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

[biotect]

Hi NeverEnough,

Would you know where the Terramax versus Rangerover clip was filmed? In California, or somewhere else in the western United States?

And just one question: How did your camper + trailer arrangement work out in practice?








I am still working my way through your fantastic build thread at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/45835-C5500-TopKick-4x4-Crew-Cab-Build .... Simply incredible idea: a rear slide-out that slides back and has additional slides to the sides.....:exclaim:

But I noticed in your newest thread, http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/129449-I-feel-another-build-coming-on , that you are now contemplating building a more "Kirivan" kind of set-up, with a gooseneck hitch -- see http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/towing/equipment/hitches/gooseneck-hitches.htm . What is the primary motivation behind your interest in creating a new vehicle with a different overall format?

Or put differently, how did the old format -- vehicle + trailer -- work out? The wheels on the trailer seem much smaller than the wheels on the truck, so I was just wondering if the trailer is as "off-road" or "bad-road" capable as the truck? In post #159 you wrote:

I explored more off-road oriented tires but decided on quality trailer radial for better towing. Its 32" diameter unladden which puts the bottom of the axles 13" off the ground.

Did you consider an off-road trailer like Oshkosh's M1076? See posts #887 to #889 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page89 . If you did consider the Oshkosh M1076, why did you reject it as a possibility?


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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







All: notice in the schematic that NeverEnough's "slide-out dolly" carries no less than 7 (yes, that's right, seven!) motorbikes.....:Wow1:

NeverEnough describes the trailer's build specifically in post #188 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/45835-C5500-TopKick-4x4-Crew-Cab-Build/page19 , #198 and #200 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/45835-C5500-TopKick-4x4-Crew-Cab-Build/page20 , and #211 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/45835-C5500-TopKick-4x4-Crew-Cab-Build/page22 .

NeverEnough: my apologies in advance if you have already answered my questions elsewhere....

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[NeverEnough]

Hi NeverEnough,

Would you know where the Terramax versus Rangerover clip was filmed? In California, or somewhere else in the western United States?

And just one question: How did your camper + trailer arrangement work out in practice?

But I noticed in your newest thread, http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/129449-I-feel-another-build-coming-on , that you are now contemplating building a more "Kirivan" kind of set-up, with a gooseneck hitch -- see http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-parts/towing/equipment/hitches/gooseneck-hitches.htm . What is the primary motivation behind your interest in creating a new vehicle with a different overall format?

Or put differently, how did the old format -- vehicle + trailer -- work out? The wheels on the trailer seem much smaller than the wheels on the truck, so I was just wondering if the trailer is as "off-road" or "bad-road" capable as the truck?

The episode was filmed in western Nevada, military test range area. My wife actually got to be there for the gig, not that she's interested in trucks, just a chance for some cool flying getting the chopper there.

The short answer is that my rig has been great. Like any project of this type, there's a thousand things I'd do different, but that doesn't diminish all the great functionality and fun that it has delivered. The slide system, pop-up, and ability to remove both the camper and trailer bodies from their respective chassis are things I especially like. Of course, I've stated many times on this and other boards that ambitions for that build were never global, and quite specific to my family's camping needs. It's as comfortable and spacious as most luxury class-A's. A global traveler it ain't!

I never considered using an existing trailer chassis. The only pre-fab part of the trailer was the axle set, everything was custom fabricated to meet the primary purpose as a toy hauler. The ground clearance isn't great compared to the truck, but the deck is about as high as a ramp door allows (any higher and the ramp angle makes it dicey getting stuff in and out).

My interest in another build/s is due to both changing needs and experience with this rig. Simply put, its size and weight limit where it can go. The tractor-trailer concept is really tied to the concept leaving the camper behind for whatever reason and have more practically-sized vehicle to scoot around in. I've got a lot of noodling still to do, however, but whatever it is will be significantly smaller, lighter, and more maneuverable than my last build. Of course, my bias is towards overlanding via motorcycle.....

 

[Maninga]

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".

Thought it looked pretty neat when I came across it. Came across this while searching for example of motorbike storage inside a motorhome. http://4wdmotorhome.com.au Looks like it was put up for sale after being built, gives some additional details on systems that went into it. Could be worth tracking the people down and asking their opinions on how it all worked, help with the design process for your camper.

