..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
**************************************
Here is
dwh's reply to that particular Terrabus post, in the same "
High Altitude Heating" thread:
Also that stairway setup has been done quite a few times. All Terrain Warriors has done in on a few trucks:
Darrin Fink did it on his Mog:
1. dwh's First Private Message
dwh then supplemented the above post with an additional private message:
I remembered something I meant to mention. I didn't mention it because it was on the high altitude thread, and I thought it properly belonged on the heavy truck thread [see post #83, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...EST-High-Altitude-Solution-for-Heating/page9].
You said something to the effect of the engine in Ivan must be a pusher because otherwise it would be in the way of the entry door/stairway.
This is not exactly correct. I don't doubt that Ivan is a pusher, though as big as it is, it would be no problem to place the engine under the floor.
But in the U.S., we have a company that makes buses - Bluebird. They have for many years produced flat-nosed front engine buses (and motorhomes). The trick is simply to angle the stairs to the rear a bit:
http://www.bargainbusnews.com/Buses/...dTC-2000-1.jpg
Cheers.
2. biotect's Reply to dwh
To which I responded privately as follows. The first half:
dwh,
Many thanks for this!!! I had simply assumed that the COE format was largely incompatible with broad, deeply embedded entrance staircases up front. One can have such a staircase in the
middle of a large vehicle that's COE, sure, but not up front. Or so I thought. Most European tour buses that have such deeply embedded staircases up front, for instance, are pusher-diesel designs. And so too, in the United States the better Class-A motorhomes will have pusher-diesel engines; the expensive ones are usually based on a Prevost "pusher" bus chassis. As such, the better Class-A motorhomes will have no problem providing very generous entrance staircases.
This link then helps me tremendously, because I was actually favoring a COE design, and
not a pusher-diesel design. If you've had time to read the "
Fully Integrated MAN or Tatra" thread, you might have seen that
egn and I engaged in a bit of a debate at the beginning regarding COE, versus Pusher, versus CBE. The main reason I favored either COE or CBE, is because I wanted the motorhome to have a big drop-down deck in back, with a living room opening out onto the deck, "cottage style". With full-height sliding-glass-doors, as per the sliding-glass-doors that open onto Country Coach's "
Verandah", or the rear deck of Knaus-Tabbert's "
Caravisio". Or similar to the rear deck and sliding-glass-doors of Rob Gray's
Wothahellizat -- see posts #139 - #141, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...e-Frame/page14 and
http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...e-Frame/page15 .
The
Wothahellizat truck is on the borderline between CBE and COE, with a very short, snub-nosed bonnet -- see post #142, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page15 . Because engine access is from the front, by lifting the very short bonnet, the
Wothahellizat's cab does not need to tilt forward as per most COE designs. The
Wothahellizat can then have a huge "alcove" cantilevered over the cab, as well as a big, drop-down deck in the back.
But unless the rear pusher-diesel engine were really "flat", as per the engine in the
UFO chassis that was available for a while, a rear deck would not be possible with a pusher diesel blocking things. See post # 116, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page12 . Most Class-A "pusher" motorhomes will have a big bed in back, sitting on top of a box that camouflages the pusher diesel engine.
Ergo, I tended to favor COE instead. Except that entry to the cabs of COE vehicles tends to be more challenging, especially if they are "flat floor" COE cabs. See for instance my post about the Mercedes Actros "GigaSpace" flat-floor cab, #283, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...e-Frame/page29 . If you watch the videos of the Mercedes Actros trucks in that post, it's clear that one has to first ascend a vertical ladder of of steps outside the vehicle, in order to gain access to the cab. This is fairly typical of big trucks in Europe that are COE. So I was really surprised and pleased to see that photo of the Bluebird bus, with a more easily ascendable embedded interior staircase, compatible with COE engine placement.
In other words, it would be terrific to be able to have
both COE and a very generous, deeply embedded entrance staircase, as per
Ivan the Terrabus.....
Please see how I changed the post about Ivan the Terrabus' entrance staircase in the "High Altitude Heating " thread, after I got your message above -- for reference, it was post #83, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/foru...-Heating/page9 . And please, if you come across any other mistaken assumptions, do feel free to write me and correct me, either by private email, or directly in a thread. I really appreciate the feedback!
The second half:
Of course, everything changes once one abandons the assumption of an ICE, and moves to a hybrid microturbine instead.
The microturbine itself would be much smaller than an ICE, and as egn suggested earlier in the thread, the batteries could be "distributed" elsewhere in the vehicle. So this completely opens up the cab design, and makes a very generous, wide, deeply embedded entrance staircase possible, even in COE placement. On the other hand, if instead the microturbine were located in back, it would be much smaller and squatter than a big diesel ICE, and so would also prove compatible with a living room directly above it, opening out onto a rear deck, as per Rob Gray's Wothahellizat.
Now I wonder where, from a purely mechanical or engineering point of view, a microturbine would best locate? Up front, or in back? The New York pilot project buses by DesignLine that were fitted with Capstone turbines had them located in back, and from the point of view of noise this might make the most sense. But although Capstone insists that their microturbines do not need a radiator at the front of the vehicle, they still do need good incoming and outgoing ventilation, right? They are turbines after all. All of the other turbines I've seen fitted in vehicles had generous air intakes. So perhaps front is best, as per the placement of a Capstone C65 in the Peterbilt concept truck?
On the other hand, there is the noise factor, and the Capstone CMT-380 sports car is very noisy when the microturbine is running. Which makes rear placement more attractive again.
What do you think?
