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

[free radical]

Bit of trip down the memory lane,
there were adventurous folk craving to travel the world long time before us and I recall two engineers who drove the old 1940s Tatraplan car..
(which already had independent axles and air cooled v8 engine in the back
which certain German company later copied and eventually had to pay millions to Tatra for patent infringement) ..all the way across Russia ,
South America and Africa and wrote and filmed their adventures along the way..

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanzelka_and_Zikmund

Tatraplan
http://youtu.be/kMJKI68kP5M
Jay Lenos garage Tatra 87
http://youtu.be/q-AKigRiGe8

Later on they used T805 as that's bit more comfortable then the small car..
Tatra 805
http://youtu.be/gziwQi4U5JM
and some silly driving
http://youtu.be/6n8s8c1r7rc

Now this was way before cell phone ,GPS and Internet and these guys made it all just fine,with those old tech trucks,which tells me a lot about its reliability..

Tatra has proven reliable in some of the worst weather conditions and bad roads over many years,,from deep freeze of Siberia to desert heat in Africa ,Australia ,India and South America including the Dakar rally..
I'd take Tatra with its independent suspension over anything else if I was to go off roading thru some third world country,,or even this first one..lol

 

[Haf-E]

Tatra's are used all the time in the European truck trails - the one you linked to just didn't have a big enough pit and walls for them to really be worth the amount of fuel they consume.

Lots of the Trial Tatras are modified to improve the front approach angle - and the stock bumper makes one hell of a plow anyways...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GGrHhywzsA

Its hard to beat the Tatra 18 liter air cooled V12 engine with its 2000 rpm redline and huge torque at idle...

 

[egn]

Its hard to beat the Tatra 18 liter air cooled V12 engine with its 2000 rpm redline and huge torque at idle...

The values are fine for an old engine, but compared to modern engines it is nothing. And even the old air-cooled Deutz 413 has a similar specification. The Deutz 413 combined with the torque converter and transmission, like in the KAT, has at least 2-times more torque than the Tatra V12 when pulling from stand-still without harming the clutch in any way.

 

[biotect]

Hi everyone,

I have been reading all posts, and yes, the info really is sinking in!

I was worried that once I made a decision in late September to absolutely “quit” blogging on the Expedition Portal for a few months, that this thread would just die. But quite the opposite seems to be happening, with about 10 pages of posts added by others over the last 2 1/2 months, since I last wrote something substantive on page 77. Perhaps because the idea of an innovative, fully integrated, 6x6, hybrid diesel-electric, “bad road”, RTW (round the world) expedition motorhome has captured the imagination of quite a few people, who enjoy discussing the possibility from multiple angles, especially the drive-train and suspension engineering…..

So in this somewhat long series of posts I will try to “catch up”, addressing most of the excellent material that has been posted since I signed off in late September.


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


thjakits, your more recent post above, #855, is probably your best yet. Really excellent insight and think-through, and as usual, some fascinating, shoot-from-the-hip zingers, for instance, “The Tatra chassis is one big transmission that was stretched into a chassis!!”

Fully agreed about the need to come up with an “optimum solution” – perhaps some kind of tube chassis with pendular axles but serial hybrid electric hub motors, that is completely new and different from the standard Tatra chassis, and that “works” specifically for an RTW (round the world) motorhome.

The most sophisticated, high-end manufacturers of fully integrated motorhomes in the United States take full personal responsibility for the entire vehicle, including the chassis, engine, and transmission. Manufacturers like Newell and Monaco/Roadmaster will construct the whole vehicle virtually from scratch – see posts #732 and #733 on this particular point, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page74 . The very last thing they will do is take someone else's truck or bus chassis, or someone else's military suspension, and just stick a motorhome on top of it.

So your point here is very well-taken.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


1. Degrees of Innovation: TerraLiner Drive Train Alternatives


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


thjakits, your earlier think-through of questions regarding diesel-electric efficiency relative to specific applications in post #776 was also much appreciated. Freight transport is indeed very different from travelling in an RV. So as you suggest, when some engineering friends crunch the numbers, it may turn out that circa 2017 - 2018 diesel-electric could indeed prove particularly attractive in a mobile home application, even if its still not “efficient” enough for freight.

