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

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


2. Oshkosh-based Expedition Motorhomes


Now in the world of self-build or “bespoke-build”, some Oshkosh-based motorhomes do exist. For instance, there is a HEMMT-based motorhome detailed at length on ExPo at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/112015-8x8-HEMTT-Expedition-Vehicle-w-Garage , and also at http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/expedition-vehicles/963761-nice-rv.html . And it seems that at one point GXV explored the possibility of a HEMTT conversion, and produced a design that looked very integrated – see the ExPo thread at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/48137-Hemtt-Define-America-Project :




My personal favorite is an expedition motorhome conversion based on an Oshkosh M1000 ARFF (Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting) – see http://www.gizmag.com/go/3708/ and http://dogtrack.proboards.com/thread/365 :







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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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








Love the Safari-top hatch on the roof of the cab, and the monster-sized outrigger stabilizers on the front, perhaps holdovers from the original ARFF chassis?

Not sure how they achieve the golden patina in the kitchen. But if it's the actual color of the metal, and not a consequence of lighting or a camera filter, it's unbelievably beautiful. The bathroom is also one of the more expressive and colorful that I've seen, and reminds me of the bold interior design work done by ARC – see http://www.arcairstreams.co.uk .

But notice that this Oshkosh ARFF conversion is still just a 4x4, not a 6x6.


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

3. Oshkosh Diesel-Electric Hybrid


I am also very interested in Oshkosh automotive technology, for instance, the TAK 4 independent suspension system. But more about TAK 4 later.

We've discussed hybrid-offroad a few times in this thread, and just recently I came across Oshkosh's “Propulse” hybrid program, which seems to have been implemented primarily in its HEMMT A3 Heavy Tactical Vehicle. But “Propulse” was developed to apply to the MTVR Medium Tactical Vehicle range as well, and some more civilian vehicle types – see http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/products/heavy-tactical-vehicles/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/vehicles/hemtt-a3-diesel-electric/ , http://oshkoshdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/HEMTT_A3_SS_6-13-11.pdf , http://oshkoshdefense.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/ProPulse_SS_6-13-11.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007power/...snasrCopyofJointServicePowerOTC42407Final.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2009power/may6Nader.pdf , http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011power/Session16_12834Mimnagh.pdf , and http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/pdfs/Oshkosh_ProPulse_drive_brochure.pdf :




At the end of the second video below, the HEMMT A3 demonstrates that it can produce enough electricity to light up an airfield (!):




I then wonder whether Rheinmetall-MAN (RMMV) is working on anything even remotely equivalent?

Some of Oshkosh's “Propulse” research seems to have been funded by DARPA (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DARPA and http://www.darpa.mil/default.aspx ), and Europe probably does not have an institution even remotely equivalent, with such deep pockets. One might then conjecture that perhaps RMMV is well behind Oshkosh in the development of hybrid vehicle propulsion systems, of the kind tough enough to handle off-road driving?

Of course this would be most surprising, because aside from Oshkosh, another major player – BAE systems – has been investing heavily in military-grade hybrid technology – see http://inhabitat.com/bae-systems-develops-hybrid-electric-drive-tank-for-the-u-s-army/ , http://www.gizmag.com/bae-gcv-hybrid-tank/25113/ , http://www.army-technology.com/news/newsbae-gcv-hybrid-electric-drive , http://www.armyrecognition.com/augu...uccessfully_completed_2000_miles_testing.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GCV_Infantry_Fighting_Vehicle , and http://www.baesystems.com/product/B...&_afrWindowMode=0&_adf.ctrl-state=rzhnsr5np_4 .

But who knows? So if anyone has further information about RMMV's investment (or lack thereof) in hybrid technology, for challenging, off-road military-vehicle applications in particular, please post.

Now if RMMV is not investing, then perhaps the ideal large expedition vehicle would be a Tatra 815 6x6 chassis with backbone tube, driven by an Oshkosh “Propulse” hybrid drive system…..

