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

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


Next, in the typical "down" cycle it seems that for the most part the TAK-4 suspension only flattens out, and the centerline of the MTVR does not drop below the wheel centers:







There is, however, one moment in the video where the MTVR's centerline does appear to drop a bit further than the wheel centers:







But there is no question that the MTVR's wheels can travel downwards much further than they can travel upwards. Here are some images of the wheels traveling downwards to the maximum extent:







So presumably when one tire raises, TAK-4 seems to act pretty much like straight-axle suspension. The first video posted below speaks to this issue very directly, and seems to suggest that although the MTVR has TAK-4 independent suspension, its centerline still does lift when one wheel raises. It's difficult to say how much, because a mud-flap blocks the view. Also see posts #1111 and #1112 for a visual analysis of TAK-4i in Oshkosh's L-ATV, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page112 .



[video=youtube;I7m69PzF4TQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7m69PzF4TQ&index=5&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2K pHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video] [video=youtube;mvqI_d1ymcs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mvqI_d1ymcs&index=3&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2K pHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video]
[video=youtube;GRCBwC-cYJ0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRCBwC-cYJ0&index=7&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2KpHw71g7iBEjFotE ****[/video] [video=youtube;1sGd9g7ENAM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sGd9g7ENAM&list=PL48moXxUyGZo4PH42rpOqHmr kEeIkfTHw&index=31[/video]
[video=youtube;3V0RoQeq9OI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0RoQeq9OI&index=16&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2 KpHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video] [video=youtube;ac58o_dUbTI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ac58o_dUbTI&index=15&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2 KpHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video]
[video=youtube;z7XtfbBh5UU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z7XtfbBh5UU&index=8&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2K pHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video][video=youtube;6grDgxuB7mA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6grDgxuB7mA&list=PL48moXxUyGZo4PH42rpOqHmr kEeIkfTHw&index=57 [/video]



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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


Finally, here are some videos of super-hi-tech implementations of the MTVR:




[video=youtube;vvlru7PK7Hk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vvlru7PK7Hk&index=20&list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2 KpHw71g7iBEjFotEFu[/video] [video=youtube;jV51BGIzkwU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jV51BGIzkwU [/video]



Also see https://www.marines.com/videos/-/vi...ton_truck_medium_tactical_vehicle_replacement , and there are some good YouTube playlists at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLHf4lVyYcHP92n2KpHw71g7iBEjFotEFu and https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL48moXxUyGZo4PH42rpOqHmrkEeIkfTHw .



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


3. Oshkosh Diesel-Electric "Propulse" in the MTVR


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


Now the PDF pages below describe the Propulse, diesel-electric hybrid version of the MTVR as follows:

• It has a 300 KW traction generator.
• When driving, the generator produces an excess of 21 KW for on-board power needs, i.e. all the electronic equipment that these vehicles now carry.
• When stationary, the generator produces 120 KW of exportable power.
• The Propulse MTVR is a “pure” diesel-electric solution, with no energy storage, i.e. no Lithium batteries. Just ultra-capacitors to store a limited amount of power from regenerative braking.

For the full PDF, see http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2007power/...snasrCopyofJointServicePowerOTC42407Final.pdf .

So presumably when underway, the MTVR diesel generator produces about 280 KW of electrical power, to drive three E-motors that are roughly 90 KW each? Does this seem right? Or am I missing something?


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


4. Some Questions About the Specific Operational Requirements of the TerraLiner


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


Now agreed, with Lithium (or Carbon-Carbon) batteries provided in the TerraLiner, the electric generator -- or generators -- could be smaller: they could be two 120 KW Jenoptiks. The batteries would gradually drain in the course of driving, and the diesel generators would in effect function as “range extenders”.

But I wonder whether draining the Lithium batteries in the course of driving is a good idea. The TerraLiner is a motorhome after all, and not a hybrid car, not a hybrid bus, and not a mere hybrid truck. So the TerraLiner's operational requirements will be different.

As such, when stationary the Lithium batteries will be needed to power all camper systems, here assuming that the TerraLiner will be all-electric. So one probably does not want to arrive at a campsite with the batteries completely drained, forcing one to run the Jenoptik generators all night just to recharge the batteries. So ideally, perhaps the drain on the batteries while driving should be minimal? If anything, while driving the diesel generator (or generators, plural) should be producing surplus electric power to top up the Lithium batteries, so that when one arrives at a campsite they will be fully charged.....?