I very much appreciated your excellent, compact summary and breakdown of the drive-train alternatives:

Concept 1:

- Conventional Diesel-Transmission-Rear-axle drive (lockable) incorporating the Bosch-system as mentioned in a)
- AWD drive achieved via hydro-drive hubs on non main drive axles
- Small diesel-gen-set for camping/charging duties - UNLESS the e-motor/gen unit of the hybrid system can be run as an EFFICIENT charging unit for the battery-bank! Small diesel gen-set NOT as a back-up (...too small), but as a more efficient charging solution, IF the big main unit is not able to do so EFFICIENTLY.

Concept 2:

- Full Diesel-Electric-SERIAL-hybrid set-up, but with a single bigger e-motor driving the rear-drive axle
- AWD drive achieved via hydro-drive hubs on non main drive axles - hydraulic pump diesel engine driven (a la Mercedes HD)
- Small diesel-gen-set not needed, assumed the main D-E unit can EFFICIENTLY charge the battery-bank. Small diesel gen-set NOT as a back-up (...too small), but as a more efficient charging solution, IF the big main unit is not able to do so EFFICIENTLY.

Concept 3:
[Preferred - wished for concept, but most likely least efficient one]

- Full Diesel-Electric-SERIAL-hybrid set-up, one e-motor for each wheel
- Small diesel-gen-set not needed, assumed the main D-E unit can EFFICIENTLY charge the battery-bank. Small diesel gen-set NOT as a back-up (...too small), but as a more efficient charging solution, IF the big main unit is not able to do so EFFICIENTLY.

And then, a bit later, a more detailed proposal:

- 300KW power-pack
- huge battery pack
- Single E-motor drive to live rear-axle (portal axle with mechanical locker)
- E-motor capable of handling 400KW for short periods - power difference dfWn from the huge battery pack
- Obviously that E-motor needs to have hybrid power recovery properties!
- All other axles "portal-style tube" with Hydro-hubs
- Air-suspension all around with a various active Operating modes.

That's a nice series of choices.

As you might expect, I've been plumping for Concept 3, even if it's not completely “efficient” yet, because perhaps by 2018 it will be….:sombrero:

And like Haf-E, I am much more inclined towards either a dedicated E-motor for each wheel; or for three E-motors, each driving one of the three axles. As you know, I fully understand what hydro-drive hub motors are, and their potential. But I am shooting for the technology that might come to dominate 5 – 10 years from now. Just one big E-motor also seems a mistake from additional reasons. For instance, I would want multiple, smaller E-motors if only for redundancy….. ...And as Haf-E suggested, six completely separate E-motors would eliminate lots of complicated gearing.

Hydro-drive hub motors are mostly an “efficiency maximizing bridge technology”: they allow big 6x2 or 8x2 trucks to eliminate the complicated and heavy transmissions necessary for 6x6 or 8x8 All Wheel Drive, thereby boosting “normal” highway driving efficiency; while providing such trucks full 6x6 or 8x8 capability at much lower speeds, under 30 kmh, when maneuvering on a construction site, or in a quarry.

thjakits, in response to Haf-E, you seemed to be quite favorably inclined towards Oshkosh as a possible candidate solution for Concept 3.

Earlier in the thread I addressed the HEMMT A3 diesel-electric at great length, because Oshkosh seems to have gone furthest in developing “off-road” (or “bad-road&#8221 diesel-electric hybrid technology for harsh environments. See post #334 http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page34 , post #503 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page51 , and posts #671 - #673 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page68 .

In these posts you'll find more links and PDFs about the Oshkosh “Propulse” hybrid diesel-electric system than you'll ever have time to digest. It's important to realize that as per its TAK-4 suspension system, Oshkosh intends to implement its “Propulse” system across the entire product range, including the MTVR and L-ATV.

Haf-E: I very much agree with all of your thoughts in post #797:

I also think the Oshkosh and the Wrightspeed are interesting data points - although, as you pointed out, the performance claims should be treated as suspect.

The interesting part to me is the design of the Oshkosh HEMTT where they use one motor per axle - which is a simple solution to provide all wheel drive. There are several motors out there which are offered with a direct connection for a U-joint and driveshaft - and with three of them (one a 6x6) you should have enough power for hills and passing etc. The axles can include portal boxes and a differential lock - allowing better gearing match (such as with Unimog axles - 7.5 gear ratio) and allowing all of the motor's power to be delivered to one wheel when in a split traction situation. The motors could be frame mounted up high - no transfer case or transmissions required - all "off the shelf" components...







