TerraLiner:12 m Globally Mobile Beach House/Class-A Crossover w 6x6 Hybrid Drivetrain
- Thread starter biotect
- Start date
egn
Adventurer
biotect said:
This example shows the serious drawback of just building a feature list without looking at the whole picture. While this shows a solution for placing a generator unit for a bus, it is not automatically a viable solution for the Terraliner. Remember, you have provided pictures of approach and departure angles for offroad trucks? Where do you want to place such a generator unit when Terraliner has a approach angle of more than 30°? When you look at our KAT then you will see that the bumper is approximately 1.2 m high. Actually, because of EU light regulation the normal headlight and the fog lights have to be at the upper side below 1,2m. The bumper was constructed to put the lights as high as allowed. If the generator is placed like in the image it would be in mid of the drivers cab. :Wow1:
So your solution is no solution. The only possible place for the generator unit(s) on a tray would be at left and/or right side between 1. and 2. axle. But the size of this units would use up the full space between both axles and therefore there isn't any space left for fuel and other storage items.
You should really make a paper draft of the layout and cut paper models of the feature items you want to place and check if they fit, before you are to enthusiastic. It's a kind of puzzle that has to be solved. I did something similar and not only checked the space, but also the weight distribution on the wheels for a specific placement. The result is that I have the fully loaded 18 t distributed nearly even on every wheel, with just about a few 100 kg difference.
As was stated before, Terraliner is neither indented for driving competitions, not for extreme off-road.
So why you are so focused on this center-line clearance issue?
Most of the pictures you have posted show regular 4WD cars in kind of deep tracks. They are getting problems because they have small wheels. If you use truck wheels you automatically get higher clearance. And this clearance should be enough in 99.9 % of the situations. But you should already have turned around when you hit 80-90 % of the capabilities, otherwise you may risk your mobile home.
So my opinion is that the centerline clearance that can be achieved by a straight axle combined with large off-road tires like 14.00R20 or 16.00R20 are good enough. It is good enough for military, then why not for the Terraliner?
The typical center-line clearance is then in the range of 35 - 55 cm. BT has a clearance of about 45 cm with 14.00R20, and about 53 cm with 16.00R20 tires. Up to now we had no problem with center-line clearance, because when a road is passable by cars, even they are off-road capable, or by regular trucks with their clearance of less then 30 cm, then it is no problem with a truck with large off-road tires. More of an problem may be a different wide track, like it is in the Canning Route Track, or countries like in the southern parts of Africa, where mostly off-road cars are used. Then you may have to drive with one wheel in the track and with the other outside and have a very unconvenient tilt. I would try to stay completely outside the tracks, when possible.
For me portal axles are a solution for vehicles that don't have large enough wheels or don't have enough clearance because the differential housing has to be large because of missing planetary hubs. Compared to SA and planetary hubs portal axles look to me more complicated and not as reliable. So why not using large tires in the first place. They also have much better driving comfort because you don't dip into small pot holes and have lower ground pressure.
BTW, the used wheel size and tires are also an issue to discuss, as not all sizes are available world wide, and some are only available with smaller diameter which reduces center-line clearance and the possibility to get better off-road capability by reducing tire pressure.
As I probably wrote somewhere earlier, I had thought about a hybrid conversion of the KAT many years ago. One option was also the one motor per axle direct drive solution. But at least at this time I saw now easy solution to keep the available motors out of the mess when you get into deep terrain. And a further important point is that the numbers regarding available torque and maximum rpm of electric motors did't fit the numbers that I currently have with the KAT. As I wrote before, you will need a gearbox to come to a similar value range of a typical truck.
The Oskosh is a good example what is possible. I haven't found any detailed information about the motor power, torque and transmission. The motors have probably about 80 kW each. A 3-axle Terraliner would have about 320 hp, which is at the lower end I would see for a 18 t Terraliner. The 20 percent better fuel efficiency has to been seen for an RV. Using a highly efficient modern Diesel and conventional drive train instead of the typical military Diesel guzzlers and electric drive train should have similar fuel efficiency on long-distance travel. The electrical loss of generation and motors will probably be about 20 %, which is much higher than the loss of conventional drive train. As was stated before, you can only win on regen, but this is limited by the capacitors.
When you have a battery bank of sufficient size you don't need a generating power that matches the peak power. You need only a generating power that covers the average power. Off-course, depending on battery technology you are limited on the amount of maximum power you can get. When the generators have an output of 240 kW you need an additional 190 kW from the battery. A peak power of about 200 kW from 100 kWh Lithium battery should be no problem. You can improve that further by enlarging the battery and/or combining it with a capacitor bank for short peaks to get better lifetime of the battery.
The Oshkosh needs this high power engine, because it drives the electric motors more or less directly. The energy content of 1.9 MJ might look like a large amount of energy to someone who isn't used to working with energy units. But actually this is only about 0.5 kWh, only about the energy content of a typical car starting battery. This capacitor bank is only large enough to take the energy of stopping a 18 t vehicle from 50 km/h. So the capacitors store and release only short peaks of power to make the vehicle more responsive. But most of the time the engine has to follow the exact power curve of the electric motors.
I like redundancy, because nobody wants to get stranded in the middle of nowhere with a high-tech vehicle caused by a single point of failure. Of course you will have similar problem when you use any modern diesel. So the way to go is to build redundancy into a modern vehicle or to go with low-tech, which can be repaired in the middle of nowhere.
For redundancy I would use the same component multiple times, in order to cut the number of spare components. I know, there are failure modes that may hit equal components exactly at the same time. But in this case I would make a compromise because of the limited storage for spare parts.
thjakits said:
A KAT is specified to do a 50 cm step. like some other military vehicles too. Of course for a 50 cm step it is best to have tires that have an diameter at least twice that. The 14.00R20 tires have about 1.25 m and the 16.00R20 have about 1.34 m. For a 18 t vehicle you have to have at least 90,000 Nm torque at the contact of wheel and step to lift half of the vehicle. Of course, it is a bit more complex, as the vehicle pushes forward, but this should be a good enough estimate. If the motors are connected directly to the wheel the total torque with a 14.00R20 wheel is about 56,000 Nm.