Maybe I am wrong about this. But thinking things through, and taking into account the specific operational needs of an expedition motorhome, as opposed to just a hybrid car or hybrid truck, this seems at least plausible?

Any and all critical feedback here would be most welcome and greatly appreciated.


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


Haf-E: I hope that's enough material to "redirect" the thread back to a discussion of drive-train and suspension options.....:sombrero:... For instance, after seeing the material above about Oshkosh TAK-4 as implemented in the MTVR, or Oshkosh TAK-4i as implemented in the L-ATV (discussed earlier in the thread), are you still nonetheless in favor straight axle?

If so, why?


All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[egn]

Of course, you have to define the SOC that the batteries should have at destination, so that the stored energy together with the energy you will get from other sources like solar, holds for the time of stay.

I don't know what can be made automatically combining navigation information, weather forecast, historical data, ... Probably, the user has to give some hints to achieve a good result.

Or, you may add some other silent backup power, like a diesel fuel cell.
Datasheet

Some time ago I was in contact with them and this looks very promising. Something like that would be to only kind of backup power I would install in BT.


BTW, I found the right size trailer for Terraliner, allowing to drop slide-outs and pop-up: :sombrero:

https://www.facebook.com/TinyHouses...41828.459983460737786/626665117402952/?type=1

Personally I find the tiny house concept very interesting.

 

[biotect]

Hi egn,

That's a pretty big trailer.....:sombrero:....

Made for Abu Dhabi's Sheikh Hamad Bin Hamdan Al Nahyan's Al Houdaj, it measures 20 m (66 ft) long, 12m (39 ft) wide, 12m (39 ft) high, and weighs 122 tonnes (269,000 lb) -- see http://www.speedhunters.com/2013/01/a-car-collection-worthy-of-a-sheikh/ , http://www.enam.ae/gallery_mixedbag.html , http://www.examiner.com/article/the-world-s-best-mega-rv-trailers , http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/the-world-s-best-mega-rv-trailers#slide=2 , http://www.thewire.com/global/2011/07/billionaire-sheikh-who-carved-his-name-island/40224/ , https://www.flickr.com/photos/28174664@N08/6126175743/in/photostream/ , and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamad_bin_Hamdan_Al_Nahyan :


[video=youtube;e8GdadQzMeo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8GdadQzMeo [/video]

Or, you may add some other silent backup power, like a diesel fuel cell.
Datasheet

Some time ago I was in contact with them and this looks very promising. Something like that would be to only kind of backup power I would install in BT.

egn, I thought you were dead set against an additional smaller diesel generator or power source (say 20 KW) for the TerraLiner, apart from the two main Jenoptik diesel generators (120 KW each)?


All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[egn]

egn, I thought you were dead set against an additional smaller diesel generator or power source (say 20 KW) for the TerraLiner, apart from the two main Jenoptik diesel generators (120 KW each)?

I am still against it, at least if it uses a combustion engine generating noise and exhaust fumes. I just mentioned this because of your "Angst" regarding enough power when reaching a camp ground. I don't have this "Angst" because I would set the charge level high enough.

If it is unobtrusive like a fuel cell it can run 24 h when necessary. A power output in the range of 1-3 kW is more than enough. And the good thing is that it can also charge the battery for driving next time. In cold climate there is enough heat and electricity available, even you don't move. And Combined Heat and Power (CHP) makes for an efficient energy use.

Now think about a 20 kW generator or even running the 120 kW Jenoptik units. So much noise and diesel smell at a camp site neither makes you nor others around you happy. Think about the heat a 20 kW generator produces and has to be cooled away. The fan noise alone would drive me crazy.

Providing enough noiseless and clean energy in summer should be no problem with reasonable PV area. But staying at great places for a longer time when there isn't enough juice from PV is a real problem. I looking for a solution for a long time and a small diesel fuel cell looks like a promising alternative. The alternative of installing a small diesel generator is no real alternative for me. If you use it intensively for heat and power than you have to do maintenance to often. There was once the diesel Whispergen as low maintenance CHP. But the drawback was to low efficiency of only about 15 %, which causes unefficient fuel use with a lot of unnecessary heat generation.

