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

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


“Horizontal windowing” is very Art Deco, and as you know thjakits, Art Deco “retro-futuristic” exterior and interior styling is one of my central design objectives.

An excellent example of horizontal windowing is the Hoover Building in west London – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Building , http://www.londonlee.com/2007/03/five-miles-out-of-london-on-western.html , http://flickrhivemind.net/Tags/hooverbuilding/Interesting , and https://www.flickr.com/photos/shadow-in-the-water/12499519654/sizes/l :





And here are some more examples of Art Deco horizontal windowing:






Although the last Spartan Carousel trailers seem to date as late as 1960, the above images all suggest quite clearly that the Carousel's rear window was decidedly “Art Deco”:





It then occurred to me that the front “panoramic” windshield of the TerraLiner could be built in the same way. The Art Deco idea of “horizontal windowing” could break up a large, overall, curved window into smaller, flat, easily replaceable, rectangular sections, just as you suggested in post #789. The enormous front windshield would be a backward sloping curve overall, as per the Burstner “Panorama” mobile home (see http://www.buerstner.com/uk/motorhomes/integrated_models/grand_panorama.html and http://www.buerstner.com/uk/motorhomes/integrated_models/grand_panorama/360_views.html ), but a windshield composed of flat rectangular glass panels, just like the original VW Kombi split windshield. Just many more flat panels of glass, to create an enormous front window.

What do you think? A crazy idea? A panoramic, "Burstner-type" front windshield, composed of multiple facets of straight, flat sheets of glass........


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


10. Excessive Broken Windshield Paranoia


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


Now with that suggestion in place, I then want to add some comments that are rather obvious.

First off, it's possible to be too paranoid about front windshield breakage.

All of the MAN-KAT vehicles illustrated in this thread have split windshields, but their front windows are quite large and generous, even the armored ones -- see post #245 and posts #249 to #275, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page25 , http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page26, http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page27, and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page28:










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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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





Second, many ActionMobil, UniCat, and Tatra expedition motorhome conversions are based on commercial truck chassis in which the cab is left in place, with a very generous, large, single, unified windshield. Not even a split-screen design! Just surf the UniCat or ActionMobil websites to get a feeling for this -- http://www.unicat.com/en/individual.php and http://actionmobil.com/en/3-axle/globecruiser .

Immediately below I've posted more "rare" images of Jago Pickering's Tatra 6x6 conversion, and the Bowler Tatra support vehicle -- see posts #236 to #243 , at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page24 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page25 :





And then of course there's the Tatra 815 GTC, which successfully travelled around the world for three years, with a very large, split-screen windshield -- see posts #288 to #304, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page29 , http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page30 , and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page31 :





In the comparative image that you posted, thjakits, a large bus or mainstream motorhome window is placed beside an American-made, off-road CBE truck, with a comparatively small window:





But I am European, and many participants on this thread are European. So we do not necessarily consider American products or the American experience to be "normative" or "universal". Even if Tiger, GXV, and Earthroamer sell expedition motorhomes designed for Latin American travel, based on American trucks that have tiny front windshields, that does not mean that a European designer has to follow such American examples.

In other words, the photo that you posted seems to be an exaggeration; and a particularly American exaggeration at that.

Hope this observation does not ruffle your feathers too much, but it had to be made.....:sombrero:


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


12. Slide-0uts: Part One


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


thjakits, you seem to be particularly fond of old American school-bus conversions, or “skoolies” – see http://www.skoolie.net/forum/ . Any particular reason why? And yes, by all means, please feel free to spec out in detail (with lots of pictures, if possible), your “Skoolie-Conversion Dream/Plan.”

Many thanks for the links to the “old boy records” website in particular, in post #806 (see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...V-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page81?highlight ), a website that provides an excellent photographic record of a complete school bus conversion, with no less than 4 slide-outs, and abundant skylights running the length of the vehicle – see http://www.oldboyrecords.com/thebus/ :








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.adsfdsfasdf

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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







[video=youtube;IYDBwWwrEFY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYDBwWwrEFY [/video]


Also many thanks for cataloging some choice details on the “pirate 4x4” build website, where he describes his slide-out at great length – see http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/expedition-vehicles/933305-f-700-4x4-camper.html . That self-build record is particularly interesting, because his rig is intended as a bad-road/off-road vehicle, and yet he incorporated a very well-built slide-out. For those who want to just leaf through the pictures at high speed, “Photobucket” has most of them at http://s1097.photobucket.com/user/markcymbaluk/media/Slide17.jpg.html . Go either forwards or backwards.

