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

egn

Adventurer
Max Wheel Torque 18,000 ft-lbs
(for each drive axle, 9000 ft-lbs/wheel)

That seem not do be that much. The gearing ratio seems to be a bit low.

The stock MAN KAT 6x6 has in 1st gear and torque converter a maximum of about 80.000 ft-lbs at all wheels. The total pulling force with standard 14.00R20 wheels is about 18 t (metric). And this seems be to low sometimes, i.e when you get stuck in heavy sand. I once got stuck in deep sand in Russia and I could get the wheels rotating forward anymore. I escaped by going backward in the track.

The unit seems to be very large. I wouldn't place the motor and transmission that low for an off-road vehicle. Think about driving through mud and deep water.
 

M.Bas

Adventurer
With regards to diesel electric propulsion it might be a good idea to do some research in offshore vessel propulsion. These days a lot of them are pure diesel electric.
A common set up for an offshore supply vessel is 4 main engines, an aux engine and a harbour/emergency engine.
Propulsion consists of 2 main thrusters (the rotatable azimuth kind) and a bunch of bow thrusters.

The gensets are started and revved based on power demand. Battery/capacitor banks to filter out peaks and dips in power demand are still in the testing phase.

A similar set up would be perfectly possible on an expedition rig since you more or less have the same demands/challenges.
The expedition setup would look something like 2 smaller gensets for redundancy and an electric motor per axle. And a battery bank big enough to be able to camp out somewhere without one of the gens starting up too often to recharge the batteries and also catch any sudden rise in power demand while driving.
 
Last edited:

dwh

Tail-End Charlie
,
This problem of "turtling" (I don't know what else to call it???).

In the U.S. we usually call it "high-centering". For example, "I got my truck high-centered the other day and had to use the winch to recover."

It happens not only cross-wise due to the breakover angle but also happens length-wise when the differentials of the axles get stuck on a high-centered road or trail and the wheels lose traction (hence the name).
 

thjakits

Adventurer
Here we go again - slide-outs next, promise Bio!

Haf-E, EGN:

Excellent post on the "central E-motor" - For the HEMTT (and Armed Forces) it obviously works well. For the Civilian customer, obviously not yet - different efficiency requirements. As mentioned before, for Bio's application a very sensitive and in depth number crunching session will be needed, to see if it would be economical for his "function" ("Remote-Area-Mobil-Homing" .....is there already a copyright on that? 3:) ]

Even though you lose the transmission and transfer units, the e-motors most likely will weigh more after all is done!
(Then considering the efficiency losses from the Diesel to Generator to e-Motor, vs. Diesel to Trans ......I believe if it would be viable yet, it would be in use already - certainly it is coming, but just not there yet....)
That's why I suggested, that for 90% road-vehicle - even with Serial E-drive, "most likely" the hydro-drives would make more sense, even if the overall "elegance" doesn't match all e-drive. ONE big e-motor for the rear-axle and hydros for the rest.

On the Wrightspeed arrangement: I think you are right - as is, no good for overland!

But if you arrange the drives up in the chassis and with shafts to portal-hubs, tie it together with a De-Dion axle and you get a:

....Electric--Trans-axle--De-Dion--Portal-axle ........(Damn! I should get a patent on that too!!)


Haf-E, M.Bas, DWH:

a] Turbines and Rotary-engines (wankel) are REALLY nice concepts, unfortunately ECONOMICALLY NOT viable for the road, .....yet:
The main-advantage of the turbine is weight (or the lack of it), the main disadvantage is manufacturing cost - most all turbines today still get built one by one by hand (essentially) - you wont do much "trouble shooting" on a turbine', except for peripheral stuff, which in one form or the other is similar to any other vehicle engine (...then, you really don't do much SERIOUS troubleshooting on Diesels anymore either - when did you pull a piston last time IN THE FIELD??).

b] Wankel is sweet and the mostly touted trouble-spot has been fixed long ago (rotor-seals). Unfortunately, less for Mazda, NO ONE embraced the technology after Auto-Union. I know of a very serious Swiss outfit that is (I hope they still are!) working on certifying their 2 and 3 rotor versions for aviation use!
They are at Certifying for a few YEARS now!! Aviation is extremely expensive in EVERY regard, but nothing more so than certifying new stuff....
This same outfit is also looking into getting a Jet-A version going!

Now the real problem with Jet-A or Diesel for that matter is, that injection timing and quantity has to be extremely precise - quite a bit more so than with gasoline (even considering the newer gasoline direct-injectors) - augmenting the problem is the considerable higher injection pressure for Diesel vs. Gasoline - and to finish off, for the Wankel, it STILL needs a ignition source, because by design it is about impossible to get compression anywhere near for a reliable self-ignition of the Diesel/Jet-fuel. As Diesel has as good as no octane-rating, injection and ignition timing has to be extremely precise!!
Trouble arises also from spark-plug fouling specifically from diesel-burn residues.....
Last time I checked - about 7-8 years ago - someone was looking into (maybe it was the Swiss - I was in contact with their CEO for a while....) a "burn-channel" that would keep a tiny flame-front alive until the next rotor-face/charge showed up! (...remember in a Wankel - combustion occurs on the same place nearly constantly as the cycles are not "switched" through the cylinder, but "dragged" around to different locations in the housing....)

Back then there were 2 companies on the planet that had a working Wankel Jet-A system, but both nearly exclusively catering to the militaries - small, lightweight powerplants and drone-propulsion units - they HAD to find a way to use diesel and jet-A because about all militaries on this planet went SINGLE FUEL....and their (logical) choice was Diesel and Jet-A.