I was thinking about the drive system over the last few days. If you're treating this as a design exercise (have you found someone who'll build your design?), do you want to even have traditional axles? Taking a little from comics, what about using the electric drive system with generator feeding the batteries, each wheel having its own electric motor on a swingarm able to raise/lower the truck? Keep it low for street driving, raise it up for offroad and obsticles, if driving offroad and offcamber, raise one side of the truck. Absolutely zero knowledge of best way to do it, or if it can be done, but the idea makes sense to me.

 

[biotect]

[Response to private message by thjakits...]


Hey thjakits,

No worries; answer when you can. About a week ago I'd completed all my academic work, and then re-read those 10 pages of new material that others had posted since I last participated in the thread, back in September. All of the material posted was really good, and made me think. So I not only felt "obligated" to respond, I also really wanted to respond!

As for the quantity of my output: remember, I type very fast. touch-typist, over 100 WPM, no errors. Mom was/is a bit of a feminist, and insisted that I take a typing course when I was 14. So I don't "hunt and peck" with just two fingers. Also speed-read (over 2000 WPM), and I use DevonThink to organize my research -- see http://www.devontechnologies.com/products/devonthink/overview.html and http://www.devontechnologies.com/solutions.html . So let's just say that my blogging is "cybernetically enhanced"....:sombrero:


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


1. TerraLiner Rear Window Curtain Wall Design


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


thjakits, I really value your "devil's advocacy". For instance, on the one hand you did exaggerate a bit regarding the optimal size for the front windshield. But your concern (and Orlov's) about replacing a large 2.3 x 2.5 m window in the middle of the jungle, really hit home – see posts posts #871 to #875 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page88 . Because I was already interested in Art Deco "horizontal windowing" in any case, one possible solution then occurred to me.

The Art Deco period could be understood as early modernism, when architects were trying to create larger window expanses. But technology was not sufficiently advanced to allow them to specify – at an economic price – enormous plate glass windows, as per the 1950's and following. So in the 1930's Art Deco architects created large window expanses out of smaller, horizontal segments. I was already thinking about using this kind of horizontal windowing in the rear of the vehicle, with two "swing-outs" fanning to either side, creating a kind of "tail" at the end of the vehicle. And the entire rear expanse of both the swing-outs and the rear of the camper box would be covered by horizontal windows, creating a continuous "curtain wall" of glass at the back of the TerraLiner.

Here are some of my sources of “design inspiration”, along with the Spartan Carousel, already detailed in posts #872 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page88 :





First off, there's the “Odorico Pordenone” expanding trailer, designed by Jakub Novk – see http://www.newtech-enews.com/2012/02/10/odorico-pordenone-caravan-by-jakub-novk/ , http://www.sinbadesign.com/odorico-pordenone-innovative-design-of-caravan-by-jakub-novak/ , http://www.designcabinet.cz/odorico-pordenone , http://www.joyenjoys.com/odorico-pordenone-concept-of-luxury-caravan/ , and http://vogeltalksrving.com/2012/02/odorico-of-pordenone-trailer-concept-enters-the-space-age/ :








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

Continued in Next Post
.

 

[biotect]

.
Continued From Previous Post

****************************************
.








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

Continued in Next Post
.

 

[biotect]

..
Continued From Previous Post

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





No, I am not imagining this kind of double swing-out running the entire length of the TerraLiner. Rather, I am imagining this kind of double swing-out just for the last 2.5 m of the TerraLiner, at the very back. So that when the swing-outs extend, the back of the TerraLiner looks a bit like the tail of a whale.....

Furthermore, I am imagining the TerraLiner's swing-outs pivoting as per the Kiravan and the MaxiMog, from centers located on the sides of the vehicle, as opposed to a common center in the middle of the vehicle – see my Kiravan posts earlier in the thread: post #622 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page63 , and posts #753 and #754, section 12, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page76 :





I do not imagine them pivoting as per the "Odorico Pordenone".

