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

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


Waterworld? It's a bad movie, although Kevin Costner sure did have a super-cool catamaran. Or was it a trimaran?

But I am a huge fan of Venice, the world's first and only true "water city". Have you ever been to Venice? I've spent a few summers there, and after you get habituated to taking a boat everywhere (the "Vaporetto" transit system), the water becomes hypnotic. You dream water. After Venice, it's a real bummer to return to ordinary land-based cities that have cars, traffic, and noise. At night in Venice you can hear the water drip, or a conversation hundreds of feet away, because the entire city is in effect one huge pedestrian zone. The only vehicles that make noise are boats, and the noise they make tends to be very low-level in comparison to cars.



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


6. Inter-continental Passage-Making is not that Interesting


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


As for your thoughts about buying a large yacht (if one could afford one), here I might give a word of warning.

The dirty little secret amongst sailors is that open-ocean sailing is 95 % mind-numbing boredom, and 5 % shear terror. So at a certain level it's just not that interesting. And when it does get interesting, it also gets very dangerous.

In a super-huge ocean liner like the Queen Elizabeth 2, the ship itself has so many amenities, that even though the view never changes (ocean as far as the eye can see....), there's lots to do onboard. Smaller cruise ships will tend to rotate between the Caribbean and the Mediterranean, cruising the Med in the summer, and the Caribbean in the winter. This means they have to do an Atlantic ocean passage twice a year, and all cruise ships offer special discounted fares for that ocean passage, because again..... it's not that interesting. Especially on a smaller cruise ship.

The interesting part of cruising is the ports of call, or on luxe-passenger Windjammers like the SeaCloud, sailing in sight of land -- see http://www.seacloud.com/en/ . Yet even SeaCloud, which is one of the most romantic forms of travel imaginable, gives discounted fares on the open-ocean, inter-continental crossings.

Now granted, there are hard-core sailors who dream of participating in the Vendée Globe, a round-the-world single-handed ocean race in which the boats are not allowed to touch land. Boats can anchor near land to make repairs (without outside assistance), but they can't dock anywhere en-route -- see http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/presentation.html , http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/the-route.html , http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/the-imoca-class.html , http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/slideshows.html , http://www.vendeeglobe.org/en/videos.html , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendée_Globe , http://ecolecentreferte.free.fr/Vendee-globe/Les-cartes.htm , and http://www.vendeeglobe.org/data/medias/download/parcours_2012.jpg :



[video=dailymotion;x775cb]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x775cb_vendee-globe-junior-decouverte-d-un_sport[/video] [video=dailymotion;xwve6o]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xwve6o_vendee-globe-2012-week-10-highlights_sport  [/video] [video=dailymotion;xx9zsw]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xx9zsw_les-temps-forts-de-l-arrivee-de-jean-pierre-dick_sport[/video]






If you think of the earth as a sphere (which it is), the Vendée Globe is basically a race around Antarctica and then back to France.

The following are some videos clips as well as a full length version of a terrific French film called “En Solitaire”, probably the very best film ever made (or ever likely to be made) about open-ocean racing. The backdrop to the story is the Vendée Globe, and the movie is an interesting reflection on the need for solitude, and the more fundamental value of human solidarity:






The ending is astonishing, and might make you cry. Buy it Blue Ray; 360 DPI on YouTube won’t do it justice – see http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/En-Solitaire-Blu-ray/92090/ . And that way you can watch it with substitles.

They used lots and lots of Zodiacs when making the film....:coffeedrink::






So let's just say that open-ocean yachting is a very specialized taste, even amongst dedicated sailors like myself. Personally, I've never had any ambitions to participate in any kind of race like the the Vendée Globe . On the other hand, if someone offered me a free place on a boat participating in a inter-continental race like the RORC Trans-Atlantic, it would be an offer too good to pass up -- see http://rorctransatlantic.rorc.org , http://www.miramarsailing.com/yacht-racing/atlantic-racing/rorc-transatlantic-race-east-west , and http://www.stormforce.biz/Products/249/RORC-Trans-Atlantic-Race.html . But pay 4000 GBP for the experience?



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


7. Island-Hopping in the World's Favorite Cruising Grounds


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


Far more interesting is island-hopping in one of the world's "classic" cruising grounds. The big companies that rent out catamarans for cruising, like Sunsail, Moorings, and Dream Yacht Charter, all have their boats stationed in the same island clusters -- see http://www.sunsail.com/ , http://www.moorings.com , and http://www.dreamyachtcharter.com/english/about/bareboat-charters/ . For instance, the Bahamas, the Virgin Islands, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the Balearic islands off Spain, the Greek islands, the coasts of Croatia and Turkey, the Seychelles, Phuket, Raiatea (they all have their boats stationed there, closer to Bora-Bora than to Tahiti), Tonga, and the Whitsundays in Australia. In all cases these are island-clusters where moderately experienced sailors can make a passage between two islands in a day or less. So they can use "line of sight" navigation, and work their way through a set itinerary with comparative ease. Because they'll be anchored in a sheltered bay or marina every night, they'll have a relaxing, good time. And their anchorage spot will also be very scenic, because it will be an island, instead of the open ocean.

That is fun sailing/cruising. But using one's own boat to get between continents? I suppose if one were rich and could afford to pay a crew to do all the work, and constantly worry about the weather and possible storms..... then no problem.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

.​

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


8. The Better Alternative to a Big Yacht: TerraLiner Travel Across Oceans by RORO


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


My own preference would be accompanying the TerraLiner as it makes open-ocean, intercontinental crossings in a type of ship known as a "Pure Car Pure Truck" carrier. Many people mistakenly think that cars get shipped around the world by container. This is completely wrong. The vast majority of them are shipped in very specialized vessels that can accommodate thousands of vehicles.