3. dwh's Second Private Message
Here was
dwh's reply:
With a Tatra chassis, which does not flex, you have the entire space between the frame rails and above the transaxle available. I would think that would be a very nice place for a gigantic battery bank - and the majority of the weight would be *below* the frame rails (ballast). Also, very well protected by the transaxle. The space outside the frame rails, between the front and rear axles would seem to be a good place to locate the turbine(s). Easily accessible for service. But soundproof it and duct the intake/exhaust to the roof to blow both heat and sound out and up away from the neighbors, who love to ********** about generator (and air conditioner and watermaker) noise.
Alternately, perhaps only have the battery bank in the rear, and locate the generating plant between the frame rails under the cab. The Tatra cab tilts, but you would lose that advantage with an integrated design.
Another plus of the Tatra design, is that the transaxle has a single power input point, which would make it easy to construct a combined inline unit consisting of motor/torque converter/gear box (say 1.5:1 OD, 1:1 and 2:1 (low range))/regenerative braking system (use the clutch pedal to control the field of a massive alternator and there's your regen system - while still retaining the air brake system). You could probably engineer that combined unit to just drop in between the frame rails. In which case, you could probably (or at least, mostly) eliminate the doghouse in the cab, for a flat floor.
In any case, you have to make your embedded steps fit *outside* the frame rails.
You could make the center section of floor able to be lifted out, and have access from above. Design a side hatch, so that the seats could be removed (creating a workshop space), the center section of the floor lifted out, and then open the hatch, run in the cherry picker (engine hoist) and lift out the entire generator plant or powertrain unit. You might be able to do it through the door, but I think it would be tight.
OR, put everything on a slide out the front, similar to the way they do generators on some of the larger motorhomes:
http://www.rvst.org/candidate/Images/Gen7.png
Open the floor up, disconnect a few bits here and there, and then just slide the whole works out. You could probably rig it so the battery bank slides out the rear as well.
Or use Tesla batteries.
http://www.teslamotors.com/batteryswap
Cheers
And here is the image:
On my own view
dwh's third proposal for a front-accessible "pull out" microturbine generator, mounted on a tray, is simply brilliant. At one stroke this solves
a problem that has been vexing me for most of this thread: that COE placement with a tilting cab undermines the possibility of a fully integrated design.
Recall that this problem was discussed at considerable length earlier in the thread -- see posts #110 - #114 , #119 - #120 - #127 , at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page11 ,
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page12 , and
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page13 (standard ExPo pagination). See especially
egn's deft summary of the various disadvantages of different kinds of engine placement on page 13, post #127, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page13 .
A fully integrated design seems only genuinely compatible with either:
(a) "Pusher" engine placement, allowing easy access to the engine at the back of the vehicle.
or
(b) CBE placement, allowing easy access to the engine by lifting the bonnet, as per Earthroamer and Tiger expedition vehicles, or Rob Gray's short-bonnet
Wothahellizat.
or
(c) COE placement, via a lid inside the cab that opens up the engine tunnel.
The first pusher solution for an ICE engine is not desirable from my "design" point of view, because as explained in the first half of my reply to
dwh, I want the vehicle to have a large drop-down deck in back, akin to Rob Gray's
Wothahellizat. And a "pusher" engine placement in back would make that impossible.
Next, although I am personally not dead-set against the second CBE solution, many participants early on in the thread disliked it immensely, including
grizzlyj and
egn. They did not want a bonnet, no matter how short, compromising forward visibility of the terrain.
The third solution, access to the engine from inside the vehicle, has been instantiated in a number of fully integrated designs. See for instance: (1) Autobus Australia's "
Tonto" off-road, all-terrain bus -- post #209, at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page21 ; (2) Peter Thompson's
Mañana "bad-road" motorhome -- post #212 at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page22 ; and (3) the
Deco-Liner -- post #166 at
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page17 .
However, in response to the last post,
egn wrote:
There are a lot of (older) trucks that have engine access from inside the cab. But I wouldn't want that in a luxury vehicle, because I don't like when truck mechanics work inside the vehicle. You always then have the risk that something gets damaged, dirty and you also get the diesel and oil smell into your cabin.
So the third solution does not seem that attractive either, even though it's the solution that seems most compatible with a fully integrated design that is COE, and that would have a drop-down deck in back.
But everything changes if the engine is a range-extending microturbine, driving a generator. To begin with, ICE range-extenders that are only hooked up to generators are already much lighter than engines directly powering a vehicle's wheels. And for the same amount of power output, a microturbine genset is lighter still and more compact than an ICE. So as
dwh suggests, a microturbine genset could be placed COE, but on a forward-sliding tray, thereby providing full 360-degree engine access for service, and eliminating any need to tilt the cab.
Again, this solves a basic design conundrum that has been vexing me for most of this thread, and I can't thank
dwh enough for this brilliant, very simple, but perhaps not obvious solution.
This is also a solution that allows for the possibility of a very generously proportioned, deeply "embedded" entrance staircase, as per
Ivan the Terrabus. As explained to
dwh in my reply, another disadvantage of many COE truck designs is that one has to climb a vertical "step ladder" outside the vehicle in order to gain access to the cab. The bigger the ICE underneath, and the flatter the floor of the cab, the higher the climb. Whereas although a microturbine placed COE would still take up space, it would not take up nearly as much space as a powerful ICE. A microturbine (or even two microturbine
s, plural, for redundancy) would not be nearly as high. And so a flat-cab-floor -- which is a kind of "motorhome ideal", and also an ideal for COE truckers -- could be much lower. And a Terrabus-style broad and deep entrance staircase would be no problem at all.
I will address the other suggestions in
dwh's second private message later in the thread, from post # 503 onwards -- see
http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page51 .
**************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.