TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain
- Thread starter biotect
- Start date
Iain_U1250
Explorer
Not an expert by any means, but have done quite a few remote oil and gas well site designs where we run both solar and generators for the control systems and pumps.
If you just take the simplest form, and assume 600kWh pack, then it would take at least a 60kW genset 10 hours to charge it (Consider the normal RV Honda four stroke more people take camping is only 2kW) and it will be more like 12-14hours if you take into account absorption time, losses etc, ) Likewise for a 90 minute re-charge, around a 450-500kW genset would be needed given there will be a lot more losses with rapid charging. A 450kW genset is massive - bigger than the motor required to drive a bus, so not really practical at all.
You need to look at the overall energy balance of your system. You need a certain amount of power to drive around, and all you can do is make it as efficient as possible. You can work out the wind resistance and the power require - but without taking into account going up a hill or headwinds
FRoll = Cr × m × g
Cr being some coefficient (which is about 0.005-0.008 on tar, a lot more in sand.)
m being the vehicle's total mass,
and g being 9.81 m/sec2.
FAir = A/2 × Cd × D × v2
with
A being the frontal area of the car in m2,
Cd being the drag coefficient,
D being the density of air (1.29 kg/m3) and
v being the velocity in m/sec.
P = (FRoll + FAir) × v
If you need 600kWH for a 10 hour trip, or 60kW per hour, and I doubt that something a large as you are proposing would only use 60kW/hr to drive at any reasonable speed, with hills, etc, probably closer to 100kW/hr, you need to get the power from somewhere, no matter how efficient you make it, that is a lot of power. Diesel-electric hybrid would not be as efficient as a straight modern diesel, given the extra weight in batteries and electric motors you will be carrying.
When it comes to batteries, you need at least 1.5 x what you initially think, as their performance does deteriorate with time, so that is going to add weight and space. Diesel generator are pretty efficient in the larger sizes, but they are also very heavy, not meant to be dragged around. If you have to pull the extra batteries and a big generator around with you, then you will need even more power than the 120-180kW, and you have to carry the diesel around as well, so it becomes self defeating.
The only way you could consider it would be to plug it in to a power station every night, like they do with the buses. A 60kW feed will require a dedicate power supply, as that is way more than a normal household connection, and would certainly not be found in any remote or rural area.
If you just take the simplest form, and assume 600kWh pack, then it would take at least a 60kW genset 10 hours to charge it (Consider the normal RV Honda four stroke more people take camping is only 2kW) and it will be more like 12-14hours if you take into account absorption time, losses etc, ) Likewise for a 90 minute re-charge, around a 450-500kW genset would be needed given there will be a lot more losses with rapid charging. A 450kW genset is massive - bigger than the motor required to drive a bus, so not really practical at all.
You need to look at the overall energy balance of your system. You need a certain amount of power to drive around, and all you can do is make it as efficient as possible. You can work out the wind resistance and the power require - but without taking into account going up a hill or headwinds
FRoll = Cr × m × g
Cr being some coefficient (which is about 0.005-0.008 on tar, a lot more in sand.)
m being the vehicle's total mass,
and g being 9.81 m/sec2.
FAir = A/2 × Cd × D × v2
with
A being the frontal area of the car in m2,
Cd being the drag coefficient,
D being the density of air (1.29 kg/m3) and
v being the velocity in m/sec.
P = (FRoll + FAir) × v
If you need 600kWH for a 10 hour trip, or 60kW per hour, and I doubt that something a large as you are proposing would only use 60kW/hr to drive at any reasonable speed, with hills, etc, probably closer to 100kW/hr, you need to get the power from somewhere, no matter how efficient you make it, that is a lot of power. Diesel-electric hybrid would not be as efficient as a straight modern diesel, given the extra weight in batteries and electric motors you will be carrying.
When it comes to batteries, you need at least 1.5 x what you initially think, as their performance does deteriorate with time, so that is going to add weight and space. Diesel generator are pretty efficient in the larger sizes, but they are also very heavy, not meant to be dragged around. If you have to pull the extra batteries and a big generator around with you, then you will need even more power than the 120-180kW, and you have to carry the diesel around as well, so it becomes self defeating.
The only way you could consider it would be to plug it in to a power station every night, like they do with the buses. A 60kW feed will require a dedicate power supply, as that is way more than a normal household connection, and would certainly not be found in any remote or rural area.
biotect
Designer
Hi Ian,
Many, many thanks for responding to the previous posting series, and offering some calculations. It's as I suspected: those super-fast 10 minute or even 90 minute charging times advertised by some e-buses are happening only at charging stations, charging stations that can deliver a mega-KW wallop, at least 600 KW or more. Which is something that no on-board generator or solar array will be able to do.
So assuming a 600 KW battery-pack for the sake of simplicity, a 60 KW genset would be able to recharge it in about 12 - 14 hours. But the solar array on the roof will not. At best, the solar array will produce only 10 KW. So the solar array would need as least 2.5 days of continuous sunshine (60 divided by 24 hours) in order to recharge the battery-pack. And probably longer, more like 3 days of continuous sunshine. But sunshine is not continuous, night also occurs, and 10 KW is an optimal, "peak efficiency" figure. So the time needed to recharge a 600 KW battery pack using 10 KW solar array would be more like a 8 to 10 days, or perhaps even longer.
Ergo, it does not really make sense to imagine the TerraLiner as thjakits was imagining it in post #1889, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1955964#post1955964 . In that post thjakits was imagining the TerraLainer as a serial hybrid that runs off a single electric charge between two points as distant as 1000 km apart; and then recharging at night using a smaller generator, or perhaps over subsequent days using solar. But camped out somewhere during the night is precisely when one does not want to run diesel generators, if only because they will make noise, and because many campgrounds forbid it. Much better instead to run the diesel generators during the day whilst actually driving, so that they keep topping up the battery bank continuously, while the TerraLiner's electric motors simultaneously draw current from the batteries .
I then find myself returning to egn's comment much earlier in the thread, where he insisted that in a hybrid configuration, a diesel generator does not have to be that large, because the battery bank acts as a buffer providing "peak power" when accelerating, climbing hills, etc. In effect, in a hybrid configuration one can get the same performance out of a three-cyliider engine as a six-cylinder engine, as demonstrated in that BMW i8 "Top Gear" video just posted in #1916, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959995#post1959995 :
[video=dailymotion;x2h9uzy]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h9uzy [/video]
Or see http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h9uzy .
Sure, in the BMW i8 the 3-cylinder petrol engine also functions in "parallel hybrid" configuration, directly driving the car's rear axle. But the BMW i8 only has the performance that it does, because the battery bank and the electric motor up front provide the "surge" needed for fast acceleration, and the extra horsepower needed for top speed.
Recall then that a while back egn got into a bit of a debate with other participants on this thread, because he thought that the size of diesel generator(s) that the TerraLiner will need should be much smaller than their estimates. The culmination of that debate was a post that egn addressed to me, but that could very usefully have been addressed to just about anyone who wants to debate hybrid technology. So I figure I should repost it here, complete:
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Many, many thanks for responding to the previous posting series, and offering some calculations. It's as I suspected: those super-fast 10 minute or even 90 minute charging times advertised by some e-buses are happening only at charging stations, charging stations that can deliver a mega-KW wallop, at least 600 KW or more. Which is something that no on-board generator or solar array will be able to do.
So assuming a 600 KW battery-pack for the sake of simplicity, a 60 KW genset would be able to recharge it in about 12 - 14 hours. But the solar array on the roof will not. At best, the solar array will produce only 10 KW. So the solar array would need as least 2.5 days of continuous sunshine (60 divided by 24 hours) in order to recharge the battery-pack. And probably longer, more like 3 days of continuous sunshine. But sunshine is not continuous, night also occurs, and 10 KW is an optimal, "peak efficiency" figure. So the time needed to recharge a 600 KW battery pack using 10 KW solar array would be more like a 8 to 10 days, or perhaps even longer.
Ergo, it does not really make sense to imagine the TerraLiner as thjakits was imagining it in post #1889, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1955964#post1955964 . In that post thjakits was imagining the TerraLainer as a serial hybrid that runs off a single electric charge between two points as distant as 1000 km apart; and then recharging at night using a smaller generator, or perhaps over subsequent days using solar. But camped out somewhere during the night is precisely when one does not want to run diesel generators, if only because they will make noise, and because many campgrounds forbid it. Much better instead to run the diesel generators during the day whilst actually driving, so that they keep topping up the battery bank continuously, while the TerraLiner's electric motors simultaneously draw current from the batteries .
I then find myself returning to egn's comment much earlier in the thread, where he insisted that in a hybrid configuration, a diesel generator does not have to be that large, because the battery bank acts as a buffer providing "peak power" when accelerating, climbing hills, etc. In effect, in a hybrid configuration one can get the same performance out of a three-cyliider engine as a six-cylinder engine, as demonstrated in that BMW i8 "Top Gear" video just posted in #1916, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959995#post1959995 :
[video=dailymotion;x2h9uzy]http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h9uzy [/video]
Or see http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2h9uzy .
Sure, in the BMW i8 the 3-cylinder petrol engine also functions in "parallel hybrid" configuration, directly driving the car's rear axle. But the BMW i8 only has the performance that it does, because the battery bank and the electric motor up front provide the "surge" needed for fast acceleration, and the extra horsepower needed for top speed.
Recall then that a while back egn got into a bit of a debate with other participants on this thread, because he thought that the size of diesel generator(s) that the TerraLiner will need should be much smaller than their estimates. The culmination of that debate was a post that egn addressed to me, but that could very usefully have been addressed to just about anyone who wants to debate hybrid technology. So I figure I should repost it here, complete:
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
That was a simply terrific post, probably egn's very best. If a thread participant still does not quite understand egn's argument in that post, just watch the Top Gear video, and then read egn's post again. Or vice versa. In effect the Top Gear video perfectly illustrates egn's post, and egn's post provides the perfect explanation of the Top Gear video.
I was then glad that egn got a bit "aggressive" in his language, for instance, when he wrote "it seems that you have no feeling for how much power [240 KW is]". Because the truth of the matter is, I don't have any feeling for such things! I've stated throughout this thread that I don't. However, some who have debated such matters quite aggressively, seem to be convinced that they do understand such matters not only theoretically, but also intuitively, at the same level that egn understands such matters. Unfortunately, it has occurred to me more than once that egn tends to understand such matters at a level of theoretical + practical know-how that vastly exceeds the capacity of most other participants......:sombrero:
So I figured that egn's slightly aggressive tone had a much wider "target" than just little old me. egn could have just as easily written, "it seems that many participants on this thread have no feeling for how much power [240 KW is]". After egn posted this, I could not help but notice that the whole "power requirement" debate on this thread went silent. I signaled my gratitude to egn immediately following, in post #1300, and that was that.
Seen in this light, I read thjakits' post as trying to pick up from where egn left off. In effect, thjakits seemed to be reasoning that perhaps an even larger battery bank might make an even smaller diesel generator possible. But thinking things through, it seems that this speculation is mistaken.
However, before we continue thinking all of this through, perhaps I should repeat egn's suggestion: that if a revived debate about the TerraLiner's power requirements gets rather heated again (it may....), all those participating should ask themselves whether they really do have any genuine "feeling" for how much power 240 KW is, let alone 600 KW.....:ylsmoke:
**************************************************
Again, I definitely don't have that feeling. But thought I should post the following very tentative remarks just the same....:sombrero: :
1. It seems that the TerraLiner's optimum battery-pack for hybrid propulsion would be "medium sized", and not huge, i.e. not 600 KW. Or put another way, merely considered as one component in an optimal hybrid configuration, the TerraLiner battery pack only needs to be big enough in order to provide reliable "peak power" when accelerating, climbing an incline, and so on. But beyond that, any larger would be pointless.