 

[biotect]

I am still against it, at least if it uses a combustion engine generating noise and exhaust fumes. I just mentioned this because of your "Angst" regarding enough power when reaching a camp ground. I don't have this "Angst" because I would set the charge level high enough.

Hi egn,

Many thanks for the lead on this advanced fuel cell technology; it is very interesting indeed:








However, I don't quite understand what you mean by "set the charge level high enough".

For instance, if we take Oshkosh's diesel-electric hybrid 6x6 MTVR as a base-line exemplar, then it would seem that even 300 KW of generator power is not quite enough for the TerraLiner. 280 KW of MTVR generator's power goes to the electric motors, and 20 KW is used to drive on-board electronic systems. Current American military trucks have lots of electronic systems, and so too, presumably, will the TerraLiner. So there seems to be little power left over to charge a Lithium or Carbon-Carbon battery bank. It would seem that a generator that produces 320 KW is needed, if one's goal is to arrive at a campsite with the batteries always completely charged.

Of course, it is quite possible that the E-motors do not always consume 280 KW, or even 240 KW. So perhaps excess power could be fed to the battery bank? But honestly, I don't understand battery technology, E-motor technology, and hybrid technology well enough to be able to guess whether this is possible or not.

So your statement "set the charge level high enough" was puzzling. I don't understand what you mean by this; and it would be great if you could provide a clarification....

All best wishes,


Biotect

 

[egn]

Again, it seems to be that you don't understand the difference between a hybrid vehicle without or small battery storage, and a hybrid vehicle with huge battery storage.

In the first case the generator has to be so powerful as you have to provide the peak power directly. The generator has to follow nearly exactly the power demand. So when you want 280 kW at the wheel you need at least 280 kW power from the generator.

In the second case the energy produced by the generator is buffered by the large battery. The generator only has to provide the average power the electric motors use during driving. The peak power comes from the battery. So you can have 240 kW generating power and occasionally use a lot more. The difference comes from the battery.

240 kW constantly is a lot of power. As it seems to be that you have no feeling how much power this is and how much energy is produced, I convert this for you to the diesel usage of a conventional drivetrain. When you convert 240kW to diesel usage of a conventional engine with a value of about 200g diesel per kWh, then the diesel usage would be about 48 kg/h or about 58 l/h. When driving 100 km/h this would be 58 l/100km or about 4.1mpg.

Do you really think that Terraliner will be such a gas guzzler?

If yes, you should drop the idea of building such a vehicle immediately.

When we assume that Terraliner should have a average fuel usage at 100 km/h of 30 l/km and below (8 mpg and above) then we can do the reverse and calculate the necessary power. 30 l/100km is than equivalent to a constant power of 125 kW. As the e-motors take only as much power that is necessary, there is more than a lot of spare power available for charging the battery.

You also overestimate the energy use by the equipment build into Terraliner, at least when everything is build for efficiency. Look at your electric energy bill, lookup the kWh used and divide that by the the number of days of the billing period. Now you have a the average number of kWh you are using per day. How much is this?

If you use electricity for heating and cooling than it will be higher or lower than the use of an average household. A typical household here in Germany uses about 1.500 kWh/year per person. This is about 4 kWh per day. A 100 kWh battery will keep the mobile home powered for a at least 10 days, even there is no charging through PV. Actually we use only about 2-4 kWh/d in BT. The more than 20 kWh battery keeps everything powered for at least 5 days, when avoiding deep discharge.

What do I mean with "set the charge level high enough"?

This means, that I set the target charge level for arrival at the campsite at least as high that we can stay there without having to run the generator.

Setting the charge level generally at 100 % is a very bad idea with lithium battery, as this reduces the life-time of the battery drastically. Like the lead-acid battery it has a "comfort-zone" for SOC that maximizes the life-time. Lead-Acid battery has usage between 100 % and 50 % SOC, with a SOC as high as possible. Best is to keep it always near 100 % SOC, but don't charge it constantly, as this also reduce life-time.

Lithium batteries in contrast should be used in the range of 80 % to 20 % SOC for best calender life. The SOC should be kept as low as possible to maximize lifetime.

So I would avoid to charge the lithium battery to 100 % whenever possible. A regular SOC of 50 % should be good enough for driving long distance. Only when pure electric driving or driving through heavy terrain, I would set it higher to have enough energy to cover the peaks.