This double motor arrangement with planetary gear has peak torque of 4000 Nm. And 3 of them have 12.000 Nm. to get a total of 56.000 Nm there has to be an additional 5 times reduction. This is doable in planetary hubs without any problem. The total reduction would be 7.25 * 5 = 26.25. The rolling circumference of a 14.00R20 wheel is about 3.77 m. The maximum speed is then 14.000 / 60 / 26.25 *3.77 * 3.6 = 120 km/h. :victory: :wings:
Terraliner would then have motors with a total power of 900 kW peak and would probably leave black marks on the road when accelerating. :ylsmoke:
But supplying the necessary maximum peak power will be not easy. A capacitor bank that can hold the full energy necessary to do at least an acceleration up to 100 km/h would help (7 MJ). This would be at least 520 ultra capacitors with 5000 F and a price of USD 200 each for a total of about USD 103,000. It would get a bit cheaper with 3000 F capacitors for USD 48 each, for a total of USD 42,000. The capacitors would be able to deliver about 3 times the peak power at the weight of about 600 - 800 kg. :ylsmoke:
A 100 kWh battery bank with current available LiFePO4 cells weights about 1.200 - 1.500 kg (including housing and other components) and have a volumetric size of about 1 cbm. It can deliver 300 kW for about 15 minutes, peak is about 2000 kW for up to 5 s.
biotect said:
... going a speed of 80 km/h.
You should always provide the complete data, as it is misleading otherwise.
And finally, please don't praise Blue Thunder to much, as it is only one of several similar vehicles in Germany and Europe. It is far from perfect, but it matches our personal requirements for traveling pretty good. Others have totally different requirements and therefore may come to different conclusions.
I think the only matching points between Terraliner and BT may be:
- weight
- size
- off-road capabilities
The rest of Terraliner will be totally different, with other kind of experience.
I don't know whether such a concept is fitting into the more and more desintegrating world. If this continues at the current pace, the Terraliner may have to be renamed soon, as the world where you can drive such a showy and probably very expensive vehicle may be finally very small and limited to single continents, or only part of them. BT and other similar Offroad-RVs already getting a lot of attention. How will it be with the flashy Terraliner? I don't really know if I would spend the money for Terraliner, even I had the money. From a technical point Terrliner will probably be great, but from the travel experience and feeling - I don't really know.
Sorry for this grain of salt, that I have to put into the wounds. But this came just into my mind when I thought about the differences between BT and Terraliner.
This was a very long post and I hope I have answered all relevant questions and haven't written nonsense. I am very busy at the moment and don't have the time to follow the discussion and answer immediately. So a follow up to new postings may take some time.
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Hi egn,
Many thanks for answering my most important questions, about center-line clearance and portals:
Center-line clearance only emerged as an issue or "obsession", because in the debate between dwh and thjakits about Independent Suspension versus Straight Axle, thjakits repeatedly made the point that Independent Suspension requires lots of "junk" between the wheels; and therefore, that Independent Suspension center-line clearance will tend to be worse than Straight Axle. But I began thinking that perhaps for a vehicle as large as the TerraLiner or Blue Thunder, with big tires, thjakits' concern might be misplaced. I began thinking that with Oshkosh TAK-4i independent suspension, instead of straight axle, a vehicle the size of the TerraLiner or Blue Thunder would still have plenty of center-line clearance.
Your post confirms what I suspected: that this is a non-issue. There might be other reasons for preferring Straight Axle to Independent Suspension, but center-line clearance is not one of them. For instance, Straight Axles with planetary hubs might still be preferred because this is the mechanically simpler and therefore possibly more reliable solution.
But again, the only large, "bad-road" capable, diesel-electric hybrid trucks that I personally have seen so far -- those made by Oshkosh -- have Independent Suspension, and not Straight Axle.
***********************************************
It is also interesting that you don't like the "diesel-engine/generator" on a slide-out tray at the front solution; that you would put a pair of generators between the first and second axles instead.....:ylsmoke:
But I am not sure I agree with you here, and yes, I have been working with CAD, and not just a specifications list. Remember, the MAN-KAT cab in Blue Thunder was designed to be very low, so that MAN-KATs can be air-transportable. But I have always been imagining a cab floor for the TerraLiner that is much, much higher, 1.6 or even 1.7 m above grade. See again my post about the Actros flat-floor "Stream-Space", "Classic Space", "Big-Space", and "Giga-Space" cabs at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page29 , post #283.
Because the power plant is not yet completely specified, I was kind of hoping that even though the TerraLiner will have much better ground clearance than the Actros, and a much better approach angle, the TerraLiner could still end up with a flat-floor cab in a COE design. It will all depend on the size of the diesel generator, or generators (plural). Here I should confess that one of the reasons I liked your "two generator" proposal so much, is because from a cab-design point of view, this means that the overall engine compartment volume would probably become "flatter". Whereas just one big diesel engine, driving one big generator, would probably occupy a much more "vertical" volume.
And I also liked the two-generator solution because it means that each slide-out tray could be lighter.
But until we finally get this power requirement issue sorted out, there is not much point in me trying to find the dimensions of real diesel generators to work with. So I have recently taken up your two-generator idea, using the measurement of the Jenoptik generator. It is 1.375 m long, x 60 cm wide, x 85 cm high, and weighs only 350 kg, which is pretty incredible considering its power-output -- see http://www.jenoptik.com/en_40173_adsf263 and http://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf?Open . I am now imagining that two of these units could sit side-by-side in an engine compartment that is 90 cm high. When you then add space for the axle and the differential underneath, say another 60 or 70 cm, you get a possible cab floor-height above grade of 1.5 or 1.6 m. Add another 10 cm for floor insulation, and you get a flat-floor height of 1.6 or 1.7 m above grade, similar to the Actros.
And because they are relatively narrow, just 1.2 m wide in total, the generators might (?) leave enough space available on either side for front wheels to turn nicely? But I am not certain about this. More in detail to follow.
If I am missing something here, please let me know!!!
I should remark, however, that like a few others (for instance, campo), I suspect that 240 KW will not be enough for the TerraLiner. I suspect that something more like 300 or 350 KW is required. But again, because the TerraLiner is a concept vehicle, I can just stipulate that in 3 years time Jenoptik will come up with a 150 or 175 KW diesel engine/generator solution that is still as low-rise and lightweight as its 120 KW generator.....:sombrero:
***********************************************
As for paying too much hommage to Blue Thunder, again, I was only doing so because Blue Thunder comes closest to the "mission profile" of the TerraLiner. Only the DoLeoni MAN-KAT comes a bit closer, and seems a bit more integrated. So some of the engineering considerations that apply to Blue Thunder or the DoLoeoni MAN-KAT, also apply to the TerraLiner.
But as you suggest, the TerraLiner will be a rather different kind of vehicle altogether, from a design point of view.
***********************************************
About the world disintegrating, and Blue Thunder or the TerraLiner attracting attention: it's kind of obvious that like boats, for political reasons overlanding 6x6s will be able to go some places, and not others.