Sure, a larger battery pack would extend the "electric-only" driving range of the TerraLiner, i.e. the distance that it could travel in "eco-stealth" mode, very silently, running on just the battery. But there is not really much value in that for a vehicle like the TerraLiner. The TerraLiner only needs to be able to drive on electricity alone for about an hour or two, or just 50 - 100 miles. And perhaps not even that much? No steep incline will ever last more than two hours of continuous travel, and in any case, the diesel generators could have been activated long before the batteries were even half-drained. Thereby extending the "peak power output" of the batteries much further. On an extended steep incline the batteries would still be draining faster than the generators would be charging them, but they would be draining more slowly than if the generators were not charging them at all.
**************************************************
2. Furthermore, given that a very large (600 KW) battery pack could not be charged by a super-big 10 KW solar array in a reasonable amount of time, and given that one would not want to charge it overnight using the diesel generators, there would be no point to having it, at least not for driving.
**************************************************
3. Now there might still be a point to having such a large battery-pack for glamping, if one were to imagine this battery-pack as a third source of power for camper systems when stationary, in addition to the solar array and the diesel generators. If the TerraLiner were camped in a place where it might be advisable not to run the diesel generators to provide camper-box power, and if rainfall and cloud cover were preventing the solar array from working well, a large battery-pack might provide a third level of back-up. But this needs to be weighed against the comparative efficiency of possible alternatives, like fuel cells, which egn has suggested deserve a further look -- see post #127 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1754439#post1754439 .
**************************************************
4. So given that the TerraLiner's battery pack would at best be medium-sized, the diesel generators required to keep it topped up while driving do not have to be that large either. In his comment reposted above egn uses the figure 240 KW, partly because that's the combined power output of two Jenoptik diesel generators, and partly because that's an arbitrary figure I had mentioned when reasoning on the basis of the Oshkosh MTVR, a hybrid medium-sized truck which has a 300 KW diesel generator -- see post #1294 and following, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1753594#post1753594 . However, the Oshkosh MTVR uses ultra-capacitors, not lithium batteries, and is a "pure diesel electric" solution, with no battery storage. Which means that the MTVR's diesel generator has to be more or less as big as any diesel engine powering the axles directly would have been. But as egn then suggested, the size of diesel generator required changes substantially when instead of super-capactors that carry only a momentary charge, a vehicle carries a substantial battery bank.
**************************************************
5. On the basis of this exchange with egn, I've then concluded that the combined power output of the TerraLiner's diesel generators could be 240 KW or less. Earlier in the thread a few participants suggested that the TerraLiner might use two Jenoptik generators, for redundancy, which would produce 120 KW each, or 240 KW in total. This still strikes me as a good plan.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
That was a simply terrific post, probably egn's very best. If a thread participant still does not quite understand egn's argument in that post, just watch the Top Gear video, and then read egn's post again. Or vice versa. In effect the Top Gear video perfectly illustrates egn's post, and egn's post provides the perfect explanation of the Top Gear video.
I was then glad that egn got a bit "aggressive" in his language, for instance, when he wrote "it seems that you have no feeling for how much power [240 KW is]". Because the truth of the matter is, I don't have any feeling for such things! I've stated throughout this thread that I don't. However, some who have debated such matters quite aggressively, seem to be convinced that they do understand such matters not only theoretically, but also intuitively, at the same level that egn understands such matters. Unfortunately, it has occurred to me more than once that egn tends to understand such matters at a level of theoretical + practical know-how that vastly exceeds the capacity of most other participants......:sombrero:
So I figured that egn's slightly aggressive tone had a much wider "target" than just little old me. egn could have just as easily written, "it seems that many participants on this thread have no feeling for how much power [240 KW is]". After egn posted this, I could not help but notice that the whole "power requirement" debate on this thread went silent. I signaled my gratitude to egn immediately following, in post #1300, and that was that.
Seen in this light, I read thjakits' post as trying to pick up from where egn left off. In effect, thjakits seemed to be reasoning that perhaps an even larger battery bank might make an even smaller diesel generator possible. But thinking things through, it seems that this speculation is mistaken.
However, before we continue thinking all of this through, perhaps I should repeat egn's suggestion: that if a revived debate about the TerraLiner's power requirements gets rather heated again (it may....), all those participating should ask themselves whether they really do have any genuine "feeling" for how much power 240 KW is, let alone 600 KW.....:ylsmoke:
**************************************************
Again, I definitely don't have that feeling. But thought I should post the following very tentative remarks just the same....:sombrero: :
1. It seems that the TerraLiner's optimum battery-pack for hybrid propulsion would be "medium sized", and not huge, i.e. not 600 KW. Or put another way, merely considered as one component in an optimal hybrid configuration, the TerraLiner battery pack only needs to be big enough in order to provide reliable "peak power" when accelerating, climbing an incline, and so on. But beyond that, any larger would be pointless.
Sure, a larger battery pack would extend the "electric-only" driving range of the TerraLiner, i.e. the distance that it could travel in "eco-stealth" mode, very silently, running on just the battery. But there is not really much value in that for a vehicle like the TerraLiner. The TerraLiner only needs to be able to drive on electricity alone for about an hour or two, or just 50 - 100 miles. And perhaps not even that much? No steep incline will ever last more than two hours of continuous travel, and in any case, the diesel generators could have been activated long before the batteries were even half-drained. Thereby extending the "peak power output" of the batteries much further. On an extended steep incline the batteries would still be draining faster than the generators would be charging them, but they would be draining more slowly than if the generators were not charging them at all.
**************************************************
2. Furthermore, given that a very large (600 KW) battery pack could not be charged by a super-big 10 KW solar array in a reasonable amount of time, and given that one would not want to charge it overnight using the diesel generators, there would be no point to having it, at least not for driving.
**************************************************
3. Now there might still be a point to having such a large battery-pack for glamping, if one were to imagine this battery-pack as a third source of power for camper systems when stationary, in addition to the solar array and the diesel generators. If the TerraLiner were camped in a place where it might be advisable not to run the diesel generators to provide camper-box power, and if rainfall and cloud cover were preventing the solar array from working well, a large battery-pack might provide a third level of back-up. But this needs to be weighed against the comparative efficiency of possible alternatives, like fuel cells, which egn has suggested deserve a further look -- see post #127 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1754439#post1754439 .
**************************************************
4. So given that the TerraLiner's battery pack would at best be medium-sized, the diesel generators required to keep it topped up while driving do not have to be that large either. In his comment reposted above egn uses the figure 240 KW, partly because that's the combined power output of two Jenoptik diesel generators, and partly because that's an arbitrary figure I had mentioned when reasoning on the basis of the Oshkosh MTVR, a hybrid medium-sized truck which has a 300 KW diesel generator -- see post #1294 and following, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1753594#post1753594 . However, the Oshkosh MTVR uses ultra-capacitors, not lithium batteries, and is a "pure diesel electric" solution, with no battery storage. Which means that the MTVR's diesel generator has to be more or less as big as any diesel engine powering the axles directly would have been. But as egn then suggested, the size of diesel generator required changes substantially when instead of super-capactors that carry only a momentary charge, a vehicle carries a substantial battery bank.
**************************************************
5. On the basis of this exchange with egn, I've then concluded that the combined power output of the TerraLiner's diesel generators could be 240 KW or less. Earlier in the thread a few participants suggested that the TerraLiner might use two Jenoptik generators, for redundancy, which would produce 120 KW each, or 240 KW in total. This still strikes me as a good plan.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
6. I am not convinced that two such diesel generators would be all that heavy, given that the weight specified for a 120 KW Jenoptilk is about 350 kg -- see https://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf :
This Jenoptik turbocharged diesel generator was designed to be very lightweight, for use in hybrid buses, and it has mil-spec engine made by Steyr, one also used more conventionally in light-weight military SUVs. 350 kg may seem like a great deal, but compared to the typical weight of the 20 KW diesel generators that most Class-A motorhomes carry, it's unbelievably light, given that the Jenoptik does produces 120 KW instead of just 20 KW, and given that it incorporates a flywheel. I haven't yet completed the posts in the 28-page sequence in which I mull through comparative diesel generator sizes and weights. But when I do, I will insert a link here to that discussion, a discussion in which I demonstrate just how comparatively light the Jenoptik is, given its 120 KW power output.
Side-note: when I first read this PDF, I didn't quite understand the very specific, intended market of this generator. As the first page states, it's intended for "trolley bus and duo-bus" systems. After the last few pages, it's now clear: this is a generator to provide on-board electric power when a trolley bus is no longer connected to a source of power via overhead wires. It's a generator designed specifically for a "dual mode" electric trolley bus.
**************************************************
7. Now Lith-ion batteries and the surrounding safety protection they require will certainly be heavy. But again, a 600 KW battery pack is simply not necessary, and adds no value. So when it comes to the weight of the battery pack and surrounding enclosure, we will be talking about a much smaller figure as well.
**************************************************
8. Going in the opposite direction, it also has to be stated quite emphatically that the TerraLine will need to carry a reasonably large battery-pack in any case. Getting completely rid of a Lith-ion battery pack is simply not an option, and it's not realistic. Why? Well, because the TerraLiner will want to glamp for months at a time off-grid, preferably using just solar for the most part. A battery pack serves to "even out" the power produced by the solar array, during the night when there is no sunshine for instance, and during days that are overcast or rainy.
What will be the power draw of the camper, when stationary? Honestly, I am still not sure. It all depends. In the above quote egn cites figures which suggest that the average German uses 4 KW per day, so he seems to think that 10 KW per day should suffice for the TerraLiner. But for me there remains the fact that almost all American Class-A motorhomes come equipped with 20 KW generators. They are probably so equipped because they have excellent air-conditioning. And Germans are not exactly known for being A/C enthusiasts, egn included. When it comes to air-conditioning I am on the side of the Americans, not the Germans, and so here I think egn is underestimating. This is one of the few places in the thread where I've found myself disagreeing with egn.....:ylsmoke:
In addition, I think egn is underestimating the power needed by the camper because the TerraLiner will have far-infrared thin-film radiant panel heating; it will have a GE Advantium electric oven (or equivalent); it will have two Atmospheric Water Generators (AWGs), as well as a Watermaker; and so on. So it seems eminently possible to me that the TerraLine might consume 20 KW per day glamping in a "Coastal Fog Desert", making water from humidity at night using the AWGs, and running the A/C during the day when it gets very hot.
Does this mean that the battery pack should be 200 KW, so that the TerraLiner can draw electricity for 10 days without having to rely on the diesel generator or solar power? Again, I think not. I am not a solar purist, and I am also not against running diesel generators when camping. I have already stated a number of times that I don't think that even the best and largest possible solar array will be sufficient to meet the TerraLiner's glamping needs. Running a diesel generator when glamping will still prove necessary. So even if the TerraLiner's camper were drawing 20 KW per day instead of 10 KW, a 100 KW battery bank should still suffice, because that would provide a continuous stream of power for five days. If it's overcast and solar just isn't working very well for a period longer than that, then the TerraLiner will simply have to fire up the diesel generator(s). I personally have no problem with that.
**************************************************
9. In short, eliminating a medium-sized or "reasonably large" Lith-Ion battery bank in the 100 KW range is not realistic at all.
One line of reasoning in favor of hybrid then goes that given that the TerraLine needs to carry a reasonably large battery bank in any case, about 100 KW, why not go serial hybrid? This would solve the biggest problem of contemporary ICE motors, from an overlanding point of view: namely, that they are filled with electronic components, and are not designed to be "fail safe". In other words, they have potential single points of failure. Whereas with two Jenoptik 110 KW diesel generators on board (or the equivalent), and a hybrid drive-train, it should be possible for the TerraLiner to never find itself stuck anywhere.
The basic problem is that contemporary ICE engines are no longer fix-it-yourself. Gunther Holtorf, who drove a pre-electronic Mercedes G-wagen around the world for about 24 years, has stated in interviews that he thinks no car would be able to do the same today, because contemporary cars -- including G-wagens -- are now so loaded with electronics -- see http://www.ottosreise.de/en/start.html , http://www.ottosreise.de/en/details/kenya.html , http://www.dw.com/en/gunther-holtor...rld-could-be-the-longest-road-trip/a-17986286 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html , http://www.outsideonline.com/1912491/worlds-greatest-traveler-1988-mercedes-has-been-172-countries , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...ing-556-000-miles-215-countries-mercedes.html , http://www.autoblog.com/2014/10/16/german-man-drives-mercedes-g-wagen-on-557k-mile-26-year-road-tr/ , and https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/classic/mercedes-benz-g-class-ottos-world-tour-video/ :
[video=youtube;-Ad3mbgqmCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ad3mbgqmCg [/video] [video=youtube;YpeYOWK3l9E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpeYOWK3l9E [/video]
And see posts #1563 and #1564 for still images, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1924005#post1924005 .
