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

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


21. Is heroic "Virtue Figuration" even possible in an era disenchanted by Science?


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


Here we come back to Weber's "disenchantment" thesis, the idea that the the descriptive success of Science and the practical success of technological control, instead of completely liberating us, have cast us adrift, no longer grounded in a norms or values that once had non-scientific "sacral" or "religious" backing -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenchantment and http://maxweberstudies.org/kcfinder/upload/files/MWSJournal/1.1pdfs/1.1 11-32.pdf :

For Weber the disenchantment of the world lay right at the heart of modernity. In many senses, in fact, it is definitive of his concept of modernity, ‘the key concept within Weber's account of the distinctiveness and significance of Western culture' (Schroeder 1995: 228). It is the historical process by which the natural world and all areas of human experience become experienced and understood as less mysterious; defined, at least in principle, as knowable, predictable and manipulable by humans; conquered by and incorporated into the interpretive schema of science and rational government. In a disenchanted world everything becomes understandable and tameable, even if not, for the moment, understood and tamed. Increasingly the world becomes human-centred and the universe—only apparently paradoxically—more impersonal.

Disenchantment has two distinct aspects, each utterly implicated in the other. On the one hand, there is secularization and the decline of magic; on the other hand, there is the increasing scale, scope, and power of the formal means–ends rationalities of science, bureaucracy, the law, and policy-making.

The positive side of disenchantment is that we no longer believe in ghosts or demons, we no longer think magic controls the world, and we no longer believe in curses or spells cast by witches. But we also no longer believe in saints, angels, or God either. Even more troubling, Science and technology by themselves can only describe and provide us with instruments of control. Science can't prescribe, it can't tell us what is right or wrong. Science can only tell us how things are, and how to manipulate the things that are; it cannot tell what we should or should not manipulate, what we should and should not do with our knowledge. Many spheres of life can be "rationalized", but Weber quotes Tolstoi's observation that although Science can answer "What?" and "How?" questions, Science cannot answer "Why?" or "Should?" questions about meaning, purpose, and value -- see http://anthropos-lab.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Weber-Science-as-a-Vocation.pdf .

The problem for Art then seems quite clear. How does one create convincing heroic "Virtue Figuration" – figurative Art that points towards transcendence, and that reaches beyond a given group of religious insiders – in a culture that no longer believes in Angels, Heaven and Hell, the afterlife, God, or even the human Soul? How does one create “enchanted” and “enchanting” visual Art for an age disenchanted by Science?

It seems to me that figurative Art produced in our era has two options. On the one hand, it can see its role as purely descriptive, as merely "mirroring" reality, as merely reproducing in the aesthetic realm Science's hard-headed impetus to describe the world "as it really is". Or alternatively, Art can be unapologetically visually utopian, deliberately synthesizing aesthetic, political, and moral ideals in holistic visions that could be considered "hypothetical" proposals for better futures. Needless to say the legacy of Soviet socialist utopian Art casts a dark shadow over the latter enterprise. But here one might argue that the problem is not that Soviet Art was utopian, but rather, that its utopian content was state-dictated, and the utopia depicted was always a collectivist nightmare in which the individual had disappeared. One might just as easily describe the illustrations of Norman Rockwell as utopian, but the difference is that in Rockwell the idealistic content consists of quotidian moments in family or individual life:




Before one strongly condemns such illustrations as "sentimental kitsch", it's worth reflecting that in terms of content they are not that much different from work produced by the pre-Raphaelites, Renoir, or Italy's Macchiaioli :





Furthermore, it's worth observing that in the aesthetic realm it is equally naive to think that there can be such a thing as emotionally dispassionate and ethically neutral "Realist" Art, Art that merely mirrors or reflects "reality". 20th century anti-heroic figurative Art is not merely "realistic", but rather, it is positively dystopian. It is an Art that does not merely "reflect" a disenchanted worldview. Rather, it is an Art that positively celebrates disenchanted, anti-idealistic cynicism about the human condition. It celebrates anti-heroic cynicism as the most intelligent and sophisticated perspective we might adopt.

In the social sciences there is a long-standing debate as to whether purely descriptive, value-neutral social science is even possible. Most intelligent observers have concluded that it is not; that all social-science is shot through and through with normative or "value" presuppositions. The gathering, quantification, and mathematization of empirical evidence will always be central to the social sciences, but so too, becoming completely explicit and transparent about one's value presuppositions is also central. So if the social sciences have concluded as much, it seems just absurd that writers or artists should ever think it possible to produce "value neutral", merely descriptive Art that is "Realist", and not dystopian. When 20th century painters of the kind catalogue in post # 222 at sass painted human beings as spiritually eviscerated, lonely, isolated, sometimes depraved and cruel slabs of meat, they did not merely describe. They also passed a value judgment, advancing a normative anthropology, a prescriptive vision that limits our conception of what human beings can and should aspire to become. In their paintings they effectively state, "This is all we are; this is truly what we are; we can be nothing more noble than this. It is foolish to even aspire to become something more noble than this."

Now some will argue that Art can only recover "enchantment" in the wake of spiritual, religious, moral, or political revival. That it's first the job of ethicists or religious thinkers and leaders to reinvest Western culture with normative and/or spiritual direction, and a re-enchanted Art will then follow. This is partly true, but on my own view the wider cultural process has already begun. For instance, there are probably more truly committed pacifists alive today in Europe and the United States than at any prior point in history. More Americans and Europeans are now taking up yoga than ever before, and if yoga is the religious practice of Hinduism, then the West is becoming spiritually Hindu, adopting a practice that tends to create more compassionate, kind, and non-violent people. The threat of various resurgent forms of fascism, including extremist anti-secular Islamo-fascism, has also wonderfully concentrated minds on reasserting the foundational principles of liberal democracy. Just as the re-emerence of xenophobic, nativist, nationalist, and racist candidates and political parties has encouraged those inclined in the opposite direction -- those inclined towards full-blown globalism and cosmopolitanism -- to truly commit and loudly proclaim their allegiance to the latter.

So on my own view, there already is lots of "utopian" figurative content available waiting to be depicted, in the here-and-now, ready-to-hand. And yet no figurative artists have produced paintings depicting Western yoga studios, or volunteers taking part in Habitat for Humanity, or activists taking part in peaceful anti-fascist protests, or volunteers assisting with migrant integration.... Our contemporary world is full of heroes, people who are trying to change themselves and the world for the better. Why virtually none of this gets reflected in contemporary figurative Art is beyond me.



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


22. Can Figurative Art & Sculpture Recover Idealism?
..
.
.....The Challenge of post-Hegelian, post-Deterministic Art History and Criticism


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




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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...

.​

 

[biotect]

..
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


23. Transportation Designers can't be Luddites about Drive-Trains


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


Needless to say, I digress. All of the above was written to merely indicate that what Stephen Shepherd sums up as a tension between "Old or New?", runs through many disciplines. Only a simpleton thinks it's obvious that the new is always better, or conversely, that the past is always a golden age. Neophiliacs and reactionary conservative Luddites are equally blind, unable to see human history "whole", as a constant dialogue between tradition and innovation (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neophile and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite ). But then I am a a both/and kind of guy, one who likes to see all sides of an issue.