The term for a vessel that rolls truck trailers and other kinds of vehicles on and off a ship by actually driving them, is RORO, or "Roll On Roll Off" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roll-on/roll-off . A wide variety of vessels can be classified as RORO: everything from a small ferry to the very biggest Pure Car Pure Truck carrier. The contrast here would be with LOLO vessels, or "Lift On Lift Off". Again, the range here is huge, from small vessels that ply coastal waters to the very biggest container ships:

RORO cargo consists of items such as cars, tractors, buses and trucks, or oversized cargo loaded on special flatbed, mafi or lowboy trailers. RORO is by far the simplest and cheapest method of shipping for vehicles.
 Vehicles are driven directly onto the RORO vessel and secured to the car decks. They are securely inside the vessel, wind-and-watertight.

RORO overseas shipping is the most popular way to transport cars between continents. The idea was created and developed by the Japanese car manufacturers to ship their cars to USA and Europe in a fast and efficient manner, by using specialized ships called “vehicle carriers”. 
Nowadays RORO carriers can handle not just cars but all types of motorized, rolling and even static cargo: trucks, boats, buses, motor homes, travel trailers, tractors, excavators, cranes, and other high & heavy equipment and machinery.
 International RORO shipping is popular with exporters and importers mainly for 2 reasons: cost and efficiency.

See http://www.aclcargo.com/whatisRoro.php , http://safewayshipping.com/services/ocean-freight/roro-shipping/ , and http://www.shipit.com/our-services/ocean-freight/roro-shipping/

Some more reasons for RORO:

· The safest and most inexpensive way to handle and transport oversized or special project cargo.
· Shipments often move as one piece using specialized trailers from origin to port to destination.
· Less physical handling and there is no need for costly dismantling and reassembly.
· There is no exposure to water or the elements because the cargo is always secured in ACL's RORO/Containership's garage decks for the entire voyage.

See http://www.aclcargo.com/whyRoro.php .



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


9. Against Containerization, and the Car & Truck Export Industry's Strong Preference for RORO


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


On Expo there seems to be a tendency to insist that expedition vehicles should be deliberately designed for the world of containerized transport: to fit inside the dimensions of a standard container. But perhaps because I am so familiar with the vast European system of RORO car/truck ferries, as well as the inter-continental system of Pure Car Pure Truck ships, this has always struck me as odd. Maybe it’s a cost thing; maybe containerized shipping of a vehicle via a “LOLO” vessel (again, Lift On Lift Off) still costs less than having it shipped via “RORO” vessel? – see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lift-on/lift-off , http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lo-lo.htm , http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/lo-lo-comp.htm , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Container_ships ?

But that's not how the car companies do it. So here are some RORO “Pure Car Pure Truck” ships underway:



[video=youtube;KHHsUrEfwBg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHHsUrEfwBg [/video] [video=youtube;YkwdPoINvfo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkwdPoINvfo [/video]
[video=youtube;TOvMhH3ossY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOvMhH3ossY [/video]
[video=youtube;kKyh5ZJFU18]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kKyh5ZJFU18&spfreload=10 [/video]
[video=youtube;vCB7UGgjlcM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCB7UGgjlcM [/video] [video=youtube;CMwNyxiUNYo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMwNyxiUNYo [/video]



Yes, these ships are simply massive.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

.​

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


And here are some videos of "Pure Car Pure Truck" ships loading and unloading their vehicles:



[video=youtube;T0H8TgWX-lY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T0H8TgWX-lY [/video] [video=youtube;y6xjrSRhan0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6xjrSRhan0 [/video]
[video=youtube;998ICKoyfR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=998ICKoyfR4 [/video] [video=youtube;j20sM31edmI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j20sM31edmI [/video] [video=youtube;fH-RqFO6kwo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fH-RqFO6kwo [/video]
[video=youtube;Y02nKaWebWU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y02nKaWebWU [/video] [video=youtube;lVGgRDy2K-I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVGgRDy2K-I [/video]



Seems like some RORO ships load their cars slowly, others load their cars lightning fast, perhaps depending on the value of the cars?? Notice how the Mercedes cars are wrapped in a kind of protective plastic, except for the door that the driver of the vehicle needs to use. Some of these also depict ships loading cars that are used, not new. Apparently there is now a global market even for used cars.

Here are two good video-documentaries that describe how car-carrier logistics work:



[video=youtube;TNY4Gd6YlAE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNY4Gd6YlAE [/video]


The comparative statistics here are important. Again, it's simply a mistake to think that most cars are moved around worldwide by container.

I couldn't find a more recent statistic, but in 2007, according to a spokesperson for CMA CGM, the third-largest ocean freight company in the world, about 10 million cars worldwide were transported by “Pure Car Pure Truck” ships, and only 1 million by containers – see http://container-mag.com/2007/08/09/cma-cgm-adds-car-carriers-to-fleet/ . So those on ExPo who think that shipping an expedition vehicle by container is the most “natural” or “standard” way to go – because supposedly that's how most cars and trucks worldwide cross oceans – could not be more wrong. RORO “Pure Car Pure Truck” ships absolutely dominate inter-continental vehicle transport, not container ships.

In short, although containerization is an extraordinary innovation that has revolutionized inter-modal transportation worldwide, it strikes me as an awfully strange way to ship a vehicle. Sure, there's the added security of having one's vehicle completely “contained” inside a tamper-proof metal box. But containerization seems to introduce an additional level of logistical complexity that doesn't seem to make sense, at least when dealing with reputable carriers. Containerization would also impose severe constraints on TerrraLiner design, constraints that I am simply unwilling to accept.

If I am wrong here, and if it seems like I simply fail to understand all the advantages of expedition vehicle containerization and LOLO, please post!!


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

.​

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


8. Taking an Ocean Cruise with the TerraLiner


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


Now although CMA CGM, a French company, is one of the world's leading ocean freight carriers, with one of the world's largest fleets, I don't think that they have any "Pure Car Pure Truck" carriers in their line-up -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMA_CGM . However, CMA CGM offers a rather extraordinary service: they take passengers on many of their cargo ships on so-called "Cargo Cruises" -- see http://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/cargo-cruise :







[video=youtube;wb6RO8dl2BE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6RO8dl2BE [/video]


Also be sure to watch the video at http://www.cma-cgm.com/products-services/cargo-cruise .