The Wrightspeed design is interesting as having a 4 speed tranny does allow keeping the motor at a better power point and improves regenerative braking - which is valuable for a delivery vehicle but not necessarily for a overland type application. The additional expense and complexity of the multiple gearboxes and the associated special controllers to allow shifting probably isn't justified - using three motors (one per axle on a 6x6) is just much simpler and allows better redundancy / modularity - sort of the V8 approach - no replacement for displacement - but in this case more amps of motor...

I'd also go with a more typical diesel generator - while a microturbine is cool - I would want something I could at least troubleshoot myself... probably a pair of them actually......

Note that Wrightspeed very specifically developed its microturbine hybrid powertrain as a solution mainly for garbage trucks……


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


2. Arguments for a Supplementary, Much Smaller GenSet


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


The dialogue between the two of you (Haf-E and thjakits) about how a full diesel-electric might work in concert with its engine/generator on pages 81 and 82, posts #810 and #811, was terrific – see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page81 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page82 .

And thjakits, as you suggest in your list of concept possibilities above, the whole point to a secondary, much smaller genset would not be to serve as “back-up” for the main motor. Rather, it would serve as an alternative that could be producing fewer KW much more efficiently (and much more quietly!!!) when the vehicle is parked. You are drawing a nice distinction here, and it's great to see you and Haf-E (with input from egn) getting into the nitty-gritty details of the question of diesel-electric “efficiency”.

What seems to have emerged from this discussion is the idea that even if the main generator engine in a serial hybrid is a 182 HP, 120 KW Jenoptik – or something even larger, as per Oshokosh's various diesel-electric designs, producing 300, 400, or even 500 HP – even still, a much smaller 12 - 20 KW genset of the kind made by Kohler or WhisperPower (because turbo-charged) might still be desirable, if only because of questions about noise and efficiency. Again, for Jenoptik, see http://www.jenoptik.com/en_40173_adsf263 , http://www.jenoptik.com/cms/product...BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf?Open , and post #673 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page68 .


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


3. European Hybrid Diesel-Electric Systems for Large Commercial Trucks


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


campo: Many thanks for the links to Bosch's research into hybrid diesel/electric solutions for large vehicles – again, see post # 773 - #779, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page78 , and see the excellent links at http://www.bosch-mobility-solutions...d_system_for_commercial_vehicles_20120712.pdf , http://www.bosch-mobility-solutions...id_vehicles_9/systemsforhybridvehicles_1.html , and https://w4.fairorg.de/bosch/brochures/DS-Sheet_P119J_CV-Hybrid_EN_low.pdf .

Fascinating stuff, and excellent pictures of Bosch products! Given the existence of the “Propulse” diesel-electric hybrid system by Oshkosh, I've been scratching my head and wondering whether any European military manufacturers (i.e. Rheinmetall-MAN, or Steyr) have been working on something similar – see http://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/...bsidiaries/rheinmetall_man_military_vehicles/ . So it's good to know that at least Bosch is in the game…..!

Also, Haf-E, campo and thjakits, many thanks for debate about power and tonnage: your rough-ballparking of the probable HP requirement and probable weight: 300 - 500 HP, and 16 tons, for 9.5 m, seems about right – if one is still thinking of a traditional drive vehicle with hydromotors for under 30 kmh, and fairly traditional construction.

But in a “true serial hybrid” arrangement (Concept 3), I wonder again and again about how big the generator actually needs to be. The Jenoptik generator, which uses a 6-cylinder diesel engine made by Steyr in Austria, is a 182 HP motor that produces 120 KW of electrical power – see posts #673 and #674 in this thread at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page68 . So I was wondering whether even 300 HP is necessary (as suggested by thjakits), let alone closer to 500 HP (as suggested by campo).

nickdisjunkt: thanks for the reference to GKN, which is indeed also developing large electric motors for hybrid applications – see http://www.gkn.com/driveline/our-solutions/edrive-systems/Pages/default.aspx , http://www.gkn.com/driveline/our-solutions/edrive-systems/eaxles/Pages/default.aspx , http://www.gkn.com/driveline/our-solutions/edrive-systems/eMachines/Pages/default.aspx , and http://www.gkn.com/driveline/our-so.../integrated-edrive-systems/Pages/default.aspx .


