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

[dwh]

My dad called that a "necker ball" because when he was back in high school, he could drive with one hand, and have the other around his girlfriend so they could "neck" while driving.

The story he told was that he loved the necker ball - always had one on his vehicles. Until one day he made a left turn, and as the front tires started to come straight, the necker ball got caught in between the buttons on his shirt and as he tried to free it - his left turn just continued on until he ended up hitting a parked car on the wrong side of the street.



I imagine that would be somewhat more exciting if you did it in an 8x8...

 

[dwh]

And WHY does a future vehicle have a steering wheel anyway? I would think it would be fly-by-wire.

 

[Gatsma]

HEY! I KNOW! I KNOW! The wheel is there strictly for nostalgia's sake(seems like old times.... especially w/ that knob....)

 

[Amphibeast]

Holy crap that's a lot of stuff…..

I think my eyes & brain are both bleeding from all the info here. I have been away from the time suck of forums for a while but this one is very close to me. The RT Rover concept is as close as I get with mine. I actually own a 8x8 amphibious all aluminum air drop-able mopar military prototype from 1958. Last one of which 6 were originally built. I am keeping the vehicle semi true to what was engineered, which looks nothing like 1958 with tandem steering, ind suspension, low center mid engine mount etc….. Anyway, doing a complete rebuild with all the modern bells & whistles on top… I may have to dig deeper here in this forum as I thought I was about the only 8x8 guy on this portal, let alone amphibious…. I am currently trying to keep it under wraps as I am reeling in a few corporate sponsors and hopefully a $50K grant from Nat Geo…. It will most likely be unveiled at Overland 2015 in AZ. Not wanting to be a tease as to not post pics here (I'm already feeling the pressure) but we will see as the project progresses….. Kick *** thread once again!

 

[biotect]

Hi Amphibeast,

Welcome to the thread!

Here's some more stuff.....

Personally speaking, I'm not that interested in 8x8 expedition motorhomes. And if you look through the thread, you'll see that it tends to focus on 6x6 vehicles, like egn's “Blue Thunder” – see posts #245 and #247 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page25 , or post #305 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page31 (standard ExPo pagination):





I also tend to agree with thread participants who suggest that an 8x8 is simply too large for an expedition motorhome, for the reasons enumerated by thjakits on page 57, post # 570, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page57 .

So at one point I even considered removing "8x8" from the thread-title. Except that "6x6 or 8x8" signals a rough-ballpark range. It also clarifies what's being excluded from consideration – in this particular thread – namely smaller 4x4 vehicles.

Now even though the focus of this thread has been 6x6s, please feel free to post to your heart's content about 8x8s. And please feel free to post your own design ideas and thoughts for your 8x8, even if you can't post full pictures. But it would be great to see even just an old photograph of what your "8x8 amphibious all aluminum air drop-able mopar military prototype from 1958" once looked like, back in 1958......:ylsmoke:....Does your vehicle resemble any of the following Russian amphibious trucks? (found on http://www.unusuallocomotion.com/album/8x8-wheeled-rigid-vehicles-heavy/ ):






In short, you are clearly in sympathy with this thread, so your contributions are most welcome indeed!

Furthermore, given your strong inclination in favor of big expedition motorhomes, it would be interesting to hear your thoughts about the question of size, and the tradeoff between comfort versus geographic reach. Aside from egn, most participants who've addressed the question of size in this thread have taken the "smaller is better" position. So it would be interesting to hear a substantially different voice like yours: to hear from someone who not only likes the idea of a 6x6, but who himself owns an 8x8.... :Wow1:

In the next two sections are some of my musings about the question of expedition motorhome size, followed by a collection of quotes from the "smaller is better" perspective.


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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


1. Smaller is not Necessarily Better: Design Pluralism, and Multiple Expedition Motorhome Ideals


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


Again, a few well-meaning folks have appeared on the thread who seem to think it their moral duty to make a vehement case for “smaller is better”. I've had to remind them that the title of this thread includes specific mention of “6x6 or 8x8”, and that it does not mention "4x4". If only they had read the thread's title, they might have saved themselves considerable trouble…..:sombrero:

Furthermore, for me this project is mainly as a design exercise, a "concept expedition motorhome". So in a certain sense practical considerations are not so pressing, although they do still matter.