I tend to agree with you that electric rack-and-pinion or threaded rod is the way to go, avoiding the potential headaches and mess of hydraulic slide-outs. Newell Coaches (a premium U.S. RV manufacturer), uses slide-outs made by “Valid” in British Columbia, and these are “cam drive systems”, not hydraulic – see http://www.validmanufacturing.com/index.php?pid=2 .

The photo of the camper with partial flip-ups on “pirate” is, I think, a photograph of the build by NeverEnough, a regular participant here on ExPo:





See http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/45835-C5500-TopKick-4x4-Crew-Cab-Build , http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...4-Crew-Cab-Build/page65?highlight=neverenough , and http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/129449-I-feel-another-build-coming-on .

As for Pop-Ups and Swing-Outs, here I have something very specific in mind, that's as much aesthetically driven as it is practically driven. Yes, this is a cryptic sentence, but I have to leave it at that. Imagine an expedition RV that fully opens up and still looks beautiful, not just like some sort of weirdly expanded vehicle. An expedition RV that looks like an elegant, shining, white/blue/silver whale, complete with tail…..

All of your suggestions about kitchen access when the slide-outs are closed, have already been factored into the design. And, even more importantly, access to the toilet when are slide-outs are retracted!

But as Haf-E suggested, there is a trade-off between motorhome access with slides retracted, and security:

My only issue with having the cab fully integrated with the living area is the issue of security - both when parked and when using a roll-on/roll-off shipping - the inability to block the back area off makes it more likely that items will disappear. I thought of this today because I saw an van front type RV (Class C?) parked on a city street with the front passenger door window broken to gain entry. I suppose some type of folding door / partition could be made - even as a temporary measure for shipping - but for shorter stops in urban areas it would not be practical.

Any thoughts? Opinions? I like the designs with all of the rear windows "covered" when travelling - but if all it takes is popping the front then it doesn't seem worth it.

So when underway or parked for just a short break, one wants kitchen and toilet access, but not access to much else. And perhaps even a way to block off the swiveling seats (as per the Paradise Motorhome posted in the next section), from the rest of the motorhome. As luck would have it, I've designed things in such a way to make this eminently possible. But many thanks to Haf-E for raising this as an additional concern.

thjakits, also thanks for the details regarding the size of inflatable slide-out seals; their proven nature in aircraft applications; and designing so that the slide-outs actually increase the structural rigidity of the space-frame.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.dsafsdfsd

 

[biotect]

adsfasdf.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


13. Hoisting Points


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


As for “hoisting points” for lifting the TerraLiner by crane into a boat (post #836), I've already factored this in, too:

That's not actually a bad idea.

We've decided that Bio should build a spaceframe type structure, well if it was built so that it was also roll cage incorporated design for roll over protection, then why not having lifting points and lashing points in the design?

I mean not everywhere has the modern RoRo ports, but there are cranes nearly everywhere!

I've been designing the TerraLiner to be equipped with retractable outrigger stabilizers, of the kind used by FireTrucks – see http://www.craneoutriggers.com/outrigger.htm and http://www.fireapparatusmagazine.co.../features/aerial-jacking-systems-evolve-.html , and also see posts #333 and #334 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page34 :








The titanium half-height space-frame is being designed so that all of it can be lifted at the four points of these outriggers. Ergo, also hoistable at these four points.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


14. Slide-0uts, Part Two: Paradise Motorhomes


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


Joe: your post #826 about the Paradise Motorhomes “Bad-Road/Off-Road” rig was, as usual, simply incredible – see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page83 .

At a technological level, the chassis basis is still fairly standard, a MAN TGM that's not rigid, and that twists. So on rough roads the cab still goes in one direction, and the camper box in the other. But even though it has a tilt-forward cab, somehow Paradise managed to open up its back to such an extent that the seats can fully swivel around, and the interior has that “one-room” feeling, just like a Hymer or a Newell.

Full-length slide-outs on both sides, a drop-down deck that hides (and protects) most of the windows, central vac, and moderate cabin pressurization to keep out the dust – simply incredible! See http://www.caravancampingsales.com....radise/paradise-motor-homes-mansion-4x4-24919 .

This is a technologically extraordinary vehicle, especially because it's meant for “Bad-Road/Off-Road”, and yet has such huge full-length slide-outs. So it seemed worth re-posting all 37 pictures:









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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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









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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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







A simply incredible expedition motorhome, Joe: unbelievably light-filled and spacious inside, and much closer to what I have in mind than anything we've come across thus far, even though it's not truly "fully integrated".


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


15. Manufacturing Inertia, and Australian Innovation


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


What I find interesting is that the Australian expedition motorhome industry seems wildly experimental/innovative, whereas UniCat and ActionMobil seem stuck in a bit of a rut.