For instance, it is very ill-advised to cruise with a boat off the coast off Somalia. Even very large container ships will try to do the run off the Somalian coast in convoys, and never alone, because of Somalian pirates. See the recent excellent movie with Tom Hanks, called "Captain Phillips", at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535109/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Phillips_(film) , http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tom-hanks-playing-captain-phillips-2460129 :
[video=youtube;eruwOiHoTTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eruwOiHoTTo [/video]
The accuracy of the movie's portrayal of Captain Phillips is debatable -- see http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/08/showbiz/captain-phillips-movie-controversy/ , http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/ , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ovie-has-got-hero-Captain-Phillips-wrong.html , http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/14/captain-phillips-tom-hanks-real-life-no-hero , http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/1...ho-plays-him-in-hollywood-film/#__federated=1 , http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1p2csm/i_am_captain_richard_phillips_whose_story/ , and http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/paul-greengrass-responds-captain-phillips-criticism.html .
But there is no question that pirates do operate off the coast of Somalia, as well as some other coastlines; nd that they have become a major problem for international shipping, as well as for any naive sailors cruising nearby in leisure craft. So why should land travel be all that much different? The world is economically and politically unequal, and in some parts of the world people are in fact quite hungry, malnourished, and/or desperate. That's why I was so concerned with the "ethical" dimension of the TerraLiner right from the beginning, because it is also a safety issue.
Furthermore, personally I don't think one will be able to "hide" all that well behind the mask of a luxury motorhome that supposedly looks like a dump truck, either. So I honestly don't think that ActionMobil and UniCat vehicles will be in much better shape, from a safety point for view, traveling in Third and Fourth World countries. I don't even think that SUVs or smaller Unimog-based campers will be in much better shape, if a country is plagued by warfare, civil unrest, poverty, and piracy. That's why I focused so much on comparing the relative geo-political situations and road networks of different potential overlanding environments.
China is one thing, the Congo is something completely different. And I think the TerraLiner would be safe in China, as would Blue Thunder.
***********************************************
As for the world as a whole disintegrating, perhaps I already wrote this earlier somewhere, but I figure that we are at the tail end of a roughly 80-year "Kondratriev Cycle", and that we are currently living in a Kondatriev Winter. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfe24dc0-faca-11e2-87b9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3O3hhrrLt , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave , http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kondratiev_wave.html , http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/207/development/longwaves.html , and http://kondratieffwinter.com/blog/ , http://www.financialsense.com/contr...waves-and-the-greater-depression-of-2013-2020 :
But Winter is always followed by Spring, which many Kondatriev enthusiasts expect should begin circa 2020 - 2022.
In any case, many thanks for your post, given that you are currently pressed for time. It was much appreciated!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Many thanks for answering my most important questions, about center-line clearance and portals:
Center-line clearance only emerged as an issue or "obsession", because in the debate between dwh and thjakits about Independent Suspension versus Straight Axle, thjakits repeatedly made the point that Independent Suspension requires lots of "junk" between the wheels; and therefore, that Independent Suspension center-line clearance will tend to be worse than Straight Axle. But I began thinking that perhaps for a vehicle as large as the TerraLiner or Blue Thunder, with big tires, thjakits' concern might be misplaced. I began thinking that with Oshkosh TAK-4i independent suspension, instead of straight axle, a vehicle the size of the TerraLiner or Blue Thunder would still have plenty of center-line clearance.
Your post confirms what I suspected: that this is a non-issue. There might be other reasons for preferring Straight Axle to Independent Suspension, but center-line clearance is not one of them. For instance, Straight Axles with planetary hubs might still be preferred because this is the mechanically simpler and therefore possibly more reliable solution.
But again, the only large, "bad-road" capable, diesel-electric hybrid trucks that I personally have seen so far -- those made by Oshkosh -- have Independent Suspension, and not Straight Axle.
***********************************************
It is also interesting that you don't like the "diesel-engine/generator" on a slide-out tray at the front solution; that you would put a pair of generators between the first and second axles instead.....:ylsmoke:
But I am not sure I agree with you here, and yes, I have been working with CAD, and not just a specifications list. Remember, the MAN-KAT cab in Blue Thunder was designed to be very low, so that MAN-KATs can be air-transportable. But I have always been imagining a cab floor for the TerraLiner that is much, much higher, 1.6 or even 1.7 m above grade. See again my post about the Actros flat-floor "Stream-Space", "Classic Space", "Big-Space", and "Giga-Space" cabs at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page29 , post #283.
Because the power plant is not yet completely specified, I was kind of hoping that even though the TerraLiner will have much better ground clearance than the Actros, and a much better approach angle, the TerraLiner could still end up with a flat-floor cab in a COE design. It will all depend on the size of the diesel generator, or generators (plural). Here I should confess that one of the reasons I liked your "two generator" proposal so much, is because from a cab-design point of view, this means that the overall engine compartment volume would probably become "flatter". Whereas just one big diesel engine, driving one big generator, would probably occupy a much more "vertical" volume.
And I also liked the two-generator solution because it means that each slide-out tray could be lighter.
But until we finally get this power requirement issue sorted out, there is not much point in me trying to find the dimensions of real diesel generators to work with. So I have recently taken up your two-generator idea, using the measurement of the Jenoptik generator. It is 1.375 m long, x 60 cm wide, x 85 cm high, and weighs only 350 kg, which is pretty incredible considering its power-output -- see http://www.jenoptik.com/en_40173_adsf263 and http://www.jenoptik.com/cms/products.nsf/0/0160C5F91F7D98AFC12579D1004BD728/$File/esw_euro5_apu_120kw_2012.pdf?Open . I am now imagining that two of these units could sit side-by-side in an engine compartment that is 90 cm high. When you then add space for the axle and the differential underneath, say another 60 or 70 cm, you get a possible cab floor-height above grade of 1.5 or 1.6 m. Add another 10 cm for floor insulation, and you get a flat-floor height of 1.6 or 1.7 m above grade, similar to the Actros.
And because they are relatively narrow, just 1.2 m wide in total, the generators might (?) leave enough space available on either side for front wheels to turn nicely? But I am not certain about this. More in detail to follow.
If I am missing something here, please let me know!!!
I should remark, however, that like a few others (for instance, campo), I suspect that 240 KW will not be enough for the TerraLiner. I suspect that something more like 300 or 350 KW is required. But again, because the TerraLiner is a concept vehicle, I can just stipulate that in 3 years time Jenoptik will come up with a 150 or 175 KW diesel engine/generator solution that is still as low-rise and lightweight as its 120 KW generator.....:sombrero:
***********************************************
As for paying too much hommage to Blue Thunder, again, I was only doing so because Blue Thunder comes closest to the "mission profile" of the TerraLiner. Only the DoLeoni MAN-KAT comes a bit closer, and seems a bit more integrated. So some of the engineering considerations that apply to Blue Thunder or the DoLoeoni MAN-KAT, also apply to the TerraLiner.
