Iain_U1250
Explorer
Truck weighs 7500kg - it was a test, it's on my build thread 
TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain
- Thread starter biotect
- Start date
graynomad
Photographer, traveller
Hi Rob, Joe,
I also really liked how the Mark I was based on a snub-nosed Acco chassis. Almost COE (cab-over-engine), but not quite? So you still had front-bonnet engine access, as per a more standard CBE (cab-before-engine) design, with a longer bonnet? Or am I reading the images incorrectly?
...
In short, it would be great if you might be wiling to clarify the question of engine access in the Mark I, when/if you have the time.....
The engine is accessed from BOTH the interior and the exterior, depending on which part you need access to. About 1/3 exterior and 2/3 interior. I have a large engine cover that lifts up and (at a pinch) can be removed.
Oil level checking is done inside but filling outside, as it water etc.
There are ways to have a luton peak bed AND a tilt cab, I've seen tilt up peaks, tilt up floors in the peak, IE the peak itself is fixed but the floor lifts up inside the walls. And one guy whose motorhome was really a massive slide on, so he jacked the body up and drove forward 3-4 feet to get the clearance.
I spent a LOT of time drawing the design on my CAD (well it's not really CAD, at the time I used CorelDraw) and thinking about various camping and other scenarios.
Yes I was "keenly aware of the design tradeoffs" but this had no bearing on the vehicle choice, I just like ACCOs, one came up for sale nearby, and an old vehicle like this was more in my price range. In that regard it is a lot easier to just buy something and then work with what you have as this immediately restricts your options. Now that might sound like a bad thing but OTOH if you can do anything you like it's very easy to wind up doing nothing because there are too many decisions to be made. Try deciding what toothbrush to buy these days for example.
I tend to build "organically", I do do a lot of design in advance but also just make it up as I go, often returning to CAD to work out the details of my latest brain wave. I am really glad I didn't get a coach builder to make my first plan, because it was nothing like the end result.
I'm doing the same with my shipping-container house right now, I just keep adding rooms and containers until I think it's about right
I am aware that there are now a few rear-deck implementations, whether or not that's inspired by Wot 1 I have no idea but the SLR one in post #1855 of this thread is so close that I would have to think it was. As to why they need a supporting leg I have no idea, unless it's a legal/liability thing.
Sorry for the delayed response, as mentioned I'm house building these days and haven't hung out here much at all. Also my Landcruiser build is on hold, due to the house building but even when that is finished I'm not sure what I will be able to afford to do on the Cruiser. I may just throw a mattress in the back, bolt a fridge to the floor and bugger off...that said part of the house is a nice workshop for metal work and blacksmithing, so I will have the facilities to build another camper. We'll see.
biotect
Designer
Truck weighs 7500kg - it was a test, it's on my build thread
Yeah, I'm bad....:sombrero:
I did have a good look at your build-thread a while back, and indeed that's where I found the images that I posted here in this thread of your very beautiful camper box!! But I've been doing so many calculations and looking at so many numbers over the past few days (and not just here, in this thread....), that I must be experiencing "number fatigue". I felt lazy, and just needed the figure. Thanks for providing it so quickly, even though I failed your test!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hi Rob,
No worries about the delay, and glad that you found at least a bit of time to respond. ..
Very interesting to learn that access to the Wothahellizat Mark I's Acco engine was both external and internal. Even more interesting to find out that your approach was also semi-sculptural and intuitive! ..:luxhello:
There is tremendous value in working "real", in actual physical space, manipulating materials with one's hands. Unfortunately "haptic" is not a commonly used word, and the related concepts of "kinesthetic" or "spatial" intelligence are almost as obscure -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_intelligence_(psychology) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_perception , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology . So it's hard to describe the kind of intelligence that becomes activated when one works "real", and why it's so important. Dancers are very aware of what it means to be kinesthetically intelligent about how their bodies situate and move in space, and no doubt certain kinds of athletes are as well. I wonder what the latter call this kind of intelligence? But often designers forget that they too need to cultivate, train, and hone "haptic", "kinesthetic", and "spatial" intelligence. And that working working in CAD alone simply won't suffice.
It's even harder to explain to the general population that one can literally "see" spatial aptitude in a design, or lack thereof. The first time I came across the Mark I, it struck me as a symphony of visually manifest intelligence.
Right now, amongst other things I am working out some mechanical "puzzles" using the ultimate super-flexible engineering model-building tool, one that might serve your own projects at some point in the future. It has been used by industrial engineers to create rather sophisticated models of production processes, and perhaps you've heard of it: it's a German product called "Fischer Technik" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik&prev=search , https://translate.googleusercontent...e.aspx&usg=ALkJrhiWuNC9gHjs1BFWkf49JyUH-u83Rw , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/products/computing.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/products/industry.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/home/Education/products/tabid-145.aspxv , http://www.fischertechnik.biz , and https://www.youtube.com/user/fischertechnikTV :
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
No worries about the delay, and glad that you found at least a bit of time to respond. ..
Very interesting to learn that access to the Wothahellizat Mark I's Acco engine was both external and internal. Even more interesting to find out that your approach was also semi-sculptural and intuitive! ..:luxhello:
There is tremendous value in working "real", in actual physical space, manipulating materials with one's hands. Unfortunately "haptic" is not a commonly used word, and the related concepts of "kinesthetic" or "spatial" intelligence are almost as obscure -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinesthetic_learning , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_intelligence_(psychology) , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_perception , and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haptic_technology . So it's hard to describe the kind of intelligence that becomes activated when one works "real", and why it's so important. Dancers are very aware of what it means to be kinesthetically intelligent about how their bodies situate and move in space, and no doubt certain kinds of athletes are as well. I wonder what the latter call this kind of intelligence? But often designers forget that they too need to cultivate, train, and hone "haptic", "kinesthetic", and "spatial" intelligence. And that working working in CAD alone simply won't suffice.
It's even harder to explain to the general population that one can literally "see" spatial aptitude in a design, or lack thereof. The first time I came across the Mark I, it struck me as a symphony of visually manifest intelligence.
