Is this a Unimog failure or a GXV failure? (Pic included)

[mhiscox]

In typical classy style, they continue to share their problems and solutions in near-real-time - no small feat on the road. The best part is that they continue to have fun in spite of all the problems.

They're setting a fantastic example for us all. Their outstanding attitude in the face of continued problems is, sad to say, considerably better than I've managed when things fell apart on my much-less-epic trips. I'm going to try hard to remember their poise when broken down thousands of miles from home the next time something breaks on me during an overnight in the forest down the road.

 

[Keyne]

I am very glad they are having fun. I can only dream of such a trip. Anyway, my point about earthroamer is that they might be a better option because they make and sell so many units which for the most part are standard (layout, etc). As a result they can get more feedback from more customers and keep revising that standard layout to make it better. If an Earthroamer is close to one's requirements than it might be a better choice over trying to build a custom solution with someone else.

 

[dwh]

Maybe these issues will prompt Unicat and others to come to the US with some of their products.

They did. Avi Meyers was repping them but now the URL for unicatamericas.com redirects back to the main Unicat site.

 

[mhiscox]

Anyway, my point about earthroamer is that they might be a better option because they make and sell so many units which for the most part are standard (layout, etc). As a result they can get more feedback from more customers and keep revising that standard layout to make it better. If an Earthroamer is close to one's requirements than it might be a better choice over trying to build a custom solution with someone else.

I absolutely agree. I think they ae now a couple hundred XV-LTs on the road and the many benefits of serial production have kicked in. Spec'ing and supervising the builds of one-off campers can be fun and gratifying--about as much fun as anything I've done, actually--though you pay for the privilege and usually don't get as solid and reliable a product. But you get what you want, along with the pride of having something no one else has. For most of us, that's an OK trade, though I'm guessing Rob is being sorely tested these days.

 

[DiploStrat]

... my point about earthroamer is that they might be a better option because they make and sell so many units which for the most part are standard (layout, etc). As a result they can get more feedback from more customers and keep revising that standard layout to make it better. If an Earthroamer is close to one's requirements than it might be a better choice over trying to build a custom solution with someone else.

FWIW Rob and Nina own an Earthroamer and rejected it for this trip, preferring to go with the Unimog/GVX. That may or may not have been a good decision. Remember that ******** Smith's Earthroamer spent some six months broken down in Mongolia with a Ford engine problem.

Like Linda, I wonder if they are missing their Tiger just a little bit.

 

[charlieaarons]

Also FWIW: the GXV in question is an early version. Later versions have a much more robust mounting system very similar to Unicat's, as posted by Victorian.
This episode, and Hackney's problem, point to the critical importance of camper mounting hardware (also that Polish photographer with the Santek/Fuso).

Charlie

 

[pugslyyy]

Also FWIW: the GXV in question is an early version. Later versions have a much more robust mounting system very similar to Unicat's, as posted by Victorian.
This episode, and Hackney's problem, point to the critical importance of camper mounting hardware (also that Polish photographer with the Santek/Fuso).

Charlie

Of course I have the Hackney one now, with hopes that the frame failure issues are far behind it now - working on getting it back into expedition trim after it was mothballed for several years.

I think the other one is this one - http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/93085-Fuso-FG-Expedition-vehicle-for-sale

 

[Marv800]

Ummm . . . so this

unlabeled, undiagrammed sprawl is some of the wiring and pneumatic plumbing in my XV-JP, the third one built. And the owners of the earliest XV-LTs have lots of stories, too. But let's keep it all in perspective. I'm not defending shoddy practice--and I've seen plenty across my custom vehicles--but I also recognize there are limits to what can be done on a non-serial production camper.

If the quality goes up, the price will go up, and I suspect that explains some of why the Unicat equivalent of an XV-LT costs about twice as much. In fact, I'm pretty certain that deciding how much can be charged for a custom build while still keeping a buyer is the trickiest part of the expedition vehicle business.

If a builder "oversells" the capability of their vehicle, go ahead and hang them. But don't think that all of the engineering and highest-possible build quality you might find in an expensive yacht could be put into an expedition camper without it being reflected in the already-considerable cost.

Yeah, so wow... I guess the standards are just generally low in this market segment. I would have thought/expected at least one player in this game would "do things right". Color me discouraged. Back to square one... Maybe I'll just get an F650 and live with it.