Grimaldi Lines does exactly the same thing, and Grimaldi's ships include lots of hybrid LOLO/RORO vessels that mix the two modalities. Most Grimaldi ships could easily accommodate a large truck like the TerraLiner as RORO cargo -- see http://www.grimaldi.napoli.it/en/car_carrier_container_service.html and http://www.grimaldi.napoli.it/en/ps_south_america-west_africa.html . So I figure that with a little planning, it should be possible to roll the TerraLiner onto a Grimaldi ship in Europe, and roll it off in South America or Africa, and actually accompany the TerraLiner enroute on the ship, as a "Cargo Cruise" passenger.

Yes, this still involves an ocean crossing, on a cargo vessel that is not the QE2, and that will offer little in the way of on-board entertainment. But one will get to know the crew very well, and it might be an opportunity to catch up on some reading, writing, sketching, and ExPo blogging.......:sombrero: .. If Wi-Fi were available.. And at least one would not have to worry about the weather, the waves, or cooking and cleaning: the crew would do all the work. Furthermore, because one is also a paying passenger, perhaps one could insist on the special service given to Rolls Royce cars on RORO ships that carry them cross the Atlantic: they are spaced at least on meter from the nearest vehicle, pillar, bulkhead, what have you. Sure, one might have to pay extra for it, but given that one would actually be on board the ship doing the transporting, one could also guarantee quality control, by inspecting the TerraLiner's placement and tied-down before the ship embarks.


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


9. The Inauthenticity of World Travel by Private Yacht


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


There's another issue to consider.

When one is sailing or cruising around the world between marinas, one is in effect traveling from one secure, protected, upscale, and wealthy gated community, to another. That's what yacht marinas are, sociologically speaking: they are gated communities. Even in First-World countries most marinas are surrounded by high fences with barbed wire on top, and they have security cameras everywhere.

So a marina in Brazil, for instance, will feel very "First World", and one will probably never see or directly experience the fact that most people in Brazil have Second-World incomes and lifestyles. Unless one makes an effort by renting a car and spending months away from the marina, one won't see much of the Brazilian countryside, one won't get to know the local geography and culture, and one won't get to know the people. There is something completely "artificial", "virtual", and "unreal" about the yachting experience. One can sail right around the world, and yet at the end of the journey, one probably has not seen that much of it. Sure, one has made lots of "friends" in the privileged sub-culture of yachties traveling around the world by boat. One has exchanged fresh vegetables in Fiji with that nice couple who one met back in Tahiti. And when one meets the nice couple again in the Whitsundays in Australia, everyone has a wonderful time getting drunk together.

But how much of the world has one actually, really seen? If one merely skirts the coast of China in a yacht, does one or even can one get to know China?

There's often the assumption that when sailing around the world in one's own boat -- which gives one the flexibility to stay in places for weeks at a time -- that somehow this is different from taking a Caribbean cruise on a huge floating hotel run by Carnival Cruises, Royal Caribbean, or Disney. But is it really all that different? Sure, the floating hotels only dock for a day. But at a deep structural level the Land-Ocean dynamic is still the same. Whereas there is something inherently different about driving with a vehicle through countries, as opposed to just skirting their coasts by boat.

Remember, I am an avid sailor, so I know "yachting culture" well, especially some of its prime watering holes like Antigua and Liguria. I make these observations as an insider. That's the reason why I chose to focus on TerraLiner design instead of ocean-going-catamaran design: because I think traveling the world by Expedition Vehicle, even a very large one, is bound to be more "authentic" than traveling the world by yacht.

But yes, I still want the TerraLiner to have a truly useful coastal exploration Hydrojet RIB dive-boat.....:sombrero:


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


Once again, I am getting way, way ahead of myself. I've written many pages -- pages that I have not yet posted -- about "RORO" vessels, the trans-European car-and-truck-ferry system, a somewhat similar system in the eastern Carribean operated by CMA CGM, island-hopping with the TerraLiner in the Caribbean from Miami to Trinidad, etc etc. . But right now I need to get back to "filling in" the 28 pages that I already posted!!
Yes, my weak spot is boats. So I probably should write the following: I will not be able to respond to any further postings for at least a week..... . Even if (or especially if!!!) the postings are about boats.....:088:



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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST

.​

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


10. A Possible Precedent for a Deep-Fording (1.5 m) Diesel-Electric Serial-Hybrid Bus-Sized Motorhome: the DATV 20


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


Now before I go "response silent", I just wanted to say, Libransser, that I really liked your post about the virtues of an expedition vehicle that would have an amphibious-like underbody: an underbody that could function as a "skid plate" when the TerraLiner goes over a hill, and reaches the limit of its "apex angle" or "breakover angle" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakover_angle . As you suggest, this would function much like a rock-slider in a 4x4, only much bigger and more "serious". The other thoughts in that post were also very interesting and useful.

I've been wondering for a while what kind of company would be best to "ford-proof" the TerraLiner. There might be the original manufacturer of the frame or drivetrain, a manufacturer like Tatra or Rheinmetall Man, which both have experience making large military trucks that can ford up to 1.5 m. But it also occurred to me that the TerraLiner is a motorhome, not just a military truck, and that it might want and need to store quite a few things "below the waterline", so to speak. So an expedition-vehicle specialist like ActionMobil or Unicat might seem more appropriate. Apparently they have positive-air-pressure systems on all of their below-fording-depth compartments, so that even if there is a leak, the water won't be able to enter because the air pressure alone will keep it out. Or at least that's the theory.

But then again, the TerraLiner will be a serial-hybrid vehicle with lots of electrical wiring, and from a center-of-gravity point of view, it would be best for heavy things like the diesel-elecrtic generators and lithium batters to be located as low as possible; again, below the 1.5 m "fording waterline". So a company specialized in constructing sophisticated serial-hybrid amphibians might be optimal.

Yes, such a company exists: it's called DATV, and is based in the Netherlands.