I was then thinking that instead of just a short expanse of glass in the center of the vehicle, as per the “Odorico Pordenone” above, horizontal panes of glass could cover the entire full expanse of the rear curvature, when the swing-outs are extended:

Here is another source of inspiration for curved horizontal windowing: the "Bather's Building" (1937), in the Aquatic Park of San Franscisco – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_Park_Historic_District and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streamline_Moderne :








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

Continued in Next Post
.

 

[biotect]

..
Continued From Previous Post

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


And here are a few more examples of curved Art Deco curved horizontal windowing:






So too, I was inspired by “Nanawall”, one of the market-leaders that fabricates enormous, retractable expanses of glass curtain wall – see http://www.nanawall.com/why-nanawall , http://www.nanawall.com/inward-opening-segmented-curved-folding-unit , http://www.nanawall.com/outward-opening-segmented-curved-folding-unit , and http://www.nanawall.com/videos :






[video=youtube;S7sjhAkOdnw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7sjhAkOdnw [/video] [video=youtube;VcvAISGkCLg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcvAISGkCLg [/video]



Here is a very, very rough initial sketch that I doodled over a year ago, in one of my design journals, of the back of the TerraLiner with the swing-outs extended:





Yes, on the sides the shaded bits are secondary swing-outs for storage: in other words, another swing-out inside the first swing-out. The swing-outs are "nested" or "semi-telescopic". The first bit has the living space and the windows, the second shaded bit has the storage cupboards. Hey, if NeverEnough can design and build a rear slide-out that pops out and then contains two more lateral slide-outs in turn, then "nested swing-outs" should be equally feasible.....:sombrero: .. Although the shaded bits won't have horizontal windowing (they contain cabinets for storage), they will add to the overall width of the rear "arc" created by the swing-outs. Which would be good from an aesthetic point of view: the "tail" of the whale will seem that much larger.

And, of course, the horizontal windowing should "follow through" somehow across the sliding doors in the center, with very thin metal strips embedded in the sliding doors to continue the horizontal lines visually. I did not add these horizontal bands to the doodle, because I wanted it to be clear that these doors in the center will be floor-to-celing "sliding/folding" marine doors of the kind made by Opacmare, sliding doors that open out onto a rear deck, a rear deck that can raise and lower on a "column lift".

Recall post #141 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page15 , where I wrote:

And last but not least, I love the flip-down deck at the back of the Caravisio, by Knaus-Tabbert:

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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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

See: http://www.examiner.com/article/knaus-tabbert-caravisio-the-shape-of-caravans-to-come , http://www.studio-syn.de/en/studio/category/ueberblick , http://www.studio-syn.de/en/projects/category/alle_projekte , ttp://www.studio-syn.de/en/projects/article/caravisio1 , http://www.studio-syn.de/en/projects/article/caravisio , http://www.knaus.de/knaus/neuheiten-2014/caravisio-2014.html , http://www.knaus.de/en/knaus/novelties-2014/caravisio-2014.html , https://www.facebook.com/caravisio, http://www.gizmag.com/caravisio-camper-concept/28978/ , and http://www.carscoops.com/2013/09/caravisio-caravan-will-cruise-you-into.html .

A rear deck is also important to my overall design agenda. As I wrote in “The Ethics of Third World Travel by Motorhome” :

So if one wants the exterior of a Third-World capable motorhome to engender positive, endearing responses, what would your recommendations be? What would an “encounter enabler” look like, even if it were big?

Here bright colors and uplifting graphics could make a difference, in contrast to most current overland motorhomes, which are usually painted neutral grey or beige. But shape matters too, and also amenities, like fold-down decks or balconies, i.e. semi-public transitional spaces where one might extend hospitality. The RV equivalent of "the front porch", found on antebellum homes throughout the American South, or cottages on New England lakes.

– http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...hics-of-Third-World-Travel-by-Motorhome/page8

In short, a rear deck is fairly non-negotiable design element for me. I need that "front porch".

Ergo, no Pusher.


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

2. Deck as Hydraulic Column Lift, and Stacker-Slider Glass Doors


Like you, I've been imagining the deck as hydraulic: as a teak deck applied to the lift-plate of a tail-gate system, of the sort made by manufacturers like Maxon, Waltco, Zepro, MBB Ratcliff Palfinger, and above all Dhollandia, the biggest such specialist in Europe – see http://www.dhollandia.com/GB/en/8/Products# .