Holtorf is a trained mechanic, and he carried a big supply of spare parts with him wherever he went. But even Holtorf thinks that he could not possibly have repaired a contemporary, 2015-model G-wagen, driving along the same route.
So what's the solution to this very practical conundrum? As I stated in post #1916, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959995#post1959995, the solution seems to be going hybrid, so that one can build in fail-safe redundancy.
Please remember, I am not designing the TerraLiner for 2015. And even less am I designing the TerraLiner for the automotive world that some middle-aged participants on ExPo wish would still exist, the fix-it-yourself salad days of the 1980s and earlier. For better or worse, I am designing the TerraLiner for 2018 - 2020, when emissions restrictions will become only tighter, not loser, and ICE motors will become only more complicated as a consequence.
**************************************************
10. So given all of the above, I am not certain whether a conventional diesel engine would prove more fuel-efficient than a serial-hybrid drive train after all.
Sure, it still might, and Ian, I do appreciate your bringing up this possibility. I am not a militant believer in all things hybrid; in my own lifestyle I am not that particularly Green; when I taught some Art History and Philosophy courses in my mid-20's,I probably killed a few big trees, given the number of photocopies I handed out to students; and like Franz Redwitz, the spokesperson for MAN who I quoted earlier, I tend to view many supposedly "Green" vehicles with suspicion. See post # 1905 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959794#post1959794 . I also tend to view most Green zealots with suspicion, because typically their emotions rule their heads, and they don't have the brains or mental calm necessary to follow the kind of argument that Redwitz makes in that post: that an all-electric trolley bus system might actually prove less "Green", than a traditional diesel bus system.
But it isn't gas milage that I am worried about, so much as the "single point of failure" problem. When very early on in the thread egn first suggested that hybrid was the way to go in order to surmount this problem, I could see the argument immediately. Early on in the thread I wanted to address other issues first. But now that those are out of the way, contemplating power and hybrid technologies has become central. So following egn, I don't think that the diesel generators have to be quite as big as perhaps you might be imagining. And thjakits to the contrary, a huge, 600 KW battery-pack probably will not add much value. So following egn, a 100 KW battery pack should probably suffice.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
6. I am not convinced that two such diesel generators would be all that heavy, given that the weight specified for a 120 KW Jenoptilk is about 350 kg -- see https://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf :
This Jenoptik turbocharged diesel generator was designed to be very lightweight, for use in hybrid buses, and it has mil-spec engine made by Steyr, one also used more conventionally in light-weight military SUVs. 350 kg may seem like a great deal, but compared to the typical weight of the 20 KW diesel generators that most Class-A motorhomes carry, it's unbelievably light, given that the Jenoptik does produces 120 KW instead of just 20 KW, and given that it incorporates a flywheel. I haven't yet completed the posts in the 28-page sequence in which I mull through comparative diesel generator sizes and weights. But when I do, I will insert a link here to that discussion, a discussion in which I demonstrate just how comparatively light the Jenoptik is, given its 120 KW power output.
Side-note: when I first read this PDF, I didn't quite understand the very specific, intended market of this generator. As the first page states, it's intended for "trolley bus and duo-bus" systems. After the last few pages, it's now clear: this is a generator to provide on-board electric power when a trolley bus is no longer connected to a source of power via overhead wires. It's a generator designed specifically for a "dual mode" electric trolley bus.
**************************************************
7. Now Lith-ion batteries and the surrounding safety protection they require will certainly be heavy. But again, a 600 KW battery pack is simply not necessary, and adds no value. So when it comes to the weight of the battery pack and surrounding enclosure, we will be talking about a much smaller figure as well.
**************************************************
8. Going in the opposite direction, it also has to be stated quite emphatically that the TerraLine will need to carry a reasonably large battery-pack in any case. Getting completely rid of a Lith-ion battery pack is simply not an option, and it's not realistic. Why? Well, because the TerraLiner will want to glamp for months at a time off-grid, preferably using just solar for the most part. A battery pack serves to "even out" the power produced by the solar array, during the night when there is no sunshine for instance, and during days that are overcast or rainy.
What will be the power draw of the camper, when stationary? Honestly, I am still not sure. It all depends. In the above quote egn cites figures which suggest that the average German uses 4 KW per day, so he seems to think that 10 KW per day should suffice for the TerraLiner. But for me there remains the fact that almost all American Class-A motorhomes come equipped with 20 KW generators. They are probably so equipped because they have excellent air-conditioning. And Germans are not exactly known for being A/C enthusiasts, egn included. When it comes to air-conditioning I am on the side of the Americans, not the Germans, and so here I think egn is underestimating. This is one of the few places in the thread where I've found myself disagreeing with egn.....:ylsmoke:
In addition, I think egn is underestimating the power needed by the camper because the TerraLiner will have far-infrared thin-film radiant panel heating; it will have a GE Advantium electric oven (or equivalent); it will have two Atmospheric Water Generators (AWGs), as well as a Watermaker; and so on. So it seems eminently possible to me that the TerraLine might consume 20 KW per day glamping in a "Coastal Fog Desert", making water from humidity at night using the AWGs, and running the A/C during the day when it gets very hot.
Does this mean that the battery pack should be 200 KW, so that the TerraLiner can draw electricity for 10 days without having to rely on the diesel generator or solar power? Again, I think not. I am not a solar purist, and I am also not against running diesel generators when camping. I have already stated a number of times that I don't think that even the best and largest possible solar array will be sufficient to meet the TerraLiner's glamping needs. Running a diesel generator when glamping will still prove necessary. So even if the TerraLiner's camper were drawing 20 KW per day instead of 10 KW, a 100 KW battery bank should still suffice, because that would provide a continuous stream of power for five days. If it's overcast and solar just isn't working very well for a period longer than that, then the TerraLiner will simply have to fire up the diesel generator(s). I personally have no problem with that.
**************************************************
9. In short, eliminating a medium-sized or "reasonably large" Lith-Ion battery bank in the 100 KW range is not realistic at all.
One line of reasoning in favor of hybrid then goes that given that the TerraLine needs to carry a reasonably large battery bank in any case, about 100 KW, why not go serial hybrid? This would solve the biggest problem of contemporary ICE motors, from an overlanding point of view: namely, that they are filled with electronic components, and are not designed to be "fail safe". In other words, they have potential single points of failure. Whereas with two Jenoptik 110 KW diesel generators on board (or the equivalent), and a hybrid drive-train, it should be possible for the TerraLiner to never find itself stuck anywhere.
The basic problem is that contemporary ICE engines are no longer fix-it-yourself. Gunther Holtorf, who drove a pre-electronic Mercedes G-wagen around the world for about 24 years, has stated in interviews that he thinks no car would be able to do the same today, because contemporary cars -- including G-wagens -- are now so loaded with electronics -- see http://www.ottosreise.de/en/start.html , http://www.ottosreise.de/en/details/kenya.html , http://www.dw.com/en/gunther-holtor...rld-could-be-the-longest-road-trip/a-17986286 , http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/2014/newsspec_8703/index.html , http://www.outsideonline.com/1912491/worlds-greatest-traveler-1988-mercedes-has-been-172-countries , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...ing-556-000-miles-215-countries-mercedes.html , http://www.autoblog.com/2014/10/16/german-man-drives-mercedes-g-wagen-on-557k-mile-26-year-road-tr/ , and https://www.mercedes-benz.com/en/mercedes-benz/classic/mercedes-benz-g-class-ottos-world-tour-video/ :
[video=youtube;-Ad3mbgqmCg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ad3mbgqmCg [/video] [video=youtube;YpeYOWK3l9E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YpeYOWK3l9E [/video]
And see posts #1563 and #1564 for still images, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1924005#post1924005 .
Holtorf is a trained mechanic, and he carried a big supply of spare parts with him wherever he went. But even Holtorf thinks that he could not possibly have repaired a contemporary, 2015-model G-wagen, driving along the same route.
So what's the solution to this very practical conundrum? As I stated in post #1916, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959995#post1959995, the solution seems to be going hybrid, so that one can build in fail-safe redundancy.
Please remember, I am not designing the TerraLiner for 2015. And even less am I designing the TerraLiner for the automotive world that some middle-aged participants on ExPo wish would still exist, the fix-it-yourself salad days of the 1980s and earlier. For better or worse, I am designing the TerraLiner for 2018 - 2020, when emissions restrictions will become only tighter, not loser, and ICE motors will become only more complicated as a consequence.
**************************************************
10. So given all of the above, I am not certain whether a conventional diesel engine would prove more fuel-efficient than a serial-hybrid drive train after all.
Sure, it still might, and Ian, I do appreciate your bringing up this possibility. I am not a militant believer in all things hybrid; in my own lifestyle I am not that particularly Green; when I taught some Art History and Philosophy courses in my mid-20's,I probably killed a few big trees, given the number of photocopies I handed out to students; and like Franz Redwitz, the spokesperson for MAN who I quoted earlier, I tend to view many supposedly "Green" vehicles with suspicion. See post # 1905 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1959794#post1959794 . I also tend to view most Green zealots with suspicion, because typically their emotions rule their heads, and they don't have the brains or mental calm necessary to follow the kind of argument that Redwitz makes in that post: that an all-electric trolley bus system might actually prove less "Green", than a traditional diesel bus system.
But it isn't gas milage that I am worried about, so much as the "single point of failure" problem. When very early on in the thread egn first suggested that hybrid was the way to go in order to surmount this problem, I could see the argument immediately. Early on in the thread I wanted to address other issues first. But now that those are out of the way, contemplating power and hybrid technologies has become central. So following egn, I don't think that the diesel generators have to be quite as big as perhaps you might be imagining. And thjakits to the contrary, a huge, 600 KW battery-pack probably will not add much value. So following egn, a 100 KW battery pack should probably suffice.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
Some Caveats
**************************************************
Now Ian, I appreciate that you were probably thinking of huge diesel generators only because I proposed a humungous battery-pack bigger than 500 KW. Proposing that was very much my fault.
So too thjaktis, if you are reading this, I appreciate that your post was purely speculative, a good example of a very fruitful "out-of-the-box" contribution. Such contributions are always welcome, because who knows where they might lead? In this case, they led me to research electric trolley buses, through which I found some terrific, very au-courant and up-to-date material on the contemporary state of all-electric and hybrid bus manufacturing in Europe. But at the same time, "out of the box" contributions have to be thought through carefully. And if what I just wrote above is at all cogent, then a super-large, 600 KW battery-pack would seem completely unnecessary.
I could be wrong. One of my degrees is in Philosophy, so I have been trained to argue very forcefully, and sometimes my training gets the better of me. But because I was trained as a Philosopher, I am also keenly aware of the provisional status of most empirical knowledge-claims. I like to think of myself as always very open to new evidence and argument, just as long as a knowledge-claim or counter-claim is not merely asserted, but rather, is in fact backed up by evidence and argument.
So if the reasoning above is mistaken for some very good reason, please fire away!!
**************************************************
"Realism" or "Practicality"
**************************************************
On the larger issue of "realism" or "practicality", which some will occasionally raise as a rhetorical gambit to advance their point of view.......
Here I may have to just dogmatically stipulate that the TerraLiner will be a hybrid, and that there is no further argument to be had.
It's not that I necessarily want the TerraLiner to be a hybrid myself. When I first began designing it, it was no such thing. But egn and Haf-E are both very practical types, just as realistic as any other participants here on ExPo might claim to be. And yet both have made it clear that they think the TerraLiner will probably have to a hybrid, in order to surmount the "single point of failure" problem. See post #503, which collates their comments on this topic, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1652357#post1652357 . I have come around to agreeing with them, which is why I began exploring hybrid possibilities so assiduously in this thread.