For more information about Oshkosh's "Propulse" hybrid diesel-electric propulsion system, see http://www.forbes.com/2006/01/30/oshkoshtrucks-fuelcells-trucks-cz_atg_0131osk.html , http://oshkoshdefense.com/components/propulse/ , http://www.oshkoshcorporation.com/about/tech_innovations~propulse.html , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=392590&highlight= , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=263493&highlight= , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=93403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=931029&highlight= , http://www.oemoffhighway.com/article/10166467/hybrid-technology-the-technology-pulse , http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/oshkosh_propuls.html , http://green.autoblog.com/2006/12/27/oshkosk-using-copper-motor-rotor-technology-for-military/ , and http://www.showtimesdaily.com/news-articles/oshkosh-to-show-propulse-hybrid-mtvr . And for additional information about the HEMMT A3 Diesel-Electric Hybrid in particular, see http://www.4x4offroads.com/oshkosh-hemtt-a3.html , http://www.defencetalk.com/oshkosh-to-supply-new-heavy-tactical-vehicles-for-us-army-34893/ , http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1107dp_diesel_electric_hybrid_hemtt_oskosh_a3/ , http://www.dieselpowermag.com/features/1107dp_diesel_electric_hybrid_hemtt_oskosh_a3/photo_03.html , http://www.hybrid-vehicle.org/hybrid-truck-hemtt.html , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Expanded_Mobility_Tactical_Truck , http://www.army-technology.com/projects/oshkosh-hemtt/ , http://seekingalpha.com/article/81600-oshkoshs-diesel-electric-hybrid-monster-truck , http://www.automotive-business-revi...splays_fuel_efficient_military_vehicle_091026 , http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/10/26/idUS97479+26-Oct-2009+BW20091026 , http://www.army-technology.com/news/news68124.html , http://investor.oshkoshcorporation....3403&p=irol-newsArticle2&ID=1346005&highlight= , and http://www.defencetalk.com/fuel-efficient-military-vehicle-on-display-at-hybrid-truck-forum-22758/ .

For Oshkosh hybrid technology in other applications, see http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/11/oshkosh_truck_u.html , http://trailer-bodybuilders.com/archive/oshkosh-unveils-fuel-saving-hybrid-drive-refuse-vehicle , http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2006/11/14/028594.html , and http://files.harc.edu/Sites/TERC/About/Events/ETAC200705/HybridCommercialization.pdf . And for articles about military-grade hybrid technology in general, see http://www.nationaldefensemagazine....VehiclesShouldMakeLeaptoHybridTechnology.aspx , http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/archive/2001/April/Pages/Array_of_Army7062.aspx , http://www.electricvehiclesresearch...ic-vehicle-suppliers-00003444.asp?sessionid=1 , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-about.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-trucks.htm , http://defense-update.com/20060520_feature-hed-trucks.html , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-afv.htm , http://defense-update.com/features/du-3-05/feature-HED-power.htm , http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a556694.pdf , http://www.g2mil.com/hybrid.htm , https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/Hybrid_Electric_Drive_54-56.pdf , http://www.defenceprocurementintern...parking Interest in Hybrid Electric Drive.pdf , and http://www.ge.com/battery/resources/pdf/BochenekGEResearchV5.pdf .

All best wishes,



Biotect


red EOD veteran: don't be too surprised by the speed of my response, or its length. I've been thinking about Oshkosh for a while, especially "Propulse", and wrote up most of the above about a month ago. Your post just motivated me to commit the words and images to the blog….

 

[Gizmo-sam]

Hi Biotect
That is really useful information. I need a bit of time to absorb all this, but it is very good to hear that someone "gets" my ideas.

I will email Federica shortly. I go to Rome and Chieti quite a lot, so I can probably drop in and talk to him, and see what the obstacles were in his design

I will keep posting as I progress the ideas. As you probably have experienced yourself, as one stone is turned over, all sorts of things come to light. for instance, width is going to be interesting. If the average US 5th wheeler is 7'9" in width, putting a skin, of say 1 inch thick, and leaving a gap to allow the security elements to sit between the two, would probably mean 3" on the side, giving a total width of 8'3" (scuse the imperial). That is one wide vehicle. Hmmm

 

[red EOD veteran]

Lots of good info there Biotec, you weren't kidding about a quick response haha.

I think you are correct about it twisting If you look closely at the first picture you posted of the M934 you can see a mount at the front of the box (spring mount), but no sign of a sub frame. Going off of your 3 categories earlier in the thread it should cater more for those that want off road capability, and less time on the pavement.

The box itself is 17ft long and features dual slide outs, making for a total width of 14ft when open. I have been looking at them for a possible way to get into the longer time frame expeditions without spending a large amount of money, able to be purchased for less than $20,000 USD recently rebuilt.

Would it not being a rigid frame be a deal breaker?