The most "concentrated" discussion of amphibious bus-sized vehicles that has taken place so far on the thread, begins at post #629 and following, to post #631-- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page63 . In the course of that discussion I did a bit of research, and came across DATV, which makes bus-sized amphibious vehicles -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amfibus , http://www.datbv.com , http://www.datbv.com/en/ , http://www.datbv.com/en/factsheet010.pdf , http://www.datbv.com/en/factsheet020.pdf, http://www.datbv.com/video.swf , http://www.floatingdutchman.nl/en/ , http://www.floatingdutchman.nl/en/fdtv/ , http://www.floatingdutchman.nl/index.php?page=fdtv&lang=en&vid=1 , http://www.floatingdutchman.nl/index.php?page=fdtv&lang=en&vid=2 , http://www.floatingdutchman.nl/en/news/ , https://www.youtube.com/user/Dutchamfibious , http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8505770.stm , http://www.splashtours.nl , http://www.splashtours.nl/en/ , http://www.splashtours.nl/en/splashtours-bus/ , and http://www.stagecoach.com/media/resources-library/image-library/other-images/amfibus.aspx . DATV has sold its product all over Europe, and again, this is real technology, and not vaporware.

What's especially intriguing about the DATV's Amphibus from the TerraLiner's point of view, is that one model, the DATV model 20, is actually a serial-hybrid, diesel-electric vehicle that contains a huge battery bank -- see http://www.amfibus.com andhttp://www.datbv.com/en/factsheet020.pdf :







So in effect, someone else (DATV) has already done all the engineering work necessary to figure out how to create a serial-hybrid diesel-electric vehicle that can ford up 1.5 m.... Agreed, the Amphibus is still not quite a motorhome, as per the TerraWind. But as near as I can tell the TerraWind is not a diesel-electric hybrid. Furthermore, granted, DATV is not in the business of constructing expedition vehicles with huge tires and unbreakable suspensions. But at the very least DATV seems worth consulting with.

Here are some of the DATV videos that I referenced earlier, but did not have space to embed. Now seems like an optimal moment to post another "DATV video gallery":



[video=youtube;tckW5eDvTUA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tckW5eDvTUA [/video] [video=youtube;p3wVaFNNC1s]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3wVaFNNC1s [/video]
[video=youtube;pvlGElo38G4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvlGElo38G4 [/video] [video=youtube;_n5QlBOvQYA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n5QlBOvQYA [/video]
[video=youtube;t8O12YzzkUg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8O12YzzkUg [/video] [video=youtube;7wySfiMQ6G0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wySfiMQ6G0 [/video]
[video=youtube;KQIadebptgU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_328107&feature=iv&s rc_vid=NI2VueerU7A&v=KQIadebptgU [/video] [video=youtube;fE_TiNx_riE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE_TiNx_riE [/video]



It also bears remarking that Rotterdam is an Atlantic port, where the Rhine meets the North Sea. I don't know whether the Amphibus that carries tourists around the port of Rotterdam drives through saltwater, freshwater, or some brackish combination of the two. But if it's brackish or saltwater, that would make DATV all the more attractive to consult with. Saltwater is much more corrosive and troublesome than freshwater. I also suspect that companies like Rheinmetall MAN and Tatra are generally habituated to only dealing with the problem of fording freshwater. But the TerraLiner will be a Surf Glamper, and it will spend lots of time on the beach. So having a company in the loop that understands how to create a serial hybrid vehicle that can handle saltwater..... The need is obvious. Even if the TerraLiner doesn't drive directly through saltwater, close to the coast salt corrosion is evident on everything, from cars parked long-term by the seaside, to metal fixtures in seaside homes.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


11. Two Diesel-Electric Jenoptik Generators, low-slung on the sides


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


By the way, I am no longer thinking of placing a Jenoptik generator up front, but rather, I've followed Haf-E's and egn's suggestion (I think it was theirs?) to place two Jenoptik generators (for redundancy) in the low-hanging "side lockers" in the space between the tandem axle (which will be in front, as per thjakits' "Chinese Six" suggestion), and the third rear axle. Basically, the diesel-electric Jenoptik generators will be located where the flotation tubes on the "Terra Wind" are located, when stored. The Jenoptik generator is not that wide in cross-section (just 60 cm), and it will fit perfectly into those side-locker spaces.

Yes, the two generators will be placed on slide-out trays for easy 360-degree access. But now the slide-out trays will be "side-pull" instead of "front-pull"; or that's how Tembo Tusk describes the difference -- see http://tembotusk.flyingcart.com/index.php?p=products&req=dept&id=2 . Put another way, the slide-out trays will extend laterally instead of long-ways, so they won't have to cantilever as much, and a given strength of slide-out tray will be able to support a Jenoptik generator that much more easily. Even still, these will have to be fairly heavy-duty slide-out trays, perhaps custom built. But slide-out trays that can hold over 1000 kg exist, and the Jenoptik generator is comparatively lightweight for the amount of power it produces: it weighs just 350 kg -- see http://www.jenoptik.com/en_40173_adsf263 and http://www.jenoptik.com/cms/product...D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf .

Of course, there will be the not-so-small matter of ensuring that these engine-compartments are completely watertight when the doors are shut, so that the TerraLiner had 1.5 m deep-fording capability. But again, that's where a specialist like Amphibus comes in.

When the thread-participant amphibeast first appeared in this discussion, a few participants groaned, "Oh gosh, and now the TerraLiner is gonna be amphibious, too???!!??" So I didn't pursue the "amphibious" discussion very much, because again, I honestly don't think that the TerraLiner needs to be amphibious. And adding the kinds of huge water jets that would be necessary for the TerraLiner to be amphibious, and keeping all the weight really low so that it could be stable in the water, well, that just introduces too much complexity, and it will severely restrict interior design possibilities. So to repeat, the TerraLiner will not be amphibious.

But I posted the material about Amphibus nonetheless, because this company struck me as a potentially terrific resource of information and design expertise, when it comes to creating a serial hybrid, diesel-electric TerraLiner that can deep-ford up to 1.5 m.

For a kind of "gazetteer" of the latest range of weird and wonderful amphibious ideas, see http://www.gizmag.com/cami-hydra-gator-budget-amphibious-vehicle/31890/ . But none of them strikes me as nearly as useful as those just discussed in the previous pages, namely, the various Gibbs products, the Iguana, the "Panther" Watercar, and above all, Sealegs.