The last 27 or 28 posts or so may have seemed completely off-topic, but I wrote them to clearly demonstrate that I am intensely conscious of history, and the value of things not created in the present. I am a European who lives in Europe, so any "neophiilia" that I may be prone to is automatically moderated by a surrounding urbanscapes that constantly attest to the greatness of previous generations. I am not merely some wild "neophliac" transportation designer, and I have always found tremendous inspiration in the past. I love employing traditional drawing and painting techniques, I've produced more than a few figurative oil paintings, and once again, I have a love-hate relationship with CAD. In transportation design specifically, by now I've posted enough about "Retro-futurism", and enough examples of terrific Art-Deco curvilinear automobile design, that it should be clear that I have a "historically conscious eye", even when assessing design excellence in cars. I've also written about "haptic intelligence" and "haptic feedback", the kind of intelligence that can only properly operate when working on a real life-size clay model of a car. This is a very traditional way to work, it's expensive, but many in the automotive industry have learnt the hard way that using CAD alone is insufficient.

In short, on my own view there always needs to be a balance between old and new, between traditional competence in a given discipline and innovative excellence.

But there is also a difference in transportation design. In the transportation design profession, an expedition camper box simply thrown on the back of a construction truck that's 40 years old, is not going to excite anyone. It will be boring, uninspiring, and a complete non-starter. Some ExPo participants and writers positively embrace being "Luddites" about vehicles and drivetrains -- see http://expeditionportal.com/the-last-land-rover-defender/ . They are proud of the fact they prefer older vehicles with pre-electronic drive-trains, instead of new ones. But they are not transportation designers, and they do not work in the transportation design profession.

Unlike artists and ExPo participants, transportation designers do not have a choice: transportation designers can't be Luddites and hope to find work as transportation designers. The very phrase, "Luddite transportation designer" is an oxymoron. Such a person simply does not exist.

Again, it is possible to be a Luddite artist, militantly insisting that everything that happened in the 20th century was a complete mistake. In addition to Art Renewal.org and the now well-developed "atelier network" (see https://artrenewal.org/pages/ateliers.php and http://www.artrenewal.org/pages/ateliermap.php ), in Britain during the early 21st century there emerged a movement known as the "Stuckists", a movement dedicated to attacking conceptual Art, and promoting figurative painting -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuckism , http://www.stuckism.com/stuckistmanifesto.html , http://www.stuckism.com/info.html , http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/oct/01/art-stuckist-manifesto , http://www.theguardian.com/artandde.../mar/31/painting-stuckists-modern-british-art , http://thethingis.co.uk/2007/10/15/tti-speak-to-charles-thomson/ , and http://www.trakmarx.com/2004_02/10_billy.htm . The Stuckist movement hit a nerve, has proven very popular, and has morphed into an international phenomenon -- see http://www.stuckism.com , http://www.stuckismus.de , http://www.centraleuropestuckists.eu , and http://www.praguestuckists.eu/umelcien.php . But even still, it would be impossible to be a "transportation design Stuckist". The idea just doesn't make any sense.

Transportation design has a built-in, structurally inevitable teleology towards the new and contemporary. Even if at the purely aesthetic level, from the 1990's onwards transportation designers have been creating "retro" hommage cars that reference previous iconic classics, this is still something fundamentally different from repurposing a truck/drivetrain that is 30 years old -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retro-style_automobile . A "retro style" hommage may resemble an iconic classic on the outside, but it will still be a vehicle that is all-new inside, with a completely new drivetrain. So if young transportation designers learn that there is not much room for innovative drive-train technology in expedition motorhomes, they will simply choose to never go anywhere near the world of expedition motorhomes, and web-forums like ExPo. They will instead seek out careers committed to sports-car design, trolley-bus design, railroad-car design, or yacht design, to name a few. Because in all of these subspecialties, nobody will tell them that it's best if the foundational structure and drivetrain are 30, 40 or even 50 years old. In all of these subspecialties, they will be encouraged to push the envelope of contemporary design both inside and outside the vehicle. Both top and bottom.

Or finally, consider the following contrast. No contemporary transportation designer wants to waste their talent and career simply repurposing old SUVs; yes, even if old, pre-electronics SUVs have become the vehicles of choice for overlanders -- see http://expeditionportal.com/top-10-used-overland-vehicles/ and http://jalopnik.com/5958901/the-ten-best-used-vehicles-for-exploring-the-world . But every young transportation designer would love to have been involved with the process that led to the creation of the Land Rover diesel-electric hybrid Range Rover -- see http://www.landrover.co.uk/vehicles/range-rover/hybrid.html .

For me and my colleagues in the world of transportation design, everything that I just wrote about transportation design is completely obvious. Here I am simply reporting as a professional. But perhaps none of this is obvious to many who participate here on ExPo?

Or to express my frustration another way....

This thread is now 248 pages long, and yet the occasional new participant will still think that it is somehow their duty to inform me that a purely mechanical/one-wire drive train would be a more "practical" solution for an overlanding motorhome; a mechanical drive train + a repurposed vintage vehicle that's 30 years old, or more. If the thread is 248 pages long, then surely by now I would have encountered at least a few participants who have expressed this opinion already? In fact, I first read Stephan Stewart's web-page over a year before starting this thread. In other words, over 3 years ago. The problem of modern electronics has been on my mind for many years, not mere months. And yet there always seem to be new participants who mistakenly imagine that the problem of modern electronics must be a revelation to me. To the contrary, by now it's the most boring and stale topic imaginable, because as stated above, for a designer the mere repurposing of a vintage vehicle is a complete non-starter. The minute anyone starts suggesting mere repurposing, I just shut down, the way that all transportation designers would, and should. I wish these participants would imagine for a moment what it might be like to have training and a professional career in transportation design; and then imagine whether any such trained professional would want to muck about with a 30-year old repurposed chassis. We are designers, after all, not auto mechanics.

The reason this thread has proven so worthwhile is precisely because it has allowed me to think through stuff that is not obvious and boring, stuff like different kinds of motorhome travel (fast versus slow), camping on farmland, the environmental ethics of various toilet choices, the best overall TerraLiner "aesthetic" to achieve security via hiding the vehicle in plain sight (vavilovian mimicry of a 3-axle freight truck pulling a trailer), and of course all the possibilities and technicalities of a hybrid drive train. It's the stuff that's non-obvious and unexpected that's interesting, for instance, how drop-down decks could simultaneously solve a number of design and security problems. Whereas debating a mechanical versus hybrid drivetrain is kind of pointless, because there is no way that the TerraLiner will have a mechanical drivetrain lodged inside a 30-year-old repurposed truck.

It's interesting to think through what a hybrid drive-train might require, so that it can handle the same environmental conditions as a mechanical drive train. For instance, fording to a reasonably deep level (1 - 1.5 m?). Earlier in the thread, participants were saying that this would be no problem for electric motors. Whereas now, Haf-E, you seem to be suggesting something else. That is interesting, and very much worth discussing/debating further.