Right now, amongst other things I am working out some mechanical "puzzles" using the ultimate super-flexible engineering model-building tool, one that might serve your own projects at some point in the future. It has been used by industrial engineers to create rather sophisticated models of production processes, and perhaps you've heard of it: it's a German product called "Fischer Technik" -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischertechnik&prev=search , https://translate.googleusercontent...e.aspx&usg=ALkJrhiWuNC9gHjs1BFWkf49JyUH-u83Rw , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/products/computing.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/products/industry.aspx , http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/home/Education/products/tabid-145.aspxv , http://www.fischertechnik.biz , and https://www.youtube.com/user/fischertechnikTV :
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
Those videos were to convince you that this is serious stuff, and not just a toy. Now for the fun stuff:
[video=youtube;gQDg48tBbBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQDg48tBbBU [/video] [video=youtube;5ZhRonhoQ5U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZhRonhoQ5U [/video]
[video=youtube;dbm-DhJcsuU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbm-DhJcsuU [/video] [video=youtube;8obZKUHKtmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8obZKUHKtmE&list=PLE954952925B78784&index= 6 [/video]
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
Those videos were to convince you that this is serious stuff, and not just a toy. Now for the fun stuff:
[video=youtube;gQDg48tBbBU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQDg48tBbBU [/video] [video=youtube;5ZhRonhoQ5U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZhRonhoQ5U [/video]
[video=youtube;dbm-DhJcsuU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbm-DhJcsuU [/video] [video=youtube;8obZKUHKtmE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8obZKUHKtmE&list=PLE954952925B78784&index= 6 [/video]
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
[video=youtube;Z4K_tCjxaNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4K_tCjxaNQ [/video] [video=youtube;G9EtYgKxwFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9EtYgKxwFA&list=PLE954952925B78784&index= 4[/video]
[video=youtube;P6nnOrVBei4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6nnOrVBei4 [/video] [video=youtube;ia7LMYyT6sk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia7LMYyT6sk [/video]
My father tried importing Fischer Technik into Canada, but there wasn't much of a market for it, so he ended up importing mostly hunting and sporting goods instead. But I grew up with huge quantitates of the stuff, literally crates of it, and still turn to it whenever I need to visually, spatially, and haptically "think through" a mechanical problem. CAD only gets one so far, and there's nothing like playing around with a tailor-made mechanical tool like Fischer Technik in order to get a quick, intuitive sense of how a mechanism might work -- for instance, a mechanism like a combination drop-down deck + integrated and rock-solid folding Pergola....:ylsmoke: ... Highly recommended, and I hope that the first set of videos conveyed how this is not merely a toy.
In fact, I would argue that Fischer Technik is one of the hidden secrets behind Germany's industrial and economic success, a secret that is rarely discussed outside the country.
Lego is known worldwide, and more recently Lego has been trying to branch out into the same "technical" and "robotic" territory as Fischer Technik. But Lego's system of snap-together blocks did not originally have the same structural sophistication as Fischer Technik's blocks and panels with sliding grooves, let alone Fischer Technik's more structurally complicated girder-and-twist-bolt pieces. Lego began as more or less an "architectural" tool, where the central guiding metaphor was the brick. Whereas from the very beginning Fischer Technik had the simulation of mechanical engineering in mind. Fischer Technik has always had metal rods, twist-tight hubs for wheels and gears, chain-links for the same, etc., a wide variety of electric motors, lights, and controllers, all built into the system from the start. Fischer-Technik also has various transitional "angled" pieces, whereas for the longest time the only angled pieces in Lego were roof elements. So Lego began as a very "rectilinear" product, and in the past did not lend itself well to the creation of the complex geometries that one finds in vehicles.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
[video=youtube;Z4K_tCjxaNQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4K_tCjxaNQ [/video] [video=youtube;G9EtYgKxwFA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9EtYgKxwFA&list=PLE954952925B78784&index= 4[/video]
[video=youtube;P6nnOrVBei4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P6nnOrVBei4 [/video] [video=youtube;ia7LMYyT6sk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ia7LMYyT6sk [/video]
My father tried importing Fischer Technik into Canada, but there wasn't much of a market for it, so he ended up importing mostly hunting and sporting goods instead. But I grew up with huge quantitates of the stuff, literally crates of it, and still turn to it whenever I need to visually, spatially, and haptically "think through" a mechanical problem. CAD only gets one so far, and there's nothing like playing around with a tailor-made mechanical tool like Fischer Technik in order to get a quick, intuitive sense of how a mechanism might work -- for instance, a mechanism like a combination drop-down deck + integrated and rock-solid folding Pergola....:ylsmoke: ... Highly recommended, and I hope that the first set of videos conveyed how this is not merely a toy.
In fact, I would argue that Fischer Technik is one of the hidden secrets behind Germany's industrial and economic success, a secret that is rarely discussed outside the country.
Lego is known worldwide, and more recently Lego has been trying to branch out into the same "technical" and "robotic" territory as Fischer Technik. But Lego's system of snap-together blocks did not originally have the same structural sophistication as Fischer Technik's blocks and panels with sliding grooves, let alone Fischer Technik's more structurally complicated girder-and-twist-bolt pieces. Lego began as more or less an "architectural" tool, where the central guiding metaphor was the brick. Whereas from the very beginning Fischer Technik had the simulation of mechanical engineering in mind. Fischer Technik has always had metal rods, twist-tight hubs for wheels and gears, chain-links for the same, etc., a wide variety of electric motors, lights, and controllers, all built into the system from the start. Fischer-Technik also has various transitional "angled" pieces, whereas for the longest time the only angled pieces in Lego were roof elements. So Lego began as a very "rectilinear" product, and in the past did not lend itself well to the creation of the complex geometries that one finds in vehicles.
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
More recently of course things have completely changed, with the development of Lego Technic and Lego Mindstorms:
[video=youtube;nUxaOIxT5N0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUxaOIxT5N0#t=52 [/video]
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
More recently of course things have completely changed, with the development of Lego Technic and Lego Mindstorms:
[video=youtube;nUxaOIxT5N0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUxaOIxT5N0#t=52 [/video]
**************************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
And yet as a tool to experiment in a more "open-ended" way with various mechanical solutions, for me personally nothing quite beats Fischer Technik.
For some reason, unlike Lego, Fischer Technik has never caught on much outside Germany. According to the Fischer-Technik website, aside from Australia, the only other countries that have more than 5 retail stores, outlets, and/or distributors selling Fischer Technik are Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and of course Germany:
In Germany there are literally hundreds of retail stores that sell Fischer Technik -- see http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/info/dealer-search.aspx . Whereas in the United States at first it might seem that there is only one. But that is probably the American distributor, and a different webiste, perhaps the website of this American distributor, lists about 20 outlets where one can find Fischer Technik in the United States, and 3 in Canada -- see http://www.fischertechnik.biz/ft/en/wheretobuy .
Australia seems to have at least 7 outlets, which is quite a lot for a non-Germanic country:
I was a bit surprised to discover that European countries like France, Spain, and Portugal don't appear to have many places where one can find Fischer Technik. Italy has only five outlets, less than Australia.....
Fischer Technik is a "Spielzeugsystem" that quite literally all Germans know about, because they buy it for their kids -- see for instance http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2012.php , http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2012/PROFI-Pneumatic-3 , and http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2011/fischertechnik-PROFI-Dynamic . Or at least the more science-and-engineering-oriented types do, those who are successful and have money, because Fischer Technik is not cheap. But I've never seen Fischer Technik discussed in Anglophone articles that try to explain Germany's industrial and economic success. I figure that Fischer Technik alone probably adds at least 5 -10 % per annum to German GPD, as German kids raised on the stuff grow up to become engineers and industrial designers.....:ylsmoke:
All best wishes,
Biotect
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
.