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

As for locomotives, if I ever get around to finishing those 28 pages..... the final posts in that series will be packed with images of 1930's-era diesel beauties with huge, wrap-around, multi-segmented panoramic windshields....:wings:


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


As for the Smartflower, it's quite heavy, about 1000 kg -- see https://www.smartflower.com/en/techdata . But remember, this includes a full complement of storage batteries. Apparently Smartflower is currently working on a much lighter version.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


12. A High-Wind-Speed Resistant Solar Array


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


Now, as regards the portability of "Retractable Patio Covering Systems"..... I guess my main objective in bringing them up, was to signal to everyone that such highly wind-resistant awning systems do in fact exist. As you suggested yourself, the things are so strong, they can withstand winds and rains caused by hurricanes. So there is no reason why TerraLine awning design has to be limited to the available range of motorhome awnings.

Although the really wind-resistant Retractable Patio Covering Systems are clearly made out of very thick, robust, heavy tubing, I am betting that they could also be made out of much lighter tubing that is equally strong, albeit much more expensive. For instance, in the world of roll-cage construction, most are made out of T45 or 4130 steel alloys, and these have ultimate strengths in excess of 100,000 PSI, in contrast to low-grade steel alloys that have ultimate strengths less than half that, just 48,000 PSI -- seehttps://www.roguefab.com/calculator.php , http://aerocommetals.co.uk/company/history , http://aerocommetals.co.uk/downloads/fact-sheets , http://aerocommetals.co.uk/pdfs/factsheets/pms-magazine.pdf , http://aerocommetals.co.uk/blog/post.php?s=2014-02-14-what-is-the-best-material-for-my-roll-cage , http://aerocommetals.co.uk/t45-vs-4130-faqs , http://www.slideshare.net/AerocomMetals/metals-t45-vs4130 , and http://www.customcages.co.uk/roll-cages/what-material . Some aluminum alloys are also surprisingly strong; 7075-T6, for instance, had an ultimate strength of 83,000 PSI -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7075_aluminium_alloy .

I haven't crunched the numbers yet, and me and my engineering friends are still just playing with different ways to make the drop-down deck and the awning frame expand simultaneously, in the most efficient, elegant, and mechanically integrated way possible. And of course, we want it to expand in such a way that once open, the "awning frame box" will become absolutely rigid. Once we get the mechanics fully worked out, we'll start looking at various materials and their strength-to-weight ratios, and their suitability for different elements in the mechanism. But in principle, I think it really should be possible to construct an "expanding box frame" Retractable Patio Covering System. The key ingredient here is the drop-down deck, which can provide a secure, absolutely stable footing for the awning frame box. That drop-down deck changes everything. No RVs other than the Paradise Motorhome have such a large side-deck; or at least I haven't seen any others. Which is why standard motorhome awning systems have to figure out ways to provide some semblance of stability, without being able to "ground" themselves vertically in anything, at their far corners.

The idea here is potentially revolutionary. Except of course for the fact that it does depend on a rather large drop-down side-deck. That deck probably cost quite a bit to engineer and fit into the Paradise Motorhome, and the total cost of the Paradise Motorhome was more than a million. It's not even a very large vehicle; certainly not 45 feet long, like most Newel coaches, which also cost about 1 - 1.5 million.



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


13. The Hydrojet RIB Diving Boat Will Come First


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


Libransser , above you wrote:

Not wanting to extend much more the talk of boats right now, but before we change to other things...

If I have interpreted your comments correctly, am I understanding that you are designing the TerraLiner with the idea to be able to "carry" the RIB?

That's a nice, loaded sort of question.....:sombrero: Obviously a boat this large and heavy can't be carried on the roof. If it's over 6 m long, it also can't be stored in the TerraLiner trailer. And in any case, the TerraLiner trailer will be carrying the TOAD, lots of watersports equipment (surfboards, windsurfers, kite boards, kayaks, etc.), as well as a motorbike, and powered paragliders.

So let's just say that I've been thinking about the possibility of a very low-rise "RIB garage", just 80 or 90 cm tall, that would locate between the bottom of the vehicle and the camper floor above it. The space is certainly there, even though some of it will be used for batteries, electric drive motors, etc. If you consult the "stored" dimensions of RIBs that are designed to pack down as flat as possible, 80 - 90 cm is not unrealistic. You might think that the engine would be an issue, but even the biggest and most powerful Yanmar diesel engines in the 260 HP - 370 HP range are no more than 80 cm high, and are designed to fit snugly into the V-shaped hull of a boat. Yanmar is the diesel engine that Williams uses to power its line of Hydrojet boats, and Williams is the market leader in Hydrojet tenders. The Yanmar 260 HP engine is still a 6-cylinder, while the 370 HP is an 8 cylinder, but all that adding more cylinders does is lengthen the engine and increase its weight.

So I really do think that, in principle, a superb, ocean-capable RIB could be designed such that when its buoyancy tubes are deflated and the center console folded down, it might be no more than 90 cm high. The "RIB garage" would of course have to clear the independent suspension, but the garage itself could be V-shaped, just like the boat.

Even still, let me put it this way: because the RIB will contribute so crucially to the TerraLiner's Surf Glamper "theme", if the TerraLiner were a real-world project that might actually get built, I'd want to have the RIB custom-designed and fabricated by Zodiac first, long before doing anything else. And only after Zodiac had achieved the most compact, most "storable" RIB possible, could TerraLiner design begin in earnest, at a very detailed level. The TerraLiner would have to be designed around the RIB garage, and one would only really know the final dimensions of such a garage, once a working version of the RIB had been created. Furthermore, the Steyer-Jenoptik generators on the sides would have to be placed either further forward or further aft, depending on whether the garage door opens at the front of the vehicle, or the back. And this decision too may depend upon the ultimate achieved stored dimensions of the RIB.

Note that Zodiac is not the only company that makes high-performance, custom-designed and fabricated, military specification RIBs. As near as I can tell, there are at least 10 such companies, perhaps more, and they are all in the habit of custom-designing and fabricating RIBs from scratch. This is their standard business model, and it's not something "exceptional" that they do. Zodiac is merely the most famous fabricator of this kind of specialized, high-end RIB.


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


Well, that's about enough. I figure that I've now answered all of your questions, and then some!