The UniCat pop-up concept is certainly very cool, but at some basic level UniCat and ActionMobil seem content to stick with their cab-separate-from-camper, non-integrated, “looks like a truck” format. Whereas a number of Australian companies are exploring ways to import the aesthetics and spaciousness of fully integrated mainstream motorhome design, into the world of expedition-grade, bad-road or off-road vehicles. Perhaps because the Australian economy has been booming for such a long time, companies and individuals are flush with cash, so everyone is willing to “experiment”?

It's also not too surprising that Paradise Motorhomes is the manufacturer that created this motorhome, as opposed to a more dedicated “expedition motorhomes” manufacturer like UniCat or ActionMobil. Most of Paradise Motorhome's offerings are standard mainstream motorhomes, where its has plenty of experience creating vehicles with enormous double-slide-outs – see http://www.paradisemotorhomes.com.au/independence-series and http://www.paradisemotorhomes.com.au/independence-series/range/independence-deluxe-(28ft)- . So Paradise Motorhomes is keenly aware of just how spacious a fully integrated motorhome with huge slide-outs can be:








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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





This suggests to me that the first company to manufacture a vehicle like the TerraLiner will not be UniCat or ActionMobil, but rather, a more mainstream motorhome manufacturer that wants to expand its product line – a company like Concorde or Hymer, Newell or Prevost.

As for the argument that if standard vendors like ActionMobil and UniCat are not producing integrated designs, then perhaps there is some good reason why they are not, my response must be: I doubt it.

At a certain stage in their histories companies often get “stuck”, especially if they are market leaders. Much easier to continue selling a standard spectrum of product offerings, than mess up the business model by introducing a completely revolutionary product. Some established companies (such as 3M) have figured out ways to foster an entrepreneurial, experimental, innovative culture despite their size and market dominance. But it seems a common complaint on this forum that most builders of expedition motorhomes get irritated when confronted by customers who want too much innovation, or too many changes to the standard offerings.

Ergo, the common observation that DIY allows a degree of design-freedom that sub-contracting tends to stifle:

I'm a fan of DIY for two reasons, it's a lot cheaper and you can change your mind as the build progresses. If you get someone to do it they will except a few changes but not many I think and you do get new ideas as things take shape. Also you pick up a lot of skills along the way.

BUT, it does take 2-3 years (or more) out of your life, we all have to balance these issues according to our abilities, how much money we have, and how valuable we consider our time to be.

Agree, what I found liberating about doing it myself was (besides the $$$$) that there wasn't a contractor telling me what couldn't be done, when I knew full well that with effort and motivation, and not just tons of money, it could be done. I had the family moved into Shachagra 4 months after starting it. There were still systems to be hooked up and tweaked, but everything was in place. I did have the help of the family though.

See http://www.robgray.com/graynomad/wothahellizat/ , http://www.roadschoolodyssey.com/shachagra.html , and http://www.roadschoolodyssey.com/about-us.html .

So my own suspicion is that fully integrated expedition motorhomes have not yet been sufficiently explored for the simple reason of manufacturing inertia. Note that earlier in the thread I remarked on a similar historical transition in the motorhome industry – see post #207 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page21 . Heimer, Concorde, et al, began with mainstream motorhome designs that were either non-integrated or partially integrated. They’d take a Mercedes or MAN truck, and just stick a camper on back. Only as they became bigger and better capitalized did they make the “leap” to fully integrated.

My suspicion is that ActionMobil and UniCat are in a roughly similar place: in a “pre-integration” stage of product offerings and design. To develop a fully integrated, reasonably large 6x6 expedition capable RV as a “non-bespoke”, standard product offering will prove expensive. The initial capital outlay is the problem, and it also means becoming a manufacturer responsible for the whole vehicle. Whereas it’s much easier to just stick a box on the back of truck whose cab, chassis, engine, and suspension have already been worked out by MAN or Mercedes.

So again, I would predict that mainstream motorhome companies with deep pockets like Prevost, Newell, Hymer, or Concorde will build the TerraLiner first; or some wildly experimental Australian company backed by mining-boom venture capital. And not ActionMobil or UniCat.

Just one criticism: the off-road vehicle from Paradise Motorhomes looks more like a truck on the outside, than a bus or mainstream motorhome. In terms of exterior styling, it’s not Mañana, nor does it look as neat, clean, and elegant as the “Tonto” or the 4x4 Toyota “Coaster” sold by Australia’s 4x4 Motorhomes – see post #205 and post #211, at 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 . But even still, gosh, this off-road vehicle from Paradise Motorhomes sure is cool, and packed with interesting innovations.