**************************************************
And yet as a tool to experiment in a more "open-ended" way with various mechanical solutions, for me personally nothing quite beats Fischer Technik.
For some reason, unlike Lego, Fischer Technik has never caught on much outside Germany. According to the Fischer-Technik website, aside from Australia, the only other countries that have more than 5 retail stores, outlets, and/or distributors selling Fischer Technik are Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, and of course Germany:
In Germany there are literally hundreds of retail stores that sell Fischer Technik -- see http://www.fischertechnik.de/en/Home/info/dealer-search.aspx . Whereas in the United States at first it might seem that there is only one. But that is probably the American distributor, and a different webiste, perhaps the website of this American distributor, lists about 20 outlets where one can find Fischer Technik in the United States, and 3 in Canada -- see http://www.fischertechnik.biz/ft/en/wheretobuy .
Australia seems to have at least 7 outlets, which is quite a lot for a non-Germanic country:
- Procon Technology
Education
Mount Waverley Vic
3149 Melbourne
Show dealer in map
- The Play Room
40 Frobisher Street
6017 Osborne Park Wa
Show dealer in map
- Fiddlesticks Toys
2/11 Station Street
6011 Cottesloe WA
Show dealer in map
- Flying Fox Studios
751 South Pine Road
4053 Queensland
Show dealer in map
- Absolut Toys
103-105 Aerodrome Road
4558 Maroochydore Qld
Show dealer in map
- Red Rocket Toys
674 New South Head Road
2029 ROSE BAY NSW
Show dealer in map
- Kiama Newsagency
68 Terralong Street
2533 Kiama NSW
Show dealer in map
I was a bit surprised to discover that European countries like France, Spain, and Portugal don't appear to have many places where one can find Fischer Technik. Italy has only five outlets, less than Australia.....
Fischer Technik is a "Spielzeugsystem" that quite literally all Germans know about, because they buy it for their kids -- see for instance http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2012.php , http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2012/PROFI-Pneumatic-3 , and http://www.top10spielzeug.de/Top10-Spielzeug-Nominierte/Nominierte-2011/fischertechnik-PROFI-Dynamic . Or at least the more science-and-engineering-oriented types do, those who are successful and have money, because Fischer Technik is not cheap. But I've never seen Fischer Technik discussed in Anglophone articles that try to explain Germany's industrial and economic success. I figure that Fischer Technik alone probably adds at least 5 -10 % per annum to German GPD, as German kids raised on the stuff grow up to become engineers and industrial designers.....:ylsmoke:
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Sorry, my spreadsheet is just a bunch of formulae, every time I check something, I lose the previous data. I think I used 0.08 for the Cd, given it was a modern truck, but as for the rest, I can't remember.
Last one I did was for my own truck. You can check your formulae using these figures:
Frontal Area: 7.48m2
Cd: 0.9
Air Density: 1.29kg/m3
Speed: 100kph
Roll Resistance: 0.008
Total Power: 109.4kW
Engine Power: 142.2kW ( 30% transmission loses)
Which is 190Hp, so pretty close to my actual horse power. I have not found a flat road when there is no wind to test the theory, but one day I will be able to try.
Hi Iain,
Success -- sort of.....
I get exactly the same second-to-last figure as you, but at the very end it appears that you may have made a calculation error of some kind.....:sombrero:
(1) Froll for Iain's truck = 0.008 x 7500 kg x 9.81 m/s[SUP]2 [/SUP]= 588.6 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP]
(2) No calculation for Fslope, because the truck is running along a flat surface.
(3) Fair for Iain's truck = (1.29 kg/m³ x 0.9 x 7,48 m[SUP]2[/SUP] x (27.7778 m/s)[SUP] 2[/SUP])/2 = 6,700.84 kg m/s[SUP]2[/SUP], divided by 2 = 3350.42 kg m/s[SUP]2 [/SUP]
Froll + Fair = Ftotal = 588.6 m/s[SUP]2 [/SUP]+ 3350.42 kg m/s[SUP]2 [/SUP]= 3939.02 m/s[SUP]2
[/SUP]
Ftotal ( v ) = 3939.02 m/s[SUP]2[/SUP] x 27.778 m/s = 109,417.31 m[SUP]2[/SUP]/s[SUP]3 [/SUP]= 109.4 KW
Total Power: 109.4 KW
So far so good. My figure for "Total Power" is exactly the same as yours, which is a relief, because as I've now committed myself to lots and lots of calculations in the course of completing the last few pages of posts. However, when I divide the Total Power figure of 109.4 KW by 0.70, to account for the 30 % transmission loss, I get:
Engine Power: = 109.4 KW / 0.70 = 156.29 KW.
This is 209.59 HP, not 190 HP.
You wrote that 190 HP is "close" to your actual HP. So what did your final HP turn out to be? I followed the pages in your build-thread where you installed your refurbished engine, but it seems that nowhere do they mention your final HP, nor do they mention KW -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page46 , http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page47 , and http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page48 .
On page 45 you wrote:
And also see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...mper-under-construction?p=1805202#post1805202 .
In any case, many thanks, because I'm now certain that I am using your equations correctly. At least I won't have to go back and revise all the calculations completd so far!! That posting series should be finished by Saturday or Sunday.
**************************************************
By the way, really like the overall "feel" of your Mog camper box interior, with angled roof, white walls + dark finished wood -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page26 , http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page27 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/37349-Unimog-Camper-under-construction/page36 . If you look a while back to the discussion of Newell, Concorde, Hymer, etc. on page 196, it seems clear that the interiors that have darker and richer woods which provide significant contrast with white walls, succeed visually much better than interiors that use lighter woods which are less contrastive -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...s-A-Crossover-w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain/page196 , and post #1954 in particular, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1962707#post1962707 . As I suggested on page 196, effective design is all about deploying systematic contrast of color, tone, texture, and material. Merely trying to unify using a rather weak technique like color matching is amateurish, and glad to see that you completely avoided that!!
Also liked how you made a serious effort to round all the corners in your Mog's interior, giving it an almost "naval" appearance. One particularly lovely detail is the swing-through table that tries to unify seating in the cab area with camper box, in post #219 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...mper-under-construction?p=1319073#post1319073 .
As per others on ExPo, I very much hope that your wife continues to do better.
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Iain_U1250
Explorer
In my formula, I multiply by 1.3 for the transmission loss. not divide by 0.7
I have not had the truck on a dyno yet, might do it when I get up around 5000km on the motor. When I got the fuel pump back, they told me they had set it up for 185hp, rather than 170hp which as the original spec of the pump. They said they had the calibration curves for 185hp already set for another fuel pump the had just finished, so it took less time which cost me less, I wasn't going to complain. They also said they had set it up for 10-12pis boost, so running less boost would increase EGT as bit, so I would have to watch the gauge when I am running it in, so I have progressively increased the boost the more km I do. I', now at 10PSI.