All best wishes,




Biotect


PS -- Again, as per some previous posts or posting series, this was ostensibly addressed to you. But clearly my intended target is a much wider audience. From the very beginning of the thread you have demonstrated tremendous sympathy for what I am trying to do. So even if you did not understand all of the above explicitly, perhaps you always understood it at least implicitly? And at least you have been wiling to participate in the thread with this general background goal in mind: creating a TerraLiner that also speaks in a significant way to the world of contemporary transportation design. But it recently occurred to me that this is yet one more thing that may not be self-evident to many thread readers/participants. So it seemed necessary to state it explicitly....:ylsmoke:
..

 

[Haf-E]

It's interesting to think through what a hybrid drive-train might require, so that it can handle the same environmental conditions as a mechanical drive train. For instance, fording to a reasonably deep level (1 - 1.5 m?). Earlier in the thread, participants were saying that this would be no problem for electric motors. Whereas now, Haf-E, you seem to be suggesting something else. That is interesting, and very much worth discussing/debating further.

It would be possible to make the electric motors work even with deep creek crossings - even completely underwater - its just a cost and servicing issue - and mostly it is an issue with the batteries, controllers and the wiring - not the motors. For the power levels being discussed, the main DC bus might be as high as 750 vdc - which is plenty of voltage to create problems. While this is high, it is not beyond what is being done all the time with solar arrays at similar power levels and they incorporate safety systems which detect faults and shut down hazards when they occur. So it is doable - just would be expensive and challenging in order to keep the weight low in the chassis but also protect it from water/moisture and not require a lot of periodic maintenance.

I understand the interests in the jet-turbine type generator - but I would think a pair of identical 200 kW DC output diesel engine type generators might be a better option to consider - one primary reason is redundancy - it would be easier to get parts to do A/B testing when a problem occurs with two identical generators and spare parts could be shared. Another reason is that with a water cooled diesel engine the exhaust and the heat production are much easier to manage and even use - the heat would be great for space and water heating when in cold climates - the exhaust might also be usable for the incinerating toilet idea. With a turbine engine type generator it would be much more difficult (if not impossible) to utilize the exhaust and waste heat for other purposes.

I would recommend that the battery size be increased and the generator size reduced in order to handle the high speed mountain grades - but that will require some calculations to estimate what is required. I guess I don't buy into the idea that driving up to the Eisenhower Tunnel on Hwy 70 in Colorado has to be done at high speed - but I've done it a number of times in my 90 HP Pinzgauer and even once in a 28 HP Citroen 2CV. But I also grew up in a family of seven kids that drove around the Western USA in a 1967 VW microbus that was powered by a 40 HP engine and had a full length roof rack loaded with camping gear.

 

[back woods]

One thing 20-30yr old diesel technology has on the competition. A $600 turbo and couple injection pump tweaks can get you reliably into the 350hp/1000ftlb range with extreme durability and increased mileage. You stated this is more for the younger expo crowd, mid 20s. Well I am 25 and would prefer hammer simple in an expo truck. My biggest concern would be an electronic meltdown and burning the rig to the ground or getting electrocuted. Big trucks get hot when working hard.

 

[biotect]

Hi Haf-E,

Many thanks for your response, and some interesting thoughts.

I agree, the Eisenhower tunnel ascent does not "need" to be done fast. It's just interesting to think that it could be. The general trend in both Class-A motorhomes and large expedition motorhomes is towards offering customers ever-increasing amounts of HP, as higher-HP diesel engines for trucks become available. Newell, Liberty, Marathon, etc. are all standardizing on 600 HP engines, and just a few years ago ActionMobil showcased a top-of-the-line, 3-axle expedition motorhome called the "XRS 7200", built on a MAN TGS chassis, that's 9.7 m long and has a 720 HP engine -- see http://www.gizmag.com/global-xrs-7200-expedition-vehicle/33696/. Mind you, 600 HP is 447 KW, so very close to the output of two 200 KW generators, while 720 HP is 537 KW. That's almost 150 KW more than the juice that two 200 KW generators could produce, but a bigger battery pack would compensate for that, up to a point. Furthermore, power loss due to the transmission inefficiency in the Actionmobil XRS 7200 would be much worse than the TerraLiner's 5 % driveline inefficiency. Hence, much more of the 400 KW produced by the TerraLiner's generators would actually make it to the wheels.

As regards a turbine APU, perhaps I was also (unconsciously) thinking of marketing. One could imagine the TerraLiner prototype having a turbine APU, just so that the magazines will write about how cool and exceptional it is, videos can be posted on the Internet showing the TerraLiner driving up the Eisenhower pass at high speed, i.e. at 120 kph, and so on. But batch-production TerraLiners might then have a much more modest combination of two 200 KW generators, or two 250 KW generators.

In short, you've convinced me, and I will take up your suggestion when I do the next power calculations, calculations that will use more reasonable background assumptions, i.e. lower air-density, a much better Cd, and better drivetrain efficiency, 95 % instead of the 90 % that I was working with earlier. Furthermore, if safas' research is tracking battery innovations that are more than just vaporware, then a 400 KW battery pack circa 2020 that weighs just 1300 kg may prove possible. So when I do the next set of power calculations I will try to determine what will be feasible with such a large battery pack + two 200 KW generators, and compare that to the turbine APU "power boost" scenario.

Also remember: if ActionMobil has produced a top-of-the-line, 3-axle expedition motorhome with a 720 HP/537 KW engine in 2014, then a TerraLiner that appears in 2020 would want to beat that figure by a considerable margin, perhaps by as much as 150 KW. The total power that the TerraLiner has available when climbing an extended slope would then be 700 KW. Two diesel generators producing 400 KW + a 400 KW battery pack = 800 KW, but that's just for one hour. Whereas some of the extended inclines I researched would require ascending a 3 % grade for 150 km, so two hours at 75 kph. I don't want to go into the details here -- I'll do that when I conduct the calculations -- but just wanted to signal the "marketing" or "market competition" consideration. This may seem superficial, but it's also an important, given the target demographic.

Also interesting thoughts about using the diesel generator's liquid cooling and exhaust for heat production. However, as you know, I am very interested in a "diesel generator hardly-ever-running" camping scenario, so heat from the diesel generator would make a significant contribution mostly when driving. That's not insignificant, but it's a far cry from having a 20 KW diesel generator running around the clock, the way that many American Class-A motorhomes do, especially when they use A/C intensively in a hot climate. Hence, I don't really see diesel generator waste-heat usage as a big consideration. Furthermore, in the "turbine boost" scenario there would still be a 300 KW primary diesel generator in any case. That's the generator that will be used the most, even when the TerraLiner is underway, not the turbine. Remember, the turbine would be used only to provide power-boosts for extended inclines, and to serve as a fail-safe backup.

Playing devil's advocate, would it be possible to argue that, from a fail-safe point of view, it's better to have two completely different generator technologies, instead of two generators that are exactly the same?? This is not a rhetorical question. I am asking this as a genuine question, because I do not know the answer. But it seems possible to speculate that if there were a problem with the primary 300 KW diesel generator that had something to do with environmental change (extreme altitude? extreme cold? extreme heat?), then the same environmental change would probably impact the turbine APU very differently. The turbine APU may not be affected at all. The reverse may also be true: environmental change that renders the turbine APU fairly useless, may not affect the primary 300 KW diesel generator. This is a sincere question, so I defer to your engineering expertise here, and await your response, oh purveyor of condensed, exact insight.....:bowdown:

Also always remember that the turbine being considered will come "pre-wrapped" complete with integrated generator. It has been designed specifically as a low-weight, low-maintenance, fuel-efficient, and low-noise APU, albeit for use in a jet, not a truck or motorhome.