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


4. Rigidity and Weight: the Titanium + Carbon-Fiber Expedition Motorhome, with Kinetic Suspension


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


thjakits, fascinating stuff in your most recent post about rigidity and flex.

In earlier designs over a year ago, done before I knew about the ultra-rigid Tatra and MAN chassis frames, I had indeed imagined two “modules” connected in the middle by a bendy-bus accordion-type interface, both modules mounted independently on seperate 3-point subframes. After all, in a Unimog the cab is mounted on a 3-point subframe, and so too the Unimog engine is mounted on a separate 3-point subframe. So why not extend the cab back, and have the “bendy-bus” accordion-type interface in the middle of the vehicle, 50/50, instead of locating it 20/80, as per a UniCat?

But of course there is much more “elegance” in a fully integrated, unibody design. And as for chassis rigidity necessarily entailing much greater weight, engineering friends have now convinced me that in a well-executed unibody design, this is a false assumption.

campo made the same point earlier in the thread: the Tatra backbone tube or the MAN-KAT ladder-frame chassis are so heavy, because they have to do all the “work” of maintaining rigidity, with the load carried on top presumed completely structurally separate. But in a “fully integrated” design like a school bus, or a MAN Neoplan CityLiner, the tubular space-frame distributes the stress and provides rigidity throughout the frame – see http://www.neoplan-bus.com/cms/en/cityliner/cityliner_sicherheit/sicherheit.html :





The whole body of the vehicle becomes the chassis, or the chassis is the body of the vehicle, thereby saving weight. Furthermore, I am inclined to agree with free radical, that in most transportation design applications, maximum vehicle rigidity is actually preferable to flex.

As for roll-bars, they would most definitely be incorporated internally, as part of the overall frame, as per the MAN Neoplan image just posted. This is obvious enough: one of the main advantages of going with a “true” full unibody design, as already pointed out (I think it was egn), is that it could be more aerodynamic than a typical UniCat or ActionMobil.

I also very much appreciated post #823, where you provided abundant links for “Kinetic Suspension” and Tenneco's development of the technology. I've reposted the four videos as embedded, because this does seem like a critical innovation:




As you then suggested, this kind of suspension system might reduce some of the need for extreme rigidity in the space frame, because the suspension would do such a good job absorbing the shocks and stress of road travel:

This could be a KEY-technology for you to have a LIGHT-WEIGHT non-flex frame! Generally a torsion-free/rigid frame also is HEAVY! With this system you do not need that rigidness, as the SUSPENSION takes care of it! ...even if you go Space Frame - you can concentrate on roll and crash integrity and not that much on suspension-induced rigidity requirements...

Kinetic suspension has been used in Dakar, but made such a huge difference and gave vehicles using it such an “edge”, that it was banned – see http://www.4wd1.com/Didjano-5.htm , http://www.caranddriver.com/feature...tennecos-kinetic-suspension-explained-feature , and http://www.tenneco.com/assets/1/7/Kinetic_Brochure.pdf . I then wonder whether kinetic suspension has been implemented in any larger vehicles, i.e. Oshkosh or MAN 6x6s, military or commercial.

Thanks for this, and thanks for the links in post #842 to ultra-light suspension possibilities, and the mind-blowing link to China's development of Titanium 3-D printing in post #825......:Wow1:

I haven't wanted to state the following directly, yet..... but as you might have guessed, given that this is supposed to be an “innovative” vehicle targeted for 2018, I have been imagining it as constructed out of titanium combined with carbon fiber.