But as you suggest, the TerraLiner will be a rather different kind of vehicle altogether, from a design point of view.
***********************************************
About the world disintegrating, and Blue Thunder or the TerraLiner attracting attention: it's kind of obvious that like boats, for political reasons overlanding 6x6s will be able to go some places, and not others.
For instance, it is very ill-advised to cruise with a boat off the coast off Somalia. Even very large container ships will try to do the run off the Somalian coast in convoys, and never alone, because of Somalian pirates. See the recent excellent movie with Tom Hanks, called "Captain Phillips", at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1535109/ , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Phillips_(film) , http://www.mirror.co.uk/tv/tv-news/tom-hanks-playing-captain-phillips-2460129 :
[video=youtube;eruwOiHoTTo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eruwOiHoTTo [/video]
The accuracy of the movie's portrayal of Captain Phillips is debatable -- see http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/08/showbiz/captain-phillips-movie-controversy/ , http://nypost.com/2013/10/13/crew-members-deny-captain-phillips-heroism/ , http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ovie-has-got-hero-Captain-Phillips-wrong.html , http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/oct/14/captain-phillips-tom-hanks-real-life-no-hero , http://arts.nationalpost.com/2013/1...ho-plays-him-in-hollywood-film/#__federated=1 , http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1p2csm/i_am_captain_richard_phillips_whose_story/ , and http://www.vulture.com/2013/10/paul-greengrass-responds-captain-phillips-criticism.html .
But there is no question that pirates do operate off the coast of Somalia, as well as some other coastlines; nd that they have become a major problem for international shipping, as well as for any naive sailors cruising nearby in leisure craft. So why should land travel be all that much different? The world is economically and politically unequal, and in some parts of the world people are in fact quite hungry, malnourished, and/or desperate. That's why I was so concerned with the "ethical" dimension of the TerraLiner right from the beginning, because it is also a safety issue.
Furthermore, personally I don't think one will be able to "hide" all that well behind the mask of a luxury motorhome that supposedly looks like a dump truck, either. So I honestly don't think that ActionMobil and UniCat vehicles will be in much better shape, from a safety point for view, traveling in Third and Fourth World countries. I don't even think that SUVs or smaller Unimog-based campers will be in much better shape, if a country is plagued by warfare, civil unrest, poverty, and piracy. That's why I focused so much on comparing the relative geo-political situations and road networks of different potential overlanding environments.
China is one thing, the Congo is something completely different. And I think the TerraLiner would be safe in China, as would Blue Thunder.
***********************************************
As for the world as a whole disintegrating, perhaps I already wrote this earlier somewhere, but I figure that we are at the tail end of a roughly 80-year "Kondratriev Cycle", and that we are currently living in a Kondatriev Winter. See http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bfe24dc0-faca-11e2-87b9-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3O3hhrrLt , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kondratiev_wave , http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Kondratiev_wave.html , http://faculty.washington.edu/krumme/207/development/longwaves.html , and http://kondratieffwinter.com/blog/ , http://www.financialsense.com/contr...waves-and-the-greater-depression-of-2013-2020 :
But Winter is always followed by Spring, which many Kondatriev enthusiasts expect should begin circa 2020 - 2022.
In any case, many thanks for your post, given that you are currently pressed for time. It was much appreciated!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
egn
Adventurer
It has nothing to do with like or don't like. It is just impossible to place the engine/generator there at this position, except you want a CBE design, finally. :sombrero:
biotect
Designer
...
Hi egn,
My apologies, I wrote my response to your post very much on the fly, because I wanted to interact with you a bit before others descend on the thread to claim their air-time.....:sombrero:
Because I was in such a rush, you seem to have responded to a post that was not quite complete. I finished writing the following before I saw your response:
Hope that clarifies my position better....:coffeedrink:
Here I should add that, quite honestly, I am not certain about any of this. Until you suggested the two-generator solution, I had instead been imagining just one big generator, sitting in a volume that's about 95 cm wide, x 90 cm high, x 1.5 m long. I got the volume from some TGS 6x6 blueprints, downloaded from the MANTED webiste, at https://www.manted.de/manted/zeichnung/81-99126-07/pdf/81-99126-0751_5.pdf . If you don't have a MANTED account, the link will probably not work. To register, see https://www.manted.de/manted/epl/benutzer.epl?session=8a3166ba03056fa63d5d801d6d4ff71f&command=init .
In these blueprints the frame at the front widens to 94 cm, to accommodate the engine. I used this TGS blueprint because:
(1) as you know, SX or HX series blueprints are hard to come by, on-line;
(2) the newest and largest Armadillo trucks are built on an 8x8 TGS chassis;
And
(3) at least this gives me a rough ballpark to work with. The TerraLiner is a 6x6, and this TGS is a 6x6, so this is about as close as I am going to get for a "rough ballpark" drawing, in the world of MAN.
Better, of course, would be a really good SX blueprint. The only one even close that I have, is a blueprint of an older MAN-KAT:
Unfortunately, there is no clear or explicit "B5" measurement listed in this diagram. But if one scales the drawing, it seems that the frame-rails are a uniform 1.1 m wide, including in the front, where the second axle has to steer.
Finding blueprints of a Tatra 815 6x6 as seen from above seemed to be even harder -- see http://www.tatratrucks.com/trucks/c...ility-heavy-duty-universal-container-carrier/ :
***********************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
...
Hi egn,
My apologies, I wrote my response to your post very much on the fly, because I wanted to interact with you a bit before others descend on the thread to claim their air-time.....:sombrero:
Because I was in such a rush, you seem to have responded to a post that was not quite complete. I finished writing the following before I saw your response:
Hope that clarifies my position better....:coffeedrink:
Here I should add that, quite honestly, I am not certain about any of this. Until you suggested the two-generator solution, I had instead been imagining just one big generator, sitting in a volume that's about 95 cm wide, x 90 cm high, x 1.5 m long. I got the volume from some TGS 6x6 blueprints, downloaded from the MANTED webiste, at https://www.manted.de/manted/zeichnung/81-99126-07/pdf/81-99126-0751_5.pdf . If you don't have a MANTED account, the link will probably not work. To register, see https://www.manted.de/manted/epl/benutzer.epl?session=8a3166ba03056fa63d5d801d6d4ff71f&command=init .