Don't get me wrong. When it comes to certain elements of TerraLiner design, for instance, the mechanical and structural elements like the steering assembly, the chassis, and the camper shell, my strong inclination is to want to be very conservative, and very "practical". But different participants on this thread seem to have different ideas as to exactly what parts of the TerraLiner should be designed more "realistically" or "conservatively", versus what parts should be designed more "futuristically" or "experimentally". We all have different conceptions of our "ideal" motorhome. thjakits, for instance, wants conservative solid axles, but a super-futuristic, completely unified tubular space frame. campo wants the tubular space frame too, but favors independent suspension, and yet now seems reticent about going hybrid.....? And others will have their particular mix of preferences, too.
So for the record, here I should state that the TerraLiner will be "avant-garde", "futuristic", and "experimental" in every possible area of design, engineering, and logistics, with the sole exception of the most basic mechanical and structural elements. I already explained my reasoning at some length in post #1883 - #1884, and again in post #1890, on page 189 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1955352#post1955352. So won't bother repeating those arguments here.
If this particular mix of "conservative" and "futuristic" makes some participants unhappy, then so be it. I've made my choice, and this strikes me personally as the very best possible mix of "conservative" and "progressive".
**************************************************
In closing, once again Ian, many, many thanks for your contribution. It may yet spark another extended "TerraLiner power requirements" debate. At the very least, it helped to clarify my own thinking immensely.
If possible, please participate more often!! I would love to hear more about your aluminum-skin-on-galvinized-steel-frame camper construction, for instance. Like me, you seem to be fond of volumes more complex than cubes, volumes that don't just have 90-degree angles. So I was wondering: why did you choose aluminum skin instead of fiberglass for your self-build? Repairability? Appearance? Thermal properties? Would you choose aluminum if someone else were constructing the motorhome? Or would you choose fiberglass instead?
In another thread you also mentioned that the aluminum skin on your camper is particularly thick. In what sense particularly thick? And why did you choose for it to be so?
Other thread participants: please see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...-galvanized-STEEL-frame?p=1898198#post1898198 , and check out Ian's wonderful 50-page build-thread at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction and http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page49 . Not TerraLiner-sized, but his camper box has non-rectilinear angles, and it's not just a box!!!:wings::wings:!!:
Ian, I particularly love the bevelled corners in back. Just way super-sick, and super-impressive in a self-build. Most who self-build never tackle geometries as complex as this, let alone the "professionals" who build expedition motorhomes.....:sunny:
All best wishes,
Biotect
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************************
Some Caveats
**************************************************
Now Ian, I appreciate that you were probably thinking of huge diesel generators only because I proposed a humungous battery-pack bigger than 500 KW. Proposing that was very much my fault.
So too thjaktis, if you are reading this, I appreciate that your post was purely speculative, a good example of a very fruitful "out-of-the-box" contribution. Such contributions are always welcome, because who knows where they might lead? In this case, they led me to research electric trolley buses, through which I found some terrific, very au-courant and up-to-date material on the contemporary state of all-electric and hybrid bus manufacturing in Europe. But at the same time, "out of the box" contributions have to be thought through carefully. And if what I just wrote above is at all cogent, then a super-large, 600 KW battery-pack would seem completely unnecessary.
I could be wrong. One of my degrees is in Philosophy, so I have been trained to argue very forcefully, and sometimes my training gets the better of me. But because I was trained as a Philosopher, I am also keenly aware of the provisional status of most empirical knowledge-claims. I like to think of myself as always very open to new evidence and argument, just as long as a knowledge-claim or counter-claim is not merely asserted, but rather, is in fact backed up by evidence and argument.
So if the reasoning above is mistaken for some very good reason, please fire away!!
**************************************************
"Realism" or "Practicality"
**************************************************
On the larger issue of "realism" or "practicality", which some will occasionally raise as a rhetorical gambit to advance their point of view.......
Here I may have to just dogmatically stipulate that the TerraLiner will be a hybrid, and that there is no further argument to be had.
It's not that I necessarily want the TerraLiner to be a hybrid myself. When I first began designing it, it was no such thing. But egn and Haf-E are both very practical types, just as realistic as any other participants here on ExPo might claim to be. And yet both have made it clear that they think the TerraLiner will probably have to a hybrid, in order to surmount the "single point of failure" problem. See post #503, which collates their comments on this topic, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1652357#post1652357 . I have come around to agreeing with them, which is why I began exploring hybrid possibilities so assiduously in this thread.
Don't get me wrong. When it comes to certain elements of TerraLiner design, for instance, the mechanical and structural elements like the steering assembly, the chassis, and the camper shell, my strong inclination is to want to be very conservative, and very "practical". But different participants on this thread seem to have different ideas as to exactly what parts of the TerraLiner should be designed more "realistically" or "conservatively", versus what parts should be designed more "futuristically" or "experimentally". We all have different conceptions of our "ideal" motorhome. thjakits, for instance, wants conservative solid axles, but a super-futuristic, completely unified tubular space frame. campo wants the tubular space frame too, but favors independent suspension, and yet now seems reticent about going hybrid.....? And others will have their particular mix of preferences, too.
So for the record, here I should state that the TerraLiner will be "avant-garde", "futuristic", and "experimental" in every possible area of design, engineering, and logistics, with the sole exception of the most basic mechanical and structural elements. I already explained my reasoning at some length in post #1883 - #1884, and again in post #1890, on page 189 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1955352#post1955352. So won't bother repeating those arguments here.
If this particular mix of "conservative" and "futuristic" makes some participants unhappy, then so be it. I've made my choice, and this strikes me personally as the very best possible mix of "conservative" and "progressive".
**************************************************
In closing, once again Ian, many, many thanks for your contribution. It may yet spark another extended "TerraLiner power requirements" debate. At the very least, it helped to clarify my own thinking immensely.
If possible, please participate more often!! I would love to hear more about your aluminum-skin-on-galvinized-steel-frame camper construction, for instance. Like me, you seem to be fond of volumes more complex than cubes, volumes that don't just have 90-degree angles. So I was wondering: why did you choose aluminum skin instead of fiberglass for your self-build? Repairability? Appearance? Thermal properties? Would you choose aluminum if someone else were constructing the motorhome? Or would you choose fiberglass instead?
In another thread you also mentioned that the aluminum skin on your camper is particularly thick. In what sense particularly thick? And why did you choose for it to be so?
Other thread participants: please see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...-galvanized-STEEL-frame?p=1898198#post1898198 , and check out Ian's wonderful 50-page build-thread at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction and http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page49 . Not TerraLiner-sized, but his camper box has non-rectilinear angles, and it's not just a box!!!:wings::wings:!!:
Ian, I particularly love the bevelled corners in back. Just way super-sick, and super-impressive in a self-build. Most who self-build never tackle geometries as complex as this, let alone the "professionals" who build expedition motorhomes.....:sunny:
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
This thread has some good discussion & info on air conditioning for motorhomes.
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...oning-Units-for-non-generator-powered-campers
LeishaShannon has a very nice setup, using a domestic high efficiency split system that uses 350w when running. Sat in his truck for a while, was quiet and certainly felt it cooling. Still thinking of putting one our build also.
Iain_U1250
Explorer
Thanks for the compliments, I had been designing my truck for years before I eventually starting building it. I just could not build something that looked like a refrigeration truck, you go to have some "Style" 
The angled roof is from practical experience the best way for an off-road truck of this height to reduce the risk of damage. The angled corners and back window was just for looks. We did not loose much in the way of useful interior space, and gained a lot in the "Style" department.
The aluminium is 2mm thick, reinforced in the corners and edges with either 3mm chequerplate, or 3mm flat aluminium. The main reason for using aluminium / steel construction is it can be repaired fairly easily, a dent can be pulled out, and a tear in the aluminium skin can be patched in the field with another bit of aluminium and more Sika flex. 2mm aluminium is much thicker than what I have seen in commercial builds, who use 1.2mm or 1.6mm. I played around with some 1.2mm aluminium, it would bend under it's own weight and dent if you leaned on it. 1.6mm was better but still easily dented, but I found the 2mm aluminium was pretty strong, light enough for me to handle a whole sheet by myself and I could walk on it without it denting. I did consider 3mm chequerplate like Rob Grey ( http://www.robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/index.php but that would have been very heavy on our little truck. The available sheet size ( 1.2 x 2.4m) set the overall width of the vehicle, by taking into account the folds and where I wanted the joints on the sheets to keep chance of water leaks to a minimum. I wanted the "leak path" to be very long and where possible, on a vertical slope.
I looked at all the various options ( Fibreglass, Monopan, Balsa wood core), and various other sheet materials, I want to buy sheet materials mainly because it was something I wanted to build this myself. I wanted to be able to repair it out in the field and most importantly to be water tight. I spoke to various owners of Unicat, GXV, and a few other fibreglass /sheet material camper owners, and their biggest complaint was water leaks in in the panels. All of the owners have truck over 5 years old with more than 100,000km on them, and each had hit an overhead tree or something in the past. Somewhere on the roof of the truck there was a leak, and there was a certain "musty" smell about their trucks that I did not like. When I did all the calculation on weight saving, there was not much to be gained, maybe 50kg or so, and these panel systems were pretty expensive in those days over here in Australia. I looked at a cast fibreglass box. I have built numerous fibreglass things from car bonnets, model boats, moulds for concrete etc. It is just not practical to produce a mould and make a fibreglass camper for a one off prototype, way too much effort and you still have the problem of the joins and improperly cured resins. I saw Rob Greys build up of his truck, and that looked like the most practical way a single person can build a truck, with the minimum of outside help. His own experience with 10 years on the road in the Mk1 truck shows that it is a durable form of construction. After reading both his build threads, I decided that was the way to go for my own build. It would enable me to make changes fairly easily, steel is very forgiving during the early parts of the build, we had to a few things during our build due to slight changes in the dimensions with various things we had to buy, the seats out of the Jaguar S-type being slightly wider than planned due to the space needed for the seatbelts, the fridge & freeze slides and frames adding another 50mm to the fridge cabinet, and all the other various build tolerances the keep on adding up.
The other main factor was that we wanted the seat in the rear to be properly certified so we can use them whilst driving. The "Australia Design Rules" are pretty complex, and they refer to the back having to be "Substantial" before people can be allow in the back. All the fibreglass designs which have rear seats have internal steel frames, and this is in accordance with another "VSB" or "ADR", so I followed the one for buses and build my internal frame based on a bus with fully braced frames at the front and rear of the truck like a roll cage - so it would be considered "Substantial". After seeing my frame design and doing the calcs, the ADR Approved Engineer considers them to be "Substantial" None of the composite panel system would have complied with these requirements.
I understand your commitment to a hybrid vehicle, but from my own experience in trying to make many things fit in a small space, I think you need to do some rough modelling of the sizes and space constraints off all of the things you are proposing to put into this truck, how much it will weigh, and how "user serviceable" it will be out in the middle of Mongolia or some remote part of Siberia. You don't want to end up with a Kiravan
The angled roof is from practical experience the best way for an off-road truck of this height to reduce the risk of damage. The angled corners and back window was just for looks. We did not loose much in the way of useful interior space, and gained a lot in the "Style" department. The aluminium is 2mm thick, reinforced in the corners and edges with either 3mm chequerplate, or 3mm flat aluminium. The main reason for using aluminium / steel construction is it can be repaired fairly easily, a dent can be pulled out, and a tear in the aluminium skin can be patched in the field with another bit of aluminium and more Sika flex. 2mm aluminium is much thicker than what I have seen in commercial builds, who use 1.2mm or 1.6mm. I played around with some 1.2mm aluminium, it would bend under it's own weight and dent if you leaned on it. 1.6mm was better but still easily dented, but I found the 2mm aluminium was pretty strong, light enough for me to handle a whole sheet by myself and I could walk on it without it denting. I did consider 3mm chequerplate like Rob Grey ( http://www.robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/index.php but that would have been very heavy on our little truck. The available sheet size ( 1.2 x 2.4m) set the overall width of the vehicle, by taking into account the folds and where I wanted the joints on the sheets to keep chance of water leaks to a minimum. I wanted the "leak path" to be very long and where possible, on a vertical slope.