The systems were available under patent/concession but under a extremely painful price-tag.
[The Swiss embarked on their own system development - last I knew...]

Rotapower is NOT on the contender list, because they still use gasoline only - as far as I know.
[Though I think they use a "lost oil" system, which actually uses less oil than the regular Mazda-rotaries - and simplifies the core-design a lot!! Sweet Concept for their units, although their output is nowhere near Mazda's units, this technology may scale up .....or not.....]

Another drawback for the rotary in general is: VERY difficult to get some decent efficiency at the lower end of the powerband.
However in a generator application, this wouldn't matter as you would optimize it for one rpm and in a hybrid-unit for a relatively narrow - high output range.

Now one question (that came up a few times through this thread, even from Bio himself):

WHY do you guys suggest a second "power-unit" for redundancy??

- No confidence in the new technology? (This part of technology is about as old as it gets!! Diesel-Generators are on the planet for about a thousand years now (...more or less?!) and with the PROPER and normal maintenance about as reliable as it gets! Same as with any and all regular truck diesels out there, regular fluid and filter-changes, timing belt on smaller units and ancillary-belts on all, etc... - other than that, give them CLEAN fuel and you are good.)

- Can you show me ONE application that has 2 power-units (road vehicles) for redundancy?
[Not sure, but the little I read on the matter, even in Antarctica vehicles don't have dual power-units, or do they?]

- Besides, that you would need 2 FULL-size units to be really redundant - you just bought a huge extra weight and complexity for a next to ZERO probability to occur. IF you decide on redundancy for the power-unit, will you also get redundancy for units that a way more likely to fail - wheel-hubs/drive-shafts/tires(you already carry 1-2, for your 6x6 you need 6 to be really redundant)/ ......and on it goes with components.
With a turbine you might get away concerning weight of the turbine part, but on the generator it will hit just as hard.

- In certain areas dual packs are warranted - boats, especially ocean going - weight is not that much of a factor and you certainly can move EFFECTIVELY with 1/2 or less propulsion available. With a OVERLAND TRUCK in the muck - 1/2 power might not be enough - so - useless
[Ask the guys WITH trucks on here - I think ENG made a point to that end just a post ago or so...]

- Aviation: REAL redundancy just about appears now - at least with helicopters (until recently many twin-helos NEEDED both engines for power, if one failed, the other just gave you a little more wiggle time to deal with the emergency) - in big plane aviation you have a longstanding trend to less units, but bigger ones - The Airbus A340 has to go, because it cannot compete with its TWIN-only brothers.
Now relegated to EXTREME long over-water-leg flights. And sooner than later regulations will eliminate the mandatory "more than TWO" for these legs too.

- Personally I would rather concentrate on managing the one big unknown you cannot predict: Fuel QUALITY available!
That goes way beyond just filtering the fuel, but actually having a means to test fuel for properties.

I remember reading about a case specifically about South Africa - loads of Land-Rover diesel engine warranty claims - finally traced to an unobserved "cooking error" at the refinery - missing the specified lubricants, specifically needed by the injection pumps.
Once the word got out - 2-stroke oil mixed in at 200ppm solved the day until the bad stock was used up.
Seems Land-Rovers were most susceptible to the problem.
[Similar things were reported by US-personnel during Desert-Storm, once the Humvee drivers got pallets of 2-stroke marine-outboard oil delivered, often of their own initiative!! ...things kept going again]

Also - different countries different Diesels - some manufacturers refuse to import certain Diesel cars/trucks to the US because of the bad Diesel quality.
If they make their engines run safely, they cannot meet emissions requirements anymore...

So, if you would like to deal with making things save from the powerplant side - I suggest to invest in your own little fuel lab and a good supply of 2-stroke oil.....(now, I don't know yet how that goes with the latest CR-systems...)



'nough said!

...now about those slide-outs....:coffee:

thjakits:cool:
 

optimusprime

Proffessional daydreamer.
Hi all!

...damn! STILL no time to get to the Slide-outs!

(Camo - ....DO YOU have a Camo-thread? One where you show/introduce/detail your ride? Would love to see that one!)

Also, a specific question: Did you ever drive a big rig before you built your's? Commercially or Military or??
[Not implying anything, just curious - to hopefully get my bearings from where you come to your conclusions and suggestions....]

I still believe your power recommendations are over the top - besides that lot's of power is never dull!!

I remember my first excursions onto the European trucking routs was with a very early Volvo F12 Globetrotter, a rather old and run-out specimen, 2-axle truck with a 3-axle fully dually wheeled trailer (that's 12 tires on the trailer alone - of which 4 blew up on my very first trip up north! ....and another one on the truck!) - that rig had nominally 360hp, I don't know how many of these where actually still alive.
BUT even overloaded to 42-tons (DON'T tell anyone!!) I managed just fine to get through the Alps and hills of Europe - so with YOUR engine 290hp - Bio should be just fine all the way up to 20 ton's.

Remember, it is NOT easy to use little fuel with a big engine - that requires quite a bit of thinking, discipline and even training to achieve.....!

I CERTAINLY see the advantage of a 6x6 over a 4x4 going "seriously bad roads" or even off-road - no question there - it just does not match with the 90% mostly highway and 10% dirt-road, never off-road requirements/duty list for the Terraliner (....in my opinion).


Hydro-drive: Renault takes it to 40km/h - would that be enough for dunes? (I have NO idea about driving in dunes...)