In these blueprints the frame at the front widens to 94 cm, to accommodate the engine. I used this TGS blueprint because:
(1) as you know, SX or HX series blueprints are hard to come by, on-line;
(2) the newest and largest Armadillo trucks are built on an 8x8 TGS chassis;
And
(3) at least this gives me a rough ballpark to work with. The TerraLiner is a 6x6, and this TGS is a 6x6, so this is about as close as I am going to get for a "rough ballpark" drawing, in the world of MAN.
Better, of course, would be a really good SX blueprint. The only one even close that I have, is a blueprint of an older MAN-KAT:
Unfortunately, there is no clear or explicit "B5" measurement listed in this diagram. But if one scales the drawing, it seems that the frame-rails are a uniform 1.1 m wide, including in the front, where the second axle has to steer.
Finding blueprints of a Tatra 815 6x6 as seen from above seemed to be even harder -- see http://www.tatratrucks.com/trucks/c...ility-heavy-duty-universal-container-carrier/ :
***********************************************
CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
...
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
***********************************************
But as luck would have it, about two weeks ago I stumbled upon these top-down views, on various Czech web-forums. All ones needs to do is find one drawing, and then using google's image search, somehow everything opens up, and one has all the drawings one needs:
See http://www.rc-trucker.com , http://www.rc-trucker.com/photos/T815-7perokresby/ , http://www.rc-trucker.com/photos/T815-7perokresby/photo3.html , http://www.liaz.cz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=354&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165 , http://www.rc-trucker.com/SAS.html , http://forum.rctrucktrial.cz/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1201 , http://forum.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/13189/start/-1 , http://www.gopixpic.com/1024/svk-ta...|forum*valka*cz|attachments|1945|T-815_3*JPG/ , http://www.smcars.net/threads/tatra-t815-6zvr8t-10x10-2007.31798/ , http://www.autoneuroticfixation.com/2013/02/tatra-t813.html , and http://www.rc4x4.cz/topic2776-210.html .
Thank God for RC modeling enthusiasts: they spend lots of time trying to hunt down good blueprints, and then post them online.....
All best wishes,
Biotect
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST
***********************************************
But as luck would have it, about two weeks ago I stumbled upon these top-down views, on various Czech web-forums. All ones needs to do is find one drawing, and then using google's image search, somehow everything opens up, and one has all the drawings one needs:
See http://www.rc-trucker.com , http://www.rc-trucker.com/photos/T815-7perokresby/ , http://www.rc-trucker.com/photos/T815-7perokresby/photo3.html , http://www.liaz.cz/forum/viewtopic.php?t=354&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165 , http://www.rc-trucker.com/SAS.html , http://forum.rctrucktrial.cz/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1201 , http://forum.valka.cz/viewtopic.php/t/13189/start/-1 , http://www.gopixpic.com/1024/svk-ta...|forum*valka*cz|attachments|1945|T-815_3*JPG/ , http://www.smcars.net/threads/tatra-t815-6zvr8t-10x10-2007.31798/ , http://www.autoneuroticfixation.com/2013/02/tatra-t813.html , and http://www.rc4x4.cz/topic2776-210.html .
Thank God for RC modeling enthusiasts: they spend lots of time trying to hunt down good blueprints, and then post them online.....
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
Biotech -
I think you need to just come up with a proposed drivetrain solution and move forward with it - as you said - this is an Art / Design school project so it isn't going to be built (yet...).
The Jenoptik generators look perfect for the application - they use a Steyr "monoblock" engine with an integrated flywheel PM generator which is top notch technology. They are small enough. Two of them would provide plenty of power.
Combined with the proposed drivetrain of theee induction motors with planetary gearbox and hub reduction straight axles I think you have a SUITABLE solution - best to move on with the rest of the design. As you already mentioned - most of the similar designs don't even specify the drivetrain layout - they just assume it would fit and be suitable.
One item you may have overlooked - the front axle needs to also be powered with an induction motor - so that will take space as well - and will require steering linkages also. I think putting the generators behind the front axle on side mounted slide outs would be better - they also wouldn't need to slide out as far since they probably would be mounted with there long axis in line with the long axis of the vehicle - allowing the frame "rails" to go between them. This would also keep the weight down low on each side. The front drive motor could be mounted ahead of the front axle to use that space effectively perhaps.
The real interesting part to me is the overall packaging and design - even I am tired of the discussion of drivetrain configuration and solid axle versus independent suspension options. It's a topic which will never be settled... And the end design could be switched to something different probably fairly easily if it had to.
In past engineering/design projects we often would ask if it was time to "shoot the engineer" and just get on with actually making a product - I think it is time...
Haf-e
I think you need to just come up with a proposed drivetrain solution and move forward with it - as you said - this is an Art / Design school project so it isn't going to be built (yet...).
The Jenoptik generators look perfect for the application - they use a Steyr "monoblock" engine with an integrated flywheel PM generator which is top notch technology. They are small enough. Two of them would provide plenty of power.
Combined with the proposed drivetrain of theee induction motors with planetary gearbox and hub reduction straight axles I think you have a SUITABLE solution - best to move on with the rest of the design. As you already mentioned - most of the similar designs don't even specify the drivetrain layout - they just assume it would fit and be suitable.
One item you may have overlooked - the front axle needs to also be powered with an induction motor - so that will take space as well - and will require steering linkages also. I think putting the generators behind the front axle on side mounted slide outs would be better - they also wouldn't need to slide out as far since they probably would be mounted with there long axis in line with the long axis of the vehicle - allowing the frame "rails" to go between them. This would also keep the weight down low on each side. The front drive motor could be mounted ahead of the front axle to use that space effectively perhaps.
The real interesting part to me is the overall packaging and design - even I am tired of the discussion of drivetrain configuration and solid axle versus independent suspension options. It's a topic which will never be settled... And the end design could be switched to something different probably fairly easily if it had to.
In past engineering/design projects we often would ask if it was time to "shoot the engineer" and just get on with actually making a product - I think it is time...
Haf-e
biotect
Designer
Hi Haf-E,
You are right.
Here's my excuse: I am still on vacation, so I can blog to my heart's content, without having to worry too much about time. Recall that the rest of you were blogging for about 10 pages without my participation, for over 2 months. Whereas I was completely "switched off". And I will be completely "switched off" again quite shortly.
I have to concede that you and egn are probably right about the desirability of putting the two Jenoptik generators on either side, between the first and second axle. I wanted to put surfboards, windsurfers, or short kayaks there, but oh well...... Maybe the surfboards could still go down the middle, and slide out from the front of the vehicle?