 

[biotect]

Hi red EOD veteran,

Only a "deal breaker" in the sense that this thread is about the design-possibility that a torsion-free frame opens up. Namely, the possibility of a "unibody", fully integrated, one-room sort of design, with no cab/camper distinction. Like an American Class-A motorhome, for instance, or a German "Liner" motorhome. Or Peter Thompson's Mañana, discussed at length earlier in the thread -- see http://www.thompsons.au.com/motorhome/ , http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page21 , and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page22 . Also like a Pinzgauer: Pinzgauer conversions are always "fully integrated", because the original vehicle itself is -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinzgauer_High-Mobility_All-Terrain_Vehicle .

But Pinzgauers tend to be smaller, especially when 4x4. Whereas as the thread's title suggests the main focus here is 6x6, and 6x6s of the larger kind, like those made by MAN and TATRA. See for instance the images of a fully integrated Tatra T815 6x6 conversion on page 29 in the thread, post #284, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page29 (standard ExPo pagination):



Still, if you have some time, please feel free to post more pictures and information about the M934, especially the kind that have slide-outs....... After all, the M934 is an example of larger sort of 6x6 truck, but still "medium weight", and that's always of interest on this thread. And please feel free to post links to the websites that you're looking at where the M934 can be purchased for "less than $20,000 USD recently rebuilt".

I thought there wasn't a market for second-hand army surplus vehicles in the United States, not even for Humvees. So I wonder why the M934 is the exception?

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[egn]

The engine access for the old KAT1 is from the side (small door behind the drivers door) for regular maintenance.

If you really have to repair something then you can open a large door at the top of engine compartment. It is also large enough to replace the engine with a crane pulling it. Beside loosing the connection the transmission and the exhaust system, there are just a few fast connection you have to separate. So an engine exchange can be done in a few hours.

The KAT 1A1 (starting about 1985) and all followers have a tilting cab for the access to the engine.

In both cases the overhang of the 5th wheeler would limit the access to the engine considerably and I would not recommend to do that.

An alternative is to put a regular travel trailer onto the platform. This has been done by several people at least temporally and has been even used in the Sahara. Actually my truck was used this way for several years by the seller. But the trailer wasn't fixed permanently, just by straps to allow some movement.

My opinion is, that you can do this if you travel really mostly on good roads. But if you drive thousands of km on washboard/corrugated roads then you will find out how good the construction of the 5th wheeler/trailer is. The KAT runs very good on such roads, but there are still a lot of vibrations breaking screwed connections. You may have to look into every connection and probably clue everything together. It also shouldn't be place directly on the platform, because the platform will bend slightly when going off-road and the frame of the house wouldn't be stable enough to take the force fully. There should be also some soft rubber to kill vibrations.

Even the military shelters available are fixed permanently. They are only fixed by chains with rubber suspension to allow flexible movement.

Here you see a nice looking implementation of such a concept:

What you can see is that the trailer sits on top of a stable frame.

 

[red EOD veteran]

There is a smwll market for the military surplus vehicles here, but not very large. I'll start a thread about the m934

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[java]

@ Biotect "I thought there wasn't a market for second-hand army surplus vehicles in the United States, not even for Humvees. So I wonder why the M934 is the exception?"

govliquidation.com has many many large ex-military trucks go across it daily. All bids start at $150 USD

 

[red EOD veteran]

The humvee is not supposed to be sold as surplus for some odd reason, that's why you don't see many of them. The m35 would be the most common 6x6 with surplus

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[optimusprime]

Hi Biotect
That is really useful information. I need a bit of time to absorb all this, but it is very good to hear that someone "gets" my ideas.

I will email Federica shortly. I go to Rome and Chieti quite a lot, so I can probably drop in and talk to him, and see what the obstacles were in his design

I will keep posting as I progress the ideas. As you probably have experienced yourself, as one stone is turned over, all sorts of things come to light. for instance, width is going to be interesting. If the average US 5th wheeler is 7'9" in width, putting a skin, of say 1 inch thick, and leaving a gap to allow the security elements to sit between the two, would probably mean 3" on the side, giving a total width of 8'3" (scuse the imperial). That is one wide vehicle. Hmmm

That's the same width as my works truck ( 18t daf skip wagon) so you'd be running about the same size as most rigid trucks. It'll be height that you'll have worry about most.

 

[Gizmo-sam]

egn

Two good points. I am still thinking about this. The cab opening was a bit of a show stopper, but here is an idea. Rather than fix the frame to a truck bed, how about slide the chassis onto a rail on the bed. that way the habitation unit can be slid back and the cab exposed, allowing the engine and transmission also to be exposed for repair. I think we could think of a way to lock the rails when not in use, so that they secured the habitation unit. Hate to see it fly into the sunset behind me!!. The rails on the bad could also be placed on neoprene or rubber to absorb some of the rattling around that the truck would do. The expense might make it impractical, but I like the idea.