So again, my apologies, but after this I will simply be unable to respond, for at least a week, maybe two...

All best wishes,.



BIotect

 

[Maninga]

I haven't crunched the numbers yet, and me and my engineering friends are still just playing with different ways to make the drop-down deck and the awning frame expand simultaneously, in the most efficient, elegant, and mechanically integrated way possible. And of course, we want it to expand in such a way that once open, the "awning frame box" will become absolutely rigid. Once we get the mechanics fully worked out, we'll start looking at various materials and their strength-to-weight ratios, and suitability for different elements in the mechanical design. But in principle, I think it really should be possible to construct an "expanding box frame" Retractable Patio Covering System. The key ingredient here is the drop-down deck, which can provide a secure, absolutely stable footing for the awning frame box. That drop-down deck changes everything. No RVs other than the Paradise Motorhome have such a deck; or at least I haven't seen any others. Which is why standard motorhome awning systems have to figure out ways to provide some semblance of stability, without being able to "ground" themselves vertically in anything, at their far corners.

The idea here is potentially revolutionary. Except of course for the fact that it does depend on a rather large drop-down side-deck. That deck probably cost quite a bit to engineer and fit into the Paradise Motorhome, and the total cost of the Paradise Motorhome was more than a million. It's not even a very large vehicle; certainly not 45 feet long, like most Newel coaches, which also cost about 1 - 1.5 million.

OK, that's enough.

Mate, will you finish the 28 pages already, I've been hanging out for 2 weeks waiting for you to finish them. :ylsmoke:

But as far as the deck goes, have another example for you to review. I saw the initial version a year or two back (it's made about 20km from where I used to live). This one's on a 4x4 motorhome by SLR caravans.







Some more details here
http://www.caravancampingsales.com....ky-deck-inventor-takes-rearguard-action-39900

Edit:
I also recently came across this interesting looking Unimog. I particularly like the sun room slide out. Might be a good way to bring the outside in even more
http://www.wildmog.com

 

[93Canter]

Tonto Pics

Back on page 29

Hi Mog,
... Now it would really be interesting to know how Quality Bus & Coach attaches the bus shell to the Iveco chassis...

I looked at a Tonto 4 mining bus recently and took a few photos underneath.









sorry about the orientation problems.

It looks like the chassis is stiffened and the shell sits on top. I guess it is still not any clearer.

 

[graynomad]

That SLR drop-down deck looks remarkably like the one I had on Wothahellizat Mk1 15 years ago

Note that mine did not need a leg, I don't know why theirs does.

EDIT: It looks like the leg is a safety feature, maybe required for a commercial product.

 

[biotect]

Hi Rob, Joe,

Excellent examples both.

Rob, many thanks for posting those Wothahellizat Mark I images of the deck-opening sequence.

You may not have come across the post where I wrote this, but the expansive, light, "open-ness" of the rear living-room/deck in the Wothahellizat Mark I continues to be a huge inspiration for me. It's such a great and very natural sort of idea: a deck at the back of the motorhome that continues the space of a rear living area. See post #129 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1569158#post1569158 . Although very natural, this idea does not seem to get picked up much in Class-A motorhomes, and the reason seems to be that most of them are diesel pushers. Ergo, the volume of the diesel engine in back makes a rear living room and drop-down deck impossible.

I also really liked how the Mark I was based on a snub-nosed Acco chassis. Almost COE (cab-over-engine), but not quite? So you still had front-bonnet engine access, as per a more standard CBE (cab-before-engine) design, with a longer bonnet? Or am I reading the images incorrectly? See http://robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/wot1/diaries/diary_03/index.php , http://robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/wot1/diaries/diary_04/index.php , http://robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/wot1/diaries/diary_35/index.php :








COE engine-placement usually requires a tilt-forward cab; for a fairly comprehensive discussion, see posts #110 - #127 on pages 11, 12, and 13 (standard ExPo pagination), at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page11 , http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page12 , and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page13 , or at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1566706#post1566706 and following. And any such tilt-forward COE cab would probably have messed up the overall Mark I design concept, in which the main bedroom takes advantage of space available above the cab, because the Acco's cab does not tilt forward? Or at least that seems to be what was going on in the Mark I....? See post #142 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page15 .

I was wondering, however: how did you gain access to the Acco engine, via such a short bonnet? As the images above suggest, there must have been a rather large engine tunnel between the driver and passenger seats in the cab? Was engine access an issue, because the Mark I's bonnet was so short? Or was engine access primarily through the cab, by lifting a covering over the engine tunnel, as per the Tonto? See http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...rsion-Free-Frame/page21?p=1577791#post1577791 , post #209. Did the base vehicle of the Mark I start out as a tilt-forward cab, and did you then convert it to Tonto-style engine-tunnel access? In Peter Thompson's fully integrated Mañana, engine access was also by a hatch over the engine tunnel.

In other words, were you explicitly cognizant of the standard design problem faced by diesel-powered expedition motorhomes which are not fully integrated, namely, that a COE cab-tilts-forward design eliminates any possibility of creating a large space above the cab, to serve as primary bedroom?

Laying out the "logical space" of the available design choices, it seems as if one has to choose between either good engine access, or a bedroom above the cab, or sacrifice overall motorhome interior volume because of a CBE design. What one can't seem to have is good engine access + a bedroom above the cab + a rear living room and deck + elimination of a long CBE bonnet in front. Laid out logically, one can have either:


(1) A CBE design like the Zetros, in which engine access is good, because one simply lifts the front bonnet. A bedroom could go above the cab, because the cab doesn't lift, and a living room and deck could go in the rear. But one has already lost about 1.6 - 2m of length (depending on how one wants to measure these things), because of the CBE format in front.

(2) A COE design in which engine access is good, because the cab is COE and tilt-forward, and in contrast to CBE the "volumetric" possibilities of a given vehicle length are maximized. But one can't have a living room + deck in the back, because the bedroom has to go there. And the bedroom has to go in back, because the bedroom can't go above the COE, tilt-forward cab.....