The other option, of course, is just sticking with my original, totally arbitrary volume for a singe generator solution: 95 cm wide, x 90 cm tall, and 1.5 m long. Because it would be nice to access the surfboards and/or kayaks from the sides, too.
I was going to finish the above post series with the following observation: if one scales the following Tatra drawings, one also seems to get a frame width of about 1.0 m:
So not quite wide enough to fit two Jenoptik generators side-by-side; but certainly a bit wider than a TGS frame.
Still, as you suggest, Haf-E, the front axle needs to be powered by an induction motor. So unless the front axle is linked by a long drive-shaft to an induction motor placed a little further back..... But even then, there's still the steering linkages. So I should probably stick to my original, single-generator plan.:sombrero:...
***********************************************
Casa Azul
***********************************************
Why? Well, because I surf, and I am imagining the TerraLiner as in part a kind of "surfing safari" motorhome.....:sunny: A bit like Casa Azul:
Anyway, yes, the engineering discussion has gotten a bit stale. Just as long as nobody posts anything really interesting or provocative in response to all the above, my next series of posts will take us back to aesthetics. And my final series of posts will be packed with surf vans. After that, I will completely shut down until March.
All Best Wishes,
Biotect
You are right.
Here's my excuse: I am still on vacation, so I can blog to my heart's content, without having to worry too much about time. Recall that the rest of you were blogging for about 10 pages without my participation, for over 2 months. Whereas I was completely "switched off". And I will be completely "switched off" again quite shortly.
I have to concede that you and egn are probably right about the desirability of putting the two Jenoptik generators on either side, between the first and second axle. I wanted to put surfboards, windsurfers, or short kayaks there, but oh well...... Maybe the surfboards could still go down the middle, and slide out from the front of the vehicle?
The other option, of course, is just sticking with my original, totally arbitrary volume for a singe generator solution: 95 cm wide, x 90 cm tall, and 1.5 m long. Because it would be nice to access the surfboards and/or kayaks from the sides, too.
I was going to finish the above post series with the following observation: if one scales the following Tatra drawings, one also seems to get a frame width of about 1.0 m:
So not quite wide enough to fit two Jenoptik generators side-by-side; but certainly a bit wider than a TGS frame.
Still, as you suggest, Haf-E, the front axle needs to be powered by an induction motor. So unless the front axle is linked by a long drive-shaft to an induction motor placed a little further back..... But even then, there's still the steering linkages. So I should probably stick to my original, single-generator plan.:sombrero:...
***********************************************
Casa Azul
***********************************************
Why? Well, because I surf, and I am imagining the TerraLiner as in part a kind of "surfing safari" motorhome.....:sunny: A bit like Casa Azul:
Anyway, yes, the engineering discussion has gotten a bit stale. Just as long as nobody posts anything really interesting or provocative in response to all the above, my next series of posts will take us back to aesthetics. And my final series of posts will be packed with surf vans. After that, I will completely shut down until March.
All Best Wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
optimusprime
Proffessional daydreamer.
Oooooh provocative ...... Go on someone!
I reckon that before you dissapear for your next study period Bio you should at least nail down the axle question, that would then add another tick to the ' stuff we have decided' list.
That would then let us add another ten pages of 'other' stuff to this thread ........( some of which maybe useful ......)
I reckon that before you dissapear for your next study period Bio you should at least nail down the axle question, that would then add another tick to the ' stuff we have decided' list.
That would then let us add another ten pages of 'other' stuff to this thread ........( some of which maybe useful ......)
Haf-E
Expedition Leader
Hi Biotech -
I didn't intend it to sound harsh - just want to move on and see what can be achieved.
To follow up - here are some "off-the-shelf" products that would meet the requirements.
Motors: Brusa ASM1 with gearbox GX629 gearbox - The dual motor version that was posted earlier isn't ideal as it has two outputs - its meant for a independent suspension type design without the additional hub reduction gearing we require with the taller tires and lower speed / higher torque goals.
Axles: Meritor - these axles are designed to handle 2000 nm of torque which can be supplied by the electric motors.
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_axle_front.aspx
One additional note - the design could also be done with two motors and a tandem rear axle assembly. The downside is that the two motors would probably be different sizes (smaller for front / larger for rear) and that there would be more wheel scrub is no interaxle differential was included. ALso - the torque levels from one larger motor would get too high for the forward axle and things would break...
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_axle_reartandem.aspx
I'd still suggest a three motor solution as it allows more control and options from a control standpoint.
If you really want independent suspension - Meritor also offers three different systems:
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_protec.aspx
The protec 40 model looks particularly interesting as it offers air suspension and has hub reduction included and is a fairly compact design.
I hope this helps -
Haf-e
I didn't intend it to sound harsh - just want to move on and see what can be achieved.
To follow up - here are some "off-the-shelf" products that would meet the requirements.
Motors: Brusa ASM1 with gearbox GX629 gearbox - The dual motor version that was posted earlier isn't ideal as it has two outputs - its meant for a independent suspension type design without the additional hub reduction gearing we require with the taller tires and lower speed / higher torque goals.
Axles: Meritor - these axles are designed to handle 2000 nm of torque which can be supplied by the electric motors.
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_axle_front.aspx
One additional note - the design could also be done with two motors and a tandem rear axle assembly. The downside is that the two motors would probably be different sizes (smaller for front / larger for rear) and that there would be more wheel scrub is no interaxle differential was included. ALso - the torque levels from one larger motor would get too high for the forward axle and things would break...
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_axle_reartandem.aspx
I'd still suggest a three motor solution as it allows more control and options from a control standpoint.
If you really want independent suspension - Meritor also offers three different systems:
http://www.meritor.com/products/defense/defense_protec.aspx
The protec 40 model looks particularly interesting as it offers air suspension and has hub reduction included and is a fairly compact design.
I hope this helps -
Haf-e
Last edited:
biotect
Designer
Haf-E,
Many thanks for this!!
But gosh, there I was about to post roughly 30 sylvan images of Casa Azul, basking in the sunshine on various beaches, and you post an additional "engineering content" bit about electric motors.....:sombrero: ... So perhaps the engineering discussion is not quite over??
For instance, as far as I know, you have not yet expressed your own views about the TerraLiner power requirements. egn's post above spoke to power issues in a really nice, clear way:
So what are your own views? Do you think that a total of 320 HP of diesel-engine power should prove sufficient? I am hoping to nail down an HP figure before I go offline again, because that then helps me to do a bit more searching for the right kind of diesel generator. The two-generator solution is already in hand: just two Jenoptiks, placed as you and egn suggest, between the first and second axles. But I need a solid HP consensus before I engage in much more diesel generator research.....:ylsmoke:
***********************************************
A Complete Re-Design of the TerraLiner Tubular Space-Frame.....