In sum, thanks for the suggestion. When I do the next set of power calculations, I will definitely run a scenario for two x 200 KW generators + 400 KW battery pack as well.

All best wishes,



Biotect

 

[LukeH]

I understand the interests in the jet-turbine type generator - but I would think a pair of identical 200 kW DC output diesel engine type generators might be a better option to consider - one primary reason is redundancy - it would be easier to get parts to do A/B testing when a problem occurs with two identical generators and spare parts could be shared. Another reason is that with a water cooled diesel engine the exhaust and the heat production are much easier to manage and even use - the heat would be great for space and water heating when in cold climates - the exhaust might also be usable for the incinerating toilet idea. With a turbine engine type generator it would be much more difficult (if not impossible) to utilize the exhaust and waste heat for other purposes.

.

As long ago as 1984 Nissan produced a prototype ceramic gas turbine for automotive use. I think it was in the 200-300hp range. Volvo actually made a production car with a gas turbine in it too, so the technology for small turbines has been around for ages.
However it appears to have been abandoned in favour of recipricating engines for land based transport. One of these http://www.gizmag.com/nissan-zeod-rc-engine/30611/ coupled to a generator would help with weight, available space, fuel economy and power all together; with space for a second for redundancy.

 

[biotect]

..

One thing 20-30yr old diesel technology has on the competition. A $600 turbo and couple injection pump tweaks can get you reliably into the 350hp/1000ftlb range with extreme durability and increased mileage. You stated this is more for the younger expo crowd, mid 20s. Well I am 25 and would prefer hammer simple in an expo truck. My biggest concern would be an electronic meltdown and burning the rig to the ground or getting electrocuted. Big trucks get hot when working hard.

Hi backwoods,

Many thanks for your comment. Actually, I said something much more specific than that. I said that I am designing with other transportation designers in mind, designers who may still be in their 20's (although I myself am older than that). I am absolutely not designing for ExPo participants who are still in their 20s, and it would be a big mistake to think that I am.....:sombrero:...



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


1. Designed for AARCWPOMs


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


For the last 50 or 60 pages of the thread, I have been very clear that my target demographic is AARCWPOMs, a wonderful acronym that Iain came up with. It stands for "Active-Adventurous Retired Couples with Plenty of Money" -- see posts #1983 to #1985 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=1964731#post1964731 . These are basically the same people who retire in large (45 foot), luxurious and expensive motorhomes in the United States, the kind made by Newell or Millennium, because only these elderly people will have the spare capital available to purchase such vehicles, and live an itinerant retirement lifestyle. This is an RV market-segment that is expanding, not contracting, and is set to expand even further, as yet more baby-boomers retire -- see http://www.recpro.org/assets/Confer..._camping-rv-paddlesports-boating-bailey-s.pdf :







Indeed, the full-timing RV lifestyle in general is something that most people do in retirement, not when they are still in their 20's, like yourself. It tends to attract elderly people over 60, and most people who buy Class A motorhomes are over 50:

Demographic resarch by RVIA shows 35 to 54 is the average age when buying the first RV. By the end of this year, there will be 57 million Americans who are ages 50 to 64, and most Class A RV buyers are in that range. And in that age group one in 10 currently own RV's.

See http://forums.goodsamclub.com/index...24242599/srt/pa/print/true/pging/1/page/1.cfm and https://rv-roadtrips.thefuntimesguide.com/2007/08/who_owns_rvs.php and http://www.rvia.org/?ESID=trends .

For what may be the most sophisticated study yet conducted of RV market segmentation and lifestyles, see http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=jti . It's the most sophisticated that I have personally come across, but perhaps even more comprehensive and analytically detailed studies exist? For different kinds of motorhoming "styles" of travel, see https://wandrlymagazine.com/article/eco-friendly-rv/ , and also see https://wandrlymagazine.com/cheaper-on-the-road/ and https://wandrlymagazine.com/save-money-by-traveling/ . I value such research studies and articles, because they emphasize something that does not seem obvious to many who participate here on ExPo. Namely, that the RV industry is huge, varied, and composed of multiple niche-markets; that people buy motorhomes for different reasons, and do different kinds of things with them; that many different types of RV traveling styles exist; that there is no such thing as the "perfect" or "ultimate" motorhome that is "practical" for everyone ("practical" is a very fascistic word); and all the more so, there does not exist an "ultimate" expedition motorhome that will be "practical" for everyone either.

The speed with which some here on ExPo are willing to universalize and judge based on their own, limited frames of reference and experiences, is really quite breathtaking. That's why I've had to become increasingly explicit and insistent about who I am, and am not, designing the TerraLiner for; and the kind of "slow travel" that I have in mind for the TerraLiner. The three posts in which I discussed AARCWPOMs are very important, and here is a quote from the third post:

When I think of the TerraLiner's target market, I am thinking of "low-flying" and "frugal" millionaires in the 1 - 5 million range. Traveling by motorhome is a potentially low-cost form of travel, at least once the initial capital cost of the RV is out of the way, because the motorhome serves simultaneously as hotel and restaurant -- see http://www.rvia.org/?ESID=vcosts . Motor-homing with a large Class-A is a form of travel that often appeals to "frugal millionaires" who have finally retired, want to travel, want to travel comfortably and slowly, and who also want to continue cooking and cleaning for themselves, in their own home.

I want to address the needs, wants, and preferences of these people, and no others. I want to address their financial capacities, their level of free time available, their calendar, their sense that they can “slow down” and “slow travel” the world not just for 2 years, but rather, for 20 or 30 years.

In short, you sort of have to imagine me designing with one eye in the back of my mind permanently focused on AARCWPOMs, and what they would want and need in a globally capable motorhome, for instance, massive air-conditioning. Above age 65 even very healthy elderly people will have nervous systems that have begun to degenerate. One consequence is that their bodies begin to experience problems with thermal regulation, especially dealing with extreme heat. As such, even very healthy elderly people need Air-Conditioining in hot climates. Over the age of 65, A/C becomes a basic health & safety issue, and not just an optional luxury.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..

 

[biotect]

...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


2. Designed for Batch Production


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


Simultaneously, you need to imagine me designing with another eye in the back of my mind permanently focused on my colleagues in transportation design, and what they would find interesting. My colleagues would not find the mere re-purposing of a 30-year old truck chassis interesting. Furthermore, my colleagues would find the mere repurposing of a 30-year-old truck chassis downright impractical, to use a wretched word that gets bandied about on ExPo far too often.....

Yes, impractical.

Why "impractical"? Well, for the simple reason that any kind of design that assumes the repurposing of a 30 year-old vintage truck cannot be mass-produced, nor even batch-produced. It's that simple.