In the Terraliner application, one might get even a little more lee-way towards speed as the hubs are probably all the same and built for the HEAVY-DUTY rigs.
As the size will fit the Terraliner suspension though, it will never get to the same power requirements - lighter loads, probably could tolerate higher speeds - 45/50kmh??

Otherwise - Terraliner better stay out of dunes!!

"A little more innovative is to adapt on top of this solution the Bosch Hybrid recuperation in the coupling and take a smaller
engine compensated with the 48V e-engine alternator for the boost.
Further the rear axle on all electrical hybrid energy could be a good solution because 90% of the time in 6x2 is good enough."


Agree - ....as suggested/discussed before...



ENG:

Quite a revelation that the Germans (..of all) would leave out the locker from the front-axles!! Doesn't make any sense at all....

Hell, that shouldn't even be an option to leave that locker out!!


Optimus:

It seems you are still in the middle of the commercial truck world!! I wonder, are your DAFs 8x8 or 8x4??
The first time I read about the MAN-hydrodrive it was a report from an Austrian operator that needed the 8x8s just to get in and out of gravel pits and construction sites - on the road it was just added drag and ballast. They changed to tractor trailer configuration with front-wheel hydros and later to trailer-hydros too. Efficiency over the 8x8s went up by over 18% or so? (I think....)
[Obviously they didn't change all at once, so they had DIRECT comparison available]

So, in the end it depends on the local needs too.

Torque - I know what you mean and have a 1st hand experience from the other end of the scale:
I had a Toyota 4Runner with a 3-liter turbo Diesel - I could roll on just about everywhere just with the clutch and NO accelerator.
After an unfortunate end to the 4Runner's life I replaced it with a VW-Amarok, despite having only a 2-liter engine, ALL the numbers LOOK better than the Toyota, hp, torque (and the respective rpm at which I get that). Still - it is about impossible to roll on without some riding the clutch and some accelerator.
A tuning chip helped a little, but still nowhere near the old 3-liter.
Engine braking is another thing - Letting the Toyota rev a little it would hold quite well downhill.
The VW has absolutely NO idea what engine braking means, it never heard off it and just doesn't do it!!
Though it uses 30% less fuel :) !!

Sorry for your driver's, they will just have to stir the trans and rev the engine!!
At the end, power is power, it all depends on how you transmit it to the wheels....
[The issue really being: WHAT are you used too? The anecdote above with the old Globetrotter - to go through the mountains I just had to use the "upper edge" of the powerband - upper end of the yellow arch! Compared to the 500hp from the Magnum later on - from the middle of the green arch to the upper third of the green arch - 1/2 split down and up we go on the same hill.....]

Optimus, I would like to be able to convince you, but I am too far of the track - where I am now, there is still 50's tech trucks around, slowly the Europeans show up though (Panama was a US enclave in this respect - South America though is a Volvo hot-bed, followed by Scania and then the rest....).
The last time I drove a truck was about 20 years ago - a 400hp MAN long-haul. However I did experience the change from open trucks to enforced speed-limit and the change of technique to tackle up-hills at max speed! Still was messing around with Tacho-discs and trying to fool the cops (I was lucky to have had a friend with a license but not actively driving!! Again, DON't tell anyone!!)

ENG:

Your friend was lucky to get the lift for a "few thousand" - probably a little side-kick for the pilots of the IL-76!! ;)
On the other hand cheap change compared to the money spent waiting out for a few month!!

When it comes to transport heavy stuff by air, Russians are King!!

For a on the spot placement, the MI-26 helo will take 20-tons quite a distance (25 tons on very short hops), but at 16-25k$/hr (...depending where you are and where you want to go) + ferry and logistics costs, you better have a deep pocket for the privilege!
BUT it IS possible!! Airplane is cheaper, if runways are available and can take quite a bit more weight - up to 250 tons for the A-225.
For less ambitious moves you have a whole selection between various Antonov and Ilyushin products! :)

[Russians ROCK!!]


thjakits:cool:


...slide-outs - I PROMISE, eventually I get to it!

Hi
Yes i probably am stuck in 'commercial' truck world!
Our trucks are 8x4's,we also have 6x4's.

The problem/issue with all these alternative systems boils down to money.
I do agree with you that manufacturers will test their systems by 'donating' a vehicle to a fleet operator, but i still stand by my thinking that until an operator orders a couple of dozen vehicles,shows the world how good they are,and other hauliers start buying them,then prices will come down,improvements made etc.
No one would want to be the first, if you see what i mean.

I've been in the transport industry for the last 15 yrs, i have a uk class2 hgv licence, i'm starting to think the Biotect should ditch the idea of a commercial truck chassis,and design a spaceframe type structure around whatever propulsion system eventually gets chosen.



Now about those slideouts ...........
 

thjakits

Adventurer
Yeah!! Those slide-outs - ....later!!

"....i'm starting to think the Biotect should ditch the idea of a commercial truck chassis,and design a spaceframe type structure [...talking slide-outs, I think space-frame would be better than monocoque..] around whatever propulsion system eventually gets chosen."

I think so too - even using off the shelf parts, Terraliner can be made a LOT more innovative starting with a clean sheet and NOT depending on any given chassis and then having to modify that one!! E.g. build that space-frame as stiff/rigid as you want - add Mercedes (Unimog) portal axles [no matter if the Unimog is designed as a flex-frame, the axles are pretty stiff!!] and you are ready to connect the e-motors Haf-E posted earlier!!



thjakits:cool:
 

campo

Adventurer
I also think the Oshkosh and the Wrightspeed are interesting data points - although, as you pointed out, the performance claims should be treated as suspect.