Regarding the interior design, we wanted to keep the colour palette simple. Dark floor / white walls create and illusion of space. Not having much at head height also makes it feel a lot bigger than it is. In reality, the space is tiny, especially compare to Terraliner, your bathroom will probably be bigger than our whole interior.
Rounded off edges are essential in a small space, as you will be hitting them all the time. We kept the same profile throughout the truck, a 6mm radius edge, which I bought a special route bit to do, and a 30mm radius for rounding the corners. This made it cheaper as we could get all the corner pieces CNC cut at once. The bench top as all the same thickness, but are made from a composite, so are quite light. Keeping the weight down was a constant battle, and whilst we are a bit heavier than we would like to be, it was worth the time and cost, as otherwise the camper would have bee really overweight.
Th Newell coaches are ridiculously heavy, with their solid floors and marble bench tops, it just seems crazy to be carting around all that weight. They run at, or close maximum GVM with most of it being in the materials, not with things like battery banks etc. They may be the goal in terms of finish or fittings, but in with the extra weight of the 6x6 chassis, battery banks, and all the hybrid drives and generators, Terraliner will need to be on a serious diet to remain legal.
I have not had the truck on a dyno yet, might do it when I get up around 5000km on the motor. When I got the fuel pump back, they told me they had set it up for 185hp, rather than 170hp which as the original spec of the pump. They said they had the calibration curves for 185hp already set for another fuel pump the had just finished, so it took less time which cost me less, I wasn't going to complain. They also said they had set it up for 10-12pis boost, so running less boost would increase EGT as bit, so I would have to watch the gauge when I am running it in, so I have progressively increased the boost the more km I do. I', now at 10PSI.
Regarding the interior design, we wanted to keep the colour palette simple. Dark floor / white walls create and illusion of space. Not having much at head height also makes it feel a lot bigger than it is. In reality, the space is tiny, especially compare to Terraliner, your bathroom will probably be bigger than our whole interior.
Rounded off edges are essential in a small space, as you will be hitting them all the time. We kept the same profile throughout the truck, a 6mm radius edge, which I bought a special route bit to do, and a 30mm radius for rounding the corners. This made it cheaper as we could get all the corner pieces CNC cut at once. The bench top as all the same thickness, but are made from a composite, so are quite light. Keeping the weight down was a constant battle, and whilst we are a bit heavier than we would like to be, it was worth the time and cost, as otherwise the camper would have bee really overweight.
Th Newell coaches are ridiculously heavy, with their solid floors and marble bench tops, it just seems crazy to be carting around all that weight. They run at, or close maximum GVM with most of it being in the materials, not with things like battery banks etc. They may be the goal in terms of finish or fittings, but in with the extra weight of the 6x6 chassis, battery banks, and all the hybrid drives and generators, Terraliner will need to be on a serious diet to remain legal.
biotect
Designer
Hi Iain,
It seems that you may be working with an implicit analogy to the world of “Do it yourself” construction. Here your assumptions seem to be that the kinds of materials you would use, and the kind of cabinetry-making techniques that you would employ, are the same as the kind of materials and techniques that Newell would use. You may need to question both assumptions.
Custom coach manufacturers like Newell et al build all their own furniture for a reason: to save on weight. It's the same with a custom catamaran manufacturer like Gunboat. Although the interior furniture in a Newell or a Gunboat may look like solid wood, everything is sandwich honeycomb construction, with only a thin veneer of cherry-wood (or similar) on top – see http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-g4/ , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-55/ , http://www.gunboat.com/series/previous-models/gunboat-66/ , http://www.cruisingworld.com/sailboats/gunboat-catamarans-factory-tour?image=1 , http://www.allatsea.net/safety-quality-and-family-gunboats-wanchese/ , and http://teamspeed.com/forums/luxury-cruisers-performance-yachts/65065-gunboat-60-a.html .
You may think that Newell, Liberty, Marathon, Millennium, Featherlite, et al, build furniture in much the same way as you do, but you would in all likelihood be wrong. If you are long habituated to using honeycomb-veneer construction when building furniture, then my apologies……:sombrero:
It's the same when it comes to Granite. When used in quantity, Newell does not install 3 cm nor even 1 cm thick Granite slabs. Rather, Newell uses honeycomb-aluminum tiles that merely have a thin veneer of Granite on top – see http://www.luxurycoachlifestyle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2674 , http://www.gramablend.co.uk , http://www.gramablend.co.uk/services , http://www.gramablend.co.uk/index.php?page=search&search=lightweight+stone , http://stonesheets.com/StoneSheets-AL-19.html , http://www.luxuryyp.com/granite_tile.html , http://www.luxuryyp.com/granite_countertop.html , http://www.stonepanels.com/stone-veneer/ , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/...ne/slabs_light_weight_marble_granite_4591.htm , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/marble_granite_natural_stone/legger_4551.htm , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/marble_granite_natural_stone/legger_4541.htm , http://pacificbedrock.tumblr.com , https://www.pacificbedrock.com/lightweight-quartz-honeycomb-panels.php , http://renoxbell.en.made-in-china.c...k-25mm-Aluminum-Honeycomb-Sandwich-Panel.html , http://hycomb.gmc.globalmarket.com/...z-slab-with-honeycomb-core-panel-3515255.html , https://www.pacificbedrock.com/lightweight-quartz-honeycomb-panels.php , and http://www.marbletrend.com/products-details.php?product_id=755# :
These are various products that I found on the web; I am not certain which honeycomb granite or honeycomb marble product Newell uses specifically. But the mere existence of multiple manufacturers should indicate that this is not an "exotic" product at all, but rather, is quite common.
Of course if one uses too much of it, the weight will still go up:
See http://www.caranddriver.com/features/newell-p2000i-rv-review-feature-itll-cost-you-page-2 .
But here I find it interesting that most of a Newell motorhome's weight -- about 15 tons -- is due to the chassis and the ICE.....:sombrero:
Many will often simply assume that the use of traditional materials like stone or wood in a high-performance yacht or luxury motorhome can only be justified on aesthetic grounds. And that plastics of one sort or another are to be preferred, from a weight-reduction point of view. But when it comes to impact-resistance or cutting resistance, stone and wood are typically superior to plastics. For instance, the tender used by Gunboat catamarans has a carbon-fiber/kevlar hull, but the deck is still made of teak, because it turned out that teak was not much heavier than the extra laminate that would have been required to give the deck strength, and teak has much better impact resistance -- see http://wavetrain.net/boats-a-gear/6-sexy-tendermeet-the-pure-450 :
Or consider the Corian versus Granite debate -- see http://www.greatlakesgm.com/stone-comparison-chart.html and http://www.houzz.com/discussions/821482/corian-vs-granite :
Corian looks and feels like plastic, scratches easily, and has been known to crack because of heat. In addition to Granite, there's Quartz, which has many of the advantages of Granite, without the disadvantages, e.g. possible staining because Granite is porous, and needs to be sealed twice a year:
[video=youtube;F2iF9gS9Qk0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2iF9gS9Qk0 [/video]
And yes, as per Granite, Quartz-veneer aluminum honeycomb panels are also available in very large sheets.