I looked at all the various options ( Fibreglass, Monopan, Balsa wood core), and various other sheet materials, I want to buy sheet materials mainly because it was something I wanted to build this myself. I wanted to be able to repair it out in the field and most importantly to be water tight. I spoke to various owners of Unicat, GXV, and a few other fibreglass /sheet material camper owners, and their biggest complaint was water leaks in in the panels. All of the owners have truck over 5 years old with more than 100,000km on them, and each had hit an overhead tree or something in the past. Somewhere on the roof of the truck there was a leak, and there was a certain "musty" smell about their trucks that I did not like. When I did all the calculation on weight saving, there was not much to be gained, maybe 50kg or so, and these panel systems were pretty expensive in those days over here in Australia. I looked at a cast fibreglass box. I have built numerous fibreglass things from car bonnets, model boats, moulds for concrete etc. It is just not practical to produce a mould and make a fibreglass camper for a one off prototype, way too much effort and you still have the problem of the joins and improperly cured resins. I saw Rob Greys build up of his truck, and that looked like the most practical way a single person can build a truck, with the minimum of outside help. His own experience with 10 years on the road in the Mk1 truck shows that it is a durable form of construction. After reading both his build threads, I decided that was the way to go for my own build. It would enable me to make changes fairly easily, steel is very forgiving during the early parts of the build, we had to a few things during our build due to slight changes in the dimensions with various things we had to buy, the seats out of the Jaguar S-type being slightly wider than planned due to the space needed for the seatbelts, the fridge & freeze slides and frames adding another 50mm to the fridge cabinet, and all the other various build tolerances the keep on adding up.
The other main factor was that we wanted the seat in the rear to be properly certified so we can use them whilst driving. The "Australia Design Rules" are pretty complex, and they refer to the back having to be "Substantial" before people can be allow in the back. All the fibreglass designs which have rear seats have internal steel frames, and this is in accordance with another "VSB" or "ADR", so I followed the one for buses and build my internal frame based on a bus with fully braced frames at the front and rear of the truck like a roll cage - so it would be considered "Substantial". After seeing my frame design and doing the calcs, the ADR Approved Engineer considers them to be "Substantial"
None of the composite panel system would have complied with these requirements. I understand your commitment to a hybrid vehicle, but from my own experience in trying to make many things fit in a small space, I think you need to do some rough modelling of the sizes and space constraints off all of the things you are proposing to put into this truck, how much it will weigh, and how "user serviceable" it will be out in the middle of Mongolia or some remote part of Siberia. You don't want to end up with a Kiravan
Last edited:
campo
Adventurer
hybrid drive and electrical power pack
Hi all
Without having read all the details yet I have allready some ideas.
.
@Biotect and all
I do agree that EGN wrote a magnificent piece concerning the battery needs for the hybrid propulsion. As the combustion engine can be “relatively” small there is less concern that it has to be gas or diesel. The best engine efficiency but also future environment qualification will have to determine.
An other problem for the efficiency is always that in case of an allready fully charged battery bank the recovered electrical energy from the brakes has to be "distroyed".
.
To cover longer stationary periods, with no sun but with electrical needs you can also think about using fuel cell technology like Eberspächer is working on. This is a 3kW Fuel cell based on diesel and not on Methanol. The idea behind it is to cover the electrical air-conditioning consumption in truck cabins to avoid idling.
http://www.bine.info/fileadmin/content/ ... ernetx.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140718-eberspaecher.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFELrcVQaM
.
.
@EGN
I am thinking about the number of battery packs on board.
Today the classical way is to have
- Start batteries for the engine
- Household batteries
- Start battery for the genset
- …
All of them need the be sized correctly and with the necessary reserves for winter times and so.
My idea is to reduce this number and use only one big Li battery bank for all these needs.
You just have to dedicate the minimal reserve in this central unit for all the consumers. You can than modify these dedicated reserves with the seasons or following your planned needs. The idea is to get in total a smaller battery pack (weight) and to get more power for the long stationary household periods.
.
Can you give use some more information about this, Thanks.
"...Lithium batteries in contrast should be used in the range of 80 % to 20 % SOC for best calender life. The SOC should be kept as low as possible to maximize lifetime.
So I would avoid to charge the lithium battery to 100 % whenever possible..."..
Regards Campo
Hi all
Without having read all the details yet I have allready some ideas.
.
@Biotect and all
I do agree that EGN wrote a magnificent piece concerning the battery needs for the hybrid propulsion. As the combustion engine can be “relatively” small there is less concern that it has to be gas or diesel. The best engine efficiency but also future environment qualification will have to determine.
An other problem for the efficiency is always that in case of an allready fully charged battery bank the recovered electrical energy from the brakes has to be "distroyed".
.
To cover longer stationary periods, with no sun but with electrical needs you can also think about using fuel cell technology like Eberspächer is working on. This is a 3kW Fuel cell based on diesel and not on Methanol. The idea behind it is to cover the electrical air-conditioning consumption in truck cabins to avoid idling.
http://www.bine.info/fileadmin/content/ ... ernetx.pdf
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/07/20140718-eberspaecher.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVFELrcVQaM
.
.
@EGN
I am thinking about the number of battery packs on board.
Today the classical way is to have
- Start batteries for the engine
- Household batteries
- Start battery for the genset
- …
All of them need the be sized correctly and with the necessary reserves for winter times and so.
My idea is to reduce this number and use only one big Li battery bank for all these needs.
You just have to dedicate the minimal reserve in this central unit for all the consumers. You can than modify these dedicated reserves with the seasons or following your planned needs. The idea is to get in total a smaller battery pack (weight) and to get more power for the long stationary household periods.
.
Can you give use some more information about this, Thanks.
"...Lithium batteries in contrast should be used in the range of 80 % to 20 % SOC for best calender life. The SOC should be kept as low as possible to maximize lifetime.
So I would avoid to charge the lithium battery to 100 % whenever possible..."..
Regards Campo
1. Do you intend to have side extensions? They can triple interior volume as well as roof size. And roof-solar space as well.
2. You want to have a toy trailer. Why don't put solar panels, awnings, water collection system on it too?
3.
4. For the same reason I don't like having a patio on each side. Patio is great as long as you seat on it. But you need only 1 for this purpose. So you have a huge element on the other side that you use only for solar. I think a smaller awing with minimal support would provide better volumetric efficiency.
5. Did you think about using awnings and their support struts for water collection?
6. This rollable solar array has 87 W/m^2.
7. Do power usage calculations. Comparing to Class A motorhomes is not very useful. You want smaller volume with great wall insulation. This will reduce your energy needs. But by how much? I can't tell.
8. I remember seeing flower-style solar arrays in space use, but can't seem to find it now.
9. You write about solar panels and weather. Very good. But I don't read any mentions of snow, which I think is something worth thinking about.
10. You want to have 2 AWGs. OK. But why not a custom unit that acts as both AWG and AC?
2. You want to have a toy trailer. Why don't put solar panels, awnings, water collection system on it too?
3.
It would be better to make a different folding / unfolding mechanism, so the floor top is on the vehicle outside. Though panels have their volume too and will reduce your usable width and I don't think that having floor / side solar is worthwhile at all.
4. For the same reason I don't like having a patio on each side. Patio is great as long as you seat on it. But you need only 1 for this purpose. So you have a huge element on the other side that you use only for solar. I think a smaller awing with minimal support would provide better volumetric efficiency.
5. Did you think about using awnings and their support struts for water collection?
6. This rollable solar array has 87 W/m^2.
7. Do power usage calculations. Comparing to Class A motorhomes is not very useful. You want smaller volume with great wall insulation. This will reduce your energy needs. But by how much? I can't tell.
8. I remember seeing flower-style solar arrays in space use, but can't seem to find it now.
9. You write about solar panels and weather. Very good. But I don't read any mentions of snow, which I think is something worth thinking about.
10. You want to have 2 AWGs. OK. But why not a custom unit that acts as both AWG and AC?
Hey Bio, Hi all!
AGAIN: I am NOT "unmovable" on a "space frame based complete vehicle"!! ...never was - I always was for the "regular semi-flexible truck chassis"
The Space-Frame comes from the "un-movable requirement to be torsional rigid"!!
Okay:
- XK120: What a beauty!! ...and what a aerodynamic nightmare!! :smiley_drive: This is probably the coolest roadster ever - super elegant but not over top.
...next one up would be the X-13 ......
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jag...X&ved=0CCcQsARqFQoTCK-B0OG9gckCFQo8JgodlZEE3A
Well - on the box:
Terraliner will never be able to cover all possible travel aspects and wishes. So either you define fairly narrow "intended user"-parameters or you design Terraliner in a HIGHLY customizable way: Different length, different battery sizes, different gen-set sizes.
Over the length of this thread - I came to the same solution for my imaginary bus conversion: Instead of a single bigger gen-set, I now would opt for 2 smaller sets, e.g. (looking at my VW Amarok power plant) 2x 2l-4 cyl, turbo diesel gen set. The idea is to be able to charge my huge battery bank within 14-16 hrs with ONE gen-set running. The second one is to cover power needs outside the charging. This will only be necessary in extreme situations as outlined in my previous posts - so mostly there is only one set running and mostly not for 14 hours.
My personal idea is to "wander and stay where I like it - NO time limit" - no real travel plan beyond the next few days and the overall lookout (let's go south - as in South-America, where do we start - left coast or right coast, once that is set, just look ahead to the next target and max 3 weeks into the future, and go from there).
So - yes, I do see myself staying in one spot for more than 3 days.
My "home"-energy requirements should be coverable by solar and/or windpower, and hopefully I'd have some surplus to pump into the batteries.
Night charging with a gen-set: You mentioned noise concerns. No worries, all just a matter of proper noise management.
I once got a tour on a yacht (converted High Seas Tug), in the engine room - first of all we did not use ear protection, we talked at normal voice levels and the 2 gen-sets where just a "distant" humming. ....until the Engineer opened a hatch - we nearly got crazy with the engine noise!!
[After expecting a noisy engine-room, but encountering NO NOISE, NOW listening to a regular gen-set was awesomely loud!]
Close the hatch and it was back to humming! - Granted the isolation was about 12-15 cm thick, but hell - DOES IT WORK!!
I believe you can easily isolate the "engine-room" to a level where you don't even notice if the gen-set is running or not.....
Yes - the Aussy article is just what you said - a publicity stunt, but a good one - upstart maybe, but I doubt the backer is anything small - once Chinese money is involved it is serious and for the long run.
Of course there won't be any charging stations along a normal Terraliner travel route - the idea is more that you can store enough energy to travel a whole day without having to run a gen-set. Then, if you are stationary, maybe you can plug in somewhere there...
...fold out the panels and 4-druple the surface.....
ENGs details on the batteries are of course facts that one has to think about in detail - no use to have a huge pack if in the end it is unusable for the particular travel style.
BTW - everything seems to be Lithium based these days - I didn't hear anything about the Japanese Carbon-Carbon batteries anymore....
DIY-fix and repair. I think you are dead wrong. Fix-ability/Repair-ability has nothing to do with advanced vs. old tech.
All you have to do is go with the flow. It is certainly easier to change a new tech CR pump than to repair a old tech injector pump.
You just need to have the proper spares, manuals and tools....with a computer and connection software being the 1st of them tools!!
Even if MAN advertises 30-year no maintenance - you never know when your system gets contaminated, a bearing seal blows, vacuum lines go brittle, a washer hose breaks, etc....(btw - I like my Amarok, but are getting disenchanted with VW global service and detail design - Japanese are WAY ahead in these details....)
"Green" Terraliner - I think it does not matter what you do - you NEED a gen-set or 2, the least worse you can do is find the most efficient one - most diesel calories turned into Volts and Amperes. That's as green a you go.