During the first 5 years of BT we fully relied on the 4 kW alternator and the 22 kWh lead-acid batteries as power source for the mobile household. We had always enough energy. From time to time we even provided energy to others. With a similar travel pattern of mostly 1-3 nights stay I don't see any problem with Terraliners energy system. Only if you want to stay for longer time at a nice spot you need either a larger battery or a alternative energy supply. When sun is available PV is the way to go, at other times, especially in winter on low temperature another supply is necessary. Terraliner could one of its generators to charge up the battery and waste most of the heat. Or a smaller CHP fuel cell could do the trick. It could also charge up the battery to higher level and you can then drive some time fully electric.

I hope everything is more understandable now.

 

[biotect]

egn,

Absolutely clear and terrific post. Many, many thanks. And agreed, Oshkosh diesel-electric hybrid vehicles need to be referenced with caution. They are military vehicles, after all, designed to travel 70 % off-road. So as thjakits has suggested throughout the last 20 pages or so, their Independent Suspensions may not be desirable or applicable to the TerraLiner's mission profile, namely, good roads 60 - 70 % of the time; bad-roads 25 - 35 % of the time; and off-road somewhere between 5 - 10 %.

Along similar lines, Oshkosh hybrid vehicles were deliberately designed to have no Lithium batteries in their system, only Ultra-capacitors to improve gas mileage via regenerative braking. So the generators in Oshkosh hybrid vehicles need to be able to produce the peak-power required by their electric motors. Whereas with Lithium batteries in the system, peak-power production by a generator is no longer necessary.

Lithium batteries in the system certainly add weight and complexity, and that's probably why Oshkosh eliminated them. But Oshkosh vehicles are not motorhomes. Whereas the TerraLiner is, and the TerraLiner will need to have a Lithium (or Carbon-Carbon) battery bank in any case, to power all camper systems when boondocking. So given that a large battery bank is already a design necessity in the TerraLiner, you are absolutely right, the data on Oshkosh vehicles becomes much less relevant. The TerraLiner's battery bank can provide the moments of peak power to the electric motors when required, with the SOC set deliberately higher than 50 % when driving through particularly rough terrain. And so a generator (or generators) that match the peak power requirement of the electric motors is no longer necessary.

Sorry that I have been a bit thick in following the argument. I hope the summary in the previous paragraphs demonstrates that I now "get" it.

So two 120 KW Jenoptiks, in your opinion, should more than suffice, just as long as the battery bank is big enough to provide all the possible "peak power" required by the electric motors when necessary. Plus a CHP fuel cell as possible supplement, to allow for boondocking longer than 10 days, in places where little solar power is available. Or, to provide the extra power needed by the camper box during winter.....


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


The main reason why I asked the question about "running down the batteries, and arriving in camp with no juice left", is because this seems to be the standard operating format of range-extended hybrid vehicles. The whole idea behind such vehicles is that through a combination of batteries and a range-extending ICE, they can go much further on one tank of gas, and yet still enjoy generous peak power from the electric motors, even though the ICE is rather small. When a vehicle like the CMT-380 advertises that it has an 800 km range on just one tank of gas, the idea seems to be that 800 km is the maximum range with all the battery power and all the fuel used up -- see posts #498 to #501 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page50 and http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page51 .

Furthermore, in descriptions of vehicles with range-extenders, almost always there seems to be the suggestion that the battery bank gets "drawn down" to a certain level, and then the range-extender finally kicks in. But the range-extender itself does not necessarily "top up" the batter bank again, to whatever percentage level is deemed as "full". Topping up the batteries is usually left for direct charging when the vehicle is back at home. In other words, range-extended hybrid vehicles seem to be calibrated in such a way that when arriving at a destination after a long trip, their battery banks will arrive considerably depleted. But perhaps I am wrong about this?

If I am not wrong about this, then clearly, this cannot be the standard operating format for a TerraLiner. Even if this is the standard operating format for a range-extended hybrid truck or car, the TerraLiner's needs are different, because it is a motorhome. The TerraLiner needs to arrive at destinations with its battery bank "full" (however this is defined), and not partially full, and certainly not "very depleted".

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[biotect]

Hi egn,

I have just one more question: how do you feel about Straight-Axle versus Independent Suspension, and why?


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


1. Straight-Axle versus Independent Suspension Revisited


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


Both campo and NeverEnough are seasoned off-road adventurers, with big rigs. They have lots of "real world" experience driving expedition motorhomes, just like you.