But those arguments are the easy way out. Underneath the size debate lie more substantial questions about "ideal motorhome" criteria, and how we prioritize them. Questions very much worth addressing.

To begin with, it bears repeating that I simply do not agree with those who think that egn's 6x6 “Blue Thunder” is too large. At least not for him. But the issue here is not merely a matter of personal preference. Sure, from a design point of view, smaller sizes of expedition motorhome hold no interest for me, personally. Smaller sizes are not as interesting to design, at least for me. But I also find it strange that some participants are so categorical and vehement regarding the question of size. I find it strange that they want to so strongly insist that any and all expedition motorhomes, for any and all intentions and purposes, and for any and all overlanders, should always be 4x4s, and never longer than 8 m.

In the world of yachting no equivalent "size vehemence" exists. In fact, bigger boats are usually preferred for Round-the-World sailing, because bigger boats typically handle rough weather and big waves better than small boats.

Furthermore, the world of yachting tends to celebrate "glam", not denigrate it. Big luxurious yachts are almost universally admired by all sailors, even if they themselves cannot afford a big boat. Here is one of my favorites, the Lethantia, and not just because she also carries a Capstone Microturbine to generate electrical power – see http://www.royalhuisman.com/en/yachtgallery2489.html , http://www.royalhuisman.com/en/video_Lethantia.html , http://www.superyachtworld.com/features/siegfried-steiner-interview-lethantia/ , and http://www.superyachttimes.com/editorial/57/article/id/9492 :








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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








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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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









Even though I will never be able to personally afford a yacht like Lethantia, I would not condemn anyone for owning her, or make vehement arguments about how "impractical" she is. Sure, many marinas find it difficult to accommodate boats longer than 25 m (the Lethantia is 43.95 m overall, or 144.2 feet). For instance, as near as I can tell Ancona is the only harbor between Venice and Bari on the eastern coastline of Italy that could berth a boat her size. But who needs a marina when you have Lethantia? Yachts her size are designed to be self-sufficient and completely autonomous for extended periods, so marinas and harbors are only necessary for occasional re-provisioning, repairs, and protection against severe storms. As for land-access, yachts her size will always carry "tenders", 20 - 30 foot runabouts. In the photographs above, Lethantia seems to carry two.

By way of contrast, the world of expedition motorhomes seems plagued by intense class-consciousness and glam-abhorence, with many arguing that smaller and uglier is not only better for practical reasons, but also for moral and political ones.

But the vehemence of "anti-size" advocates is not merely moral. They seem almost mathematically convinced of their position. This suggests that they must share some central core assumption, an assumption that makes their reasoning seem as obvious as 2 + 2 = 4, at least to them. As near as I can tell, their central core assumption is this: that geographic reach is the one and only criterion that should trump all others. And that if an expedition motorhome can't negotiate mud-tracks in the Congo, then it has no right to exist.

In response, it seems equally clear – at least to me – that different overlanders have different objectives. And that geographic reach is just just one criterion. egn, for instance, has no interest in Central Africa. So having a bigger motorhome that perhaps cannot travel the Congo is OK for him. egn is mostly interested in motorhoming through First-, Second-, and perhaps some Third-World countries, but not driving down mud tracks in the middle of an African Fourth-world country. Most of Eurasia is now Second World, including Russia and China, and that's certainly a great deal of territory to explore. For Blue Thunder's travels thus far, see http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/11614-MAN-6x6-camper , http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/20933867/srt/pa/pging/1/page/1.cfm , http://www.enfatec.de/index.php?id=54 , http://www.poi66.com/show_album.php?album=bt-kola-2007&allow_cookies=1 , http://www.poi66.com/show_album?album=bt-irland-2012 , http://www.poi66.com/show_album?album=bt-schweden-2011 , http://www.poi66.com/show_album.php?album=bt-baltic-2010 , http://www.poi66.com/show_album?album=bt-tuerkei-2008 , and http://www.poi66.com/show_album?album=bt-balkan-2013 .