Because Quartz countertops are man-made products, it may be possible that a kitchen countertop with a seamlessly integrated "coved" backsplash (see http://yankeecounter.com/what-is-a-coved-backsplash/ ), and curved/bevelled edges could be created, but one that nonetheless weighs next to nothing, because it's all just Quartz veneer, backed by aluminum honeycomb:
![1041 [640x480].jpg](https://expeditionportal.com/forum/data/attachments/244/244246-65ae1522f647b93070708c43029c7c26.jpg "1041 [640x480].jpg")
[video=youtube;IVIzRSWEDPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVIzRSWEDPM [/video]
Although the general view seems to be that seamless "coved" backsplashes can only be created using solid-surface materials like Corian, there are a number of speciality producers of artificial-stone products that can create just about anything, and perhaps also the kind of Quartz-veneer countertop that I just described -- see for instance http://www.majestic-gemstone.com , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=133 , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=78&mCatID2=60 , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=119&mCatID2=0 , http://www.silestone.co.uk , http://www.silestone.co.uk/what-is-silestone/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/showroom/kitchens/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/silestone-countertops/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/showroom/bathrooms/ , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/default.asp?L=EN&mid=248 , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/25/What-Is-Cimstone.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/36/Kitchen.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/41/Bathroom.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/42/Other.htm , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...-materials/brands/zodiaq-quartz-surfaces.html , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...uses-and-applications/zodiaq-vanity-tops.html , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...ations/zodiaq-quartz-kitchen-countertops.html , http://www.caesarstone.com , http://www.caesarstone.com/en/Gallery/Kitchens , http://www.concetto.net/about_concetto.aspx , and http://www.concetto.net/the_collection.aspx .
In the case of the kitchen countertop specifically, my temptation might be to go with stainless steel. But it's interesting that very lightweight stone alternatives do exist.
Haven't you ever wondered how private business jets and larger private aircraft could be fitted with marble floors and bathrooms? It's the same with a premium motorcoach like a Newell.
All best wishes,
Biotect
It seems that you may be working with an implicit analogy to the world of “Do it yourself” construction. Here your assumptions seem to be that the kinds of materials you would use, and the kind of cabinetry-making techniques that you would employ, are the same as the kind of materials and techniques that Newell would use. You may need to question both assumptions.
Custom coach manufacturers like Newell et al build all their own furniture for a reason: to save on weight. It's the same with a custom catamaran manufacturer like Gunboat. Although the interior furniture in a Newell or a Gunboat may look like solid wood, everything is sandwich honeycomb construction, with only a thin veneer of cherry-wood (or similar) on top – see http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-g4/ , http://www.gunboat.com/series/gunboat-55/ , http://www.gunboat.com/series/previous-models/gunboat-66/ , http://www.cruisingworld.com/sailboats/gunboat-catamarans-factory-tour?image=1 , http://www.allatsea.net/safety-quality-and-family-gunboats-wanchese/ , and http://teamspeed.com/forums/luxury-cruisers-performance-yachts/65065-gunboat-60-a.html .
You may think that Newell, Liberty, Marathon, Millennium, Featherlite, et al, build furniture in much the same way as you do, but you would in all likelihood be wrong. If you are long habituated to using honeycomb-veneer construction when building furniture, then my apologies……:sombrero:
It's the same when it comes to Granite. When used in quantity, Newell does not install 3 cm nor even 1 cm thick Granite slabs. Rather, Newell uses honeycomb-aluminum tiles that merely have a thin veneer of Granite on top – see http://www.luxurycoachlifestyle.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2674 , http://www.gramablend.co.uk , http://www.gramablend.co.uk/services , http://www.gramablend.co.uk/index.php?page=search&search=lightweight+stone , http://stonesheets.com/StoneSheets-AL-19.html , http://www.luxuryyp.com/granite_tile.html , http://www.luxuryyp.com/granite_countertop.html , http://www.stonepanels.com/stone-veneer/ , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/...ne/slabs_light_weight_marble_granite_4591.htm , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/marble_granite_natural_stone/legger_4551.htm , http://www.fabianofulvi.com/public/marble_granite_natural_stone/legger_4541.htm , http://pacificbedrock.tumblr.com , https://www.pacificbedrock.com/lightweight-quartz-honeycomb-panels.php , http://renoxbell.en.made-in-china.c...k-25mm-Aluminum-Honeycomb-Sandwich-Panel.html , http://hycomb.gmc.globalmarket.com/...z-slab-with-honeycomb-core-panel-3515255.html , https://www.pacificbedrock.com/lightweight-quartz-honeycomb-panels.php , and http://www.marbletrend.com/products-details.php?product_id=755# :
These are various products that I found on the web; I am not certain which honeycomb granite or honeycomb marble product Newell uses specifically. But the mere existence of multiple manufacturers should indicate that this is not an "exotic" product at all, but rather, is quite common.
Of course if one uses too much of it, the weight will still go up:
See http://www.caranddriver.com/features/newell-p2000i-rv-review-feature-itll-cost-you-page-2 .
But here I find it interesting that most of a Newell motorhome's weight -- about 15 tons -- is due to the chassis and the ICE.....:sombrero:
Many will often simply assume that the use of traditional materials like stone or wood in a high-performance yacht or luxury motorhome can only be justified on aesthetic grounds. And that plastics of one sort or another are to be preferred, from a weight-reduction point of view. But when it comes to impact-resistance or cutting resistance, stone and wood are typically superior to plastics. For instance, the tender used by Gunboat catamarans has a carbon-fiber/kevlar hull, but the deck is still made of teak, because it turned out that teak was not much heavier than the extra laminate that would have been required to give the deck strength, and teak has much better impact resistance -- see http://wavetrain.net/boats-a-gear/6-sexy-tendermeet-the-pure-450 :
Or consider the Corian versus Granite debate -- see http://www.greatlakesgm.com/stone-comparison-chart.html and http://www.houzz.com/discussions/821482/corian-vs-granite :
Corian looks and feels like plastic, scratches easily, and has been known to crack because of heat. In addition to Granite, there's Quartz, which has many of the advantages of Granite, without the disadvantages, e.g. possible staining because Granite is porous, and needs to be sealed twice a year:
[video=youtube;F2iF9gS9Qk0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2iF9gS9Qk0 [/video]
And yes, as per Granite, Quartz-veneer aluminum honeycomb panels are also available in very large sheets.