Also doing that could expose some very good and safe storage in the back part of the cab, as well as make it easier to get a walkway into the cab.

I have thought about turning the 5th wheeler about face, and using the area below the projection as a garage are for stuff. The trouble with that is that it adds 7 foot to the total length. I don't think Bev would like that as a driving experience!

So, still thinking. I got a quote from Germany where a good 1980 example would cost about 20k euro. I have no idea whether that is good or bad yet!!

 

[Gizmo-sam]

optimusprime

Yeah, the height is a concern. I haven't done enough measuring yet, but the idea of the 5th wheeler was to reduce height while minimising length. The equations I juggle with are the truck bed to the top of the cab (which is one reason why I liked the MAN military trucks), and then the height of the 5th wheeler chassis bottom to the underneath of the projection. The 5th wheeler and truck height would have to be less than 3.5mtrs in Europe as that is bridge height, but I reckon it will still be a showstopper somewhere else even if it was 3.5 mtrs.

The distance from ground to bed is quite big too, 1.45 mtrs I think. good for fording I guess. but those big tyres could be deflated at a push. Mind you I remember a canal lock somewhere in the UK with about 30 locks in a row. Can you imagine what a day that would be if they were bridges!!

 

[egn]

That with the rail may be a solution, but optimusprime made a good point regarding height.

20k for a 6x6 in good condition is ok. 6x6 aren't available freely that often. What you get cheap currently are 4x4 (down to 5k) and 8x8 (down to 10 k).

I would recommend to buy at a reputable dealer like Aigner and pay a few euros more to avoid any pitfalls.

The bridge height in Europe is 4 m and my truck is 3.90 m. Of course, the lower the better. But for long-term living you loose valuable storage space. We have kind of cellar with about 40 cm height and it contains a lot of room for supplies. You can save on height be removing the platform and lower the height above the wheels a bit.

The unloaded height of the platform is 169 cm and the fully loaded height is 145 cm. The lower limit of my cabin is about 145 cm fully loaded.

You cannot drive to all place with such a truck where smaller vehicles can go. But you can also go to place where smaller vehicles cannot go, at least not with that comfort. So you have to free your mind regarding height a bit. Height is much less critical during use of such a vehicle.

 

[UK4X4]

"Yes, I'd thought of that, but I read somewhere that some gas stations don't like filling LPG “built-in” tanks; that they are only wiling to refill cylinders? Or even worse, that they're only wiling to swap cylinders?"

when you hard mount a gas system , if you make it legal , as per LPG cars you just drive up, pay with CC and fill your tank ...
they are situated at main highway petrol stations and most gas suppliers have one in their yard, its a step up from a BBQ cylinder strapped into the truck and available in 100's of locations across Europe at least !

 

[optimusprime]

Hi Steve and Bev, egn, optimusprime,

I have to agree with egn that height should not be an obsessive worry. As long as the vehicle is under 4 m, it should be fine.

Take a look at the height specifications for most 3-axle UniCat and ActionMobil vehicles: almost all of them top out near 4 m. If 3.9 m were a serious issue, then UniCat and ActionMobil have created lots of expensive motorhomes that have a height problem. Which can’t be true. See http://www.unicat.net/en/individual.php , http://www.unicat.net/en/info/EX70HDM-MBActros6x6.php , http://www.unicat.net/en/info/EX70HDQ-MANTGA6x6.php , http://actionmobil.com/en/3-axle , and http://actionmobil.com/en/3-axle/globecruiser .

As for the Cab and access to the engine, why go through all the trouble creating a movable habitation module, instead of a movable Cab? The former is much bigger than the latter, so making the Cab movable seems more

One comment on the height,whilst I agree with what you've said, you'd have to bear in mind the height of the truck chassis, the 'frame' on what the habitation module will sit (whether movable or not) then the module itself,and what the weight of that will do to the centre of gravity on the entire unit.
As for a movable cab,I'd say easier to move the rear unit once you've taken into account having to design movable
Gear linkages,steering gear,brake lines electrics etc etc,with a 'tipping' cab they all 'hinge' where the cab hinges,(so to speak)apart from the gear linkage, which extends on a telescopic linkage.


As for the cab/engine placement, I think that's an argument that will run and run,as both have pro's and con's. It will just come down to personal preference.
For me as an HGV driver,the amount of times the cab needs tipping for engine access versus the amount of times I need the visibility/field of view a 'cab over' gives me, then the cab over wins hands down.