And yet both campo and NeverEnough have stated that they would prefer Independent Suspension for the TerraLiner, and not Straight Axle. So what is your perspective on this debate?

There was a very spirited discussion between thjakits and dwh on this topic (as well as many others, including hub motors, parallel hybrid, etc.), running on and off, between pages 109 and page 118 of the thread (standard ExPo pagination). See post #1042, and posts #1046 to #1050, on page 105 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page105 ; posts #1051 to #1060, on page 106 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page106 ; posts #1067 and #1069, on page 107 http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page107 ; posts #1082 to #1090, on page 109 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page109 ; posts #1092 to #1094 on page 110 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page110 ; posts #1126 and #1127, on page 113 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page113 ; post #1160, on page 116 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page116 ; posts #1165 to #1169, on page 117 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page117 ; and posts #1172 to #1179, on page 118, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page118 .

And NeverEnough nicely summarized the virtues of Independent Suspension in the following two short posts:

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).

I'm assuming the IS v SA debate. Honestly, it's like watching my wife make a decision! I truly wish I had sufficient knowledge to add something profound, but I don't, especially without a budget to guide me. The only observation I will add to my IS bias is that, from my limited view, IS seems to be getting the lion's share of suspension engineering R&D resources, increasingly in the heavy truck world. Some of the reasons for that might matter for this project, others may not. More importantly, either suspension can be engineered to meet the requirements of this project. But, as somebody mentioned a while back, best to get some of these big decisions behind you if you want to move forward.

For what it's worth, I used 6 leveling jacks instead of four because 4 lift the "camper" off the truck. The other two are up front of the forward axle because because of 1) the forward nature of the CG (it would teeter-toter if I didn't have a pair up front), 2) weight:jack ratio (rated at 7500lbs each, not enough so I'm going to beef them up this year). They're electric, not hydraulic, and that's been a good decision (screw)- easy system to maintain/service, small footprint, simple, and provides bi-directional functionality, just eats a lot of amps.

And the International 7400 4x4 is a SFA SA, leaf springs up front, air in the back, with cab air-ride. It rides great on the highway, great on washboard, painfully slow on ruts and cobble.

In effect, IS would allow just that extra, added little bit of speed on bad roads that would make overlanding a bit easier, and more comfortable.

We still haven't heard from campo on this issue, and it would be good to know why he favors Independent Suspension over Straight Axle. But in the meantime, egn, I would be interested to know what your arguments would be in favor of Straight Axle, for the TerraLiner specifically, and against Independent Suspension?



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


2. Straight-Axle versus Independent Suspension: the Operational Requirements of the TerraLiner


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


In post #1126 on page thjakits provides a good summary of the central question in the SA versus IS debate, namely, what should be the operational requirements of the TerraLiner? See http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...edition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page113 :

Bio! WHATEVER YOU WANT!! YOU need to decide what you want Terraliner to be capable of!!......

But sooner than later you need to freeze at least the requirements for terrain/obstacle prowess!!

- DO you want to give the owner the capability to go all out and do crazy things? (...even if they never will use that capability....)
- DO you want to limit the owner to rough, but less challenging roads by default? (If you make Terraliner IS, automatically the obstacles you still can challenge are smaller than with a SA - so, the point where progress will stop will be less rough, than when you use SA. ONE way to avoid that Terraliner gets into the news because of over confidence or lack of experience or lack of ability....)

The point where I would most likely changer to IS though is very close to where a regular bus can go too!

I think we agreed on, that a Highway top-speed of 120 km/h is more than enough (...besides that you most likely will be actively restricted to 100km/h (105) or even 80km/h (85) by legal requirements in Europe - depends how you get the thing certified - IF legislation insists that this is a truck you get nailed at 80/85....

Considering the top speeds Rally Trucks reach on rough terrain (guessing some 140-160 km/h.....and with SA) - I believe, there is not much reason to give up slow/offroad/obstacle capability for a subjectively better ride with IS at "higher speeds" - by now, the only reason why I would go IS (...if I can be convinced to forefeit "rock crawling" abilities), is with hub motors for the substantial space gain in the center of the truck (...gone out the window with 3 motors in the center...)

in other words: HOW rough and bad do you want to be able to go??