The interesting part to me is the design of the Oshkosh HEMTT where they use one motor per axle - which is a simple solution to provide all wheel drive. There are several motors out there which are offered with a direct connection for a U-joint and driveshaft - and with three of them (one a 6x6) you should have enough power for hills and passing etc. The axles can include portal boxes and a differential lock - allowing better gearing match (such as with Unimog axles - 7.5 gear ratio) and allowing all of the motor's power to be delivered to one wheel when in a split traction situation. The motors could be frame mounted up high - no transfer case or transmissions required - all "off the shelf" components...

showcase1.jpg


showcase2.jpg


The wrightspeed design is interesting as having a 4 speed tranny does allow keeping the motor at a better power point and improves regenerative braking - which is valuable for a delivery vehicle but not necessarily for a overland type application. The additional expense and complexity of the multiple gearboxes and the associated special controllers to allow shifting probably isn't justified - using three motors (one per axle on a 6x6) is just much simpler and allows better redundancy / modularity - sort of the V8 approach - no replacement for displacement - but in this case more amps of motor...

I'd also go with a more typical diesel generator - while a microturbine is cool - I would want something I could at least troubleshoot myself... probably a pair of them actually...

Great information HAF !

But I tought that we prefer NOT to use ridgit axles on the terraliner but independant suspension and transmission.
In that case the transmission system like on the wrightspeed version "the circuit" could match.
If the independant suspension only on the 4 outer wheels it can be in combination with the central axel ridgit on the diesel engine.
I do agree that a diesel is less riscky than a turbine.
To converse a 6x2 like that into a 6x6 is quite possible i suppose.
 
Last edited:

thjakits

Adventurer
Alright!

Bio - here are my thoughts on slide-outs and pop-ups! (...you asked for it!)


Disclaimer: The following are MY SUBJECTIVE opinions - I have NO real-world experience with Slide-Outs at all!!

However, at the present stage of my Skoolie-Conversion-Plans/Dreams - this is what I would do, if I could get to it right now!


A] There is a few sites I will refer to:

http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/expedition-vehicles/933305-f-700-4x4-camper.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYDBwWwrEFY

http://www.oldboyrecords.com/thebus/

http://lemonheadpress.com/bus-conversions/


B] A few words to the Huge Windows first: I know you are dead-set for it - just some considerations:

B1] On the Burstner "Panorama" - brochure I cannot find ANY means to shadow my face from the sun or other blinding light! Not to say they don't have actual blinds, just can't see them, but if you are thinking about flashy transparency changing show windows, think again - IF this is an option it better be available on short notice, like "painting" your hand over the window (some camera or sensor would read the movement and shadow the according areas of the windscreen)....
Other than that make sure you have some means to pull a REAL shadow down like the red college bus in post #84 of the above "Pirate" link - about 1/2 way down! You do NOT want to have to drive into a setting sun for any amount of time passing 30 seconds! You don't believe it - rent a car and try it!

C] You listed a whole bunch of Slide-out manufactures - well, I am sorry, NO IDEA! I had a look at a few component providers (US) and was either not very impressed or somewhat shocked at the prices (I am from the DIY camp....so not really a reference for a serial production). In any case if you already build a new concept truck - and I would suggest/hope you eventually will end up with a new Space-frame design, you might as well design your own slide-outs, really not too hard to do.

What may be hard is, not to OVER-design them!

D] Pop-ups:

You mentioned interest in possibly incorporating solid pop-ups as a few Expedition builders are doing lately.
Personally I think - if you go to 3.95m max hight from the start - you won't really need a pop-up.
If you DO the space frame design - you will also be able ot lower the interior floor a lot compared to put only put a box on top of a existing chassis.
However - you may want 1 or 2 partial flip-ups, like the Super-Rig in post #746 "Pirate"-link.

In any case - I'd rather incorporate a "optional" pop-up like the Wothahellizat bedroom - for climates that can accommodate it....

E] The Unimog Swing-outs: Well, if you go through the trouble of making a part of the side-walls movable, you might as well do it right! The way these swing-outs are done, they are giving 1/2 the possible space gain away.... [Frankly - I don't like this particular Unimog set-up at all, to me it feels like a sterile OP! ...but whatever fits the owner I say!]

F] Looking at various systems - at this time I am between a rack and pinion arrangement (see basic idea in the "Oldboy Records" - link) and a Lead Screw and Nut Drive (threaded rod) - both electrically driven, both with a simple manual disengage (slip joint clutch) for manual over-ride either with a turn-handle (like in a jack-screw-drive car-jack) or a ratchet or a cordless electric drill.... - here you got 2x redundancy!! (DON'T want to get caught with slides stuck out!!)

F1] "Oldboy"-Link - have a look through the build pics - the slide-outs mechanics look rather crude, but I think in the pics they are just mocked up. Actually the whole bus is a little ....... "rough", but hey! The guy doesn't seem to be a professional metal or wood worker and still, he made himself a Skoolie-Conversion with a raised roof and 4 slide-outs and is rolling! I am still dreaming, ...so I better shut up!
You get the idea about HOW his slide-outs work, .....and they are fast!! SECONDS! Watch the youtube-link!!
You can also see, that he uses a raised floor - keeping fresh-water INSIDE the heated area and also creating the room for the slide-out mechanics.
In the pics and video you see the slide-outs with an elevated floor - in the final bus they are level with the central floor.

G] "Pirate"-Link: Sample for part of "my" slide-out construction plan...
Well, hopefully you have the time to at least flip through the whole thread quickly!!