As near as I can tell, many of the larger expedition motorhomes that have lift-gates for motorcycles seem to use “cantilever” or “tuck-away” lifts. But for a rear deck, the obvious choice would seem to be a “column lift” – see http://www.dhollandia.com/GB/en/8/Products#/cat/6 . But correct me if you think I'm wrong here.

This rear deck and appropriate lift system might be yet another sub-theme worth discussing at length, along with discussion of the rear sliding glass doors, which – I think – should be "stacker-type" doors, of the kind made by the innovative Italian marine supply company, Opacmare – see http://www.opacmare.it/pages/English_Home/101 , http://www.opacmare.com/pages/3_4_6_wings_doors_list_en/362?ixListPage_3_4_6_wings_doors_list_en=1 , http://www.opacmare.com/pages/manual_door_2065_10/362?ixListPage_3_4_6_wings_doors_list_en=1 , and http://www.opacmare.com/documents/manual_door_2065_10?ixDownload=true :

But Opacmare's curved sliding glass doors are also pretty nice – see http://www.opacmare.com/pages/curved_doors_list_en/365 , http://www.opacmare.com/pages/manual_curved_door_model_2T71_01/365?ixListPage_curved_doors_list_en=1 , http://www.opacmare.com/documents/manual_curved_door_2T71_01?ixDownload=true , http://www.opacmare.com/pages/model_2T31_en/365 , and http://www.opacmare.com/documents/porta_2T31?ixDownload=true :





This three-panel version is just about the right width, too.

Stacker-slider glass walls are now all the rage in architectural design – for instance, see Nanawall at http://www.nanawall.com . So you can imagine my surprise and elation when I came across Opacmare's “Roto Translating” doors, because these are specifically fabricated for motoryachts, and they are designed to endure lots of vibration and pounding. The Caravisio's rear sliding glass doors were also provided by a marine window specialist, called Alukwa – see http://www.alukwa.nl and http://www.alukwa.nl/products/exterior_doors.html .

The only reason I haven't mentioned the rear deck yet, is because some of the other thread-participants already think my proposals are unrealistic and crazy enough as it is. Add in “hydraulic rear verandah”, and they'll go ballistic…..:sombrero:

Of course, as both you and I know, there's nothing new about lift-gate technology, and it has been used in demanding commercial and military applications for decades – for instance, see http://www.dhollandia.com/GB/en/8/Products#/product/61 . But still, probably best to introduce heresies gradually…..

The very quick sketch/doodle that I just posted above was probably the "genesis" of the idea that, stylistically speaking, the whole vehicle should be Art Deco retro-futuristic.


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


2. TerraLiner Front Windshield Design: Art Deco Segmented


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


So just recently it occurred to me: if I am doing “Art Deco retro-futuristic styling” everywhere else in the TerraLiner, why not also for the front, panoramic, Burstner-style window as well? The front windshield could still be large and expansive, like the Burstner Panorama, but composed of smaller, easily replaceable, flat horizontal segments.

Here are some examples from the world of architecture, of curved skylight/atriums, in which the glass strips are horizontal:





But the front windshield of the TerraLiner were segmented, it could also be divided into vertical strips instead:





Now thjakits, I would not be thinking of this as a possible design solution, if you had not pressed me so hard on front windshield size, and the problem of replacing an enormous custom broken windshield in the middle of nowhere. An Art-Deco-style, segmented windshield composed of simple flat panels of glass would be much easier to repair: the damage would typically be confined to just one glass panel. So even if the overall expanse of glass were enormous and “panoramic”, as per the Burstner Panorama (again, see http://www.buerstner.com/uk/motorhomes/integrated_models/grand_panorama.html , http://www.buerstner.com/uk/motorhomes/integrated_models/grand_panorama/360_views.html , http://www.buerstner.com/uk/motorho...s/model/grand-panorama-i-920-g_default-2.html ), the front windshield would no longer be as “vulnerable” to damage by flying rocks or the unforeseen tree branch. Sure, the occasional single glass panel would still break, but it could be replaced.