***********************************************
Now from a surfing and windsurfing point of view, the two generators on the sides solution might actually be even better, because some kinds of surfboards and windsurfers are really long, over 3.5 m.
The most beautiful traditional wooden longboards, with great marquetry inlay, are ridiculously long -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfboard#Longboard ; http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/home , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/products/super-custom-foam-longboards , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/products/plankton , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/about-tom-0 , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/history/hollow-wood-surfboards , and http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/blog ; http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk , http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk/products/surfboards , and http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk/journal ; http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com , http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/boards/1-the-original-98/ , http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/boards/11-1960s-jacobs/ , and http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/videos/ ; http://www.balsasurfers.com/index.html , http://www.balsasurfers.com/balsasurfboards.html , and http://www.balsasurfers.com/balsacustomshapes.html ; http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk , http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk/product-category/boards/ , and http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk/shop/cnc-chambered/ ; http://www.nollsurfboards.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?display=home , http://www.nollsurfboards.com/wood.html , and http://www.nollsurfboards.com/heritage.html ; http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/index.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/Boards2/Boards2.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/paddle___surfboards.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/HowTo...htm , and http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/SampleSection-PatternMaking.htm :
[video=youtube;P7T1Io7_Cwk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7T1Io7_Cwk#t=153 [/video]
[video=youtube;9WBuOwc6S9U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WBuOwc6S9U [/video] [video=youtube;jr1u-2BjbqM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr1u-2BjbqM [/video]
So too, hard, non-inflatable racing paddle boards tend to run on the long side, some up to 14 feet long, or over 4 m; and some even longer -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standup_paddleboarding , http://www.supboardermag.com/2013/01/04/inflatable-or-hard/ , http://www.standuppaddleboarding.co.uk/supboard-guide , http://creedsup.com/which-size-for-me/ , http://www.bicsup.com/products/touring-race-sup,3,128.html , http://www.bicsup.com/technology/race-tec,81.html , and http://www.bicsup.com/products/touring-race-sup,3,128/14-0-25-0-race-tec-world-series,1210.html :
Sea kayaks are typically 4.5 to 5.5 m long -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_kayak ; http://www.valleyseakayaks.com , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?boat=gemini-t , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?range=greenland-and-classic-kayaks , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?boat=nordkapp , and http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?page_id=555 ; http://www.phseakayaks.com , http://www.phseakayaks.com/kayaks.php?kayak=Cetus 178 MV , http://www.phseakayaks.com/images.php , http://www.phseakayaks.com/brochure.php ; http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk , http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk/kayak-models/speed/ , and http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk/kayak-models/pace-18/ :
[video=youtube;ivpnISL_Pg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivpnISL_Pg0 [/video] [video=youtube;DAvqQTPO6Mw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAvqQTPO6Mw [/video]
And "Formula" racing windsurf boards, although quite short, are very wide, as are Olympic "RS:X" class boards -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsurfing , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Windsurfing , http://www.formulawindsurfing.org , http://www.star-board-windsurfing.com/2014/products/boards/formula , ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailboarding_at_the_Summer_Olympics , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS:X_(sailboard) ,https://www.facebook.com/RSXOlympicWindsurfing , http://www.neilpryde.com/index.php?lang=en , http://www.neilpryde.com/sail/racing/rsx/overview.html , http://www.neilpryde.com/board/rsx/board.html , and http://www.neilpryde.com/blog/all.html :
[video=youtube;KojwySYfB7M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KojwySYfB7M [/video]
The RS:X is 93 cm wide, and the Formula can be up to 1 m wide. So they would not fit into side-lockers in any case. But they would fit into a "nose locker", a windsurfing locker that opens up from the front of the vehicle.
***********************************************
No doubt this is a completely crazy and ridiculous idea, because we were going to put the batteries in the center of the vehicle. But perhaps we still can, just not all of the center..... ... Gosh, it would be super-cool to be able to fit a long, single-piece windsurfing carbon mast, or a 5.5 m sea-kayak, into a "nose locker" that has at least one "tube" that runs 6 m back, right through the center of the vehicle.
I am thinking it may be time for a complete tubular space-frame titanium chassis redesign.....:wings:
So many thanks egn and Haf-E: the two of you may have just inspired a veritable brain-fart. The TerraLiner has now become even more original, and unusual!!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Many thanks for this!!
But gosh, there I was about to post roughly 30 sylvan images of Casa Azul, basking in the sunshine on various beaches, and you post an additional "engineering content" bit about electric motors.....:sombrero: ... So perhaps the engineering discussion is not quite over??
For instance, as far as I know, you have not yet expressed your own views about the TerraLiner power requirements. egn's post above spoke to power issues in a really nice, clear way:
So what are your own views? Do you think that a total of 320 HP of diesel-engine power should prove sufficient? I am hoping to nail down an HP figure before I go offline again, because that then helps me to do a bit more searching for the right kind of diesel generator. The two-generator solution is already in hand: just two Jenoptiks, placed as you and egn suggest, between the first and second axles. But I need a solid HP consensus before I engage in much more diesel generator research.....:ylsmoke:
***********************************************
A Complete Re-Design of the TerraLiner Tubular Space-Frame.....
***********************************************
Now from a surfing and windsurfing point of view, the two generators on the sides solution might actually be even better, because some kinds of surfboards and windsurfers are really long, over 3.5 m.