(3) A "Pusher" engine placement at the rear of a fully integrated motorhome, where again engine access is good. But again one can't have a living room + deck in the back, because the diesel's volume in the back will be too big (the UFO chassis being the only possible exception -- see posts #116 - 119 on page 12, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1566714#post1566714 and following). So instead, in diesel "Pusher" engine-placement the box that contains the diesel in back typically becomes the base for a slightly elevated rear bed, and again, the bedroom locates at the rear.

(4) One can have both a front bedroom as well as a living room + deck in the back, but one has to sacrifice engine access, "settling" for access via a lift-off hatch over the engine tunnel.


In the long discussion of various CBE/COE tradeoffs, egn made it clear that he did not like option (4) one bit:

There are a lot of (older) trucks that have engine access from inside the cab. But I wouldn't want that in a luxury vehicle, because I don't like when truck mechanics work inside the vehicle. You always then have the risk that something gets damaged, dirty and you also get the diesel and oil smell into your cabin.

But the more that I think about it, the more it seems that option (4) is precisely what you implemented in the Wothahellizat Mark I? It would be interesting to know if this is true. And furthermore, it would be interesting to know if you were keenly aware of the design tradeoffs, and decided to go with option (4) in any case, because of the tremendous amount of interior space that it opens up, as well as the chance to have a living room + drop-down deck in the back?

In short, it would be great if you might be wiling to clarify the question of engine access in the Mark I, when/if you have the time.....



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


It's interesting how design decisions at one end have a domino-impact at the other; and how because of such constraints, there is really not that much variation or innovation in Class-A motorhome layouts. The world of expedition motorhomes is even worse, because it is still working with a business model in which a camper box just gets stuck on the back of a mining truck, eg. a MAN TGS or a Mercedes Actros. Expedition motorhome fabricators are still living in the "pre-integrated", custom-bespoke era. But even in the world of fully integrated American Class-A motorhomes or German Liners, there are at best no more than 5 standard motorhome layouts. And in all of them the main bedroom locates at the back. Even despite all the innovation in slide-out technology over the last 15 years, there's really not much difference in spatial layout between a low-end Class-A and a high-specification Newell.

As such, the Wothahellizat Mark I remains truly inspiring for me, because you made a chassis decision that then allowed you to develop what is in effect a very non-standard motorhome layout, with the main bedroom placed forwards instead of in the rear. Thereby freeing up the space in rear for a living room + deck.

The TerraLiner design that I've been working on has been full serial hybrid for more than a year now, so the diesel generators can locate on the sides, and I am no longer design-constrained by engine-placement. This frees up both the front and the back of the vehicle, so a rear deck becomes eminently feasible. The TerraLiner will most definitely have a rear deck, in addition to side-decks. So from the point of view of TerraLiner design, the whole COE/CBE/Pusher/Engine-Tunnel debate has become moot.

However, as a matter of historical record, I am still curious if you became explicitly aware of the the limited number of design choices available when creating the Mark I, and realized that you had to "bite the bullet" so to speak, if you wanted genuine interior design freedom? And that you'd have to "settle" for engine-tunnel access? Again, the reason I am asking is because the Mark I has proven so inspiring. It seems like you just "cut the gordian knot", demoted engine access as a primary concern, and then explored the new spatial layout possibilities that this strategically critical decision opens up.

The historical importance of your design experimentation will be this. Over the next 20 years there is no question that all Class A motorhomes will become serial hybrids. As they do, it will occur to one motorhome designer after another that diesel-engine-generator placement at the back or the front of the vehicle is non-optimal, and that placing the diesel generator (or generators) on the sides of the motorhome is the logical way to go. Suddenly all the design constraints described above will vanish, and it will soon seem self-evident to everyone that having some kind of pop-up in front for the main bedroom would also be optimal, because this then allows space for a living room + drop-down deck in the rear. In a nutshell, my prediction is that 20 years from now, literally everyone in the motorhome industry will come to recognize the Wothahellizat Mark I as the precedent for the spatial format that will come to completely dominate Class-A motorhome design. In effect, in the Wothahellizat Mark I you "prematurely" explored exactly the kinds of spatial possibilities that serial-hybrid technology will open up over the next few decades. The Mark I will be recognized as the design-grand-daddy of most large Class A motorhomes built circa 2035.

So it would be interesting to know how explicitly "self-conscious" your design thinking was....

Note that even if you just felt your way through to a solution with a piece of metal pipe in one hand, and a blowtorch in the other, thinking like a sculptor "on the fly", that too would deserve the highest regard. My own strong tendency when it comes to transportation design process and design education, is to believe that nothing -- and I mean nothing -- is ever a substitute for working in the real world with models, preferably life-size ones of the clay-and-plaster kind that were once standard in transportation design. 3-D spatial intelligence is something different again than 2-D drawing intelligence. Even working with the best CAD in the most state-of-the-art Virtual Reality suite, the "haptic intelligence" that might otherwise flow freely will be blocked -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_perception , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptics , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology .

For further discussion see post #629 on page 69, where I discuss "haptic intelligence" in detail, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1670433#post1670433 .



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


You probably already know this, but since you built the Mark I and published the images, a few trailer manufacturers have come out with rear-deck trailers, most famously Knauss-Tabbert with its Caraviso "concept trailer of the future" -- see post #5 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1559631#post1559631 , and post #141 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1569160#post1569160. I've often wondered to what extent such manufacturers were directly inspired by the Mark I, i.e. by the abundant images of the Mark I that have been circulating on the Internet?

In the case of a trailer it's much easier to attach a deck in back, because there's no engine to worry about. The "natural" or "logical" spatial sequence in a trailer is the exact inverse of a motorhome: in a trailer the bedroom usually belongs in the front, and the living room in the rear. It's just odd that only very recently have trailer manufacturers realized that this also means they can have the living room spill out onto a rear deck, as per the the Mark I and now the Knauss-Tabbert Caravisio. A rear deck adds so much value to a trailer, that it's a strange that not more trailers have had one in the past.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

Mate, will you finish the 28 pages already, I've been hanging out for 2 weeks waiting for you to finish them. :ylsmoke:

Hi Joe,

I am still working on the monster posting-series. I've gotten a bit bogged down in the section about TerraLiner water-autonomy, because it's such a huge topic. The more I investigate and learn, the more I want to add material to the things that I've already written. With that said, I should have the section that discusses TerraLiner water autonomy finished within the next week or so, and should begin working on the solar-energy section shortly.