"Lemonhead"-Link: This fellow is doing an excellent Skoolie conversion, has great skills and good finish on his work, despite missing proper tools for heavy work, excellent corrosion proofing and a perfect roof raise. He is copying the system from the "Pirate"-build and adds a little detail....[side rollers to keep inner slide-tube centered]


G1] My personal opinion to the "Pirate"-build: MASSIVELY overbuilt - all heavy-duty - Canada Lumberjack Style!! Like it or not.
On the other hand, he might be right on massively over-built: Have a look at his signature!!
The guy obviously has his own shop and has EXCELLENT skills for anything and all he builds! He has the perfect tools and lots of them and DEFINITELY knows how to weld properly!!

His build is not exactly what I would want - but from a technical/quality/ruggedness point of view it does not get much better!

Also - the whole concept does not fit your "fully integrated and rigid frame" requirement - see his box-frame join - post #10

G2] post #1, #5, and following:

You get an excellent idea what a Square-tube Space Frame looks like! Personally I would probably put in at least one triangulation on each side, but it is obviously sturdy as it is! [I am just a sucker for triangulation! Bio - I don't know if this is up your alley, probably more like your engineering friends' - But in basic Heavy Vehicle Construction I run by a few simple construction "rules":

- Triangulate everything possible!
- Try to use Tension and Compression - Avoid Torsion and Bending (except where specifically used on purpose - e.g. torsion springs)
- Welds are perfect for about everything - still I try to use welds to just "hold pieces in place" if possible and not to transmit forces - e.g. put a beam on TOP of a vertical member instead of welding it LATERALLY to it. If you have professional weldors and welders not really a problem, but might as well....

G3] As you can see with a Space Frame - even for serial production - there will be mostly one by one production with a LOT of hand fabrication - same as monocoque....
It doesn't really matter if you go FULL Space Frame Box/Chassis or just a Box on a frame - the box will likely be built like a Space Frame as in the pirate link.

G4] Now have a look at it from a "ease of manufacture" point of view - ALL STRAIGHT lines!! Relatively easy to build!
Make this fancy two-dimensional curves and it starts to get expensive fast! Make it compound curves and it becomes outright crazy expensive!
It is also easier to built a sturdy boxy box than a sturdy curvy box, ESPECIALLY considering that you want to have huge voids in the box-structure - where the big windows go.....

G5]
- post #27 you can see the big hole where his slide-out goes!
- post 49 dramatically demonstrates the difference between a huge windshield and a "proper" one! Keep in mind the Terraliner will go the same places where the truck goes - gravel roads, fire roads, logging roads and general dirt track roads.....
- post 132 sample of the very best motivation one can have!! :)
- post 156 - slide-out construction begins!
- 166 - more details!!
- 179 - more details
- 182 - slide-out box! Note: Same sturdy space frame as the big box! Beautiful welds!
- 228 - lead screw details
- 229 - installed - quote from the text at the bottom: "Everything works very good, you can deploy and retract the slide with 2 fingers on a wheel wrench, the lug size on the truck is the same size as the nut that is on the slide, ...." - Indicates, that this thing needs very little effort to move!!
- 261 - installed and box seals! [Though I would use Bios idea too - inflatable seals for tight fit!]
- 287 - sample for SERIOUS rear bumper
- 311 - finished box moving out.....
- 329 - oil field bus conversions
- 384 - SERIOUS front bumper with winch [ He has a 15k lb winch in there - in my book not enough - you really want to get to about twice as much as your estimated GVW...]
- 397 - Fold down bull bar!!
- 479 - Fancy tool - MAG DRILL! Also, frame chassis mount
- 592 - If you decide on a trailer for the toys - WATCH out for the corners!! Especially if the Terraliner articulates going up a steep incline and the trailer is still on the flats... - you want to get a seriously long tongue on the trailer....
- 608 - tow hook relocation! (see 592!)
- 658 - It seems he didn't like the air suspension on the first rig [honestly - it was not exactly the best set-up when it comes to Overland and air] - Definitely NOT integrated - box and driver cabin separate no pass through.
- 693 - extendable tow hook
- 721 - the 1st rig changed a little!
- 746 - flip-up roof, slide-outs and trailer (...AND round nose and square boxes! DA...)


H] ALRIGHT - so, what would I do?

H1] Considering the proposed size of Terraliner I'd suggest 3 slide-outs, 2 on one side and 1 on the other, NO pop-up, but a fold out for extra air in tropical settings.....

H2] One item I NEVER saw addressed on any slide-out build I got my eyes on: Closed-position LOCKS!

I NEVER saw any mentioned in any detailed build-log, so I assume the builders consider no need for them.
The builder of the "Pirate"-Rig, probably gets away without locks as his is a rather small slide-out and his Lead Screw drive is certainly self-locking.

The "Oldboy"-Bus though ......I could imagine with some "pronounced" turning on a twisty road, all it takes something letting go on the garage-door drives and the slide-outs are goin' slid'n!!

On the Pirate-Rig the box sits most likely tightly in the box frame, but there is still no positive force transfer between the box the the slide-out structure.
On the bus even less so...
This is not acceptable for me.

"My" slide-outs will have locks in all 4 corners and depending on their final length also 1/2 way down the bottom and top frames - something like a angled lever pulling the box tightly to the frame and locking it in place - this way I can again establish complete integrity of the structural cage - as if there where no slide-outs! [Obvious use would be a electro-magnetic actuator in each position or a single one over push-pull tubes and corner-levers.....some way, that I can override by hand or with a hand-tool.

