********************************************


Just recently I chanced across an interesting development. Apparently in autumn of 2015, just a few months ago, Land Rover came out with a new, completely armored version of its “Autobiography” Range Rover, called the “Sentinel” – see http://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/range-rover/sentinel/index.html , https://news247worldpressuk.wordpre...e-rover-sentinel-a-luxury-fortress-on-wheels/ , http://indianautosblog.com/2015/09/range-rover-sentinel-unveiled-190357 :






The Sentinel is produced by Land Rover's custom/bespoke facility, called “Special Vehicle Operations” – see http://www.landrover.com/special-vehicle-operations/special-vehicles.html , http://www.landrover.co.uk/special-vehicle-operations/special-vehicles.html , http://www.topgear.com/car-news/british/special-vehicle-operations-whats-it-all-about , http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/jaguar...and-rover-special-vehicle-operations-division , http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/jaguar/f-type/87565/jaguar-f-type-project-7-revealed-at-goodwood . This is the same facility that produces the Range Rover Holland & Holland special edition – see http://www.landrover.co.uk/above-and-beyond/news/holland-and-holland-range-rover.html , http://hollandandholland.com/lifestyle/range-rover/ http://uk.businessinsider.com/range-rover-holland-and-holland-most-expensive-suv-2014-11?r=US&IR=T , and http://www.gizmag.com/holland-range-rover/34657/ :






********************************************


2. Land Rover's visual protective strategy: Vavilovian mimicry, or “hiding in plain sight”


********************************************


The interesting thing here is that just like Texas Amoring, Land Rover has deliberately pursued a design strategy of “Vavilovian mimicry”. This basically means that Land Rover does not want the Sentinel to stand out as unique or different from any other Range Rovers – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry_in_plants#Vavilovian_mimicry , http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Vavilovian_mimicry , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolai_Vavilov ,http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Nikolai_Vavilov , http://www.bioone.org/doi/pdf/10.1614/WS-D-13-00122.1 , and http://www.jamesandthegiantcorn.com/2010/01/09/pumpernickel-and-rye-and-vavilovian-mimicry/ . For a while there was an excellent video available on on YouTube about Vavilovian mimicry at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5pPgXB7YEk, but that links is now dead. The best substitute I could find is the following video about "Advanced Types of Mimicry", which addresses Vavilovian mimicry from roughly 2 minutes, 35 seconds in:






Just like Rye (the mimic), and Wheat (the model) as discussed in the video, the Land Rover Sentinel (the mimic) is "discreet and almost identical in appearance to the vehicle [an ordinary Range Rover, the model] from which it is derived, with few visual clues as to what lies beneath the skin" -- http://www.landrover.co.uk/above-and-beyond/news/range-rover-sentinel.html. Just like the vehicles converted by Texas Armoring, the Sentinel was deliberately designed to “hide in plain sight” – see http://www.tactical-life.com/military-and-police/texas-armoring-vehicles/ .

Once more, in the human world, the best form of protective mimicry for a vehicle is the kind that provides zero information, and a null signal. It seems a mistake to opt for “Batesian mimicry” instead, a type of mimicry in which a vehicle that is harmless is made to look somehow more “militaresque”, butch, and threatening. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batesian_mimicry , and jump ahead about 7 mintues, 50 seconds into the following video:






Although Batesian mimicry works well in the slowly-evolving natural world of animals – where prey can count on developed, genetically-stable relationships with predators – the human world is not like the animal world. Human predators are just too darn smart, de-instincted, genetically un-programmed, and unpredictable in order for Batesian mimicry to work as a reliable protective strategy.

However, this video – which is excellent, and should be watched in its entirety – suggests that Vavilovian mimicry, which is superficially similar to "null-singal camouflage”, could be combined with “startle protection”. This prompted me to speculate that the TerraLiner might have flare guns permanently mounted on the roof, flare guns that would shoot skyward in the event of an attack. This would prove extremely surprising for any potential assailant, and would at the very least draw their attention away for a few seconds towards the rising flares. Seconds might be all the TerraLiner needs to escape, without ever being fired upon. Flares would also be a relatively non-aggressive form of threat-display, because they basically amount to a cry for help. Aggressors would then know that the TerraLiner had called for police assistance.



********************************************


3. The difference between camouflage and mimicry


********************************************


By the way, the difference between camouflage and mimicry is the following. Camouflage typically involves blending in with one's habitual background environment, which may include rocks, twigs, leaves, tree bark, etc. An animal or a vehicle can be camouflaged, and yet it's not mimicking anything. Tanks used in desert operations are painted a light beige color, to blend in with the surrounding sand. But they are not mimicking another kind of vehicle.

Whereas mimicry means one animal visually copying the appearance of another animal. For instance, as an example of Batesian mimicry, harmless flies that lack stingers will adopt the physical appearance of wasps and bees, insects that can inflict genuine pain. An example of Batesian mimicry in transportation would be a motorhome trying to look like a troop carrier. But as Texas Armoring and Land Rover have both realized, the best form of mimicry in the world of vehicles is not Batesian, but rather, Vavilovian: mimicking the appearance of a standard, very common vehicle type that is not armored. And as suggested earlier in the thread, this is a bit mind-blowing, because Vavilovian mimicry never arises "naturally" in ecosystems. Rather, Vavilovian mimicry has only emerged as a response to human artificial selection -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vavilovian_mimicry . So even though camouflage occurs naturally and can be widely observed amongst animals, Vavilovian mimicry is something quite specific and a bit different than camouflage.