In short, egn is willing to sacrifice geographic reach for comfort. And the greater camper space and comfort afforded by Blue Thunder suits egn , his wife, and his youngest daughter just fine -- see post #78 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...xpedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page8 , post #98 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page10 , posts #245 and #247 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page25 (all standard ExPo pagination), as well as http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/11614-MAN-6x6-camper , http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/20933867/srt/pa/pging/1/page/1.cfm , http://www.enfatec.de/index.php?id=54 , and http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.enfatec.de/index.php?id=54 . Note that many of these pages contain images of Blue Thunder helping recover much smaller vehicles....... Post #247 also has a video of the same.

So a number of times in the thread I've suggested that perhaps we should be thinking in terms of "Multiple Expedition Motorhome Ideals". I've suggested that different sizes and kinds of expedition motorhomes might exist to suit different needs, purposes, traveling styles, family sizes, desired geographic reach, "bad-road" versus true "off-road" capability, etc.

But this pluralism about expedition motorhome design seems difficult for some participants to accept. I wonder why.... any thoughts?

For extended discussions of "Multiple Expedition Motorhome Ideals", see post #80 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...xpedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page8 , post #95 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page10 , and post #133 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page14 .

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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


2. "Rightsizing" an Expedition Motorhome


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


It also seems that the "right" size of motorhome depends, in part, on one's off-road or bad-road driving skills and experience.

If I won the lottery tomorrow, for instance, I would not buy a large 6x6 motorhome for myself, at least not immediately. Rather, I'd first want to see if I could rent a large 6x6 motorhome similar in size to egn's “Blue Thunder”. I'd then want to travel around for a bit, to see if a big 6x6 proves practical for me, personally.

egn has argued repeatedly in this thread that “Blue Thunder” most definitely is practical, at least for him, his wife, and his younger daughter. But it's worth noting that as a young man egn was in the Bundesweher (the German Army), where he learned how to drive big MAN-KAT 8x8s. So it's possible that egn is far more expert at driving large, 6x6 motorhomes than most. Early in the thread egn mentioned that he and his Bundeswehr buddies did some crazy things with their MAN-KAT 8x8s – see post #78, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...xpedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page8 . And it's much easier to acquire direct, personal experience of the operational limits of large 8x8 MAN-KATs when the vehicles are not your own. When the Bundesweher actually wants you to push the equipment, take crazy risks, and simulate real combat conditions:


[video=youtube;KpdHJTsCiJ0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KpdHJTsCiJ0 [/video]
[video=youtube;hS8ZeoOlOn8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS8ZeoOlOn8&index=28&list=PLEAE9FCE044DFE4 96[/video]

For some more entertaining MAN-KAT videos, see the playlists at http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLhxUsuZyNwxwo44MTziHOuFzkJ2J0woyS , http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEAE9FCE044DFE496 , and http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL799F0451A4BB9BC3 .

Now if it turned out that travel in a 6x6 motorhome was not practical for me, personally, I would simply ditch the idea of travel by motorhome travel altogether. I still would not want to buy a smaller 4x4 motorhome for myself. Rather, I would abandon the idea of traveling around the world on land. I'd get a Gunboat 60 foot catamaran, and I would travel around the world by water instead – see post #409 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page41 , or post #537 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page54 :






It's easy for a married couple to travel the world in a 60 foot Gunboat without extra crew. Indeed, the Gunboat 60 was deliberately designed to make this possible. And the Gunboat 60 certainly has plenty of interior space.

Furthermore, I am an experienced open-ocean sailor with an RYA "Yachtmaster Offshore" Certificate of Competence – see http://www.rya.org.uk/coursestraining/exams/Pages/Yachtmasteroffshore.aspx . Grew up with boats, never get sea-sick no matter how big the swell, and I love sailing. Whereas I have no experience driving large 6x6 or 8x8 MAN-KATs. So given the possible size-limitations of expedition motorhomes, opting for a catamaran instead might make perfect sense, for me.... speaking hypothetically, of course.

Nonetheless, I am designing a large 6x6 RTW (Round the World) motorhome for my MFA thesis – and not a 60 foot catamaran – because as near as I can tell no professionally trained transportation designer has yet put their hand to the task of suggesting possible design improvements for such large expedition vehicles. And also because people like egn evidently do exist, people who have the driving skills and experience necessary such that a large, 6x6 motorhome will seem "the right size", for them.

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

CONTINUED IN NEXT POST
.