Generally speaking transportation designers do not design for one-off production. We design for production runs, at least 10 vehicles or more, and typically more like thousands, or hundreds of thousands. In the case of the TerraLiner, I have been imagining "batch production" or "boutique production" in the range of 10 - 20 vehicles per annum -- see http://www.technologystudent.com/joints/bat1.htm , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batch_production , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutique_manufacturing , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_production , https://www.quora.com/Operations-Ma...ce-between-Batch-and-Mass-Production-Planning , and Methods of Production . Sure, the TerraLiner prototype will be a one-off, but subsequent TerraLiners will not be produced using "job production", a somewhat strange term used to describe one-off, completely bespoke production -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Job_production and http://infocheese.com/methodsofproduction.html .

The TerraLiner will be expensive enough as it is. So one of the main objectives of this transportation design exercise is to come up with a format for a large, globally capable motorhome that will resemble an American Class A in terms of amenities and comfort, and that could also be batch-produced, as per most American Class A's. Note that in the world of ActionMobil and UniCat expedition motorhomes, all vehicles are "job produced", all are custom-bespoke creations. They usually price at less than one million USD, but that's only because these companies might be described as "cutting corners" on things like the quality of the camper box construction. In an ActionMobil or UniCat motorhome the camper box is not a robust aluminum or steel space-frame that has been insulated, as per the shells of Newell or Millennium motorhomes. Rather, the typical expedition vehicle camper box is just sheets of plastic glued together. And it is not a "fully integrated" design, as per American Class A's, but rather, it is a completely non-integrated design, in which a camper box simply sits on the back of a pre-existing construction truck, usually supplied by MAN. Or, in the smaller models, the base chassis is a Mercedes Zetros or Unimog.

The manufacturing model and the underlying design/engineering applied by ActionMobil or UniCat is comparatively "primitive", in the sense that it is primitive when compared to the design/engineering that goes into more mainstream, fully integrated motorhomes produced by companies like Hymer and Concorde in Germany, or Tiffin, Newmar, Winnebago, etc. in the United States. Just take a look at Hymer's website, where the amount of aesthetic thought and engineering that goes into every detail is simply astonishing -- see https://www.hymer.com/en/ . It should be: they've been at it for decades. But Hymer can only "front load" so much design thinking because they either batch-produce or mass-produce their motorhomes. Hence, they can spread out the cost of all that design and engineering across multiple iterations of the same basic product.

Here I should qualify, and insist that obviously from a certain perspective the amount of design and engineering that goes into every ActionMobil and UniCat motorhome is very impressive. But it can only be the amount of design and engineering that still proves cost-effective in relation to just one, bespoke, custom-manufactured motorhome. Because they are expedition-motorhome specialists, sure, they can transfer some experience and engineering from one custom motorhome to the next. But they still cannot achieve the same level of design and engineering "density" per vehicle relative to cost, as motorhome manufacturers that employ batch-production or mass-production.

Although the initial design and engineering of the TerraLiner prototype would involve thousands more man-hours than any ActionMobil or UniCat job-produced motorhome, the hope is that the cost of all those man-hours would then be recovered over the course of a batch production run of 10 - 20 iterations of the same basic vehicle design. This is how mainstream American motorhome manufacturers began producing the first fully-integrated, Class A designs in the 1960's. At one point they had to "take the plunge", risk investment in design, engineering, and capital on a fully integrated concept, and hope that they would recover their initial outlay over the course of a production run. Prior to the 1960s they were doing just what ActionMobil and UniCat are doing today: they were simply sticking camper boxes onto the backs of pre-existing trucks.

The American "type C" motorhome classification has a format that is still reminiscent of that older way of doing things -- see https://rv-roadtrips.thefuntimesguide.com/2011/01/rv_class.php , http://traveltips.usatoday.com/difference-between-class-b-class-c-rvs-62395.html , https://bishsrv.wordpress.com/2012/03/05/differences-between-class-a-b-c-motorhomes/ , http://www.newmarcorp.com/blog/post...between-class-class-b-and-class-c-motorhomes/ , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motorhome , and http://www.motorhome.com/tag/class-b-motorhomes/ :









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


3. Designed for the Long-Term Future, not the Past, and also not merely the Short-Term Present


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


There is also the not-so-trivial question regarding what happens 10 years from now when the supply of pre-electronics vintage vehicles finally and forever dries up....:ylsmoke: ...

Finding and repurposing a vintage chassis that's pre-electronic but still in reasonably good condition is already somewhat difficult today, circa 2016, because to be truly liberated from electronics one needs to go back about 25 years. For instance, electronics were first introduced into the G-wagen circa 1989, and presumably the G-wagen was a late adopter -- see http://www.topgear.com/car-news/history-lesson-mercedes-g-class . Off the top of my head I don't know when and how electronics were first implemented in various vehicle types and brands. But 25 years seems the current cut-off point, and 10 years from today that will become 35 years. So what will overlanders do just a decade from now? Designing with a repurposed base chassis in mind is not be a sustainable model, even if it could be somehow adapted to batch production in the short-term, for the next 3 or 4 years. So doesn't it seem better to bite the proverbial bullet, accept that electronics are here to say, and begin working on a design solution that will serve overlanders 50 years into the future too?

At least that's how things look from the more "long-term" perspective of transportation designers, as opposed to self-builders. Transportation designers today are often asked to create concept studies of vehicles as they might appear 5, 10, 20, or even 30 years into the future. The whole profession is now very "long-term forward thinking", and very environmentally and socially conscious. Things were very different back in the 1950's and the 1960's, when transportation design worked on a much shorter fashion-cycle, and merely churned superficial detailing on a yearly basis, with wasteful planned obsolescence assumed as a given.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..

 

[biotect]

...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


4. Designed for Industrial Society and the Modern Division of Labor


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


Here is something else worth considering. You probably imagine the truck + camper in which you are currently living full-time as "inexpensive", but in truth it's anything but. Looking at your build threads, it becomes clear that you invested thousands of hours of your own labor -- see http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/tow-rigs-trailers/2115450-version-3-0-a.html , http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/tow-rigs-trailers/1241698-1993-f700-build-thread.html, and posts #2381 to #2386 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...w-6x6-Hybrid-Drivetrain?p=2012451#post2012451 and following. If you were to price the various kinds of labor that you put into your build at U.S. market rates, the total price tag of your build would be radically different than what you perhaps imagine it to be (?), perhaps because you are only pricing the cost of materials....?

You may then mistakenly imagine that what you have created is very "practical". But in actual fact it's not practical for most people, because most people do not have your self-build skills, and they also would not want to invest the time required. Most people may also price the hourly value of their labor differently than you, and so it makes much more sense for them to buy a motorhome manufactured by someone else. Sorry to be so direct and blunt about this, but you are a young guy -- you stated 25 years old -- and so it seems at least possible that you may not have considered all of this. On the other hand, I would be very surprised if you had not!..

The idea behind the modern division of labor is that if each of us concentrates on what we do best, each of us will benefit individually, and so too all of us will benefit collectively. At the individual level we will be able to earn the best possible hourly rate for our labor, and not incidentally we will be able to experience career satisfaction doing our chosen job well. If we then pay others to do the jobs that we are not trained to do, they will certainly benefit. But we do as well: we get a better product, one that we could not possibly have created ourselves. Sure, I know that because of the frontier experience and a tradition of individualism, Americans prize the ideal of "self-sufficiency", and American survivalists will take this to an extreme, attempting to live completely off-grid and out of touch with Uncle Sam. But most Americans are not survivalists, and they have grown up in a massively inter-dependent industrialized society that has a very elaborate division of labor. As a European, it seems to me just silly to try to deny this.