 

[mhiscox]

Yeah, so wow... I guess the standards are just generally low in this market segment. I would have thought/expected at least one player in this game would "do things right". Color me discouraged. Back to square one... Maybe I'll just get an F650 and live with it.

No, no . . . don't miss my point. The wiring shown above looks the way it does because mine was a close-to-prototype vehicle, only the third XV-JP ever done and built while lots about the design was still in flux. I was trying to moderate some of the criticism against GXV by proposing that when you have something one-off or near-prototype, things are often done to a non-production standard just because it's not cost effective to engineer everything to be optimal. (Or if it was all to be optimized, a la Unicat, there'd be a hefty premium.) I tossed the picture in to illustrate that point.

Nothing wrong with the wiring on EarthRoamer's serial production trucks, which is sort of my point. After building a bunch of them, things seem very worked out . . . I have a couple of their photos that look just fine to me:

 

[rblackwell]

Hi all.
It has been interesting following this thread about the experience(s) that Nina and I have had with our GXV/U500.

I have made some comments about this thread in the following post on my blog.

[url]http://whiteacorn.com/post/rtw/expeditionportal1
[/URL]

 

[pugslyyy]

Hi all.
It has been interesting following this thread about the experience(s) that Nina and I have had with our GXV/U500.

I have made some comments about this thread in the following post on my blog.

http://http://whiteacorn.com/post/rtw/expeditionportal1

Thanks for checking in! I've enjoyed reading your blog and hope that our armchair quarterbacking here has provided some light entertainment!

 

[rvanhoozer]

GXV Comment

After quietly standing by reading these comments the last couple weeks, I am compelled to comment and correct some mis-information….and I do so as production manager at GXV.

My manufacturing philosophy is that we listen to our customers and, as practicable, incorporate their recommendations into future builds. As such, every build should be better than the last one, but not as good as the next one. We use the finest components and materials available, however, mechanical and electrical components sometimes fail. We strive to improve service access to those components in case of failure.

Let me comment specifically on some items:

1) Mounting failure: The problem was the result of a failure of a highly regarded Lord mount. Incidentally, that particular conical mount has a static
axial rating of 2,000 lb. Further, the conical mount is the “fail safe” component in the system in that it is designed to fail before structural damage
to the vehicle. Later units, including the fix to Whiteacorn, prevent the camper body from coming loose from the chasis should the Lord mount fail.
And, although a bit intimidating, field repair is fairly easy should a failure occur.

Since that truck was built, we have incorporated a more robust mounting system that also improves the ride of the vehicle. (The combination of
the height and weight of the camper body and equipment on flex mounts on a coil spring suspension U500 can make for an uncomfortable sway in
certain conditions, which is compounded by the driver’s head being 9 feet above the ground.) The astute and safe driver, simply reduces speed to a
comfortable level, just as a boater reduces speed according to sea conditions.

2) Cabinets: There is NO PARTICLE BOARD in any of our vehicles. The veneers or laminates are all on imported European plywood known for its
strength and light weight. Not available from domestic manufacturers, it comes at a significant premium price.

Further, the weight of the cabinets is not on the plumbing, but rather is carried on the wall by adhesives and screws. The appearance is the result
of raising the shower pan to improve “non-level” drainage when upgrades were made to the truck nearly a year after delivery.

3) Hydronics: The truck hydronic system has always isolatable from the camper body. In more recent builds, each component is individually
isolatable in case of a failure or leak.

4) Refrigerator: We use VitroFrigo marine refrigerators, recognized as among the finest in the world. Now that we have experienced an issue, we
will incorporate an access panel so the unit can be serviced without removing the refrigerator. Given space limitations, remote compressors are
not practical in these vehicles.

5) Plumbing failure: The clear hose was not the original installation but the result of a poor decision when some later upgrades were being made to
the truck. That product was used in five other vehicles, one of which failed at about the same time as Rob’s. As soon as the problem was
identified, we immediately flew a technician to South America, prior to failure, to track down and repair the other four units. Further, we have
since designed the bath cabinets with removable access panels to the plumbing.

6) Electrical wiring: No excuses. That was poor workmanship that has been addressed and dramatically improved. Here are pictures of three
electrical panels in three trucks…one in 2009, one in 2010 and one in 2013.