Because Quartz countertops are man-made products, it may be possible that a kitchen countertop with a seamlessly integrated "coved" backsplash (see http://yankeecounter.com/what-is-a-coved-backsplash/ ), and curved/bevelled edges could be created, but one that nonetheless weighs next to nothing, because it's all just Quartz veneer, backed by aluminum honeycomb:
[video=youtube;IVIzRSWEDPM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IVIzRSWEDPM [/video]
Although the general view seems to be that seamless "coved" backsplashes can only be created using solid-surface materials like Corian, there are a number of speciality producers of artificial-stone products that can create just about anything, and perhaps also the kind of Quartz-veneer countertop that I just described -- see for instance http://www.majestic-gemstone.com , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=133 , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=78&mCatID2=60 , http://www.majestic-gemstone.com/home/doc.aspx?mCatID=119&mCatID2=0 , http://www.silestone.co.uk , http://www.silestone.co.uk/what-is-silestone/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/showroom/kitchens/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/silestone-countertops/ , http://www.silestone.co.uk/showroom/bathrooms/ , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/default.asp?L=EN&mid=248 , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/25/What-Is-Cimstone.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/36/Kitchen.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/41/Bathroom.htm , http://www.cimstone.co.uk/EN/42/Other.htm , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...-materials/brands/zodiaq-quartz-surfaces.html , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...uses-and-applications/zodiaq-vanity-tops.html , http://www.dupont.com/products-and-...ations/zodiaq-quartz-kitchen-countertops.html , http://www.caesarstone.com , http://www.caesarstone.com/en/Gallery/Kitchens , http://www.concetto.net/about_concetto.aspx , and http://www.concetto.net/the_collection.aspx .
In the case of the kitchen countertop specifically, my temptation might be to go with stainless steel. But it's interesting that very lightweight stone alternatives do exist.
Haven't you ever wondered how private business jets and larger private aircraft could be fitted with marble floors and bathrooms? It's the same with a premium motorcoach like a Newell.
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
.
MULTIPLYING vs. DIVIDING to calculate the power lost to a drivetrain
Hi Iain,
Thanks for the clarification regarding your last step, namely, multiplying by 1.3, instead of dividing by 0.7. However, I think that you still might be making a mistake here, at least from the point of view of mathematical and mechanical reasoning.
If you examine the difference between the figure for the "Total Vehicle Drive Force" that one of the web-calculators generates, and the final "Power Output Required" figure that it generates after deducting for drive inefficiency, the final figure obtained is always the product of dividing, not multiplying -- see http://buggies.builtforfun.co.uk/Calculator/analyse-metric.php . For instance, if one stipulates a drive inefficiency of 90 %, then to arrive at a final number the web-calculator will divide by 0.9. It will not multiply by 1.1.
If you think about it mathematically, this is the right way to do it. If you state the ultimate power requirement of your Unimog as 142.2 KW, and you then also stipulate that you think that your Unimog loses about 30 % of that due to the drivetrain, then 142.2 x 0.70 = 99.54 KW, and not 109.4 KW. Or just multiply 142.2 KW x 30 %, and you get 42.66 KW; deduct that from 142.2 KW, and again you get 99.54 KW of available power, once you've deducted 30 % due to drive-train inefficiency. So I would suggest that multiplying by 1.3 is a mathematical and a mechanical mistake. If you multiply, the end result will be a power figure that is actually much lower than what would be required, if the energy lost to the transmission really were 30 %.
Now in the case of your Unimog, it's quite possible that the energy lost due to the drivetrain is really only 24 %, because 109.4 KW is 76 % of 142.2 KW. So if your engine is 190 HP, this may prove enough, because your drivetrain is actually much more efficient than the 30 % that you estimated. So with respect to your particular vehicle, things may work out. But for TerraLiner calculations, I should probably stick to dividing by 0.9, instead of multiplying by 1.1.
Think of it this way. From what figure should the 30 % energy lost to the transmission, be taken from? From the smaller initial figure, or from the bigger final figure? Clearly, the 30 % lost must be deducted from the final, bigger figure, i.e. the ultimate size of the engine. Whereas the smaller figure is actually the target output in KW that will remain available to drive the vehicle, after 30 % has been deducted from the larger figure, the rated KW output of the engine. So going in the other direction, in order to get to the size of the engine needed, one can't multiply, but rather, one needs to divide.
I know this doesn't sound logical, and it may seem counterintuitive. But here I find myself remembering a number of "trick questions" that appeared on tests when I studied the mathematics of percentages way back in grade school. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. But there it is. Dividing is the mathematically and mechanically correct operation, not multiplying.
Of course, the notion that the TerraLiner will lose 10 % due to hub-gear inefficiency is only a wild guess. If anyone reading this has some thoughts about what the power-loss is more likely to be for the reduction gearboxes that hub-motors will require, please post!!
All best wishes,
Biotect
MULTIPLYING vs. DIVIDING to calculate the power lost to a drivetrain
Hi Iain,
Thanks for the clarification regarding your last step, namely, multiplying by 1.3, instead of dividing by 0.7. However, I think that you still might be making a mistake here, at least from the point of view of mathematical and mechanical reasoning.
If you examine the difference between the figure for the "Total Vehicle Drive Force" that one of the web-calculators generates, and the final "Power Output Required" figure that it generates after deducting for drive inefficiency, the final figure obtained is always the product of dividing, not multiplying -- see http://buggies.builtforfun.co.uk/Calculator/analyse-metric.php . For instance, if one stipulates a drive inefficiency of 90 %, then to arrive at a final number the web-calculator will divide by 0.9. It will not multiply by 1.1.
If you think about it mathematically, this is the right way to do it. If you state the ultimate power requirement of your Unimog as 142.2 KW, and you then also stipulate that you think that your Unimog loses about 30 % of that due to the drivetrain, then 142.2 x 0.70 = 99.54 KW, and not 109.4 KW. Or just multiply 142.2 KW x 30 %, and you get 42.66 KW; deduct that from 142.2 KW, and again you get 99.54 KW of available power, once you've deducted 30 % due to drive-train inefficiency. So I would suggest that multiplying by 1.3 is a mathematical and a mechanical mistake. If you multiply, the end result will be a power figure that is actually much lower than what would be required, if the energy lost to the transmission really were 30 %.
Now in the case of your Unimog, it's quite possible that the energy lost due to the drivetrain is really only 24 %, because 109.4 KW is 76 % of 142.2 KW. So if your engine is 190 HP, this may prove enough, because your drivetrain is actually much more efficient than the 30 % that you estimated. So with respect to your particular vehicle, things may work out. But for TerraLiner calculations, I should probably stick to dividing by 0.9, instead of multiplying by 1.1.
Think of it this way. From what figure should the 30 % energy lost to the transmission, be taken from? From the smaller initial figure, or from the bigger final figure? Clearly, the 30 % lost must be deducted from the final, bigger figure, i.e. the ultimate size of the engine. Whereas the smaller figure is actually the target output in KW that will remain available to drive the vehicle, after 30 % has been deducted from the larger figure, the rated KW output of the engine. So going in the other direction, in order to get to the size of the engine needed, one can't multiply, but rather, one needs to divide.