The answer to this set of questions for the TerraLiner has already been stated: good roads 60 - 70 % of the time; bad-roads 25 - 35 % of the time; and off-road somewhere between 5 - 10 %. But I do want the TerraLiner to be able to negotiate a "bad road" like the Tanami track in Australia, or the G219 in Tibet, at a reasonably high speed.

So it's not just the percentages that matter, or how we define "rough" or "bad". As NeverEnough's posts suggest, it's also a question of what speed one wants to achieve on bad roads or off-road, even if such driving constitutes at best much less than 50 % of all driving time.


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


3. Stephen Stewart in China and Tibet, 2002


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


Personally, I like to think of this question in terms of concrete examples, liberally illustrated with pictures and videos. Otherwise the debate can get awfully abstract, theoretical, and tendentious.

Along these lines, thanks to dwh, I recently came across Stephen Stewart's really great photos of his group's Istanbul-to-Shanghai-and-back excursion, traveling bad roads in Tibet and China, dating back to 2002 -- see http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/ , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/ , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021020b.htm , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021020a.htm , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021012.htm , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021010.htm , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021005.htm , http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021001.htm , and http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20020929.htm :








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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








Here are some really great pictures of Stewart's group driving along really muddy roads in eastern Tibet:






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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


And here are some good pictures of the Unimog doing mainstream-camper assistance and/or recovery:







The map provided on Stewart's website nicely describes the route they took to get from central China to Lhasa, and then on to Kathmandu -- see http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021010.htm , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_318 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_317 :







To get across central Tibet, Stewart's group first tried the N-317, the more central route; and when that did not work, they switched to the N-318, the more southerly route. The following comprehensive road-maps of China provide a fairly clearly indication of the relative locations of the N-317 and N-318 highways:







But these maps are not detailed enough to provide a good idea of the cities or terrain along the way.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


Instead, the following maps, although they do not clearly indicate which route is the N-318, and which is the N-317, do give a better and more detailed idea of what cities and topography one is likely to find on these secondary roads:







Of course 2002 is not 2015, and because China is China, probably all of the roads depicted in Stewart's images of travel across Tibet have been substantially improved over the last 10 years. Still, it would be good if the TerraLiner could negotiate similar roads with ease, and at reasonable speeds.

And it's worth noting that Stewart very clearly states that the N-317 highway is "really only suitable for 4x4s or trucks" -- see http://www.xor.org.uk/travel/china2002/20021010.htm . So one way of thinking about the TerraLiner's operational requirements, might be to simply stipulate that it should be able to travel roads equivalent to the N-317, as Stewart experienced it in 2002.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


4. An Operational Requirement of the TerraLiner: the Circumnavigation of China


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


Another possible "geographic objective" of the TerraLiner might be the circumnavigation of China.

As already suggested in post #368 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page37 , circumnavigating China in a motorbike has now been done a number of times. But as far as I know, it has not yet been done by an expedition motorhome.

The first to do it by motorbike, and get their names in the Guinness Book of World Records, are two Canadian brothers, Ryan and Colin Pyle – see http://www.toughrides.tv , http://www.toughrides.tv/the-journey/the-middle-kingdom-ride-journey.php , https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.547321068647511.1073741827.220174574695497&type=3 , http://www.g219productions.com/store.html , http://www.g219productions.com/television/the-middle-kingdom-ride.html , http://www.overlandjournal.com/newsletter/2011_10/middle_kingdom/ , http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/62919-Completed-The-Middle-Kingdom-Ride , http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/62919-Completed-The-Middle-Kingdom-Ride/page2 , http://canadamotoguide.com/?s=pyle+china , http://canadamotoguide.com/2010/10/27/middle-kingdom-ride/ , http://canadamotoguide.com/2011/03/22/long-way-for-a-guinness/ , http://canadamotoguide.com/2010/10/20/canadian-bros-circle-china/ , http://canadamotoguide.com/2011/11/21/colin-pyle-interview-video/ , http://www.uschina.usc.edu/w_usci/showarticle.aspx?articleID=18569&AspxAutoDetectCookieSupport=1 , http://www.gabriellejaffe.com/the-middle-kingdom-ride-a-motorbike-odyssey-around-china/ , http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2013/03/18/eight-questions-ryan-pyle-the-middle-kingdom-ride/ , http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/29/us-china-motorcycle-idUSTRE69S07220101029 , http://www.scmp.com/news/china/arti...hers-record-setting-china-motorbike-trip-airs , http://www.wanderlust.co.uk/magazin...le-on-chinas-longest-motorcycle-ride?page=all , and https://explorers.org/forums/viewthread/67/ :