 

[biotect]

.
CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS POST

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


3. Some Arguments Against Large Expedition Motorhomes


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


So I was wondering: what would your arguments be, Amphibeast, in favor of your 8x8 expedition motorhome?

And just as importantly, what counterarguments would you advance against the criticisms of larger expedition motorhomes made by some thread participants?

Here are some choice quotes:

Last point on Euro accessibility eepwall:- our Mog camper is 9.5 tons, 3.9m high 7m long and there have been plenty of places we tried to get that we wouldn't fit. She has also taken us places other vehicles would struggle with though, and allowed us to stay for longer and in more comfort than something smaller. I would be loath to go bigger, in fact I'm looking at a medium length Sprinter as well (both this and my Mog are/will be a very long way from new though, I'm no Unicat purchaser ) so I can explore Europe more easily. I'm not trying to say there is no point going big or that you will always have problems, but I have no idea on Biotects background and wouldn't want him assuming big won't introduce difficulty. Hence my ideal vehicle, with pop outs and ups to create a lovely interior but with an absolute minimum exterior impact in every respect. And that will still be too big for plenty of places.

A lot of this thread is interesting in theory, but on a practical level the bigger 6x6 and 8x8 vehicles are just too big to use in true real world expedition conditions. The MaxiMog and the Kiravan are both examples of theoretically awesome vehicles that can't really go anywhere in practice due to size and weight. They are a great exercise in what a lot of money and great imagination can make but they are totally divorced from reality. Unicat (and the others) are happy to build you a totally incapable vehicle if that is what you want and you have the money.

While the MAN KAT and Tatra's are very capable for their size, they are non-the-less huge and heavy. Narrow bridges and roads, low overpasses, and roads/bridges that can't support much weight (most of the 3rd world) are going to stop larger vehicles from going very far off the beaten path. Basically you are limited to roads used by commercial vehicles which can be pretty extreme in places like Russia or Mongolia but you can't go much beyond that.

A 8x8 MAN KAT literally has a small army of support vehicles. They don't go anywhere solo in the army because if you get it seriously stuck (not that hard to do on soft ground or even in wet grass) then you are stuffed. All the great suspension travel and chassis design does little good when you are mired up to the axles in sticky mud. When your truck weights more than 15 tons the odds or finding a handy tree strong enough to pull out from are pretty slim.

Back when overland companies used to do London to Cape Town tours, the consensus with overland drivers was that anything bigger than a 5 ton 4x4 truck was too big and they had a strong financial incentive to go as big as possible. The Bedford MK, Mercedes 911, Unimog U1300L was considered the ideal size although they did occasionally go with bigger vehicles.

Some of the vehicles pictured on this thread are just too big to be of any practical use. There are good reasons why the Panthers are only used on paved runways big enough to land a 747. Some of the 6x6 could be useful if you really need a bigger vehicle but the 8x8's are pointless IMHO. Don't get me wrong, I love big MAN's, Zetros, Tatras and find this thread interesting, but as an overland/expedition vehicle, the actual physical size and weight are going to be your limiting factor, not the suspension design, body design or where the engine/cab is located.

Some of those vehicles are so big you can't even drive them on-road let alone off-road. The Action Mobil 8x8 needs special permission on some roads in Europe. Anything higher than 14' feet in the USA risks hitting low bridges even on major highways. A lot of smaller remote roads are limited to 10 or 15 tons. You can't turn them around on smaller roads and most campgrounds can't take them. Forget about going into cites or small villages. You can forget about small bridges, ferries, national parks, and overgrown tracks. In Africa, large vehicles get unloaded into smaller ones when it is time to do go to truly remote areas. Most places you can drive a MAN KAT 8x8 are almost by definition not remote. I know there are exceptions of people taking larger vehicles to remote areas but that is in despite of the vehicles' size not because of it. In the real world, big expedition vehicles struggle where most other off road vehicles have no problems, but of course they have more room. The question is how much do you want to sacrifice in terms of ability for size.