- Surfing Longboards
The most beautiful traditional wooden longboards, with great marquetry inlay, are ridiculously long -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surfboard#Longboard ; http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/home , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/products/super-custom-foam-longboards , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/products/plankton , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/about-tom-0 , http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/history/hollow-wood-surfboards , and http://tomwegenersurfboards.com/blog ; http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk , http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk/products/surfboards , and http://www.ottersurfboards.co.uk/journal ; http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com , http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/boards/1-the-original-98/ , http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/boards/11-1960s-jacobs/ , and http://gallagherwoodsurfboards.com/videos/ ; http://www.balsasurfers.com/index.html , http://www.balsasurfers.com/balsasurfboards.html , and http://www.balsasurfers.com/balsacustomshapes.html ; http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk , http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk/product-category/boards/ , and http://driftwoodsurfboards.co.uk/shop/cnc-chambered/ ; http://www.nollsurfboards.com/cgi-bin/commerce.cgi?display=home , http://www.nollsurfboards.com/wood.html , and http://www.nollsurfboards.com/heritage.html ; http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/index.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/Boards2/Boards2.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/paddle___surfboards.htm , http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/HowTo...htm , and http://www.hollowsurfboards.com/SampleSection-PatternMaking.htm :
[video=youtube;P7T1Io7_Cwk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P7T1Io7_Cwk#t=153 [/video]
[video=youtube;9WBuOwc6S9U]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9WBuOwc6S9U [/video] [video=youtube;jr1u-2BjbqM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jr1u-2BjbqM [/video]
- Paddle Boards
So too, hard, non-inflatable racing paddle boards tend to run on the long side, some up to 14 feet long, or over 4 m; and some even longer -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standup_paddleboarding , http://www.supboardermag.com/2013/01/04/inflatable-or-hard/ , http://www.standuppaddleboarding.co.uk/supboard-guide , http://creedsup.com/which-size-for-me/ , http://www.bicsup.com/products/touring-race-sup,3,128.html , http://www.bicsup.com/technology/race-tec,81.html , and http://www.bicsup.com/products/touring-race-sup,3,128/14-0-25-0-race-tec-world-series,1210.html :
- Sea Kayaks
Sea kayaks are typically 4.5 to 5.5 m long -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_kayak ; http://www.valleyseakayaks.com , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?boat=gemini-t , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?range=greenland-and-classic-kayaks , http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?boat=nordkapp , and http://www.valleyseakayaks.com/?page_id=555 ; http://www.phseakayaks.com , http://www.phseakayaks.com/kayaks.php?kayak=Cetus 178 MV , http://www.phseakayaks.com/images.php , http://www.phseakayaks.com/brochure.php ; http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk , http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk/kayak-models/speed/ , and http://www.tideraceseakayaks.co.uk/kayak-models/pace-18/ :
[video=youtube;ivpnISL_Pg0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivpnISL_Pg0 [/video] [video=youtube;DAvqQTPO6Mw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAvqQTPO6Mw [/video]
- Formula and RS:X Class Windsurfing Boards
And "Formula" racing windsurf boards, although quite short, are very wide, as are Olympic "RS:X" class boards -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windsurfing , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_Windsurfing , http://www.formulawindsurfing.org , http://www.star-board-windsurfing.com/2014/products/boards/formula , ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailboarding_at_the_Summer_Olympics , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RS:X_(sailboard) ,https://www.facebook.com/RSXOlympicWindsurfing , http://www.neilpryde.com/index.php?lang=en , http://www.neilpryde.com/sail/racing/rsx/overview.html , http://www.neilpryde.com/board/rsx/board.html , and http://www.neilpryde.com/blog/all.html :
[video=youtube;KojwySYfB7M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KojwySYfB7M [/video]
The RS:X is 93 cm wide, and the Formula can be up to 1 m wide. So they would not fit into side-lockers in any case. But they would fit into a "nose locker", a windsurfing locker that opens up from the front of the vehicle.
***********************************************
No doubt this is a completely crazy and ridiculous idea, because we were going to put the batteries in the center of the vehicle. But perhaps we still can, just not all of the center.....
... Gosh, it would be super-cool to be able to fit a long, single-piece windsurfing carbon mast, or a 5.5 m sea-kayak, into a "nose locker" that has at least one "tube" that runs 6 m back, right through the center of the vehicle. I am thinking it may be time for a complete tubular space-frame titanium chassis redesign.....:wings:
So many thanks egn and Haf-E: the two of you may have just inspired a veritable brain-fart. The TerraLiner has now become even more original, and unusual!!
All best wishes,
Biotect
Last edited:
Hey Bio,
.....no more arguments about SA and IS and Portals - ....you keep misinterpreting my concerns about either or all.
IF you REALLY want to understand the details about Suspensions and different ways to spring and dampen either of them - ....you would have to really read up on that - Google, Wiki will be your best friends....
AS you asked for it some time ago:
Are there any "Portals in a IS": ....kind of!!
This is a Hummer H1 hub. AS you can see it has a reduction drive in it (spur-gear like in a REAL portal, not planetary like in most fullsize STRAIGHT truck axles)
Unless there is solid reason not to do so, ...to me they wasted the chance ot get more ground-clearance.
The lower suspension arm could possible me mounted further up the hub...
As it is - at least the drive-shaft (axle) get's to have a better angle to the hub, than if it would be with a non-reduction hub - now the axle-shaft is about straight out when in normal driving position, and the lower suspension arm will still have some down-angle.....
Here a post from a different thread on this forum:
ENG said it about all - at present stage....
Energy storage, re-gen: - to be able to absorb as much re-gen energy as possible you most likely will HAVE to run a mix of batteries and super-caps. The Super-caps are the over-load-buffer to dowload energy to the batteries.....
Good Luck with the rest of the project!
thjakits
.....no more arguments about SA and IS and Portals - ....you keep misinterpreting my concerns about either or all.
IF you REALLY want to understand the details about Suspensions and different ways to spring and dampen either of them - ....you would have to really read up on that - Google, Wiki will be your best friends....
AS you asked for it some time ago:
Are there any "Portals in a IS": ....kind of!!
This is a Hummer H1 hub. AS you can see it has a reduction drive in it (spur-gear like in a REAL portal, not planetary like in most fullsize STRAIGHT truck axles)
Unless there is solid reason not to do so, ...to me they wasted the chance ot get more ground-clearance.
The lower suspension arm could possible me mounted further up the hub...
As it is - at least the drive-shaft (axle) get's to have a better angle to the hub, than if it would be with a non-reduction hub - now the axle-shaft is about straight out when in normal driving position, and the lower suspension arm will still have some down-angle.....
Here a post from a different thread on this forum:
located here: http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/1803-portal-axles/page2
ENG said it about all - at present stage....
Energy storage, re-gen: - to be able to absorb as much re-gen energy as possible you most likely will HAVE to run a mix of batteries and super-caps. The Super-caps are the over-load-buffer to dowload energy to the batteries.....
Good Luck with the rest of the project!
thjakits
Last edited:
Bio,
surfboards are LIGHT - REALLY light!!
Put them on the roof and safe the lower/lowest storage space for the HEAVY stuff! Fluids ....mainly.....
Unless you stick to the coast and LIVE surfing - you will not need them that often.
IF you do the surfing lifestyle - you will NOT be much into overlanding - you'll take the camper....
thjakits
surfboards are LIGHT - REALLY light!!
Put them on the roof and safe the lower/lowest storage space for the HEAVY stuff! Fluids ....mainly.....
Unless you stick to the coast and LIVE surfing - you will not need them that often.
IF you do the surfing lifestyle - you will NOT be much into overlanding - you'll take the camper....
thjakits