I know this doesn't sound logical, and it may seem counterintuitive. But here I find myself remembering a number of "trick questions" that appeared on tests when I studied the mathematics of percentages way back in grade school. I don't know how to explain it any better than that. But there it is. Dividing is the mathematically and mechanically correct operation, not multiplying.
Of course, the notion that the TerraLiner will lose 10 % due to hub-gear inefficiency is only a wild guess. If anyone reading this has some thoughts about what the power-loss is more likely to be for the reduction gearboxes that hub-motors will require, please post!!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hey Iain,
In answer to the problem that you raised, regarding the dissipation of braking energy as heat as the TerraLiner descends a steep slope, it occurred to me that the Pisten Bully 600 E+ snow groomer must be facing the same problem, and then some.
Recall that the thread briefly addressed hybrid diesel-elecrtic snow groomers on page 94, posts #934 to #936, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page94 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1732824#post1732824 . These vehicles have to negotiate very steep slopes, in so far as they both ascend and descend some very steep ski runs:
Since I posted last, a bit more information has become available on-line -- see http://www.pistenbully.com/ita/en/innovation/efficiency/e-diesel-electric-drive.html , http://www.pistenbully.com/ita/en/innovation/efficiency/scr-engines.html , and especially http://www.pistenbully.com/fileadmi.../modul_8_download/broschuere_600_eplus_en.pdf :
The "Cooling System E-Drive" now makes sense: that's probably the system that dissipates excess heat generated by the electric motors when they function as retarders, descending a slope. Note that here I've posted the drive-train diagram provided by the new PDF, as well as the old drive-train diagram that was available on the website. The "Cooling System E-Drive" has now been relabeled as the "Transformer and Hydraulic Oil Cooler".
Although the diesel engine is rated at 295 KW (400 HP), it drives not one but two generators, that produce 140 KW, either individually, or together -- it's not clear which. I strongly suspect that this is the amount of power that each produces individually, for a total figure of 280 KW of electric power. But I could be wrong about this.
It's not obvious what the difference is between the "traction drive" and the "tiller drive". However, I suspect that "traction drive" means the two electric motors that power the left and right tracks, while the "tiller drive" is the electric motor that powers a shaft connected to the snow-grooming equipment -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_grooming .
It seems that the Pisten Bully 600 E+ has two electric motors, also rated at 140 KW each, for 280 KW in total, which would then be braking power, not just drive power. But again, this could be just 140 KW for the two electric motors combined. Let's suppose it's the former. If so, then the Pisten Bully 600 E+ seems to have 375 HP of braking power available, when the electric motors function as retarders. It's a vehicle whose tare weight is about 9,000 kg (9 tons), and whose gross weight limit (i.e. the limit of total weight when it is towing grooming equipment) is 12,500 kg, or 12.5 tons. So presumably 375 HP of braking power is thought enough to prevent a 12.5 ton Pisten Bully 600 E+ from hurtling down an Alpine slope, and flying off a cliff.....:sombrero:
All of this is not very clear, because again, it's not completely transparent how much power the generators produce, or how much power the electric motors can consume.
Note that even before Pisten Bully developed the 600 E+, it seems to have been committed to "non-wear braking", by means of a "hydrostatic drive train", with two multi-disc brakes provided only for parking. Also note that the 600 E+ was developed initially as somewhat akin to Oshkosh's ProPulse system, without a battery pack. Instead, the diesel generator provides power directly to the motors. But battery packs are indicated in the drive-train diagrams as future possibilities.
I would also like to better understand what a "Brake Chopper with Integrated ISO Monitor" is; it seems central to the idea of the electric motors also functioning as retarding generators -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_chopper .
Many mysteries here, but fascinating nonetheless, because it suggests that the problems that you posed for the TerraLiner's hybrid drive-train should in principle be surmountable.
All best wishes,
Biotect
In answer to the problem that you raised, regarding the dissipation of braking energy as heat as the TerraLiner descends a steep slope, it occurred to me that the Pisten Bully 600 E+ snow groomer must be facing the same problem, and then some.
Recall that the thread briefly addressed hybrid diesel-elecrtic snow groomers on page 94, posts #934 to #936, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page94 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1732824#post1732824 . These vehicles have to negotiate very steep slopes, in so far as they both ascend and descend some very steep ski runs:
Since I posted last, a bit more information has become available on-line -- see http://www.pistenbully.com/ita/en/innovation/efficiency/e-diesel-electric-drive.html , http://www.pistenbully.com/ita/en/innovation/efficiency/scr-engines.html , and especially http://www.pistenbully.com/fileadmi.../modul_8_download/broschuere_600_eplus_en.pdf :
The "Cooling System E-Drive" now makes sense: that's probably the system that dissipates excess heat generated by the electric motors when they function as retarders, descending a slope. Note that here I've posted the drive-train diagram provided by the new PDF, as well as the old drive-train diagram that was available on the website. The "Cooling System E-Drive" has now been relabeled as the "Transformer and Hydraulic Oil Cooler".
Although the diesel engine is rated at 295 KW (400 HP), it drives not one but two generators, that produce 140 KW, either individually, or together -- it's not clear which. I strongly suspect that this is the amount of power that each produces individually, for a total figure of 280 KW of electric power. But I could be wrong about this.
It's not obvious what the difference is between the "traction drive" and the "tiller drive". However, I suspect that "traction drive" means the two electric motors that power the left and right tracks, while the "tiller drive" is the electric motor that powers a shaft connected to the snow-grooming equipment -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow_grooming .
It seems that the Pisten Bully 600 E+ has two electric motors, also rated at 140 KW each, for 280 KW in total, which would then be braking power, not just drive power. But again, this could be just 140 KW for the two electric motors combined. Let's suppose it's the former. If so, then the Pisten Bully 600 E+ seems to have 375 HP of braking power available, when the electric motors function as retarders. It's a vehicle whose tare weight is about 9,000 kg (9 tons), and whose gross weight limit (i.e. the limit of total weight when it is towing grooming equipment) is 12,500 kg, or 12.5 tons. So presumably 375 HP of braking power is thought enough to prevent a 12.5 ton Pisten Bully 600 E+ from hurtling down an Alpine slope, and flying off a cliff.....:sombrero:
All of this is not very clear, because again, it's not completely transparent how much power the generators produce, or how much power the electric motors can consume.
Note that even before Pisten Bully developed the 600 E+, it seems to have been committed to "non-wear braking", by means of a "hydrostatic drive train", with two multi-disc brakes provided only for parking. Also note that the 600 E+ was developed initially as somewhat akin to Oshkosh's ProPulse system, without a battery pack. Instead, the diesel generator provides power directly to the motors. But battery packs are indicated in the drive-train diagrams as future possibilities.