The resent "VW scandal" about cheating programs for EPA purposes is the best indicator.
BTW, in the mean time they found out that about any and all manufactures have compliance problems, they just didn't do it as obviously as VW.
[A 50mpg VW is STILL way greener than the legal "Rolling Coal" trucks in the US...https://www.google.com/search?q=rol...&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCI-_urLFgckCFUUkJgodV6gPRw]
Basically - it shows that just lowering EPA limits is NOT the solution - basically it is "as green as it gets" with today's technology - and EPA is doing wishful thinking.....
As EV and battery tech are advancing at hyperspeed - I doubt IC engine tech will advance much further than today...probably one or 2 more "revolutions" coming, geared to gen-sets ...and that's it.
So to sum it up:
- YES I think you should plan for a battery pack that keeps you moving at least 8-hrs a day
- 2 gen-sets, with ONE being able to recharge full in 14-16 hrs - a REAL quick charge option is probably not economic and useful for the Terraliner, rather optimize the battery bank to optimized charging with the small gen-set
- DON'T worry about noise from the Gen-sets, design the enclosures so, that you cannot hear them!
- Try to get enough solar capacity to be able to charge the bank to at least 80% within 2 weeks "camping on site" - sun availability provided....
[same for wind...]
- Hub-motors vs. Chassis, at this point I won't worry about it, would need way more research into what's available - personally I prefer chassis mounted as there the motors are with the sprung weight. [This does imply that "my" solid-axle-like-suspension will get about as complex as a IS, but I still favor the advantages of SA/De-Dion over full IS]
Bio - try to contact Kamaz, they might tell you why they went IS over SA!! Probably complexity is their least concern, 2nd least how long it lasts or how much maintenance it requires - would be interesting to understand their reasoning.....
- Regarding you "feel for power needs and levels" - I would like to add to ENG's very true post:
Yes I DO have a very good and serious idea about power levels on heavy hauling equipment - and so also on empty hauling equipment.
It is quite interesting to use 520hp to move 42 tons, it is even more interesting to move the 7-ton tractor only with 520hp available!
[...and that was at a time where there was no traction control yet!]
If you go serial-hybrid, which with a BIG battery makes all the sense, you will have top-level electronic control about any drive and suspension aspect anyway, so you don't need to "feel" what's going on.....
If I remember, our friend CAMPO (edit corrected!!) was one that recommended MORE Power and IS, because of experience with his rig (he actually HAS one!).
What he does not have (as far as I know...) is a COMPARING experience with a SA-air-suspension......I do, but on heavy haulers only NOT on EXPO rigs.
Also his recommended power levels do not reflect what you learn if you do this professionally...
Obviously and for good reason (FUN!!) Campo does go to a lot of meetings and impromptu-trial sessions to spar with other like-minded people.
Same again - enthusiast amateurs. However once you go "REAL WORLD", e.g. ENG - you will most likely AVOID "trial sessions" if possible, also there will be very few situations where "more power is better" - remember, even if DAKAR trucks look AWESOME, Terraliner is just another MOBILHOME, NOT a race-truck.
...well, maybe not "just another....." - more like "THE ULTIMATE" mobilhome - but a mobilhome nevertheless.
Anyway - with a serial-hybrid, the discussion now comes down only to economy: The smaller the gen-set(s) needed, the better the range
ALL power management is essentially OUT of your hands - the computer will have to do that!
[Obviously with different modes available, but still - it is the computer that will manage the power]
Now - DIY repair: laptop, connection hardware and software, possible spares, learn where the drive controllers are, HOW to check them and how to change them (I doubt that even a specialist would bother to fix PCBs anymore, they are so small these days, you need serious equipment to even just see the stuff).... You still want to know how to change a tire, weld up a temporary suspension part, overhaul a winch, splice a wire, service your batteries, rig a pump, fix a split turbo to intercooler hose, etc. etc. etc.......)
And a last one to the "Devil's advocate":
Obviously a sometimes decidedly sarcastic tone might not help much, but is fun nevertheless!
It does work though - just complaining does not, but I think a good DA should always have an alternative idea or at least an opinion or even fact WHY something will not work.
Just complaining doesn't help - arguing about what size a Expo or Mobilehome HAS to be or what it has to be called if the size doesn't fit "established" linguistic formulas is funny at best - a waist of time in general.
The ONLY size limit that cannot be exceeded (for practical reasons) is legal road size limitations - you most likely want to go to outofthisworld places by yourself without special permits required.....
The DA approach is not always appreciated because it will continue to present actual or perceived shortcomings of ones goal/dream.
Many times people will not listen or just frankly shut you up - they don't WANT to hear what's wrong or what will/can go wrong....
Only after you can eliminate all concerns from a DA you will have a good product that MAY be successful...
Where I live - I see that everyday in the Restaurant/Bar business - same place - different name/ different owner - every 6 months or less.
[People come up with THEIR "incredible super idea" and fail to watch others and inquire with possible clients - ....and then wonder where they went wrong and blind, when they DON'T take off...]
I had the same experience (AGAIN) in my own job [I am in this VERY specialized corner of industry where you DO need to grow up in and collect lot's of experience to really know and understand the show] - I was arguing for nearly a year (actually way longer) about the specific behavior of a colleague and insisted multiple times, that he be removed from the flight line and put into a non-flying capacity.
NOW - after he perished in a crash (with 4 others on board) - things HAVE to be changed.....I was right - WHY did they decide to ignore me in the 1st place??
I had the arguments and reasons, but they did not WANT to listen - moving the guy to a different position would have been an "uncomfortable" move....
The DA approach is never "nice" but VERY effective if you embrace the idea and USE it!
[Putting your brain child in question - ....essentially what the DA does, off COURSE you don't like that!!]
Nowadays this is also called SMS [Safety Managment Systems] - however, as with all other Safety Improvement Systems out there it ONLY WORKS if the BOSS WANTS it to work!! Just going through the motions and paperwork won't do it.
You have to have the guts to cancel things if they become obsolete or non-functional towards the goal.
End of Rant!:ylsmoke:
Off the box.....
thjakits
AGAIN: I am NOT "unmovable" on a "space frame based complete vehicle"!! ...never was - I always was for the "regular semi-flexible truck chassis"
The Space-Frame comes from the "un-movable requirement to be torsional rigid"!!
Okay:
- XK120: What a beauty!! ...and what a aerodynamic nightmare!! :smiley_drive: This is probably the coolest roadster ever - super elegant but not over top.
...next one up would be the X-13 ......
https://www.google.com/search?q=Jag...X&ved=0CCcQsARqFQoTCK-B0OG9gckCFQo8JgodlZEE3A
Well - on the box:
Terraliner will never be able to cover all possible travel aspects and wishes. So either you define fairly narrow "intended user"-parameters or you design Terraliner in a HIGHLY customizable way: Different length, different battery sizes, different gen-set sizes.
Over the length of this thread - I came to the same solution for my imaginary bus conversion: Instead of a single bigger gen-set, I now would opt for 2 smaller sets, e.g. (looking at my VW Amarok power plant) 2x 2l-4 cyl, turbo diesel gen set. The idea is to be able to charge my huge battery bank within 14-16 hrs with ONE gen-set running. The second one is to cover power needs outside the charging. This will only be necessary in extreme situations as outlined in my previous posts - so mostly there is only one set running and mostly not for 14 hours.
My personal idea is to "wander and stay where I like it - NO time limit" - no real travel plan beyond the next few days and the overall lookout (let's go south - as in South-America, where do we start - left coast or right coast, once that is set, just look ahead to the next target and max 3 weeks into the future, and go from there).
So - yes, I do see myself staying in one spot for more than 3 days.
My "home"-energy requirements should be coverable by solar and/or windpower, and hopefully I'd have some surplus to pump into the batteries.
Night charging with a gen-set: You mentioned noise concerns. No worries, all just a matter of proper noise management.
I once got a tour on a yacht (converted High Seas Tug), in the engine room - first of all we did not use ear protection, we talked at normal voice levels and the 2 gen-sets where just a "distant" humming. ....until the Engineer opened a hatch - we nearly got crazy with the engine noise!!
[After expecting a noisy engine-room, but encountering NO NOISE, NOW listening to a regular gen-set was awesomely loud!]
Close the hatch and it was back to humming! - Granted the isolation was about 12-15 cm thick, but hell - DOES IT WORK!!
I believe you can easily isolate the "engine-room" to a level where you don't even notice if the gen-set is running or not.....
Yes - the Aussy article is just what you said - a publicity stunt, but a good one - upstart maybe, but I doubt the backer is anything small - once Chinese money is involved it is serious and for the long run.
Of course there won't be any charging stations along a normal Terraliner travel route - the idea is more that you can store enough energy to travel a whole day without having to run a gen-set. Then, if you are stationary, maybe you can plug in somewhere there...
...fold out the panels and 4-druple the surface.....
ENGs details on the batteries are of course facts that one has to think about in detail - no use to have a huge pack if in the end it is unusable for the particular travel style.
BTW - everything seems to be Lithium based these days - I didn't hear anything about the Japanese Carbon-Carbon batteries anymore....
DIY-fix and repair. I think you are dead wrong. Fix-ability/Repair-ability has nothing to do with advanced vs. old tech.
All you have to do is go with the flow. It is certainly easier to change a new tech CR pump than to repair a old tech injector pump.
You just need to have the proper spares, manuals and tools....with a computer and connection software being the 1st of them tools!!
Even if MAN advertises 30-year no maintenance - you never know when your system gets contaminated, a bearing seal blows, vacuum lines go brittle, a washer hose breaks, etc....(btw - I like my Amarok, but are getting disenchanted with VW global service and detail design - Japanese are WAY ahead in these details....)
"Green" Terraliner - I think it does not matter what you do - you NEED a gen-set or 2, the least worse you can do is find the most efficient one - most diesel calories turned into Volts and Amperes. That's as green a you go.
The resent "VW scandal" about cheating programs for EPA purposes is the best indicator.
BTW, in the mean time they found out that about any and all manufactures have compliance problems, they just didn't do it as obviously as VW.
[A 50mpg VW is STILL way greener than the legal "Rolling Coal" trucks in the US...https://www.google.com/search?q=rol...&ved=0CBsQsARqFQoTCI-_urLFgckCFUUkJgodV6gPRw]
Basically - it shows that just lowering EPA limits is NOT the solution - basically it is "as green as it gets" with today's technology - and EPA is doing wishful thinking.....
As EV and battery tech are advancing at hyperspeed - I doubt IC engine tech will advance much further than today...probably one or 2 more "revolutions" coming, geared to gen-sets ...and that's it.
So to sum it up:
- YES I think you should plan for a battery pack that keeps you moving at least 8-hrs a day
- 2 gen-sets, with ONE being able to recharge full in 14-16 hrs - a REAL quick charge option is probably not economic and useful for the Terraliner, rather optimize the battery bank to optimized charging with the small gen-set
- DON'T worry about noise from the Gen-sets, design the enclosures so, that you cannot hear them!
- Try to get enough solar capacity to be able to charge the bank to at least 80% within 2 weeks "camping on site" - sun availability provided....
[same for wind...]
- Hub-motors vs. Chassis, at this point I won't worry about it, would need way more research into what's available - personally I prefer chassis mounted as there the motors are with the sprung weight. [This does imply that "my" solid-axle-like-suspension will get about as complex as a IS, but I still favor the advantages of SA/De-Dion over full IS]
Bio - try to contact Kamaz, they might tell you why they went IS over SA!! Probably complexity is their least concern, 2nd least how long it lasts or how much maintenance it requires - would be interesting to understand their reasoning.....
- Regarding you "feel for power needs and levels" - I would like to add to ENG's very true post:
Yes I DO have a very good and serious idea about power levels on heavy hauling equipment - and so also on empty hauling equipment.
It is quite interesting to use 520hp to move 42 tons, it is even more interesting to move the 7-ton tractor only with 520hp available!
[...and that was at a time where there was no traction control yet!]