Now the trick with slide-outs is (for me) to build them so, that they:

a) Maximize the space - let them slide out as much as possible! Max width of your ride is 2.50m so I suppose you could do 1.50-1.80 for a one-side only slide. If you have 2 opposing slides - 1m each is about it, max! ...or is it - see below!

b) The interior is still usable when they are in the in-position!!
- Nothing worse, than a slide-out blocking access to the kitchen, you are stuck in traffic and can't get the slide out to get a coffee!
- ...or you dead tired, weather is miserable, but you HAVE to get out and slide by hand, because the e-motor is acting up - ....and it s bloody cold and drizzling - ..and unless the slide goes out you can't get to your bed-room or worse the JOHN!!

So - THAT'S where your can prove your innovative design genius!! Get it ALL in one Nice Big Package!!

b1) One possibility is (though never saw that, ....yet), to integrate a door (or two) in the for-aft sides of the slide(s), in such a manner, that they either let you get outside when the slides are out, or - let you pass into the slide from the inside, when the slides are in!! Might be a little cramped, with the boxes in, but as long as you can access everything - okay! Kitchen, Bathroom, Toilet, Bedroom.

b2) Another item I still need to explore is: to let two slides slide into each other in the closed position! Considerations b)+b1) become even more complex now!
But I seriously want to brain-storm possibilities here!
[There are a few military-containerized units, that nearly triple interior space this way. Obviously for transport any items inside the container have to be locked into the smaller box - not really practical for a Mobilhome - but maybe a less maximized version can be developed.
E.g. two-place dinette, expands into 4 or 6 place unit when out - opposite slide contains complete galley and partially drives into the dinette-box when in.
When both are out you have either a 2-place dinette and LOTS of floor space or extend the dinette into a seriously big table with still plenty of floor space left.
With both units in - you STILL have a 2-place dinette (or folded up) and a narrow passage past the galley, but STILL access to all galley features!

At the end - slide-outs are not really about space you MUST have, but what about space you WANT to have! Especially if your intention is to hang out for extended periods of time in one location.
Then, if you build them right, it can be done so, that ONE push of a button gives you "Crammed to Palace" in 30 seconds or less!!
Now if you STILL want a solid pop-up - you just have to pop-up before you slide out!
[However considering that you would want the slides at near interior height - the pop-up doesn't really give you that much extra-usable room, just another dimension of space - you still want to design it so, that you have FULL standing-up room with the pop-up down!
[Forget the solid full length pop-up!! Go for the Wothahellizat-tropical-roof fold-out bedroom!]

H3] Now - at the present time I favor the following layout for "my" boxes:

- Rugged frame on the main-body (remember, "my" boxes would presently go into a converted US-Schoolbus with a roof-raise maximized to 3.90 or 3.95m)
- 3-4 slide-outs
- Slide boxes same rugged construction as main-body frame, lots of triangulation.
- TWO extension slides that carry all the weight - similar construction to the Pirate-single slide tube, but smaller/lighter construction
- SINGLE center Lead screw with electric drive, manual back-up [This way I hope to achieve a shallower slide mechanism - the jack screw is between the slide-tubes, not on top....
- Cam-locks in all corners for in-position, if one long instead of two shorter slides, then additional cam-locks at 1/2 distance top and bottom.
- With proper installation practices you can build anything into the slides you want, though I think I would stick to the main body for at least the toilet.
- You mentioned inflatable seals - I had these in mind since the very beginning - no new tech here - Aviation uses these since ages to seal doors and hatches on pressurized fuselages - though may be new for mobil-home slide-outs! Would try to get big diameter tubes - need less pressure, resulting in less tube movement, and less wear. You only need to seal, not pressure-seal!!

- Be aware! The more slide-outs, the more underfloor space you use up for slide-out tubes - with 4 units you got 8 tubes and 4 Lead Screws!!
- I think the Austrians (Actionmobil) use a scissors-mechanism to support the box and hydraulics to actuate it all - ...I think...might be wrong....
- Obviously you want the insulation and ruggedness of the slide-boxes to match the rest of the frame-work, at the end they are supposed to be a structurally integral part when in and locked.
Actually - if properly designed/built the slide-outs can easily ADD additional stiffening and load carrying structure compared to no slides!!

From my point as a possible client for the Terraliner (...well, wishful thinking! I doubt I could ever afford that Rig!) - I would love SOLID slide-outs!!
Definitely worth the added weight - especially if you do 6 wheels anyway!!
[I believe things are getting better, but a mayor turn off is still problems with the slides because of flimsy construction and and faulty design...NOT because they are inherently troublesome]


......'nough!

thjakits :cool:

PS: If you care for, I can roughly outline "my" Skoolie-Conversion Dream/Plan - as I would intend to build to be able to go to similar places as I think Terraliner is intended to go! My Skoolie would be nowhere near as innovative as Terraliner, BUT this might give you another insight from a possible target-client point of view! Let me know....
[Now of course - there is this bloody thread on Expedition Portal about 6x6 and 8x8s and Chinese Railroads and what not!! ..... and these guys totally messed up my perfect Skoolie Conversion plan!! Damn!!:friday: ]
 

M.Bas

Adventurer
Here we go again - slide-outs next, promise Bio!
Now one question (that came up a few times through this thread, even from Bio himself):

WHY do you guys suggest a second "power-unit" for redundancy??

- No confidence in the new technology? (This part of technology is about as old as it gets!! Diesel-Generators are on the planet for about a thousand years now (...more or less?!) and with the PROPER and normal maintenance about as reliable as it gets! Same as with any and all regular truck diesels out there, regular fluid and filter-changes, timing belt on smaller units and ancillary-belts on all, etc... - other than that, give them CLEAN fuel and you are good.)