So personally I see "self-build" as a bit of a waste of time. Or at the very least it would be a waste of time for me personally, and yet I am someone who really does know how to use power tools, weld, shape metal, etc., even if I am not a trained or experienced auto mechanic. I am not interested in self-build primarily because I know where my particular talents lie, and that they can best be put to use elsewhere. So for me personally designing a TerraLiner that could be self-built would not be a worthwhile exercise. I love my chosen profession, I love what I do for a living, so I guess I am comfortable with the modern division of labor. And needless to say, as a transportation designer I have been trained to assume the modern division of labor as a background given. I've been trained to design for the production models developed by industrial society. I have not been trained to design as if were still living in 1750, when one-off artiginal production was the norm for just about everything.



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


5. Reprise: Transportation Designers cannot be Luddites about drive-trains


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


So the bottom line is, transportation designers simply cannot think and design in the same way as self-builders. The section in which I first made this point is now finished, so please try re-reading the final section of the posting series that immediately precedes Haf-E's post. The title of that section says it all: "Transportation Designers cannot be Luddites about drive-trains".

When I used the word "cannot" in that title, I meant it literally: this is something that we simply cannot do. As far as I know, no mass-produced or even batch-produced car or truck has ever been developed where it was understood from the beginning that manufacturing it would entail repurposing hundreds or even thousands of 30-year old chassis + drivetrains, cannibalized from a given brand and model of older vehicle. The idea of repurposing an old vehicle is possible only as a one-off, as a one-at-a-time custom manufactured solution, or a do-it-yourself solution. But as transportation designers, we always have at least batch-production in mind, if not full-out mass production.

Even Landrover's "Special Vehicles Operations" subdivision seems somewhat reluctant to produce one-offs. Rather, it is looking for "significant business opportunities" in larger-volume projects:

Will there be one-offs?

“We're quite interested, but the significant business opportunity is in larger-volume projects,” Edwards confirms. “I'm not saying we won't do them, but we'd prefer to push the boundaries of the existing product rather than completely re-engineering a car. One-offs also tend to be one-off business opportunities.”

See http://www.topgear.com/car-news/british/special-vehicle-operations-whats-it-all-about .

Remember, I am a transportation designer, and this is a transportation design project. I am not a do-it-yourselfer, nor am I interested in creating a design that could only be built one at a time, on a strictly custom-bespoke basis. Read that last section again, and all of this should become even more clear.


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


For what it's worth, this is another reason why I value participating on ExPo. Because it forces me to make explicit things that I was just assuming implicitly. Everything I wrote in that section and in this post would make complete sense to a transportation designer. But most ExPo participants are not transportation designers. So the difference between the kinds of one-off "build projects" and their associated "build threads" that commonly appear on ExPo, versus the kind of transportation design exercise being discussed here in this thread, needs to be made explicit and clear. This is not a build thread, and it is not a thread about a one-off custom-bespoke project either. It is a transportation design thread.

This has significant implications that it is my duty to spell out as clearly as I can. The ball is very much in my court, so don't feel befuddled if you didn't "get" it the first time. It's my fault, and I just was not being clear enough..... ...Your short post above got me thinking even further about one of my central assumptions, versus the contrary assumption that many or even most ExPo participants seem to bring to the thread. I am assuming design for batch production, whereas you seem to be assuming a self-build one-off.

All best wishes, and many thanks,



Biotect
..

 

[biotect]

As long ago as 1984 Nissan produced a prototype ceramic gas turbine for automotive use. I think it was in the 200-300hp range. Volvo actually made a production car with a gas turbine in it too, so the technology for small turbines has been around for ages.
However it appears to have been abandoned in favour of recipricating engines for land based transport. One of these http://www.gizmag.com/nissan-zeod-rc-engine/30611/ coupled to a generator would help with weight, available space, fuel economy and power all together; with space for a second for redundancy.

Hi Luke,

That's an amazing engine!!! Wow. I wonder if any company has plans to pair it with a generator, to produce a super-light-weight Gen-set aimed at the consumer market? The precedent here would be WhisperPower's MGV-200, which Haf-E thinks uses a very lightweight and reliable Steyr motor, a Steyr that could be serviced worldwide.

This Nissan motor weighs just 40 kg of and produces 400 HP, achieving a power density better than current Formula 1 engines. But without additional information, I would hazard a guess that this Nissan motor is such exotic and advanced ICE technology, that it might be simply too expensive for the consumer market.....?..:ylsmoke:

The engines used in current Formula 1 race cars come close to the same power density, but Formula 1 race cars cost millions, and the cost of their engines will account for most of that. The average price of a Formula 1 engine unit is about 7 - 10 million USD, and according to one article, the new turbocharged V6 engines required since 2014 can cost up to 14 million USD -- see http://www.tsmplug.com/f1/average-cost-of-formula-1-car/ , http://tsmplay.com/money/costs-of-a-formula-one-car/ , and http://www.totalsportek.com/f1/how-much-formula-1-car-cost-in-2015/ . Formula 1 accounting is nebulous, and it's claimed that some teams will spend hundreds of millions developing their cars. A team like Ferrari will have a manufacturing operation behind it that is constantly trying to improve engine performance in any case, in the sports cars that it sells commercially -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuderia_Ferrari#F1_team_sponsorship . So what exactly is the "development cost" of a Ferrari F1 race-car?

Formula 1 engines are now governed by increasingly strict regulations. In the past some F1 engines had up to 12 cylinders and produced nearly 1000 HP, and yet were still very lightweight, hence, their power densities were very close to this Nissan motor. For instance, BMW created an engine in 2003 that weighed less than 91 kg, and yet was rated as producing 670 kW, or 900 BHP -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_engines . Whereas currently -- as near as I can tell -- the regulations state that F1 engines must weigh at least 95 kg, and they can produce no more than 600 HP -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formula_One_car and http://www.f1technical.net/articles/4 .

In other words, current Formula 1 regulations are deliberately designed to limit engine performance. Things were simply getting out of control, with F1 car and engine performance vastly outstripping the original design parameters of race-tracks. Formula 1 drivers were constantly pushing the limits set only by their car's technology, and the risk level for them as well as spectators became unacceptable. The first video gives a wonderful account of just how dangerous things can get when automotive engineers who think like aerospace engineers create race cars that can, quite literally, drive on the roof of a tunnel:






Now if this Nissan motor is just a prototype, and if it could be manufactured as a commercially viable product, then there might be a big demand in the world of marine generators specifically for such a compact, lightweight, high-HP ICE. But most probably not in the mass-transit market. Diesel generators of the kind used in hybrid buses or trams seem to top out at around 160 kW, for instance, the Mercedes diesel-electric "Citaro" hybrid transit bus. Only a few generators intended for hybrid transit-bus applications produce 175 kW to 195 kW. For some of these, see the interesting PDF produced by Kirsch Energie at http://www.kirsch-energie.de/fileadmin/user_upload/redakteur/pdf/Referenzlisten/Referenz_APU_en.pdf , pages 10 and 11 specifically. If a generator produces 160 kW, this tends to mean that, at most, it only needs an ICE in the 300 - 350 HP range, and not 400 HP.