If you go serial-hybrid, which with a BIG battery makes all the sense, you will have top-level electronic control about any drive and suspension aspect anyway, so you don't need to "feel" what's going on.....
If I remember, our friend CAMPO (edit corrected!!) was one that recommended MORE Power and IS, because of experience with his rig (he actually HAS one!).
What he does not have (as far as I know...) is a COMPARING experience with a SA-air-suspension......I do, but on heavy haulers only NOT on EXPO rigs.
Also his recommended power levels do not reflect what you learn if you do this professionally...
Obviously and for good reason (FUN!!) Campo does go to a lot of meetings and impromptu-trial sessions to spar with other like-minded people.
Same again - enthusiast amateurs. However once you go "REAL WORLD", e.g. ENG - you will most likely AVOID "trial sessions" if possible, also there will be very few situations where "more power is better" - remember, even if DAKAR trucks look AWESOME, Terraliner is just another MOBILHOME, NOT a race-truck.
...well, maybe not "just another....." - more like "THE ULTIMATE" mobilhome - but a mobilhome nevertheless.
Anyway - with a serial-hybrid, the discussion now comes down only to economy: The smaller the gen-set(s) needed, the better the range
ALL power management is essentially OUT of your hands - the computer will have to do that!
[Obviously with different modes available, but still - it is the computer that will manage the power]
Now - DIY repair: laptop, connection hardware and software, possible spares, learn where the drive controllers are, HOW to check them and how to change them (I doubt that even a specialist would bother to fix PCBs anymore, they are so small these days, you need serious equipment to even just see the stuff).... You still want to know how to change a tire, weld up a temporary suspension part, overhaul a winch, splice a wire, service your batteries, rig a pump, fix a split turbo to intercooler hose, etc. etc. etc.......)
And a last one to the "Devil's advocate":
Obviously a sometimes decidedly sarcastic tone might not help much, but is fun nevertheless!
It does work though - just complaining does not, but I think a good DA should always have an alternative idea or at least an opinion or even fact WHY something will not work.
Just complaining doesn't help - arguing about what size a Expo or Mobilehome HAS to be or what it has to be called if the size doesn't fit "established" linguistic formulas is funny at best - a waist of time in general.
The ONLY size limit that cannot be exceeded (for practical reasons) is legal road size limitations - you most likely want to go to outofthisworld places by yourself without special permits required.....
The DA approach is not always appreciated because it will continue to present actual or perceived shortcomings of ones goal/dream.
Many times people will not listen or just frankly shut you up - they don't WANT to hear what's wrong or what will/can go wrong....
Only after you can eliminate all concerns from a DA you will have a good product that MAY be successful...
Where I live - I see that everyday in the Restaurant/Bar business - same place - different name/ different owner - every 6 months or less.
[People come up with THEIR "incredible super idea" and fail to watch others and inquire with possible clients - ....and then wonder where they went wrong and blind, when they DON'T take off...]
I had the same experience (AGAIN) in my own job [I am in this VERY specialized corner of industry where you DO need to grow up in and collect lot's of experience to really know and understand the show] - I was arguing for nearly a year (actually way longer) about the specific behavior of a colleague and insisted multiple times, that he be removed from the flight line and put into a non-flying capacity.
NOW - after he perished in a crash (with 4 others on board) - things HAVE to be changed.....I was right - WHY did they decide to ignore me in the 1st place??
I had the arguments and reasons, but they did not WANT to listen - moving the guy to a different position would have been an "uncomfortable" move....
The DA approach is never "nice" but VERY effective if you embrace the idea and USE it!
[Putting your brain child in question - ....essentially what the DA does, off COURSE you don't like that!!]
Nowadays this is also called SMS [Safety Managment Systems] - however, as with all other Safety Improvement Systems out there it ONLY WORKS if the BOSS WANTS it to work!! Just going through the motions and paperwork won't do it.
You have to have the guts to cancel things if they become obsolete or non-functional towards the goal.
End of Rant!:ylsmoke:
Off the box.....
thjakits
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hey campo,
thjakits has been spoiling for a fight with you for a while over the issue of SA versus Independent Suspension....:sombrero: ...Perhaps you may have noticed, but he took your name in vain a number of times in the post above. And didn't even get your user name right: called you "CAMPOS". Your user name is Italian, and thjakits had the gall to Hispanicize it!! The cheek.
But seriously, so that the thread does not wander all over the place, and so that the discussion remains focused enough to follow, for now let's try to set aside all other issues, concerns, pet peeves, etc., and let's just focus on power, and possible hybrid solutions. To that end, I will take the liberty of reposting what campo wrote above, because his post struck me as ending with an excellent question:
Or rather, campo's post contains at least two different, very good questions:
(1) In a vehicle that is serial hybrid in any case, and that already has a lith-ion battery-pack, would adding fuel cells into the mix make sense, to cover stationary periods? Fuel cells can't be charged and recharged; rather, they are refueled. So it seems to me that fuel cells to provide stationary power would only make sense if the whole vehicle's hybrid configuration were based on fuel cells, instead of batteries.
Honestly, I know nothing whatsoever about this area. But consider: in contrast to Volvo and IVECO, Mercedes seems to have no interest whatsoever in all-elecrtric buses. Instead, Mercedes seems to be focusing its efforts on creating fuel-cell powered buses that it also calls "hybrids" -- see http://www.gizmag.com/mercedes-benz-citaro-fuelcell-hybrid-bus/13390/ , http://www.mercedes-benz.mu/content...e/buses_world/update/news_2013/stuttgart.html , and https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1228969-1-1401155-1-0-0-1401206-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html . Mercedes calls these "fuel cell hybrid buses."
I wonder what Mercedes means by this? If anyone would be willing to provide a short, concise explanation of how "fuel cell hybrid buses" work, and why they might be preferable to more ordinary diesel-engined buses, that would be terrific. It would also be good to know what the arguments are in favor of a fuel-cell hybrid bus, in contrast to a serial-hybrid bus that uses batteries. In other words, why has Mercedes chosen to commit so deeply to "fuel cell hybrid", and why is Mercedes not exploring serial-hybrid buses as per MAN's "Lion City" line; or all-electric buses as per Volvo and IVECO? I could be wrong about this, and maybe Mercedes is exploring battery-based hybrid buses after all. But when I tried researching this on the web, I couldn't find a thing. I could only find information about the "fuel cell hybrid" buses that Mercedes is now exploring.
By now I feel like I have a fairly good grip on the battery-pack hybrid solution, its advantage and disadvantages, and how it would be different from a "pure-diesel-electric" solution of the kind developed by Oshkosh, which only uses super-capacitors and does not store energy in batteries. But fuel-cell hybrid seems to be another, very different sort of emerging technology yet again, one that will no doubt raise a different set of issues.
Also, it would be good to know if other participants agree that combining a lithium-ion battery bank with fuel cells is just a bit too complicated, and unnecessary? That's my initial gut reaction, but I could be wrong. Given that the TerraLiner will have massive solar, the lith-ion battery bank is a given. The solar array won't be able to recharge the fuel cells. So if it turns out that more power is needed from the battery bank, either for the camper when stationary, or for driving, then the simplest solution would be to increase the size of the battery bank. Instead of throwing fuel cells into the mix.
But if this reasoning seems wrong, please correct me!
*************************************
Just a request: if this reasoning does seem wrong, please do not respond with a stream-of-conscoiousness rant....:sombrero:
Yes, thjakits, that was a swipe at you. I am partly a philosopher, so I've been trained to be very allergic to bluster and rhetoric. I like argument, I like evidence, I like sober, measured prose, and I like links. Or images, or videos. I read The Economist regularly, because the prose is delivered cold and sober, and the articles are a mixture of verbal and quantitative reasoning. Almost every article in The Economist is accompanied by graphs and statistics. I would very strongly prefer that posts on this thread have the same character, and by and large they do, because the tone of the prose of most participants is inclined in that direction.
By way of contrast, I have a conservative friend who writes for the National Review, and who would place photocopied articles from the National Review into my "In Box" in the mailroom, when I worked as a teacher. After a while I just stopped reading them, and I would immediately throw them into the recycling bin. The National Review stinks, and it stinks not because it is a super-right-wing American rag, written for those on the American right who are slightly more intellectual. Rather, it stinks because it's written by right-wing humanists for right-wing humanists, for people who are math challenged and who failed Calculus, and who can't understand a reasonably complicated graph summarizing a sociological or economic correlation. The National Review is a rag filled with nothing but rhetoric, strong opinions, hot air, and self-congratulatory bull****. It serves merely as an echo-chamber for the slightly more intellectual element on the American right.
What the National Review does not do, what it singularly fails to do, is back up its claims using evidence and argument. It is the very opposite of The Economist in this regard.
So please, if possible, when you post, please try to back up your posts with evidence, links, and arguments. If you are familiar with the prose style of The Economist, please try to emulate it. And if you know that you are about to write a rant, please refrain from posting. Your role as devil's advocate can be valuable, but devil's advocacy can take many forms. Devil's advocacy can be expressed in many tones of voice, and there is a big difference between Voltaire's reasoned barbs against the Ancien Regime, and the merely rhetorical, blustering attacks on evolution by William Jennings Bryan. At the end of the day Bryan was just a fool who was full of himself and hot air, and he did not serve the cause of knowledge one bit.
*************************************
(2) Campo's second, more explicit question, addressed to egn, was whether a single Lith-ion battery bank could serve all functions, including starting the engine, as well as the diesel generator. That's an interesting question, and it would be nice to hear thoughts in response from different participants. And, of course, to hear a response from egn.....
*************************************
(3) Safas: in quick answer to your questions: Yes, there will be side-extentions, i.e "slide outs", and the toy trailer will have solar panels on it, too.
I've done the power calculations, and the text explaining those calculations has already been posted, in the long 28-page posting series. But I have to fill in the images (for instance, abundant images of the PowerFilm solar tent), and I have to clean up everything so that it looks presentable. For now, let's just work with the idea that the TerraLiner's solar array will produce 10 KW at best, with the solar cells working at optimal efficiency, and no more. We can revisit this number later in the thread, but let's work with 10 KW for now. It's actually quite a large number, considering that the largest solar arrays placed on the roofs of mobile homes, trailers, or trucks thus far, produce only about 3 KW.
Your point about not needing a second deck for leisure purposes is well taken. However, I was thinking that a second deck would be necessary for solar purposes. A second awning without a deck underneath would be comparatively unsupported, because it would not have the deck to "ground" it on the corners. Ergo, it would not be very windproof. My apologies, but I haven't gotten to the part yet where I discuss all of this in detail, i.e. the part about awnings and solar in the 28-page post. But that's mainly why the TerraLiner will have drop-down decks on both sides: because these would allow a significant increase in the size of the solar array, in a manner that would be reasonably "windproof".
*************************************
(4) Actually, I did mention the issue of snow, but more in relation to melting snow for water collection -- see post #1582, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1924037#post1924037 and following. There are abundant links in post #1582 to "De-icing" heaters for solar panels, and to "PolarPower.org" especially, an excellent resource for all things related to the problem of solar panels, extreme polar cold, ice, and snow.
*************************************
(5) The idea of having a custom combination AWG + air-conditioner seems like a good one, on the face of it. I wonder if anyone disagrees? I also wonder if such a combination unit already exists on the market?
If I were skeptical regarding your suggestion, I would argue as follows. I would reason that if a combination AWG + air conditioner makes sense for the TerraLiner, then it would also make sense for an ordinary home. But if manufacturers have not yet come up with a combination unit for an ordinary home, then perhaps a combination unit just doesn't make sense in the home environment. Ergo perhaps a combination unit would also not make sense for the TerraLiner. The reasoning here is "If P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P." To challenge this line of reasoning, you'd have to challenge the first premise, If P then Q. You'd have to argue that a combination unit does make sense for the TerrraLiner for reasons that are not applicable to an ordinary home, and that's why manufacturers have not yet created such a unit.
But I don't actually feel the need to be very skeptical of your suggestion, safas; again, on the face of it, i seems like a good one. Perhaps some manufacturer has already created such a combination AWG + air-conditioner? I wonder....