[video=youtube;Nxx1pdgF3-Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=Nxx1pdgF3-Q[/video] [video=youtube;n3WZGmxWx_Y]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3WZGmxWx_Y&list=PLGSkJ4NA77lPUTZStGfj2v7v PyXrU3Umd&index=7[/video] [video=youtube;DvMNTOOXY_I]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvMNTOOXY_I&list=PLGSkJ4NA77lPUTZStGfj2v7v PyXrU3Umd&index=4[/video]
[video=youtube;Amhiz3QQzCE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?x-yt-ts=1421914688&x-yt-cl=84503534&v=Amhiz3QQzCE[/video]
[video=youtube;DG2TLs_aQFU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DG2TLs_aQFU&index=10&list=PLGSkJ4NA77lPUTZ StGfj2v7vPyXrU3Umd[/video]








Also see the Pyle brothers' YouTube channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/ProductionsG219 , and the Playlist at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLGSkJ4NA77lPUTZStGfj2v7vPyXrU3Umd .

The most incredible thing about the Pyle brothers' record-setting journey, is that it happened so recently: in 2010 !!


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


Unsurprisingly, in "hommage" to what was no doubt the most challenging and thrilling part of their trip -- traveling the G-219 highway in far western Tibet -- the Pyle brothers have named their video company "G-219 Productions". Here again are some maps of the G-219, previously posted on page 37 in post #366, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page37 :


.... ....




The Chinese National Highway 219, or "G-219", connects Xinjiang province with Tibet in the far west, along the border near India -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xinjiang . The G219 runs from Yecheng on the edge of the Taklamakan desert, all the way to Lhasa (2,743 km) or Lhatse (2,086 km), depending on which web-article one is reading () -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_National_Highway_219 , http://www.tibetguru.com/tibet-transportation/xinjiang-tibet-highway.htm , http://www.tibettravel.org/tibet-overland-tour/xinjiang-tibet-highway.html , http://www.greatwalltravel.net/Tibet-Tour/Xinjiang-Tibet-Highway-Info.html , http://www.tibettour.com/tibet-travel-information/tips-for-driving-on-state-highway-g219.html , http://www.tibettour.org/how-to-get-to-tibet/travel-tibet-by-road/1092.html , http://www.tibettravelplanner.com/road-map-tibet.htm , http://www.tibettravelguides.com/Roads-in-Tibet.html , http://windhorsetour.com/tibet-culture/tibet-map-where-is-tibet , and https://www.google.com/maps/dir/37....034668,6z/data=!4m5!4m4!1m1!4e1!1m1!4e1?hl=fr .

Recall that the extreme-altitude portions of the G-219 in the far west, above 5,000 m, are still unpaved. At its highest point the G-219 reaches somewhere between 5,380 and 5,450 m above sea-level:





But the entire highway is passable, and the G-219 is either the highest, or one of the highest, motorable roads in the world.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


5. A Chinese Circumnavigation of China, with Harley Davidson Motorbikes


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


Since 2010, others seem to have replicated the Pyle brothers' feat.

For instance, for a good blog packed with pictures of Chinese motorcyclists driving Harley-Davidsons around the perimeter of China, in 2012, on a route that includes the G-219 in Tibet, see http://www.harley-davidson-hangout....ng/99514-charity-riding-event-china-blog.html , http://www.harley-davidson-hangout..../99514-charity-riding-event-china-blog-2.html , http://www.harley-davidson-hangout..../99514-charity-riding-event-china-blog-3.html , http://www.harley-davidson-hangout..../99514-charity-riding-event-china-blog-4.html , etc. etc.

See http://www.harley-davidson-hangout.com/forum/hdrcgb-960926-post24.html for their travel along the G-219 in far western Tibet in particular; and see http://s1169.photobucket.com/user/peterzhaosy/media/DSC02081.jpg.html to http://s1169.photobucket.com/user/peterzhaosy/media/L1065272.jpg.html , for a superb photo-record, from Kashgar to Lhasa.

Here are some images of these Chinese motorcyclists traveling along the G-219 in western Tibet:









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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.