An all-carbon-fiber trailer already exists, the CR-1, and was unveiled just this year – see http://www.gctrv.com , http://www.gctrv.com/CR-1-Carbon-Fiber-RV.php , http://www.gctrv.com/About-Press.php , http://www.wired.com/2014/04/gct-cr-1/ , http://www.autoblog.com/2014/04/04/carbon-fiber-rv-caravan-worlds-first-video/ , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...avan-styled-F1-cars-Ferraris-set-600-000.html , http://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/news/video-1108379/First-carbon-fiber-luxury-RV-CR-1-unveiled.html , http://gizmodo.com/the-carbon-fiber-trailer-batman-takes-on-vacation-1559849338 , http://www.digitaltrends.com/cars/global-cara,van-technologies-cr-1-carbon-fiber-trailer/ , http://www.luxurytravelmagazine.com/news-articles/gct-cr-1-carbon-fibre-rv-22133.php , http://www.thestreet.com/story/1277...ke-a-race-car-equipped-like-your-mansion.html , http://www.caravantimes.co.uk/news/...-their-new-cr-1-carbon-fibre-rv-$21384484.htm , and http://www.rvbusiness.com/tag/global-caravan-technologies-inc/ :








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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





[video=vimeo;88709487]http://vimeo.com/88709487#at=13[/video]


I don't care much for the interior of the CR-1: it's much too rectilinear for my taste, and seems to negate the whole “spirit” of the design. After all, carbon-fiber naturally lends itself to more curvilinear possibilities. But even still, the CR-1 demonstrates that the “titanium/carbon-fiber expedition motorhome” is not such a distant possibility after all. So what I've been imagining is a half-height tubular titanium space frame below 1.6 m, combined with true “monocoque” carbon-fiber construction above for the camper box.

If this seems reasonable or possible, then even a 6x6 vehicle that's 9.5, 10, or 10.5 m long, might weigh as little as 16 tons…..:victory: ...It would be ultra-rigid, and yet so too, ultra-light.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


5. Designing the TerraLiner for World Travel; not War, Truck Trials, or Rallies


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


thjakits, many thanks for continuously reminding us that it's not necessary to build a TerraLiner with “super-ultra military capability”. It's not necessary to build a TerraLiner that can survive truck trials, rallies, or war. If one is unlikely to risk one's expensive motorhome doing crazy truck-trial things anyway, then one shouldn't build it to withstand the same…… That's a very important point, and I am glad that you and other participants in this thread have become so sensitive to the “true-off-road” versus “only-bad-roads” distinction. Even though I am the one who has emphasized this distinction so much in the thread (it was originally Peter Thompson's distinction), I too sometimes forget it when proposing ideas that have military origins, like TAK-4.

If one's goal is traveling primarily in Eurasia and South America (and not traveling along mud tracks in Africa…..), then why build a military-grade or rally-grade vehicle? Why design an extreme off-road-capable motorhome, when throughout China, in less than 10 years one will encounter a road network that is newer, better built, and more extensive than the road network in the United States?

As such, I really loved that video you posted of otherwise very ordinary buses, with no special “expedition-grade” credentials, doing some extreme things:




Fantastic video, and it makes your point beautifully. It's simply astonishing what some bus companies are willing to do with their equipment.....

Note, however, that one of the reasons Oshkosh's TAK-4 suspension system interests me, is precisely because TAK-4 has also been used in more “civilian” applications, like non-military Pierce Fire Trucks.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


6. Transportation Design, not Engineering


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


Here I should once again emphasize that because my focus is design, not engineering, I am finding that I can allow myself to be more “vague” about the ultimate engineering solution for the “chassis and drive-train” of the TerraLiner.

thjakits, both you and optimusprime suggested as much earlier in the thread,

…….I'm starting to think the Biotect should ditch the idea of a commercial truck chassis, and design a spaceframe type structure around whatever propulsion system eventually gets chosen.

I think so too - even using off the shelf parts, Terraliner can be made a LOT more innovative starting with a clean sheet and NOT depending on any given chassis and then having to modify that one!!

E.g. build that space-frame as stiff/rigid as you want - add Mercedes (Unimog) portal axles [no matter if the Unimog is designed as a flex-frame, the axles are pretty stiff!!] and you are ready to connect the e-motors Haf-E posted earlier!!

thjakits

And yep, that us exactly what I have been doing.

This may sound lame, but there is actually no pressing need to “choose” between drive-train or axle-type alternatives, because this is a design exercise, not an engineering exercise. In a few weeks I will post some examples of other concept vehicles for all-road RVing, concept vehicles that demonstrate just how “vague” concept designs are allowed to be…..:sombrero:

This may sound superficial and flaky, but at Art school the primary concern is how the vehicle looks, and the social or market need that the vehicle is supposed to satisfy. Not the engineering. Tech-oriented types don't like hearing this, and they may hate the very idea of “concept designs” that do not clearly specify exactly how the suspension, electric or hydraulic hub motors, chassis, etc. are supposed to work. But in an Art school context, the focus is much more on the interface between psychology, the social sciences, and aesthetic design; as opposed the interface between engineering and design.