- Can you show me ONE application that has 2 power-units (road vehicles) for redundancy?
[Not sure, but the little I read on the matter, even in Antarctica vehicles don't have dual power-units, or do they?]

- Besides, that you would need 2 FULL-size units to be really redundant - you just bought a huge extra weight and complexity for a next to ZERO probability to occur. IF you decide on redundancy for the power-unit, will you also get redundancy for units that a way more likely to fail - wheel-hubs/drive-shafts/tires(you already carry 1-2, for your 6x6 you need 6 to be really redundant)/ ......and on it goes with components.
With a turbine you might get away concerning weight of the turbine part, but on the generator it will hit just as hard.

- In certain areas dual packs are warranted - boats, especially ocean going - weight is not that much of a factor and you certainly can move EFFECTIVELY with 1/2 or less propulsion available. With a OVERLAND TRUCK in the muck - 1/2 power might not be enough - so - useless
[Ask the guys WITH trucks on here - I think ENG made a point to that end just a post ago or so...]
Running 2 gensets is not just about redundancy.
If you are planning on making a diesel electric overland camper, which from an engineering point of view would be quite awesome :drool:, it might be worth checking into running 2 smaller gensets instead of 1 bigger genset because of fuel efficiency. If you don't need full power cruising over the tarmac or some easy gravel road, as stated in an earlier post, it's usually much more fuel efficient to run 1 of the smaller gensets at max efficiency than it is running a bigger genset at similar power output.

And for the redundancy part, if you want to be fully redundant you need 2 campers ;)
 

thjakits

Adventurer
Hey M.Bas,

We are talking of the same principal - efficiency - but have 2 contrary lines of thought.
As discussed before - 500-600hp engines in regular 38/40 ton longhaul rigs. It seems to me that efficiency of the higher power engines now DOES reach LOW enough in the powerband to make sense - in other words you get ypur cake and can eat it too!
Get the big power when you need it but also run the same or better efficiency at the "roll along level"
At the 38/40 ton level it is 500-600 and 185 hp
At the Terraliner level I believe we don't need more that 350 and 60-80 (??)?
[At the present Mobilehome level we have 250-350 driving unit and a what (?) 12KW Generator set (?) - certainly hard to run the big diesel efficiently at 12 kw (considering that you mostly don't use the 12 but a lot less) - never mind that most or all mobilhomes DON'T have a 12kw generator atached to the big engine]

However we are talking inovative serial hybrid here!
Although you will not go anywhere decently far on batteries alone - you still will have a rather huge pack!! At least enough to last for 12-18 hrs full house camping /engine off ops - a battery pack of this size (and counting on the fast charge-possibility of the mentioned carbon-carbon technology) should be able to be charged at 50-80 kw levels - right where your lower power efficiency band of the main engine sits!!
I think on a road vehicle engine redundsncy for efficiency reasons don't calculate (yet) - as mentioned before the power levels are coming down towards that end, but the effective gains also get smaller as the weights involved become smaller as well.
It mames sense for a big boat where the added weight doesn't matter much and different power needs spread over a wider range.
At the the Terraliner/Expedition Vehicle level it just doesn't make sense yet (maybe never).
With a hybrid - I think it would be better to get the battery size to a level where you always can use the big engine in a efficient manner - max power or min power, any less use the battery until they are low enough to charge them again at the low power level.

I hope I totally confused everyone now!!

Camo:
You would like to see independent suspension on the Terraliner.

I wonder if a well suspended live axle wouldn't be better and simpler... AND certainly with better overall ground-clearance (I suppose portal axles would be used) than Independent.
What kind did you think off: double wishbone - lateral swing (Tatra/Pinzgauer/Haflinger) - longitudinal swing (older VW Bug) - ??
To me it seems - if Serial Hybrid will be used - it will end up HEMTT style for the main drive axle and hydro-hubs for the other wheels.

As ENG reported even 1000hp on a 4x4 KAT maybe JUST enough to do serious dune work.....

Considering "Bio's list": decidedly non-expedition style, ON-road only, 90% highway - he will have to make quite a few concessions, that include (no dunes or other extreme power and/or AWD high speed operations)

Even if a separate e-motor for each wheel is decided upon - I believe a De-Dion set-up would provide the advantages of the solid/live axle.
I believe - in Overland/Offroad Ops it is of advantage that wheel lifts the axle when going over an obstacle vs just liffting a "leg"(wheel) and keep the rest of the body hanging low.
Independent Suspension should certainly prove to be better in a "rough and fast" environment (DAKAR and such...!), then obstacles there are never that tall as you might encounter with the Terraliner on a Backroad - Dakar gets rough because of the high speeds .....

I don't have any rig at this size or experience ruining sophisticated racing rigs - so certainly stand to be corrected!
Just going by what common sense tries to tell me (ignoring it often enough!!!).....

Terraliner latest drive train suggestion:

- 300KW power-pack
- huge battery pack
- Single E-motor drive to live rear-axle (portal axle with mechanical locker)
- E-motor capable of handling 400KW for short periods - power difference dfWn from the huge battery pack
- Obviously that E-motor needs to have hybrid power recovery properties!
- All other axles "portal-style tube" with Hydro-hubs
- Air-suspension all around with a various active Operating modes.

Cheers all,

thjakits
 

dwh

Tail-End Charlie
I don't like the swingouts because when they are closed, the interior space is filled and unusable. With slideouts you can still get in and move around and use the space even if the slideouts are not deployed.
 

Haf-E

Expedition Leader
A few comments - just trying to keep the conversation moving forward...