If you need that much room, why not just get two vehicles? Two Unimogs U1300L will go more places than any single 6x6 or 8x8 MAN, Zetros or Tatra could ever dream of going. With two Unimogs, you might even have a chance of pulling a 8x8 truck out of the mud

Originally Posted by unirover

While the MAN KAT and Tatra's are very capable for their size, they are non-the-less huge and heavy. Narrow bridges and roads, low overpasses, and roads/bridges that can't support much weight (most of the 3rd world) are going to stop larger vehicles from going very far off the beaten path. Basically you are limited to roads used by commercial vehicles which can be pretty extreme in places like Russia or Mongolia but you can't go much beyond that.

Have you ever been to Russia or Mongolia?

My experience and that of other people with large truck campers is totally different. There is plenty of space in both countries and the rest of the world for larger expedition campers. It all depends what kind of environment with what comfort you personally want to enjoy. Nobody with a large expedition camper has to go to the same places were someone with a small camper wants to go, and vice-versa. It is pretty useless to argue in the style mine is better is yours.

So let get us back to topic and just assume that there is a market for large expedition campers, whether they are useless in our personal opinion or not. Companies like Action Mobil, Unicat and a lot of others live not bad from selling such useless toys.

Don't get me wrong, I drive a Unimog and people who drive Land Rovers, Land Cruisers etc always tell me my vehicle is too big. When I drove Land Rovers people on motorcycles always told me my vehicle was too big. I totally agree with you that everybody has different priorities and if it works for you that is all that matters.

However, there is a point where a vehicle gets so big that it is really not an expedition vehicle anymore - it is more like a RV with big tires. Again, if that is what you want fine but I just wouldn't call it an expedition vehicle and to me the 8x8 drivetrain is sort of pointless if you can't practically use it. It's nothing personal and I'm not trying to judge anybody but you can not take these bigger 8x8 vehicles many places. I'm sorry but an 8x8 MAN is very limited in where it can really go.

If you are just talking about selling them, that is a whole different story. For that you just need good marketing, a demo vehicle to take to treffen, some photo shoots in the desert and a representative in Dubai, Moscow and Ulan Bator I was talking about actually using them not about selling them.

Originally Posted by Lynn:

I thought briefly about two trucks. Specifically for recovery advantages. However, besides more fuel, more shipping expenses, more carnet expenses, more insurance, more... my issue is mostly that our family of four would not enjoy traveling 'together' nearly as much if we were separated into two vehicles. I think a better bet would be to hook up with other families with similar size rigs.

However, I have zero expedition rigs, so bow to those with more experience.

egn, do you have a family of four? For some reason I thought the MAN cab only sat three?

I'd say once you get into the really big vehicles like some of the 8x8 on this thread, two U1300L use less fuel, are cheaper and easier to ship, insure and get a carnet. An 8x8 MAN is not going to fit in a container or on a flat rack so transporting it won't be cheap or easy. Two U1300L ambulances fit in a container.

Driving in two vehicles definitely takes away the “togetherness” and I doubt a family of four would need two Unimogs or an 8x8 vehicle. Where do you want to go and for how long? What do you need in terms of creature comforts as opposed to what you want? How remote or adventurous do you want to get?

Comfort almost always comes at the price of capability. For the most part, the bigger and heavier the vehicle, the less you can do with it in terms of access. For some people, comfort and security is a priority hence the big vehicles. For others accessibility is the priority hence motorcycles and short wheelbase Land Rovers. Most people fall somewhere in between. If you want to do things like explore the African bush or the Western USA then size is going to matter and you will have to prioritize. If you want to go to Russia you can probably get away with something bigger since they use commercial vehicles almost everywhere.

I've seen families of four in 4x4 VW Westy's who felt they had plenty of room and I know of many families who have no problems in Unimog Dokas and found them too big when the kids left the nest. Ironically most of the really huge vehicles I've encountered on the road or in treffen tend to just be couples. It all really depends on how much comfort you want but it will come at a price of where you can go.

More replies by egn and myself followed on page 10 – see http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page10 . Also see posts #132 and #133, where I exchanged some thoughts with mog, at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page14 .

There was also a later exchange with grizzlyj. Responding to my question regarding "percentages" of roads accessible to large trucks in Third World countries, grizzlyj wrote:

The vehicle accessibility thing I think is more of a yes or no rather than a % accessible. Forum posts saying Russian bridges are 3.5m, or African safari parks allow Landrover sized vehicles only, or some 4x4 tracks in Australia allow Landy sized stuff and bigger just won't fit. Something that I've posted before because it surprised me is our 3.9m camper couldn't go to Andorra from France, we would have to have driven all the way around it and down into Spain before coming back up. If your dream trip entails any of the few you can discover before you leave, Biotect's little truck will not be on the shopping list. I wonder how the orange Italian 6x6s would have got on in the mud if they were lightly loaded, 10 tons instead of ???