I honestly do not know if this “segmented front windshield” idea is a realistic solution, or even a road-worthy solution: whether it would meet various highway codes. But I don't see why it should not, if a single huge pane of glass as per the Burstner Panorama is acceptable.

This is why I participate on ExPo: because when participants like you and campo play devil's advocate, and you press me to think long and hard about a problem, solutions that are creative from both a design and a practical point of view eventually emerge. Even just visually speaking, a horizontally segmented panoramic front windshield will be much more interesting than a single pane of glass, as per the Burstner. It fits in perfectly with the overall Art Deco retro-futuristic “design aesthetic” that I have been pursuing, and has the added virtue that it might prove eminently practical, for expedition overlanding.

So once again, many thanks.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

Thought it looked pretty neat when I came across it. Came across this while searching for example of motorbike storage inside a motorhome. http://4wdmotorhome.com.au . Looks like it was put up for sale after being built, gives some additional details on systems that went into it. Could be worth tracking the people down and asking their opinions on how it all worked, help with the design process for your camper.

I was thinking about the drive system over the last few days. If you're treating this as a design exercise (have you found someone who'll build your design?), do you want to even have traditional axles? Taking a little from comics, what about using the electric drive system with generator feeding the batteries, each wheel having its own electric motor on a swingarm able to raise/lower the truck? Keep it low for street driving, raise it up for offroad and obsticles, if driving offroad and offcamber, raise one side of the truck. Absolutely zero knowledge of best way to do it, or if it can be done, but the idea makes sense to me.

Hi Joe,

Yes, it's a really unusual expedition motorhome. It's a kind of “proof of concept” vehicle: it demonstrates that even an expedition motorhome can enjoy the kind of spaciousness that's now available in more mainstream motorhome designs, since the invention of slide-outs in the late 1990's.

Although UniCat does a nice “pop-up”, in general UniCat and ActionMobil don't do slide-outs much. And they certainly don't do slide-outs the way that American mainstream manufacturers do, in fully integrated designs where the front seats swivel around. So this vehicle from Paradise Motorhomes is absolutely unique in the world of expedition campers. It's probably the very first truly “spacious” expedition motorhome that I've seen. The only other expedition motorhome that comes even remotely close is Actionmobil's monster 8x8 “Desert Challenger” – see http://actionmobil.com/en/4-axle/desert-challenger :




But the “Desert Challenger” is based on a special MAN-KAT missile-carrier chassis that, at 3 m wide, is unusuable on most roads. Most MAN-KATs (like egn's Blue Thunder) are a more respectable 2.5 m wide. So the “Desert Challenger” cannot serve as a design precedent for anything. Whereas this vehicle from Paradise Motorhomes will most certainly inspire others.

I downloaded all the webpages with specifications and details on the “sell” website at http://4wdmotorhome.com.au , and so too all the pictures. These “sell” websites tend to disappear after a few months, so I've reposted all the pictures below as well, because it's such an important and “advanced” sort of vehicle. The pictures on the “sell” website are not quite as good as those already posted earlier, found on the “Caravan Camping Sales” website – see http://www.caravancampingsales.com....radise/paradise-motor-homes-mansion-4x4-24919 , and posts # 879 to #884, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page88 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page89 . But it seems important to have as much documentation about this vehicle as possible, and yes, I will try contacting the owners.

It's interesting that the owners have a history of building multiple expedition motorhomes, in different countries…….








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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






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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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










Joe, as for the question regarding axles, independent swing-arms, etc., I am still waiting for egn + thjakits to really go head-to-head with NeverEnough, dwh, and campo, on the question of “traditional straight axles” versus “fully independent suspension on all wheels”, as per TAK-4 by Oshkosh, or the new independent suspension system by Volvo.

These are all “heavyweight” participants, and three of them (egn, NeverEnough, and campo) have extensive personal, practical experience building and driving their own expedition motorhomes. I respect all of their views very much, and so it's interesting that there seems to be some disagreement about this fundamental point.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

ADDENDUM re AXLES and SUSPENSION SYSTEMS

thjakits,

If/when you get around to commenting (again, no rush), it would be great if you could speak in particular to the issue of "independent suspension" (e.g. Tak-4), versus more traditional "straight axle". As near as I can tell, Tenneco's Kinetic system will work perfectly well with an independent suspension system, so that's not a major deciding factor. Do you know of any specific examples of Tenneco's Kinetic system implemented in vehicles larger than a Toyota Landcruiser? And, if possible, some weblinks?