Put more strongly: from an academic point of view, as a thesis project for an Art School, I am not expected to “think through” all this engineering stuff in detail. That may sound evasive or fluffy, but it's actually true. My professors are much more interested in some of the stuff I posted about China and the emerging Asian Highway Network, than they are about the debate between straight-axle versus independent suspension……:ylsmoke:

For instance, they really loved my observation that so-called “overlanding expeditions” in Eurasia are no longer “real” expeditions, because the Eurasian road network is now so good. See post number 703, on page 71, where I wrote:

.

Now talk of an emerging excellent road network in Eurasia is perhaps unwelcome for a certain kind of overlander. When reading some overlanding blogs and magazines, or watching some overlanding videos, one detects a kind of residually colonial nostalgia for the days of yore, when overlanding across Asia was truly difficult, and the quaint locals encountered along the way were barefoot and pregnant.

For instance, in a recent video about the Silk Road north of the Taklamakan desert, the presenter seems to express some regret that much of it is now modern Chinese expressway:


[video=youtube;zkgGK99VsqE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkgGK99VsqE [/video]


Similarly, in the video that explicitly compares and contrasts the “One Millionth Discovery” expedition and its precursor, the “Oxford and Cambridge Far Eastern Expedition 1955 – 1956”, the presenter implausibly states:


[video=youtube;77487qPkey0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77487qPkey0&index=14&list=PLE8E7C8E376FE8B E7[/video]


This is, without a doubt, one of the more absurd bits of video I've yet encountered about overlanding. Otherwise the series documenting the “One Millionth Discovery” expedition is pretty good – see the YouTube playlist at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLE8E7C8E376FE8BE7 .

First off, the original Oxbridge expedition participants knew long before they left England that crossing China would be impossible for political reasons, because it was still the height of the cold war. This is not something they “discovered” en-route. Second, the Oxbridge expedition did face genuine physical challenges, because they had no idea whether the Ledo road across Burma, built by General Stillwell a decade earlier in the Second World War, was still passsable. Whereas the only major “obstacle” that the “One Millionth Discovery” expedition seems to have encountered is a bit of snow. If a bit of snow now counts as “challenge” and high adventure, then every time an American or a Canadian drives through blizzards and snow 3 or 4 feet deep to get to work in the morning, they're Marco Polo.

To put the matter bluntly, crossing China is now no more physically demanding and no more adventurous than crossing the United States, because the roads are now so good. This seems to be unwelcome news for a certain kind of overlander, and perhaps that reaction needs more examination?

So thjakits, if anything, what I wrote in the quote above massively amplifies your point: there is no reason to design a “military grade” or “rally-grade” vehicle, when the design objective is a vehicle for “all-road” or “bad-road” travel, not off-road travel; and not travel along mud-tracks in Fourth-World countries.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


7. A few more thoughts about TerraLiner Aesthetics


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


thjakits, your thoughts about the “aesthetics of bull bars” and the functionality/beauty trade-off in post #774 on page 78 are very well taken – see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page78 . We'll see if you guys think I pulled it off, or not. Remember, my “target” is something like the Kimberley Kruiser T3, and definitely not Colani.

The Kimberley T3 is very beautiful, but also superbly functional – see http://www.kimberleykruiser.com/lightweight-full-size-off-road-caravan-the-kruiser-t3 , http://www.kimberleykruiser.com/t3-off-road-caravan-best-luxury-in-australia , and http://www.kimberleykruiser.com/offroad-caravan-model-summary-3-models :





The Kimberley T3 is very much a straight-ish “box”, with rounded bits/elements. Or as you put it:

While you are already on it - run through this thread, to see how a SQUARISH box (bus) transforms into a rather smooth Greyhound Scenic-Cruiser inspired version - STILL big and square, but with cool roundings added.

Not implying you should take an old US-Schoolbus and transform it into Terraliner, but you want a fairly big machine - these guys (Skoolies) are maxing out livable space in their transformations.....