However, egn has stated repeatedly in the thread that in his experience, most European bridges are 4.00 m and not 3.5 m. And so Blue Thunder is 3.90 m high, as are many UniCats and ActionMobil vehicles:

The bridge height in Europe is 4 m and my truck is 3.90 m. Of course, the lower the better. But for long-term living you loose valuable storage space. We have kind of cellar with about 40 cm height and it contains a lot of room for supplies. You can save on height be removing the platform and lower the height above the wheels a bit.

So in my reply to grizzlyj, I simply posted maps of all the places that Blue Thunder has travelled, including most countries in Eastern Europe -- see post #305 at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...pedition-RV-w-Rigid-Torsion-Free-Frame/page31 .

There's also an interesting post in another thread ("High Altitude Heating"), where SG1 writes:

Hi,

I think all the setups you described are too complicated. If you are traveling in less developed countries for months or even years things will break. For your truck you may actually find a good mechanic. But you will not find anybody who knows anything about campers or rv's even with conventional systems let alone exotic technology. You have to be able to fix the problems with the technical equipment in the camping part of your setup yourself or you use widly available components you can easily replace. Lithium batteries and the necessary electronics are not yet widely available in Peru or Tibet. Conventional lead batteries are.

The simple things will defeat you. The biggest problem for example for our diesel engines was not the altitude. It was dirty fuel and the fact that we could not get cold weather diesel. Therefore the diesel had the consistency of honey after a cold night. Unless the diesel filters etc. were heated nothing would work until mid morning when it got warmer. Therefore DiploStrats proposal to use a small separate diesel tank in the warm inside of the cabin makes perfect sense.

I have a good friend who has traveled through South America for 5 years in his MAN truck. He has a diesel warm water heater with 2 pumps. He manually switches over to the low capacity pump when he gets above 2000 m. That's it and it works up to 4500m. He has to clean it occasionally when he got dirty diesel or it coked. Otherwise no problem.

For cooking he uses an induction stove and all his appliances are conventional 220 V household appliances he can replace in any supermarket. He has a bank of batteries (a lot of 2V lead acid cells) with about 1000 Ah at 24 V which he charges with a 2nd alternator and some solar panels. As a backup he has a 3000 Watt generator. To convert the 24 V to 220V AC he uses a 4000 Watt inverter. With a 12 to MAN you have the payload for such a setup. It is simple and uses widely available components. He designed it himself, he build it himself, he can fix it himself.

My truck has only 3500kg GVW and the batteries alone would kill my truck. But he left Africa quite frustrated after only a few months and went back to the Americas because he was not allowed into many parks or had to pay outrageous entrance fees because of his weight and size, while my truck would fit through anything a Toyota would fit.

Keep it simple that is my advice for overlanding.

Regards Stefan

For the "moral" or "political" case against traveling by large expedition motorhome in Third World countries, see the well written article in MagBaz travels at http://www.magbaztravels.com/content/view/1440/324/ . For further discussion here on ExPo, see the thread "The Ethics of Third World Travel by Motorhome", at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...e?highlight=ethic+third+world+travel+motorhom .

Finally, it's worth quoting the well-articulated comment that Thjakits just recently posted:

c) "Fully Integrated MAN or TATRA 6x6 or 8x8 Expedition RV" - I don't want to bust your whole idea/dream/exercise here, but I still want to address the common sense and real-life usability of the whole concept (Don't get me wrong, I love this kind of machine a lot, but does it really make sense at all?):

Somewhere in this thread Rob Gray's Wothahellizat was mentioned (or google it up!) - Definitely OLD style mechanical with excellent new-style/innovative living quarters! (Yes I know - lots of chassis twist and all!) As the machine is/was built - definitely capable of going about anywhere where it could fit.

Did Rob ever go to the very extreme end it was/is capable? No.