And yes, thjakits, I did notice that all the windows can be covered when underway…..


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.dsfadsfasdfdsf

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


16. Poll: Fully Independent Suspension versus Solid Straight Axle


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


Now although this is a transportation design aesthetic exercise, personally speaking I very much enjoy thinking about the engineering/practical side of things, ergo this thread. And I really enjoy reading you guys debate the engineering plusses and minuses of different chassis and axle configurations.

thjakits, all of your thoughts about the advantages of a simple solid straight axle are very well taken, and were echoed by egn:

The Terraliner will be no rally vehicle with a multi-million service crew behind. Such a complex suspension is very susceptible. Please look at the images with the rocks. This vehicle is more designed moving through soft terrain like sand, but not really for rocky terrain and deep mud.

Just one hit against the unprotected components may cause a total loss of function. Compared to this a broken spring or a malfunctioning shock absorber of a conventional suspension will still allow to move forward.

I hadn't thought much about this before, but you and egn are right: in a straight-axle configuration, when a wheel lifts, it also lifts the axle, allowing clearance of objects (eg. rocks) that would otherwise hit the axle in the center of the vehicle. Those images you provided attachments for in post #830 say it all:





This must be one of the main reasons why G-wagen owners will militantly defend its “antiquated” straight axles, despite the G-wagen's horrible turning radius: because the wheel lifts the axle, and gains clearance for it.

So I must confess that you are convincing me: that straight axles + the Tenneco Kinetics system seems the way to go. Especially given the fact that the Kinetics system was providing such an “unfair” (?!?!) advantage in Dakar to vehicles that used it, that was then banned.

This sounds like a rather perverse decision on the part of Dakar, because one of the virtuous spin-off effects of racing events like Formula 1 or the America's Cup, is the encouragement of multi-million-dollar investment in new, experimental technology. In the world of sailing, high-performance carbon-fiber cruising catamarans like those made by Gunboat would not have such a ready market amongst ordinary customers today, if exotic, mega-sized, ultra-light-weight racing catamarans and trimarans had not first proven themselves in various competitions, including the America's Cup. So I have to confess that I am now very strongly leaning in the direction of straight axles + a Kinetics suspension system, which I have to research further…..

However as per Haf-E, I am also now inclined to imagine straight axles, no independent suspension, but portal axles adding height, each with its own separate E-motor.

Before I “settle”, though, it's worth playing devil's advocate for a moment, observing that Tatra does have a proven track record with what are, in effect, a series of independently suspended pendular swing-axles. So I wonder how much difference there is in the “real world” having the straight-axle lift with the wheel? Again, G-wagen owners (for instance) militantly defend the G-wagen's straight axles, even though this means that the G-wagen has a terrible turning radius. Whereas one singular advantage of the TAK-4 independent suspension system is that it allows the front wheels to rotate at extreme angles, and achieve a much tighter turning radius.

So thjakits, I wonder how Oshkosh would respond to your point about “axle lift” and clearing obstacles (like rocks) along the center-line of the vehicle? If the TAK-4 independent suspension system were as disadvantageous as you suggest, then why is Oshkosh having so much success with it? Why has TAK-4 spread across the entire Oshkosh product line, and migrated also to Pierce (i.e. Oshkosh) Fire Trucks? The U.S. military must see considerable value in TAK-4, if it is willing to buy a wide range of Oshkosh products based on it. And Oshkosh itself must have seen value in TAK-4, if it was willing to spend so much capital developing and implementing it.

Oshkosh does not strike me as a “stupid” or “self-indulgent” sort of company, and it seems less dependent on military hand-outs than most, because it also sells a variety of non-military products. Oshkosh continued developing its L-ATV design for instance (the L-ATV is the program to replace the HUMVEE), even though Oshkosh was not selected for the second-round stage of L-ATV procurement. Oshkosh continued sinking its own money into a product that it believed was superior, and it's now back in the game, as a successful participant in the last and third round of L-ATV testing. Notably, Oshkosh won out against a number of competitors who received considerable military grants during the second-round stage. So if Oshkosh is pursuing independent suspension TAK-4 technology with gusto, that's something to at least consider, yes? As such, campo may in fact be on the right track…..

At this point, I am tempted to run a poll: who seems in favor of straight-axle, and who seems in favor of independent suspension all round? So far, my guess would be:

(1) Independent Suspension, or Tatra Swing-Axle: campo, free radical

(2) Solid straight Axle: thjakits, egn

If anyone else reading this wants to chime in with their preference, and explain why they prefer one as opposed to the other, please add your thoughts to the thread!