For better or worse this is a "process" for me, and what you are seeing in this thread are often rough-draft ideas that have not yet been completely worked out. Inspiration does not happen magically or suddenly; one has to work at it, and keep thinking and rethinking. I began dedicating myself to this thread in earnest precisely because it became a very useful forum in which to "think out loud", developing and refining ideas through a recursive process. I've also learned that the the deeper I immerse myself in the TerraLiner concept, the more that thinking through possible real-world "logistical scenarios" has become important. Indeed, every bit as important as more obvious purely "visual" design work.

On my own view, when Bran Ferren and his team were working on the Kiravan, they wasted too much time on drawing and CAD, and did not spend enough time simply thinking. In his presentation about the Kiravan on AOL Ferren seems to recognize this. At a few points in his talk he suggests that he gradually came to see the futility of lots of drawing and detailed CAD work, when the most basic logistical parameters of the Kiravan had still not been sufficiently or precisely defined -- see http://on.aol.com/video/designing-a-family-friendly-extreme-expedition-vehicle-517751459 . Trouble is, once Ferrren realized this, he was more than a year into his design process, and he had probably already spent a fortune. He cites a figure of something like 137 drawings before he realized that his team needed to think more, and draw less. And 137 drawings do not come cheap.

Furthermore, once Ferren's team did try to think more "logistically", on my own view they got their thinking wrong. Or they simply did not do enough logistical thinking, and they did not sufficiently research the possible practical contexts of Kiravan overlanding. They did not entertain enough hypothetical Kiravan itineraries, and they failed to make some critical distinctions. For instance, that "sojourning" and "exploring" are conceptually distinct enterprises, and that they should perhaps be thought of as mechanically separate enterprises as well, best performed by separate vehicles. Or that there is no such thing as a single, homogenous "Third World" that stands in binary contrast to the "First World". And that design of a large, Class-A size globally capable motorhome needs to work with a more complex, nuanced socioeconomic understanding of how countries differ.

This may not seem like "design" work to many people. But for me, by far the most valuable "design" thinking I've done over the last two years has been conceptual rather than visual.

For me it has been incredibly important to gain understanding of certain critical distinctions, like First/Second/Third/Fourth World; how the TerraLiner does not need to be designed for mud-tracks in the Fourth World; how the TerraLiner does not need to rock-crawl, because that's the job of the TOAD instead; how the best possible combination will be a "maximal" TerraLiner for sojourning, paired with a super-"minimal", very small TOAD for exploring, rock-crawling, and fetching groceries; and so on. For me personally, some of my favorite posts so far are #1563 to #1569 on page 157, in which I also skewer a few sacred cows, like the very idea that there could be such a thing as an "expedition vehicle" in our era; or that anyone today could be considered a genuine "explorer". See http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1924005#post1924005 and following, or page 157 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page157 .

Insights like these are very valuable. After all, how truly useful is the Kiravan that Bran Ferren ended up with, given that his Unimog Tractor in front is way too big and too tall to fetch groceries with, in a Second-World or Third-World open-air market? If the Kiravan's Tractor is not that useful, then failing to think things through sufficiently was a costly mistake. Ergo, all the logistical stuff that I've been posting in the water-autonomy section, with hypothetical itineraries......

The complete 28 pages should be done by the end of November, but I can't promise that they will be. It's proving a tremendous amount of work, perhaps because I've allowed myself to continue thinking and revising as I fill in the posts. That keeps things interesting and fun for me, and filling in the posts does not become a mere mechanical chore. It also means that my thinking becomes even more clear and articulate.

But the price is that dedicated participants like yourself are in effect forced to watch paint dry....:sombrero:

In short, for what it's worth, my apologies..... ,,,As you know, your feedback and postings in this thread have proven invaluable. So just thought I should explain what's going on; as a dedicated participant, you deserve at least that much.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[Maninga]

Hi
But the price is that dedicated participants like yourself are in effect forced to watch paint dry....:sombrero:

In short, for what it's worth, my apologies..... ,,,As you know, your feedback and postings in this thread have proven invaluable. So just thought I should explain what's going on; as a dedicated participant, you deserve at least that much.

Hahahaha! All good, I'm used too paint drying (renovating house ATM). Also have several notebooks full of designs/layouts for what I'd like to build sometime, including a couple of campers and houses for different purposes, the thinking portion is an important aspect prior to final design/build.

I started re-reading the section on attaching a toad. I've often thought about building a bigger camper, ours is small(ish) and comfortable but there's a few design decisions I'd do over if given the chance, including length. This might then necessitate use of a toad, but would I really want to tow another vehicle/trailer, think that would be more trouble that it's worth and to me raises the question of why wouldn't I use something like an Iveco Daily converted into something livable for a weeks time, and a caravan like the Kimberly Kruiser for longer term living.

For us, we've just bought an inflatable boat with outboard motor and looking at buying an electric bike like this
http://www.stealthelectricbikes.com/stealth-b-52-bomber/

Gives us the second source of transport but can be stowed within overall confines of the truck.

 

[Haf-E]

That is an impressive electric bike - didn't think you could get 5.2 kW of power out of a hub motor though. Most of these types of bikes are really electric motor cycles with the pedals there mostly to make them able to be claimed as being a bicycle still - getting around licensing of them and allowing use on bike trails. Most states have a maximum power rating however - often its 250 watts - so this clearly exceeds that limit.

I think it would be an excellent option on a expo rig and should be easy to charge off an inverter while driving so its always "full" when you stop.

 

[Maninga]

Their factory is about 10 minutes from where I used to live. Multiple years of R&D, custom parts etc gone into it. Not road legal by any means, it's 250w here also, but rare enough that likelyhood of getting booked if using it would be minimal as still looks like a bike.

Haven't ridden one yet but guy I know is looking to buy one, will give it a try then. They're about 10k each too, we either get 2 of these, or cheaper bikes and an auto conversion on the truck.