As things stand, only you and egn seem to be in favor of the more traditional straight-axle solution. NeverEnough and dwh, for instance, who both have a very strong "practical" orientation, are still in favor of independent suspension. Yes, even after having read your posts and seen those images that you and egn provided, suggesting why it would be desirable for the wheel to "lift" the axle as well, allowing the center of the vehicle to clear rocks, etc. dwh's point in posts #896 and #901 above is that more or less the same thing happens with independent suspension as well, just a bit later. What do you think about dwh's counter-argument?

And same question to you, egn, if you are reading this.....

I am particularly curious about one immediate consequence: camper box floor height. I've been working on a floor height of 1.6 m above the wheels (to allow wheel arch clearance), and 1.35 m floor height between the first and second axle, in 6x6 format where two axles are bunched in back. Sure, I could have the floor completely flat at 1.6 m for the entire length of the motorhome, but in my most optimal design I need the floor to drop a bit in the middle. Of course, because it's a tubular space frame and supposedly there are no chassis rails to worry about, I could go even lower.

Except that I am "playing it safe". As per the Monaco/Roadmaster chassis, I am still imagining long rails embedded at the heart of the tubular space frame -- see post #733 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page74 :






The last three images are particularly suggestive, because one can easily imagine a carbon fiber monocoque camper box replacing the aluminum bus camper box shown.

If the tires were !4.00R20 or 16.00r20 XZL (or something equivalent), then in a way it does not really matter which kind of axle + suspension system is used, from the point of view camper box design, does it? No matter which suspension is used, one will want to limit "up travel" so that the tires can't bounce up beyond 1.55 cm (the diameter of the 14.00R tires is 1.258 m, and the 16.00R tires is 1.343 m).

It only becomes interesting if a particular suspension would provide an equally good ride, but "up-travel" could be limited to 1.5 or 1.45 m, and downward travel might be very, very long. Gaining an extra 10 cm of camper box height would be terrific, if such a suspension system were to exist.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

All,

Here is a really great video of a wide range of trucks having fun: Magirus, MAN, Tatra, Unimog, IFA, etc.

Campo, about 2:35 into the video is a perfect example of what appears to be a Magirus truck "turtling". It has gotten stuck on the peak of a hill because its breakover angle was insufficient, i.e. because its inter-axle distance was too great:




Again, for breakover angle, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakover_angle . Has this ever happened to you in your 4x4? Do you know of anyone to whom it has happened? For me, this seems to be one of the strongest arguments in favor of a 6x6, because with three axles instead of two, the inter-axle distance could be minimized for a vehicle 9.5 or 10 m long.

All best wishes,


Biotect

 

[NeverEnough]

Has this ever happened to you in your 4x4? Do you know of anyone to whom it has happened? For me, this seems to be one of the strongest arguments in favor of a 6x6, because the inter-axle distance could be minimized for a vehicle 9.5 or 10 m long.

Yes, in a jeep, truck, atv and even motorcycle, but not in my RV. There's something "impractical" about putting several hundred K at risk trying to get to a campsite! So I'm just not too concerned with center lift or a lot of other stuff, because I just want my slide-outs (not mention doors and windows) to work after bouncing down rough roads for hundreds of miles- which is much more difficult than it might sound.

So what is my argument for IS? It's faster over rough roads, and time is valuable. Being able to travel just a little faster without inflicting unwanted (and expensive) wear and tear on a trick camper can add a lot of value to the journey. My rig does great on washboard at high speed because of the huge wheels. It would do even better with a mongo IS. And I'd pick up a few more miles per hour on the ruts and cobble, which is what really slows you down. Sure, there are occasional tricky spots that require good angles and strong construction, but I take it slow and I'm not afraid to back up, turn around, and find another way. As for 6x6, I like the idea for the redundancy, floatation, traction, even for the angles to get in and out of a wash or stream ford. But I'd like it a lot more if one pair could lift for the inevitable 90% of travel on paved roads (meaning a rig light enough to be well within spec on just 4 wheels).