But if a small, very compact 400 HP engine like this Nissan were to become commercially available, a super-lightweight marine generator that produces 260 kW seems feasible, and there would probably be market demand for it. 260 KW = 350 HP, so perhaps 400 HP for the ICE would be enough? I am just guessing here, on the basis of ratios of ICE HP versus generator kW output that I've seen in smaller generators. Haf-E, if you read this, and if you think I am way off track with my ratio guesstimate, please correct!

However even this 400 HP Nissan does not have enough power to drive a 300 kW generator, which is the size of generator that I have been looking for, at least so far. 300 KW = 402 HP, so the ICE required seems to fall more in the 450 - 500 HP range. Again, Haf-E, please contribute if you know what the likely HP figure -- or figure range -- should be, for a diesel motor to power a generator that produces 300 kW.

The 320 kW (prime power) generators made by Perkins use a motor that's rated at 500 HP (gross), and 468 HP (net) -- see https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/products/new/perkins/electric-power-generation.html , https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/produ...-generation/diesel-generators/1000001903.html , https://www.perkins.com/en_GB/produ...-generation/diesel-generators/1000001931.html , http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10378940 , http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10414626 , and http://s7d2.scene7.com/is/content/Caterpillar/C10345540 . "Net HP" is now the most commonly cited figure for automotive engines, so it's probably best to think of these Perkins generators as powered by an ICE that produces 468 HP -- see http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-technology-definitions/gross-versus-net-horsepower/ . These Perkins generators are very heavy, only intended for industrial power production. But even still, I am assuming that a more lightweight, yacht-grade 300 KW generator would need a motor with a similar HP rating, also in the 450 - 500 HP range.

There's another problem: this Nissan motor uses "petrol", i.e. gasoline. It's not a diesel, which is unfortunate, because both the RV and yacht markets tend to prefer diesel-fueled generators, especially if the main engine driving a motorhome or yacht is also a diesel.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..

 

[biotect]

...
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


With that said, this Nissan motor sure is a nifty piece of work. Here is the video from the gizmag article that you referenced, plus a second video from Top Gear magazine, which reviews the race car in which this motor first appeared, called the "ZEOD RC". Following those are some excellent videos that describe the ZEOD RC race car in detail:






The ZEOD RC race car is a parallel hybrid, in roughly the same sense as the BMW i8. The Nissan motor can drive the rear wheels directly, as well as recharge the batteries, so it's not merely a range-extender -- see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_ZEOD_RC , https://web.archive.org/web/20130801164810/http://live.nissan.eu:80/gb-en/nismo/nismo-zeod-rc , http://www.racecar-engineering.com/cars/nissan-zeod-rc/ , http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/108176/ , http://www.gizmag.com/nissan-zeod-rc-electric-car-speed-record-le-mans/32532/ , and http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/14/nissans-zeod-rc-first-all-electric-le-mans-lap/ .

I tried very hard to find the kW output of the ZEOD RC's electric generator driven by the Nissan motor, but came up short -- see http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/...ine-to-complement-electric-zeod-rc-powerplant , http://insideevs.com/nissan-adds-next-generation-range-extender-to-their-zeod-rc/ , http://www.asphaltandrubber.com/popular/nissan-ultimate-motorcycle-engine/ , http://www.greencarcongress.com/2014/01/20140127-nissan.html , and http://www.autoblog.com/2014/01/28/nissan-three-cylinder-race-engine/ . I wonder whether it is in fact in the 220 - 260 kW range?

If you might know the electrical output in kW of the generator used, please post. Even better if you also know the weight of the generator. That way we would have a combined total weight for a complete Gen-Set, consisting of the Nissan motor (40 kg) + generator (?). If we also knew the power output in kW of the generator, we then could calculate its power density, and compare that to the WhisperPower MGV-200, which produces 200 KW and weighs 480 kg. In short, we could develop a very rough-ballpark idea of just how advanced a Gen-set can get, if one were willing to spend millions and really push the engineering envelope. I am just speculating, but if the complete Nissan Gen-Set weighs around 100 kg, and if it does indeed produce 260 kW or thereabouts, then 1 kg of this Gen-Set has the ability to generate 2.6 kW of electricity. Whereas in the WhisperPower MGV-200, every 1 kg has the ability to generate only 0.417 kW of electricity. If my speculation is correct, then a Gen-Set configured with this Nissan motor would have a power density that's over 6 times that of the MGV-200.

Next, suppose instead that the Nissan Gen-Set proves a bit heavier, and weighs 112.5 kg instead of 100 kg; and suppose that the electric power it produces is more modest, 225 kW instead of 260 kW. If so, then it would have about the same power density as the Pratt & Whitney APS 5000 Boeing Dreamliner turbine APU, which weighs 225 kg, and produces 450 kW. In other words, two such 110 kg Gen-Sets configured with this exceptional Nissan motor would have the same power density as a very advanced, cutting-edge turbine APU. No doubt their fuel consumption would be much less than the turbine, but again, I wonder about the price. Obtaining this amount of power from a lightweight ICE is not easy, whereas it's par for the course for a turbine. I just wonder why the turbine APU is mechanically rated for 1100 HP, and yet produces only a bit more than half that as electricity (450 kW = about 600 HP).... Whereas a diesel piston-driven motor that's rated for 468 HP, as per the motor used in the Perkins generators, will yield 320 KW of electricity, which is roughly 430 HP. Diesel generators seem to pay only a very small HP penalty as they translate mechanical HP into electrical HP, whereas turbine generators seem to pay a much heavier HP penalty.

No doubt I am missing something very important here, so if anyone reading this might be able to explain it to me (Haf-E?), many thanks in advance.

In short, if a commercially priced version of this Nissan motor were to become widely available before 2020, and if it could be successfully paired with an equally advanced and super-light-weight generator, then any need for a turbine APU to serve as a "power booster" on long extended inclines would disappear. The TerraLiner could carry three such Nissan Gen-Sets for triple-redundnacy, and combined they would weigh just 330 kg. If they produced 675 kW when combined, that would be only a bit less than the 750 kW that I have been imagining a 300 kW diesel generator + 450 kW turbine APU would have produced.

But there are are some big "ifs" here, and oddly enough it's the turbine APU that is proven technology, not this small Nissan motor and its electric generator. Still, many thanks Luke for bringing it up, and demonstrating what is now possible at the leading edge of ICE development. It's definitely food for thought, and no doubt the technology required to create such an innovative engine has trickled down and informed the engineering of the small, gasoline-powered, range-extending ICE that Nissan will bundle together with its second generation "Leaf" EV, due to appear in 2016 -- see http://www.hybridcars.com/nissan-to-unveil-range-extended-ev-in-2016/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf . Here it's worth observing that the resulting "Leaf" will have a true serial hybrid design, just like the intended drivetrain of the TerraLiner. The Leaf's small gasoline engine will not power the wheels directly, but rather, it will only power a generator. It will not be a parallel hybrid.