Somewhere in his chronicles he made the very important and serious point: If your ride (and in this case rolling home) is the ONLY ride you bring - you always will (...or at least SHOULD!) think twice before you risk going to a tough spot (despite the whole 4x4,6x6,8x8 or 10x10 prowess of your rig) and risk getting stuck!

With rigs this size -you still need serious man power for recovery and unless you take along your whole fire-department you might be stuck for good!
[Also - if you get stuck alone - WILL you have the surroundings provide your recovery points? All your winching gear is useless if you cannot reach that ONLY tree or rock 520.3 meters away....]

Remember, we are mainly talking about MILITARY vehicles that seem to be the basis for most of these rigs. MILITARY almost ALMOST never works alone!
They always have a recovery system nearby - mostly built on the same chassis! Trucks, tanks - check it out! Worst case - abandon the rig and hitch a ride with the rescue team!
Mostly NOT an option if you are stuck in the middle of nowhere - and possibly no one knowing where you are in the first place!

So - as Rob mostly (smartly) decided to do, DON'T go all the way, but hike and camp or get a smaller vehicle to play the shorter trips.

At the end - the most awesome capabilities of the Expedition Rig become useless, because risking to use them is risking to get stuck for real.

I am still writing a complete response to Thjakit's excellent, dense, idea-packed post. But thought I should repost this section, to see what you might say in response, Amphibeast, given your affinity for mega-sized expedition vehicles?
That was a great deal of text and argument, with comparatively few images to provide "visual relief." If you slogged through it, you are probably now blind, and your brain has snapped....:coffeedrink:... But thought I should collect much of the "anti-size" advocacy in one place, and launch these questions in your direction, because you are one of the few "pro-size" participants to appear on the thread (aside from myself and egn). So it would be great to hear your thoughts on the subject.

All best wishes,



Biotect.......

 

[optimusprime]

If I won the lottery jackpot,I'd be on my way to Unicat to order a truck right away.
No I might not be able to take it around Australia via the Canning stock route,or do the Telegraph Track with it,but it will get me round the county without having to stick the paved highways,which to my mind is better than seeing none of it at all.
I drive an HGV for a living,so the idea of a 'big' vehicle doesn't worry me.
Yes I could have a small 4x4 and tent or camper trailer, but if I have the means,why shouldn't I have more space and comfort for long periods of travel?

Every choice we make has its plus and minus sides.
You can only do what is right for you.

 

[Haf-E]

Found a youtube video with a couple of brief shots of the 8x8 in it and a few renderings of his ideas...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI5uGqNtZrc

Hi Amphibeast,

Now even though the focus of this thread has been 6x6s, please feel free to post to your heart's content about 8x8s. And please feel free to post your own design ideas and thoughts for your 8x8, even if you can't post full pictures. But it would be great to see even just an old photograph of what your "8x8 amphibious all aluminum air drop-able mopar military prototype from 1958" once looked like, back in 1958......:ylsmoke:....Does your vehicle resemble the following Russian 8x8?

 

[ScottReb]

I feel as though the larger vehicles get a bad rap. Its not like all the owners are people who try and run over little villages with their trucks. I think the vast majority of owners of larger vehicles travel for longer periods of time. They often have motorbikes as well, which allow them to get any places their trucks don't fit. Plus they "fit" in better on a motorbike with the locals than in a much smaller, socio economically challenged $50,000 LC/LR. I think we stereotype large rig owners as aloof or rich. I think there are plenty that fit that bill, but just as many running around in LC/LR and don't forget a $25,000 motorbike with another $10,000 in farkles that also fall under that category. People travel for many different reasons. If we really wanted to fit in we would be walking or at best riding a bicycle, since that is how the vast majority of people in third world countries travel. Lets not forget our shoes often cost more than they will earn in a year.

If you want to fit in or improve their lives find a NGO that is doing work locally. Be that building wells, schools or whatever. Get out and labor with the locals. Thats how to fit it.

 

[dwh]

I believe the 3.5m bridge idea mostly comes from Stephen Stewart, where he says:

"A lot of low bridges (particularly in ex-soviet countries?) seem to be at 3.5 metres. For this reason I would consider a height of 2.9 to 3.3 meters to be a good compromise."