For a while the difference between camouflage and mimicry was not clear to me. But watching the video above, or the two videos below, the difference becomes transparent. The following videos do not have many pictures, but they too provide exceptionally clear accounts of mimicry, and the difference between mimicry and camouflage:






For many more videos on this topic, see the excellent YouTube playlist at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLoHQGyBT6rWb5d6sYdJI0_yYnABJrV5jq .


********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
.

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

********************************************


4. What is a VR8 level of protection?


********************************************


The Land Rover Sentinel's armor protection level is “VR8” – see http://www.landrover.co.uk/above-and-beyond/news/range-rover-sentinel.html , http://mybroadband.co.za/news/motor...-sentinel-bulletproof-fortress-on-wheels.html :







This is yet another rating system, developed in Germany by VPAM – see https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.vpam.eu/index.php?id=53 , http://www.vpam.eu/?id=92 , https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.vpam.eu/index.php?id=61 , https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.vpam.eu/index.php?id=30 ,https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.vpam.eu/?id=92&prev=search , http://www.vpam.eu/fileadmin/Pruefrichtlinien_AKTUELL/VPAM-Tabelle_2010-12-11.pdf , and http://war-ballistics.com/documents/VPAM-Tabelle_B11-12-2010.pdf :







What VR8 armoring means in real-world terms, is that the armor and glass in the Land Rover Sentinel can provide protection against three 7.63 x 39 mm rounds fired by an AK-47, on the vertices of a triangular pattern – see http://www.trasco-bremen.de/ballistic/armoring-levels/armoring-levels/ and http://www.bulletproofme.com/Body_Armor_Accessories_Rifle_Protection.shtml :







VR8 protection may or may not be equivalent to UL Level 8, or what Texas Armoring calls its T6 level protection – see http://www.texasarmoring.com/armoring_levels.html#ballistics , and post #2290 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/124789-TerraLiner-12-m-Globally-Mobile-Beach-House-Class-A-Crossover-w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=2002771#post2002771 :









But VR8 is definitely not sufficient protection against 50 mm sniper rounds. In the following video, the shooter fires 54 mm rounds against “Level 8” bullet-proof glass, which probably means UL Level 8:






In the VPAM rating system, 7.62 x 54 mm rounds would classify as Level 10 threat. After two bullets, the shooter penetrates the Level 8 glass, and it was probably a bit of a fluke that the first bullet did not go through. Recall that in the UL rating system, only Level 10 offers complete protection against .50 caliber bullets of the kind used by sniper rifles. Not UL Level 8:







********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
.

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

********************************************


5. VR8 protection is most certainly enough


********************************************


Here is a video about Winchester .308, 7.62 x 51 mm rounds, rounds that in the VPAM system would classify as either a Level 7, Level 9, Level 11, or Level 12 threat, depending upon the mass and speed of the bullet used, which combined yield the “Geschoss-energie” in Joules, or “Shooting Energy”:






In its video presentation Land Rover flamboyantly calls 7.62 x 39 mm bullets “armor piercing incendiary rounds”, which sounds pretty terrific. But what really matters in armoring is the overall mass and speed of a bullet, not whether it’s incendiary or “armor piercing”.

Even still, if VR8 roughly corresponds to UL Level 8, then that should be sufficient. In the following video, three 7.62 x 39 mm rounds fired from an AK-47 at the same spot on Level 8 bullet-proof glass do not go through. Only the fourth bullet goes through:






In the next video, 30 such rounds are once again fired at “Level 8” glass, and 16 go through:






But here we are talking about 30 bullets, fired at a stationary target. As Texas Armoring suggests, the main purpose to bullet-proofing is to buy one the critical seconds required to flee the situation and escape further aggression. It’s not to provide an armored shield in a protracted fire-fight.

Also recall that in the Brazilian rating system, most high-end armoring is Level 3-A, which is "effective against shots of pistols, revolvers and submachine guns. Corresponding to 90% of the market, while less than 10% opting for shielding I, which protects .22, .32 and .38" -- see https://translate.google.it/transla...sil-e-o-mercado-com-maior-numero-de-blindados , https://translate.google.it/transla...-pais-com-maior-numero-de-blindados-do-mundo/ , and https://translate.google.it/transla....br/materia/blindados-niveis-protecao-880501/

But only Brazilian Level 3 (as opposed to 3-A) seems to correspond roughly to UL Level 8, while Brazilian level 4 seems to correspond to UL Level 9 – see post #2307 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/124789-TerraLiner-12-m-Globally-Mobile-Beach-House-Class-A-Crossover-w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=2005469#post2005469 :







In other words, even very wealthy Brazilians will “make do” with armoring that's roughly equivalent to UL Level 6, which would be considerably less protective than the Land Rover Sentinel's VR8 armoring. Also recall that Texas Armoring recommends its "T6" level of protection for South America, which seems to correspond roughly to UL Level 8, or the Land Rover Sentinel's VR8.

If all of this sounds confusing, well, that's because it is. It seems that there are at least 5 or 6 ratings systems in circulation, and no doubt many more. Europe and the United States have produced more than one rating system, while less prominent countries like Brazil have produced their own, unique systems that nobody else uses. To confuse matters further, speciality companies like Texas Armoring have created their own, in-house rating systems. Seems like the VPAM system is widely recognized in Europe, but I am not sure how useful it is, or whether it's more useful than the UL system.


********************************************

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...

.​