I would also like to better understand what a "Brake Chopper with Integrated ISO Monitor" is; it seems central to the idea of the electric motors also functioning as retarding generators -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braking_chopper .
Many mysteries here, but fascinating nonetheless, because it suggests that the problems that you posed for the TerraLiner's hybrid drive-train should in principle be surmountable.
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Iain_U1250
Explorer
I'll stick with multiplying for my way of calculating the power required, it is the way my industry does it. In the equations I am using it work out the "required power". The 30% drive train is a loss, thus should added to the power required. The 30% figure is just a guess, and could be anywhere between 15% and 40%. Note that going from 2WD to 4WD would make it worse, dropping down gears also increases drivetrain losses, sacrificing power for torque multiplication. Going above 1:1 direct drive increases efficiency ( I have a 22% overdrive ) Your way of doing it is looking backwards at "available power", thus will give different results. If I was working out the maximum speed from the power I have available, I would not have had to use any estimate for drivetrain losses estimates, as I would have the "Power at the wheels" figure from a chassis dyno.
In terms of Terraliner, you need to figure out what the drivetrain losses will be, including the control system. Direct drive motors may well be 95% efficient ( I still believe you will need hub reduction gearboxes as a minimum) , but you need to look at the other losses, wiring, control system, for example your variable speed drive losses will be between 5-10%. Your cabling losses could be around 0.5%, also each joint causes some voltage drop, higher current connections have higher losses, hence a higher voltage would be better, however if you are running off a battery pack, you would then need to step up the voltage, which would require another loss making system. All of these losses needed to be added to the "required power", rather than subtracted from the "available power". Note that the order of how you work each loss out is very important, and should follow the mechanical path so that you get the right multiplication factors on top of the mechanical losses.
I am aware of the lightweight materials available, I looked at honey comb composites, but my foam ply/composite was lighter and more cost effective for me. I got the "solid marble tops" from an episode of "Ultimate RV". they show quite clearly the solid marble bench tops that the top of the line Newell coach had fitted, and talk about the extra weight penalty of the various material they use. One particular RV used the back-lit quartz benchtops and floors, and show the thickness if it and IIRC, they talked about it weighing two tons, but that it was OK as the Newell chassis was strong and had a 30 ton capacity.
Since there are definite legal limits for a 6x6 chassis, here in Australia it would only be 28 tons as previously discussed, that is your starting point. Subtract all the various components that are "must have", like chassis, drive train, minimum fuel and water capacity, the large battery bank, truck structure, heat and sound insulation, cladding etc. Then you can figure out what weight is left over for all the "nice to haves" like extra fuel and water supplies, and what's left after that, is available for your "luxury features". In your target market, the "luxury features" will more likely be the selling points, so saving weight wherever possible should be your goal.
Even now, whilst you are still in "architectural or fantasy" mode, start a list of what things weigh, and a target weight for Terraliner. There are plenty of "knowns", wheels and tyres for example - 6 x 250kg ( + 2 spares?) gives you 2 tons. Have a look at this thread fro Pairoa http://www.allrad-lkw-gemeinschaft.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=26452 It will give you an idea of what a conventional 6x6 chassis is like. The new Zetros 6x6 has a 10ton ( Cab/Chassis) dry weight, so things have not changed much in 30 years. I would not think you can go much lighter than that for an "bad roads" truck 12m in length. You have stated previously that you want to be automomus for 3 months, for two people. Make a calculation of how much champagne and caviar for 3 months weighs, and add a bit extra for normal food in case your ERCWLOM get sick of it What is your target range - 1500km, so 1000lt of diesel and 2000lt of water? All of these things are known already and will be able to put some "meat" to the bones of this design, as at the moment, despite 215 very long pages, I can still not get any more than a basic concept of what you are planning.
) Your way of doing it is looking backwards at "available power", thus will give different results. If I was working out the maximum speed from the power I have available, I would not have had to use any estimate for drivetrain losses estimates, as I would have the "Power at the wheels" figure from a chassis dyno. In terms of Terraliner, you need to figure out what the drivetrain losses will be, including the control system. Direct drive motors may well be 95% efficient ( I still believe you will need hub reduction gearboxes as a minimum) , but you need to look at the other losses, wiring, control system, for example your variable speed drive losses will be between 5-10%. Your cabling losses could be around 0.5%, also each joint causes some voltage drop, higher current connections have higher losses, hence a higher voltage would be better, however if you are running off a battery pack, you would then need to step up the voltage, which would require another loss making system. All of these losses needed to be added to the "required power", rather than subtracted from the "available power". Note that the order of how you work each loss out is very important, and should follow the mechanical path so that you get the right multiplication factors on top of the mechanical losses.
I am aware of the lightweight materials available, I looked at honey comb composites, but my foam ply/composite was lighter and more cost effective for me. I got the "solid marble tops" from an episode of "Ultimate RV". they show quite clearly the solid marble bench tops that the top of the line Newell coach had fitted, and talk about the extra weight penalty of the various material they use. One particular RV used the back-lit quartz benchtops and floors, and show the thickness if it and IIRC, they talked about it weighing two tons, but that it was OK as the Newell chassis was strong and had a 30 ton capacity.
Since there are definite legal limits for a 6x6 chassis, here in Australia it would only be 28 tons as previously discussed, that is your starting point. Subtract all the various components that are "must have", like chassis, drive train, minimum fuel and water capacity, the large battery bank, truck structure, heat and sound insulation, cladding etc. Then you can figure out what weight is left over for all the "nice to haves" like extra fuel and water supplies, and what's left after that, is available for your "luxury features". In your target market, the "luxury features" will more likely be the selling points, so saving weight wherever possible should be your goal.
Even now, whilst you are still in "architectural or fantasy" mode, start a list of what things weigh, and a target weight for Terraliner. There are plenty of "knowns", wheels and tyres for example - 6 x 250kg ( + 2 spares?) gives you 2 tons. Have a look at this thread fro Pairoa http://www.allrad-lkw-gemeinschaft.de/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=33&t=26452 It will give you an idea of what a conventional 6x6 chassis is like. The new Zetros 6x6 has a 10ton ( Cab/Chassis) dry weight, so things have not changed much in 30 years. I would not think you can go much lighter than that for an "bad roads" truck 12m in length. You have stated previously that you want to be automomus for 3 months, for two people. Make a calculation of how much champagne and caviar for 3 months weighs, and add a bit extra for normal food in case your ERCWLOM get sick of it
What is your target range - 1500km, so 1000lt of diesel and 2000lt of water? All of these things are known already and will be able to put some "meat" to the bones of this design, as at the moment, despite 215 very long pages, I can still not get any more than a basic concept of what you are planning.
3/16 inch of marble weights c.a. 130 kg/m^2. Which is huge if you ask me.
0.6 mm mentioned on one picture would be 16 kg/m^2, but unlikely to be strong enough to cover floors. And still I wouldn't call it "very lightweight".