Note he adds a question mark there concerning ex-soviet countries (hearsay?)...

http://xor.org.uk/silkroute/equipment/choosevan.htm


It's worth noting that he's been all over, so has no doubt seen a few low bridges in person. He hit one himself in Lima, Peru - sign said 3.7m, and his truck at 3.55m clipped its roof rack on the bridge.


I've played around with Mr. Stewart's 3.3m limit on paper, and it's very difficult to meet that criterion. With 4' tires, the floor of the cabin is going to be at around 5' (or more) - that doesn't leave a lot of vertical room to work with. One idea this lead me to was perhaps dropping the floor down between the frame rails in the center. That way, at least in the isle there would be ample headroom

 

[biotect]

.

I feel as though the larger vehicles get a bad rap. Its not like all the owners are people who try and run over little villages with their trucks. I think the vast majority of owners of larger vehicles travel for longer periods of time. They often have motorbikes as well, which allow them to get any places their trucks don't fit. Plus they "fit" in better on a motorbike with the locals than in a much smaller, socio economically challenged $50,000 LC/LR. I think we stereotype large rig owners as aloof or rich. I think there are plenty that fit that bill, but just as many running around in LC/LR and don't forget a $25,000 motorbike with another $10,000 in farkles that also fall under that category. People travel for many different reasons. If we really wanted to fit in we would be walking or at best riding a bicycle, since that is how the vast majority of people in third world countries travel. Lets not forget our shoes often cost more than they will earn in a year.

If you want to fit in or improve their lives find a NGO that is doing work locally. Be that building wells, schools or whatever. Get out and labor with the locals. Thats how to fit it.

Amen.

Terrific summary. Your post suggests that a certain kind of traveler is very socially and politically naive. They mistakenly imagine that if they travel the Third World by motorbike, sleep in a tent, and cultivate an unwashed "hippie" sort of lifestyle, then somehow they will be living more like the "natives" do. But just spend some time in Third World hippie watering holes like Goa or Koh Phangan, and the gap between the privileged Western druggies and the impoverished locals could not be more apparent. The hippies are not "going native" merely because they dress in local garb. Rather, they are still living parasitical, privileged, leisured lives in Third World countries where their Western savings seem to stretch on forever. And because the hippies have über-passports, they can come and go as they please. Whereas it's comparatively difficult to travel the globe on a Third-World passport, no matter how much money one has.

In short, from the point of view of an impoverished Third World family, all Westerners are rich and privileged. Including those who bend over backwards trying to mask their privilege, trying to "fit in". No pretend-slumming can erase this basic fact.

So who is actually the morally "better" and more politically conscientious traveller? The hippie on a motorbike who lives frugally, spends comparatively little, and does nothing substantial to help the locals? Or the "square", middle-aged German engineer and his wife traveling in a big UniCat, who spend generously, don't haggle much about prices, often stay in good hotels owned by locals, and who volunteer their time and expertise here and there, helping to fix the pump of a village well, or install a village solar array?

I got over the affected conceit of "going native" or "slumming it" after a severe case of chronic diarrhea brought on by a banana lassi in Kathmandu. Doctor Julie Parsonnet, a world-leading expert in infectious diseases at Stanford who handled my case, at one point said to me,

Look, there is nothing to be gained from going native. I've had field assistants who began feeling guilty after a few months, and so they went native, eating foods that they knew they shouldn't. They got sick, and soon became useless as assistants, and useless to the people they were supposed to help. Furthermore, it's simply a myth that people in Third-World countries become "immune" to the pathogens in their environment because of long exposure. They get sick all the time, from exactly the same things that make you and me sick. If they could control their diet and purify their water the way that you and I can, they would.

In fact, I always take a thermometor with me to measure the temperature of every meal that I have not cooked myself. And if the meal is not hot enough, I put on a big smile and ask them if they'd be willing to cook it a bit more. They're always happy to oblige.

See http://parsonnet.stanford.edu . In others words, even though Doctor Parsonnet subjects her meals to the thermometer test, she has probably done more to help poor people living in the Third World than any number of well-meaning but politically befuddled hippies.

ScottReb: have you read the thread, "The Ethics of Third World Travel by Motorhome", at http://www.expeditionportal.com/for...e?highlight=ethic+third+world+travel+motorhom? It would be great if you might also post your comment in that thread.

All best wishes,


Biotect