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


Now to be honest, I have been so caught up in other things recently -- incinerating toilets; the ethics of waste disposal; farm camping; Vavilovian mimicry and bullet-proof glazing -- that I haven't done further research into marine diesel generators intended for use in large sailing yachts. It could be as simple as plugging "Yacht diesel generator 300 KW" into Google, and one might discover quite a few excellent, lightweight, rugged examples of yacht-grade 300 KW generators. Yacht-grade and not merely marine-grade, because generators intended for use in sailing yachts will probably be lighter. But until I finish up previous work, I am reluctant to immerse myself in yet another huge area of research that would consume weeks. If you were inclined to investigate this a bit, Luke, by all means please do, and please post!!!...:ylsmoke:

Many thanks,




Biotect

 

[safas]

You seem to be forgetting about engine durability.
RV and marine users don't want engines that need to be replaced after 24 hours of work. Even if the ZEOD one is more durable than that and needs just a rebuild after the race, that's still unacceptable.

 

[biotect]

You seem to be forgetting about engine durability.

RV and marine users don't want engines that need to be replaced after 24 hours of work. Even if the ZEOD one is more durable than that and needs just a rebuild after the race, that's still unacceptable.

Hi safas,

Completely agreed. I don't know if your observation applies to this Nissan engine, however. It most certainly does apply to F1 engines, which are made to be expendable. But I get the feeling that this Nissan engine may be something slightly different, perhaps a prototype for the engine that Nissan will bundle together with the second generation of its "Leaf" EV, due to appear in 2016? I honestly don't know. Luke posted the engine, and it seemed worth looking into, if only because it's power density is so extreme.

By the way, I've written a huge posting series in response to your very interesting lead about the German 2011 solar racer, a racer that uses gallium arsenide solar cells. The racer raises lots of interesting issues, but there is one very simple question that I could not seem to answer via web-research: where did it gets its solar cells from? What company makes them? Same question for the the two more recent vehicles produced by the same Bochum university team, in 2013 and 2015: any idea what brand of solar cells they use?

There seem to be multiple different official university websites covering the same cars, so things can get a bit confusing. Furthermore, athough some webpages are provided in both German and English, not all are. So if one can't read German, one really needs to use Google Translate on the German pages in order to get the full story. Here are some of the links that I've been able to find thus far: http://www.solarworld-gt.de/en/home/ , http://bosolarcar.de , http://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/team/view/9 , http://www.hochschule-bochum.de/en/solarcar/the-project.html , http://www.worldsolarchallenge.org/team/view/9 , http://bosolarcar.de/mediathek/ , http://www.independent.com/news/2012/feb/05/solar-powered-car-looks-bust-guinness-world-record/ , http://www.solarworld-gt.de/solarworld-gt/ , http://translate.google.com/transla...&u=http://www.solarworld-gt.de/solarworld-gt/ , http://www.solarworld-gt.de/fileadmin/sites/swno1/technische_daten_SolarWorld_GT.pdf , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...eltumrundung-201112/tagebuch.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...olar-challenge-2011/tagebuch.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...lien-2012/131212-um-die-erde.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...tagebuch/tagebuch-russland-i.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...hallenge-2011/bildergalerien.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...von-adelaide-nach-sydney-aus.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...1111-zum-schluss-an-die-oper.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...ien/221011-im-ziel-am-anfang.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...rien/201011-feuer-und-wasser.html&prev=search , https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...n/191011-und-rollt-und-rollt.html&prev=search , and https://translate.google.co.uk/tran...erien/041011-auf-die-strasse.html&prev=search .

Lots of links, but nowhere could I find a simple answer to the question, "Who makes their solar cells?"

Could it possibly be "Solar World", one of their sponsors? However, although Solar World is a leading producer, it seems to be a quantity producer, and does not seem to have a technological "edge" as per SunPower or Alta Devices -- see http://www.solarworld-usa.com , http://www.solarworld.de/en/home/ , and http://www.solarworld-uk.co.uk . Solar World does not seem like the sort of company that could provide gallium arsenide solar cells for use in an automotive application. But I could be wrong about all of this.

Thought I should throw this question out there, just in case you might know the answer, or would be wiling to dig to find the answer. I'll wait with the long series of posts about the interesting aerodynamic and design questions suggested by these solar racers until after I've finished uploading images into previous posts. Or perhaps, so that this thread does not does not get too long, I'll wait with posting until we've established a new subsection for the TerraLainer with different sub-threads for different topics, as per Libransser's suggestion.

Best wishes,



Biotect

 

[Silverado08]

One thing 20-30yr old diesel technology has on the competition. A $600 turbo and couple injection pump tweaks can get you reliably into the 350hp/1000ftlb range with extreme durability and increased mileage. You stated this is more for the younger expo crowd, mid 20s. Well I am 25 and would prefer hammer simple in an expo truck. My biggest concern would be an electronic meltdown and burning the rig to the ground or getting electrocuted. Big trucks get hot when working hard.

On the subject of diesel engines,,
these Coates rotary valve heads blow away any old diesel with popet valves,,(and even the new ones too)not only in increased performance but in reduced
emissions too,due to the fact it doesnt need oil circulating in the upper part of the engine,heads,valves etc..
Whats particularly depressing is that not one domestic auto manufacturer has any interest in using these in their trucks or cars.

www.coatesengine.com
http://www.coatesengine.com/csrv-advantages.html

 

[biotect]

Hi Silverado,

Yes, even traditional piston-driven engines can be improved upon significantly. Here's a video for another recent engineering innovation that you might find interesting:






But as Haf-E has already suggested, one very important consideration will be serviceability worldwide. A commonly used marine generator that has an engine with a world-wide service network, such as the Steyr engine used in the WhisperPower MGV-200, may actually represent a significant improvement from the point of view of serviceability over any truck currently on the market.



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


1. TerraLiner Modularity Leveraged to Increase Service Flexibility


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


The key here would be to take advantage of the fact that the TerraLiner's generators will only connect to the electrical drive-train by power cords that can be unplugged. So if the TerraLiner's generators were mounted with a bit of foresight, such that they could be easily removed, new kinds of service flexility become possible.

Here I am imaging the TerraLiner's generators mounted on slide-out trays or "cargo trays" that emerge from side-lockers at roughly 75 - 78 cm above grade, which as it turns out is roughly in the same ballpark as the load floor/load bed of most pick-up trucks, where the range is somewhere between 60 - 95 cm above grade:









I included some very old schematics of pick-up trucks, because who knows exactly what kind of vehicle a mechanic in a Second or Third world country might want to use to transport one of the TerraLiner's generators to/from his shop. Older pick-up trucks tend to have lower load bed heights, as low as 24 inches or 61 cm in one of the schematics. Whereas newer pick-up trucks can have load bed heights as much as 38 inches above grade, or 96 cm. 34 inches above grade or 86 cm seems to be the most typical load bed height.

The cargo-trays on which the generators sit would have some kind of mechanism similar to that used for drop-down/slide-out fridge trays, so that once pulled out of the TerraLiner, their height above grade could be adjusted to match the load-bed height of a given type of pick-up truck. Except that the mechanism should allow the cargo try on which a generator sits to be both raised and lowered once pulled out of the TerraLiner:






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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST...
..