It's obvious enough that this is the way one has to go. One wants to maximize living space, and a square-ish box does that. But in most bus designs and mainstream motorhomes, this rectilinear quality is seriously alleviated by “cool roundings”. Only in the world of expedition motorhomes are ultra-rectilinear 90-degree-angle boxes considered “standard” and supposedly “necessary”.

From the point of view of living space, extreme rectilinearity as per UniCat or ActionMobil could not possibly be “necessary”, otherwise Airstream would not exist as a going concern for more than 50 years – see http://www.airstream.com . And if Airstream can create “rounded” trailers, I just can't understand why so many people in the expedition vehicle community seem to think that ultra-rectilinear design is a positive necessity. This strikes me as simply perverse.

I really liked it when you wrote:

Though I don't like the decidedly macho/agressive/sinister look approach - there would certainly be better design ways to take the aggression out and just leave the macho-power thing there - Hey Bio! ...give them a hand with that!!

That's exactly what I think Kimberley achieved in the Kruiser T3, even though its just a trailer, so it has no “macho-power”. But much like the Jaguar E-type, the Kimberley T3 trailer looks both “masculine” and “feminine” at the same time; both macho and elegant.

As regards overall aesthetics, I also just recently came across this nugget in another thread. There is real value in designing an expedition motorhome that most definitely looks like a bus, instead of a truck:

Austria freeway tolls - 28cents per KM for ANY vehicle over 7.5 T and older than 2003

Germany - vehicles older that 2003 cannot get emission approval stickers to enter most cities

Germany - trucks are not allowed on the autobahns on Sundays - you might get away with it as a motorhome but not is you are over 12 T

Generally if you make you vehicle look like a bus rather than a truck life will be easier in many places. EG Road taxes entering Turkmenistan 13 cents/km for truck 9cents/km for a bus. They have no such category as motorhome. If it looks like a truck it is a truck.

You might like to look at this site - these guys try to keep track of expedition vehicles for sale at http://www.expedition-trucks.com/brokers , and they might be able to give you some advice on how to register an expedition vehicle. I know one of them registered theirs in the UAE (United Arab Eirates).

This is yet another good argument for not designing an expedition motorhome as per UniCat or ActionMobil, i.e. a motorhome that looks like a garbage truck.

Note that if it were properly designed as part of the overall concept, even a fold-down bull-bar could look like a non-militaristic, fully integral element in a more curvilinear vehicle:






campo: before the pictures recede too far back in the thread, I also wanted to thank you for those Renault “Truck of the Year” photos, in post #758 on page 77 -- see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page77 . Really inspiring design, and your post motivated me to research this Renault at greater length.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


8. TerraLiner Windshield Design


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


I also like what Orlov posted:

Coaches/buses drive close to civilization and don't have to wait weeks or months to have a 2,5 x 2,5m windshield shipped into a jungle when you ********** it against a tree.

Many armored vehicles have split windshield so only one piece needs to be changed when it breaks.

One can always fit steel bars and nets across the windshield of the expedition vehicle to spare it from damage, but you end up with something resembling a riot vehicle instead.

From the very beginning I've been working with a split-windshield design, if only because the oldest VW Kombi Microbuses had split-windshields, and the many Art Deco cars – like the BMW Kamm Coupe discussed earlier in the thread – had split windshields: see posts #563 to #567 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page57 , and posts #677 to #679, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page68 :








So too the "Mille Miglia" design hommage concept car completed in 2006 has a split windshield -- see posts #680 to #682 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page68 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page69 :





So it was great to read Orlov suggesting that a split windshield might be very functional as well…..:sombrero:


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


thjakits, the images you provided links for, of split-windshields in buses were then very suggestive:





And agreed, there is a huge difference between the windshield of the typical bus or main-stream motorhome, and the windshield of an expedition motorhome:





This inspired a design brain-storm.......


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


9. Art Deco Horizontal Windowing


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


I had already been thinking of the sliding glass doors at the back of the vehicle as having embedded horizontal strips, so that they would look like the “horizontal windowing” of the 1950's Spartan Carousel trailer – see http://www.tincantourists.com/classified/showproduct.php?product=7744#.VIsCmXnu76k :







For me personally, the interior of the Spartan Carousel is not that attractive; but this rear wall of horizontal windowing is simply terrific.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.