Our vehicles are mostly all custom builds and all different, so we do not have the benefit of building scores of the same vehicle. Nonetheless, we work every day to improve design, improve processes and workmanship and to improve the product. And if we have a problem, we stand behind it and take care of it. We’re not perfect but we’re better than last month and not as good as we’ll be next month.

We welcome your suggestions and input. Feel free to call me with them.

Sincerely,

Roger VanHoozer
Production Manager
Global Expedition Vehicles

 

[Overland Hadley]

Thanks for checking in Roger. Sounds like you have a good philosophy.

 

[teamtrailrunner]

Soon to be building 2 GVX builds for our oil operations in PA

We have been very much been in touch with Rene, Mike and Rodger as we plot our design based on its intended usage within our companies oil field operations in Warren County, PA. Very interesting information. Having to drill shallow wells down to 2000 feet present the same type of break fail situations you must prepare for while out in the wild world. That is the beauty of living your life in the real world. Things happen and they do break. That is the beauty of any journey.

 

[wild mechanic]

Всем участникам этого форума- привет из России!. Из-за плохого знания английского языка вынужден воспользоваться услугами http://translate.google.ru , поэтому приношу извинения за грамматические ошибки. Сообщения буду писать на двух языках.

Я был одним из первых, кто обратил внимание Роба на ошибки в проектировании кемпера. Сначала Роб очень скептически отнёсся к моим замечаниям, но после аварии под Якутском изменил свою точку зрения на проблему. По моему скромному мнению, в сложившейся ситуации полностью виноваты инженеры из GXV. Поясню, почему:
Кемпер проектировался без учёта условий передвижения по России, а именно:
1. Высокий центр тяжести. Считаю, что компоновка тяжёлых агрегатов (запасное колесо с кронштейном, дизельный генератор, бак для вод&#1099 произведена не совсем грамотно. Я не располагаю точными данными по весу этих узлов, поэтому могу судить только приблизительно. Запасное колесо вместе с его креплением (примерно 150к&#1075 можно без труда смесить ниже, на уровень рамы .
Дизельный генератор (50к&#1075 и бак для воды (300к&#1075 вполне бы разместились бы в нижних задних краях кемпера. Это существенно понизило бы центр тяжести , снизило боковые крены .
2. Крепление через резиновые демпферы- решение правильное, но не совсем грамотно реализовано. Для предотвращения опрокидывания кемпера при обрыве демпфера обычно применяют страховочные устройства- ремни либо шайбы. В данной ситуации устройства отсутствовали.
3. Ещё одна ошибка- отсутствие гидравлических либо газовых амортизаторов в креплении кемпера.
4. И последняя ошибка- установка штатных амортизаторов( не так критичн&#1086 и стабилизаторов(основная проблема!). В условиях России это неприемлемо. Думаю, стоило установить более жёсткие стабилизаторы. И проблема с креном автомобиля была бы решена.
Для инженеров GXV- могу принять участие в испытаниях и проектировании любых автомобилей в условиях России.

All the participants of the forum, greetings from Russia!. Due to the poor knowledge of the English language is forced to use the services http://translate.google.ru, so I apologize for grammatical errors. Messages will be writing in two languages.

I was one of the first to call attention to Rob's design errors Camper. First, Rob is very skeptical of my remarks, but after the accident near Yakutsk changed his point of view on the issue. In my humble opinion, the situation is completely to blame the engineers of the GXV. Let me explain why:
Kemper was designed without taking into account movement in Russia, namely:
1. High center of gravity. I think that the layout of the heavy components (spare wheel with holder, diesel generator, water tank) is not quite done correctly. I do not have exact data on the weight of these components, so I can only judge about. Spare wheel with his mount (about 150 kg) could easily be shifted below the level of the frame.
Diesel generator (50kg) and water tank (300 kg) would have quite settled to the lower edges of the rear camper. It essentially would lower the center of gravity, reduced body roll side.
2. Pivot rubber bumpers solution is correct, but not quite correctly implemented. To prevent tipping Camper at break damper commonly used belay devices, belts or washers. In this situation, the device no.
3. Another error is the absence of hydraulic or gas shock absorbers mount camper.
4. And the last error-setting regular shock absorbers (not so critical) and stabilizers (the main problem!). With Russia it is unacceptable. I think it was worth the set stricter stabilizers. And the problem with the car roll would be solved.
For engineers GXV-can take part in the testing and design of any vehicles in Russia.