All best wishes,
Biotect
thjakits has been spoiling for a fight with you for a while over the issue of SA versus Independent Suspension....:sombrero: ...Perhaps you may have noticed, but he took your name in vain a number of times in the post above. And didn't even get your user name right: called you "CAMPOS". Your user name is Italian, and thjakits had the gall to Hispanicize it!! The cheek.
But seriously, so that the thread does not wander all over the place, and so that the discussion remains focused enough to follow, for now let's try to set aside all other issues, concerns, pet peeves, etc., and let's just focus on power, and possible hybrid solutions. To that end, I will take the liberty of reposting what campo wrote above, because his post struck me as ending with an excellent question:
Or rather, campo's post contains at least two different, very good questions:
(1) In a vehicle that is serial hybrid in any case, and that already has a lith-ion battery-pack, would adding fuel cells into the mix make sense, to cover stationary periods? Fuel cells can't be charged and recharged; rather, they are refueled. So it seems to me that fuel cells to provide stationary power would only make sense if the whole vehicle's hybrid configuration were based on fuel cells, instead of batteries.
Honestly, I know nothing whatsoever about this area. But consider: in contrast to Volvo and IVECO, Mercedes seems to have no interest whatsoever in all-elecrtric buses. Instead, Mercedes seems to be focusing its efforts on creating fuel-cell powered buses that it also calls "hybrids" -- see http://www.gizmag.com/mercedes-benz-citaro-fuelcell-hybrid-bus/13390/ , http://www.mercedes-benz.mu/content...e/buses_world/update/news_2013/stuttgart.html , and https://www.daimler.com/dccom/0-5-1228969-1-1401155-1-0-0-1401206-0-0-135-0-0-0-0-0-0-0-0.html . Mercedes calls these "fuel cell hybrid buses."
I wonder what Mercedes means by this? If anyone would be willing to provide a short, concise explanation of how "fuel cell hybrid buses" work, and why they might be preferable to more ordinary diesel-engined buses, that would be terrific. It would also be good to know what the arguments are in favor of a fuel-cell hybrid bus, in contrast to a serial-hybrid bus that uses batteries. In other words, why has Mercedes chosen to commit so deeply to "fuel cell hybrid", and why is Mercedes not exploring serial-hybrid buses as per MAN's "Lion City" line; or all-electric buses as per Volvo and IVECO? I could be wrong about this, and maybe Mercedes is exploring battery-based hybrid buses after all. But when I tried researching this on the web, I couldn't find a thing. I could only find information about the "fuel cell hybrid" buses that Mercedes is now exploring.
By now I feel like I have a fairly good grip on the battery-pack hybrid solution, its advantage and disadvantages, and how it would be different from a "pure-diesel-electric" solution of the kind developed by Oshkosh, which only uses super-capacitors and does not store energy in batteries. But fuel-cell hybrid seems to be another, very different sort of emerging technology yet again, one that will no doubt raise a different set of issues.
Also, it would be good to know if other participants agree that combining a lithium-ion battery bank with fuel cells is just a bit too complicated, and unnecessary? That's my initial gut reaction, but I could be wrong. Given that the TerraLiner will have massive solar, the lith-ion battery bank is a given. The solar array won't be able to recharge the fuel cells. So if it turns out that more power is needed from the battery bank, either for the camper when stationary, or for driving, then the simplest solution would be to increase the size of the battery bank. Instead of throwing fuel cells into the mix.
But if this reasoning seems wrong, please correct me!
*************************************
Just a request: if this reasoning does seem wrong, please do not respond with a stream-of-conscoiousness rant....:sombrero:
Yes, thjakits, that was a swipe at you. I am partly a philosopher, so I've been trained to be very allergic to bluster and rhetoric. I like argument, I like evidence, I like sober, measured prose, and I like links. Or images, or videos. I read The Economist regularly, because the prose is delivered cold and sober, and the articles are a mixture of verbal and quantitative reasoning. Almost every article in The Economist is accompanied by graphs and statistics. I would very strongly prefer that posts on this thread have the same character, and by and large they do, because the tone of the prose of most participants is inclined in that direction.
By way of contrast, I have a conservative friend who writes for the National Review, and who would place photocopied articles from the National Review into my "In Box" in the mailroom, when I worked as a teacher. After a while I just stopped reading them, and I would immediately throw them into the recycling bin. The National Review stinks, and it stinks not because it is a super-right-wing American rag, written for those on the American right who are slightly more intellectual. Rather, it stinks because it's written by right-wing humanists for right-wing humanists, for people who are math challenged and who failed Calculus, and who can't understand a reasonably complicated graph summarizing a sociological or economic correlation. The National Review is a rag filled with nothing but rhetoric, strong opinions, hot air, and self-congratulatory bull****. It serves merely as an echo-chamber for the slightly more intellectual element on the American right.
What the National Review does not do, what it singularly fails to do, is back up its claims using evidence and argument. It is the very opposite of The Economist in this regard.
So please, if possible, when you post, please try to back up your posts with evidence, links, and arguments. If you are familiar with the prose style of The Economist, please try to emulate it. And if you know that you are about to write a rant, please refrain from posting. Your role as devil's advocate can be valuable, but devil's advocacy can take many forms. Devil's advocacy can be expressed in many tones of voice, and there is a big difference between Voltaire's reasoned barbs against the Ancien Regime, and the merely rhetorical, blustering attacks on evolution by William Jennings Bryan. At the end of the day Bryan was just a fool who was full of himself and hot air, and he did not serve the cause of knowledge one bit.
*************************************
(2) Campo's second, more explicit question, addressed to egn, was whether a single Lith-ion battery bank could serve all functions, including starting the engine, as well as the diesel generator. That's an interesting question, and it would be nice to hear thoughts in response from different participants. And, of course, to hear a response from egn.....
*************************************
(3) Safas: in quick answer to your questions: Yes, there will be side-extentions, i.e "slide outs", and the toy trailer will have solar panels on it, too.
I've done the power calculations, and the text explaining those calculations has already been posted, in the long 28-page posting series. But I have to fill in the images (for instance, abundant images of the PowerFilm solar tent), and I have to clean up everything so that it looks presentable. For now, let's just work with the idea that the TerraLiner's solar array will produce 10 KW at best, with the solar cells working at optimal efficiency, and no more. We can revisit this number later in the thread, but let's work with 10 KW for now. It's actually quite a large number, considering that the largest solar arrays placed on the roofs of mobile homes, trailers, or trucks thus far, produce only about 3 KW.
Your point about not needing a second deck for leisure purposes is well taken. However, I was thinking that a second deck would be necessary for solar purposes. A second awning without a deck underneath would be comparatively unsupported, because it would not have the deck to "ground" it on the corners. Ergo, it would not be very windproof. My apologies, but I haven't gotten to the part yet where I discuss all of this in detail, i.e. the part about awnings and solar in the 28-page post. But that's mainly why the TerraLiner will have drop-down decks on both sides: because these would allow a significant increase in the size of the solar array, in a manner that would be reasonably "windproof".
*************************************
(4) Actually, I did mention the issue of snow, but more in relation to melting snow for water collection -- see post #1582, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...igid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1924037#post1924037 and following. There are abundant links in post #1582 to "De-icing" heaters for solar panels, and to "PolarPower.org" especially, an excellent resource for all things related to the problem of solar panels, extreme polar cold, ice, and snow.
*************************************
(5) The idea of having a custom combination AWG + air-conditioner seems like a good one, on the face of it. I wonder if anyone disagrees? I also wonder if such a combination unit already exists on the market?
If I were skeptical regarding your suggestion, I would argue as follows. I would reason that if a combination AWG + air conditioner makes sense for the TerraLiner, then it would also make sense for an ordinary home. But if manufacturers have not yet come up with a combination unit for an ordinary home, then perhaps a combination unit just doesn't make sense in the home environment. Ergo perhaps a combination unit would also not make sense for the TerraLiner. The reasoning here is "If P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P." To challenge this line of reasoning, you'd have to challenge the first premise, If P then Q. You'd have to argue that a combination unit does make sense for the TerrraLiner for reasons that are not applicable to an ordinary home, and that's why manufacturers have not yet created such a unit.
But I don't actually feel the need to be very skeptical of your suggestion, safas; again, on the face of it, i seems like a good one. Perhaps some manufacturer has already created such a combination AWG + air-conditioner? I wonder....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
...
Addendum -- thjakits, that Jaguary XJ-13 is really beautiful, and deserves to have its video embedded, along with a few more:
[video=youtube;U9FoExi1yxI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9FoExi1yxI&index=11&list=PLOFu6GS2oiUDguX gSls67b-BV7rjLISRU[/video] [video=youtube;R1KchYU_TnA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KchYU_TnA&index=3&list=PLOFu6GS2oiUDguXg Sls67b-BV7rjLISRU[/video]
But gosh, it makes a racket!!
The videos above documenting the construction of a replica of the XJ-13 also demonstrate that a capacity to shape automotive aluminum into beautiful complex curves is alive and well in Britain. Recall that the shop that rebuilt the Kamm Coupé in Germany had to do the same, carefully shaping and hammering aluminum by hand:
For more images and videos, see posts #677 to #682, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/124789-Fully-Integrated-MAN-or-TATRA-6x6-or-8x8-Expedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1670221#post1670221 and following.
Later in the thread I'd like us to take up the topic of materials, and the question of aluminum versus fiberglass in particular, whereas right now the focus of the thread should be on TerraLiner power requirements, and possible hybrid and solar solutions. But I find it terrific that the skill-sets necessary to construct such beautifully curvilinear automobiles should still exist, and not just in one country!!...
..
Addendum -- thjakits, that Jaguary XJ-13 is really beautiful, and deserves to have its video embedded, along with a few more:
[video=youtube;U9FoExi1yxI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9FoExi1yxI&index=11&list=PLOFu6GS2oiUDguX gSls67b-BV7rjLISRU[/video] [video=youtube;R1KchYU_TnA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1KchYU_TnA&index=3&list=PLOFu6GS2oiUDguXg Sls67b-BV7rjLISRU[/video]
But gosh, it makes a racket!!
The videos above documenting the construction of a replica of the XJ-13 also demonstrate that a capacity to shape automotive aluminum into beautiful complex curves is alive and well in Britain. Recall that the shop that rebuilt the Kamm Coupé in Germany had to do the same, carefully shaping and hammering aluminum by hand:
For more images and videos, see posts #677 to #682, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/124789-Fully-Integrated-MAN-or-TATRA-6x6-or-8x8-Expedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame?p=1670221#post1670221 and following.
Later in the thread I'd like us to take up the topic of materials, and the question of aluminum versus fiberglass in particular, whereas right now the focus of the thread should be on TerraLiner power requirements, and possible hybrid and solar solutions. But I find it terrific that the skill-sets necessary to construct such beautifully curvilinear automobiles should still exist, and not just in one country!!...
..
Last edited:
Searching back:
You haven't mentioned either a trailer or extensions. And now I failed to find a summary of awing space, though I think I've seen it. A summary of how did you arrive at 10 KW somewhere would be useful.
I agree with somebody who suggested having everything in a PDF.
Re PowerFilm: I see that you mentioned it and I made some calculation error, so this can be ignored.
So you say that surviving 80 km/h is not reasonably windproof? A camper would be very rarely exposed to larger winds, so by this alone you lose a fraction of a percent of average power, though with some variability. You may lose some area as well, though with support struts planted on a ground (with emergency retraction being able to loose them up) the whole thing shouldn't be much weaker structurally than one with a deck, so are decrease would be small.
Indeed, I read about it so long ago that I already forgot about it. I'll look into that site when I have time. For now, however I give a note that from my memory, you haven't posted what fraction of solar energy is wasted to heat the panels.
And I don't think that there's some difference between tilted and flat panels mentioned in this regard. After all, flat panels have to melt all the snow on it while tilted need a water film that will make the rest of snow slip down. How about snow accumulating at the base?
I have some hope to see the answers on the site that you mentioned. And I'll re-read what you wrote. But not now.
Good point.