Campo: your images and/or links for Volvo's new independent front axle suspension in post #828 did not work. Would you be willing to post these again? But great images in post #829 of the independent suspension for the Dakar GINAF.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


17. Axle Locations


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


egn: a few more thoughts about axle location.

Because of the problem of the “breakover angle” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakover_angle ), or what I like to call “turtling” (see post #750 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page75 ), I am strongly tempted to design for three evenly spaced axles, none of them lifting:





Here again are the two videos of some MAN-KATs turtling. The first one is long, about 9 minutes. Skip ahead 4 minutes, 25 seconds into the video, to see a MAN KAT 4x4 "turtle":




For a MAN KAT 8x8 then doing recovery on this turtled 4x4, skip ahead to 6 minutes, 30 seconds.

And here is the second video of a MAN-KAT 4x4 turtling:


[video=youtube;0tbbhWqlOiw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tbbhWqlOiw&index=26&list=PLEAE9FCE044DFE4 96 [/video]


MAN-KAT 6x6s seem to be designed with the rear axles close together because that's where they might carry most of the weight, i.e. a heavy payload. But in a motorhome – and especially in a diesel-electric serial hybrid – the weight can be more evenly distributed throughout. So there does not seem to be any reason why the rear axles have to be so close together.

In a 9.4 m MAN-KAT 8x8, the total distance from the front axle to the rear axle is 1.93 m + 3.3 m + 1.5 m = 6.73 m. If instead just three axles were evenly distributed, their inter-axle distance could be 3.365 m, i.e. 6.73 m divided by two. And the approach angle with the bigger tires could still be 40 degrees, and the departure angle 54 degrees. Whereas in MAN-KAT 6x6's that are 9 m long, the distance between the first and second axle is 3.8 m. See the blueprints in post #750 for the exact details, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page75 .

So I have been designing two variations: one vehicle that looks more like a traditional MAN-KAT 6x6, and a second with the axles evenly spaced, as per some military troop carriers:






egn, given your extensive experience driving a large 9.5 m 6x6 in diverse conditions, what do you think? Is the “breakover angle” between axles critically important? Is turtling a problem? Has Blue Thunder ever “turtled”?

One disadvantage of even spacing, of course, is that one loses the storage space of side lockers between the first and second axle:




Or, alternatively, the side-locker storage space between the second and third axles, if the first two axles are bunched forward:





In a serial hybrid solution, in which the weight of the drivetrain can be more evenly distributed, is there any good reason to bunch the first two axles forward, instead of bunching the second and third axles towards the rear, as per Blue Thunder? If one no longer has a heavy engine and transmission forward, are two axles forward still desirable, for some other reason?

Haf-E raised this issue most recently when he wrote:

On the subject of steering - my favorite is the Tatra 6x6 setup where they start with an 8x8 and remove the rear most axle - so there are two closely spaced axles that steer (in front) and then one rear most axle at the rear. Of coarse, it does depend on the weight distribution - but in a lightly loaded truck with a heavy diesel engine in the front (like on a typical off road competition truck) the dual front axles support the weight better and give more steering control in some situations.

For a expo rig with more weight in the back - having the conventional setup of dual rear axles (non-steering) close together and then a single front axles probably makes the most sense.

With the lower price of the MAN 8x8 when sold by the german military - I am surprised more haven't just taken the fourth axle off and shortened the frame - of course there might be more to it then that - or perhaps its a registration / approvals issue with TUV?

And egn, you and grizzlyj had an interesting exchange much earlier in the thread about the desirability of a “castrated 8x8”: an 8x8 with the fourth axle removed, as suggested in the quote above by Haf-E.

But in a serial hybrid solution, would there still be any advantage to “bunching” two of the axles either forwards or backwards?


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


18. Towing a Trailer Instead of a TOAD


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


egn: also, many thanks for answering the question about towing a "TOAD" in Germany, in post #788 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page79. thjakits had already suggested that towing a complete covered trailer was a much better idea, because the TOAD used by Peter Thompson's Mañana looked pretty beat up. And if towing a TOAD is absolutely "verboten" in Germany, then that's just another reason to go with a trailer instead.

Ketterer makes exactly this kind of trailer -- see https://www.facebook.com/pages/Ketterer-Truck-Manufaktur-GmbH/131301423609191?fref=photo and https://www.facebook.com/pages/Kett...1423609191?sk=photos_stream&ref=page_internal :







Most famously, Ketterer constructed a vehicle of this kind for the John Lennon Foundation, a bus that tours around Europe and the United States providing beginning musicians with access to a professional-quality studio and equipment -- see http://www.lennonbus.org/explore , http://www.lennonbus.org , and http://europe.lennonbus.org :






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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.