Tatra/Pinzgauer/Haflingers all use swing arm suspension - the same as used on old VW bug/bus rear suspension. The older busses (split window / pre 1968) even had rear portal axles. Even Pinzgauer axles would not be up to the task of a terraliner type rig - I think you'd want something heavier and wider for maximum interior space.

A single 400 kW electric motor is huge! possible but huge! using three separate motors would make it a lot easier and would eliminate all the hydraulic piping, pumps, tanks, coolers etc. But I prefer electronics over hydraulic systems as I am an electrical engineer...

I suppose it would be possible to put a hydraulic motors powering two of the three axles and have one electric powered - this would keep all of the axles "standard" unimog (or other) parts for servicing.

Most large diesel generators are not suppose to be operated below 40% of their full power rating - but since they can be used to both charge batteries, run heating or cooling load as well as powering the electric motors, they would be reasonably loaded most the time. The challenge would be when "camping" as even with heat or cooling loads it probably would not be enough to keep the generator loaded to a 40% load level.

Using multiple generators to power large, but variable, loads is very common - in this case the generators do not require the additional complexity of parallel operation - the loads can be split between the two generators allowing them to be operated independently but at the same time.
 

thjakits

Adventurer
Hey Haf-E!

...see below!



A few comments - just trying to keep the conversation moving forward...

Tatra/Pinzgauer/Haflingers all use swing arm suspension - the same as used on old VW bug/bus rear suspension. The older busses (split window / pre 1968) even had rear portal axles. Even Pinzgauer axles would not be up to the task of a terraliner type rig - I think you'd want something heavier and wider for maximum interior space.
I only tried to sample the design - Tatra would be too heavy, Pinz to light - not a real fan of the resulting wheel movement anyway....



A single 400 kW electric motor is huge! possible but huge! using three separate motors would make it a lot easier and would eliminate all the hydraulic piping, pumps, tanks, coolers etc. But I prefer electronics over hydraulic systems as I am an electrical engineer...
Yes! Bigger than the power pack - the idea is that you can draw ADDITIONAL power from the battery pack for a short time. If you don't get out of a tight situation within a few minutes, you won't be driving out anyway - .....

I suppose it would be possible to put a hydraulic motors powering two of the three axles and have one electric powered - this would keep all of the axles "standard" unimog (or other) parts for servicing.
The idea is that for regular driving you only need one drive axle - make it electric powered, big enough to take all the available power and with a locker.
The hydraulic units are directly at the wheel-hubs pump on the diesel, like MB, see links and discussion earlier in the thread - the idea is also to loose ALL the necessary drive gear like additional e-motors, diffs, transfer case and transmission


Most large diesel generators are not suppose to be operated below 40% of their full power rating - but since they can be used to both charge batteries, run heating or cooling load as well as powering the electric motors, they would be reasonably loaded most the time. The challenge would be when "camping" as even with heat or cooling loads it probably would not be enough to keep the generator loaded to a 40% load level.
Right! However 3 smaller e-motors WILL be less efficient than 1 bigger unit! Supposedly the Terraliner will be a serial hybrid, implying it will have a rather large battery bank. DON'T run the generator-set at the camp site!! First use Solar-power to trickle/charge the batteries and then use the batteries for EVERYTHING!! Well, use Diesel for a separate heater if you have one - but the gen-set is not supposed to be used until the batteries are low enough to be charged at 40% load or better! The gen-set will start frequently (every 8-18 hrs, depending on bat-pack and use, to charge the pack in a short run - 15-60 mins...(?)

Using multiple generators to power large, but variable, loads is very common - in this case the generators do not require the additional complexity of parallel operation - the loads can be split between the two generators allowing them to be operated independently but at the same time.
Again - I doubt you can match the efficiencies of 2 smaller packs against a 1 bigger hybrid system. Furthermore in situations where you NEED all the power, but have 1/2 a system failed - now you STILL have a too small system to do much - A truck is not a boat or ship or Diesel-E-Locomotive.
The power out puts needed in a truck are really too small (even if you run 600hp+ monsters) to be efficiently met by multiple power-units.
On boats you DO have different redundancy requirements than on road vehicles...

Of course it is POSSIBLE on the road too - you can even use 3 or 4 or 6 small units for that matter or 30 or 40 Honda-10KW generator-sets to get the same output - but EFFICIENT it will be NOT!!
Like drug-runner speed boats with 6 or more outboard-units at the back - probably the cheapest and fastest way to get power on the tail of that boat and throw it away if the run succeeds, but beyond 3 units (for extra redundancy), it would be better to increase the unit-size for TWO of them and leave the third as an emergency slow-pusher - ....for more conventional and legal operations
:smiley_drive:

Cheers,

thjakits:cool:
 

egn

Adventurer
Just some fun! :)

Terraliner = TerraMax? :sombrero:


In general, the larger the engine, the higher the efficiency. Regular truck engines 300+ hp are now in the range of using 180 g diesel per kWh output. This is about 44 % efficiency. Smaller diesel engines in the range of 50 kW hardly reach 30 % efficiency, and very large diesel engines for power stations or container ships (+20 MW power) come into the range of 55 %.


Size really matters!

With a battery buffered serial hybrid there is no requirement to run the engine outside the best point. The battery will buffer excess power when running the engine in its sweet point.

BTW, the old Deutz in that KAT1 uses about 225 g/kWh. So in more than 30 years the fuel efficiency has improved only about 20 % at the cost of much higher complexity, putting emissions aside.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
185,929
Messages
2,879,874
Members
225,627
Latest member
Deleman
Top