jesusgatos
Explorer
Can you see that there's a wear-plate bolted to the frame right behind that shear-plate?
pivoting frames and mounting campers
- Thread starter lehel1
- Start date
westyss
Explorer
Ah, so that shows the side load preventer better, and with a rough calculation, shows about 1.5" of vertical travel available to the rear mounts from the spring compression,maybe less, and looking closer at those springs, I see two sets, an inner set and outer, cant tell how much travel is available on the inner set, but the next spring attach point further back really doesnt provide much vertical movement, I am sure these trucks frames dont twist as much as an Fg's frame will.
dzzz
™
Most systems dealing with frame torque don't allow for much movement. I believe the idea with springs is to allow for a little movement with increasing resistance. Allowing extensive movement can create undesirable point loads, and we've seen the broken FG frames that result from that issue.
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
Also the sub-frame provides reinforcement for the truck frame. With the springs, the truck frame can flex - but only so far. At the limit, the sub-frame helps to stiffen the truck frame.
Fine if the load is capable of resisting being twisted - if not then you need a torsion-free setup.
westyss
Explorer
Hmmm, your right about allowing some movement with the increase in resistance, but not allowing enough movement can lead to stress points somewhere, be it the truck frame or camper frame, the point loads come from other factors and not from allowing too much frame flex, the frame failures, being well documented, are from the mounting system not spreading out the load along the frame, but if only talking about that rig in the pics, well it seems to be right on, big beefy frames and boxes, but this thread is in the Fuso thread , and the Fuso frame is a different beast all together, in my opinion, the frame flex needs to be accomadated to a certain extent, and unless more info comes from those with years of experience in this Fuso box mounting game, the extent of the need for available movement is still a bit of trial and error.
dzzz
™
Or about 30 seconds under an ATW or other professionally built aussie FG offroader........
No doubt the FG has a light frame. It's hard to say if a novel one-off subframe has worked primarily due to good design, or the owners gentle use of the vehicle.
dhackney
Expedition Leader
The long-famous but rarely seen Ozzie camper payload suspension system. Earthcruiser uses four of these on each frame rail for a short wheelbase and five for a long wheelbase. Lance said the spring rates are different depending on the position as the frame twists differently at different spots.
These are the only attachments for the payload on the Fuso Canter/FG frame.
Note the vertical channels to locate the payload fore and aft.
Photos from EarthCruiser #2 at OvEx 2011.
[Edit: Photos removed at the request of EarthCruiser staff.]
These are the only attachments for the payload on the Fuso Canter/FG frame.
Note the vertical channels to locate the payload fore and aft.
Photos from EarthCruiser #2 at OvEx 2011.
[Edit: Photos removed at the request of EarthCruiser staff.]
jesusgatos
Explorer
Do all the mounts float or are the rear-most mounts bolted together like most of the other boxes with spring-mounts like those that I've seen?
that sucks they asked you to take them down, I knew I should have saved those pics.
What I recall is that the mounts allow the box/body to unload and pull away from the mounting base, restricted by the spring below. If there is no twisting however, do the two channels just sit inside of one another, i.e graded dirt road, highway, etc? Seems like this metal to metal contact would give a very harsh and potentially destructive ride compared to upper and lower springs, wood/plastic or rubber blocks/bushings between the body and frame or some other option...??
EC seems to build good stuff so I wont question their design too much, just thinking out loud.
What I recall is that the mounts allow the box/body to unload and pull away from the mounting base, restricted by the spring below. If there is no twisting however, do the two channels just sit inside of one another, i.e graded dirt road, highway, etc? Seems like this metal to metal contact would give a very harsh and potentially destructive ride compared to upper and lower springs, wood/plastic or rubber blocks/bushings between the body and frame or some other option...??
EC seems to build good stuff so I wont question their design too much, just thinking out loud.
jesusgatos
Explorer
They really asked you to remove them? What a joke! Like there's anything special about those mounts...
By the way, who edited my signature? I feel like I've been molested.
By the way, who edited my signature? I feel like I've been molested.
Dave Bennett
Adventurist
Great thread.
dhackney
Expedition Leader
I’m starting to get questions on this, so I think it would be good to get the circumstances documented.
I think the EarthCruiser folks are good people who are just trying to figure things out as they go along while building their company. I don’t want them or any other overlanding stakeholder to get unfairly maligned in this situation. I think we’d all like to see EarthCruiser succeed, even when they do things that don’t make a lot of sense to those of us out here.
RE: pulled photos of EarthCruiser payload mounts
1) The photos were taken in a public setting at OvEx 2011.
2) The vehicle is owned by a private owner, not EarthCruiser.
3) I asked permission of the vehicle's owner, Michael, before taking the photos.
4) One of the principals of EarthCruiser, either Lance Gillies or Michelle Boltz, was present for the shooting of all photos.
5) The mounts are not shrouded or protected from view in any way.
6) No protective covering or shielding of any type was removed in order to take the photos.
7) The mounts are publicly and freely viewable on the vehicle, which is operating in full public view and access.
8) Subsequent to me shooting the photos, Lance and I had an extended on-site discussion about the mounts.
9) At no time during any of our multiple discussions during OvEx 2011 did Lance express any desire to limit, in any way, the use or display of any of the photos I had taken of the mounts.
10) I was wearing an OJ hat and my OvEx presenter name tag in plain view at all times.
11) Upon meeting Lance at the truck, prior to shooting the photos, he recognized my name and knew who I was.
12) I did not and do not have any official or unofficial relationship with any vendors, including EarthCruiser.
13) We do not currently and have never accepted any sponsorship or free use, cash or product, from any vendor, including EarthCruiser.
14) I was not and am not working in any capacity or any form for OvEx, OJ or ExPo.
So, there was no “freedom of the press” issues, there were no “hidden secret” issues and there were and are no conflict of interest or hidden agenda issues.
Regarding the mounts themselves:
During our conversation about the mounts, Lance Gillies told me:
1) The mounts were developed in the U.S. decades ago to mount liquid transport tanks (the movement allowed by the mounts prevented empty tanks from splitting).
2) There is no patent protection on the mounts or their design.
3) This type of mount is in wide use in the U.S. and Australia for a variety of field service, tanks and other types of payloads.
4) That EarthCruiser did not invent this mount.
So, between displaying the mount unconcealed in a public place and no IP claims or protected status, there were and are no “trade secret” or other intellectual property (IP) issues.
As to those asking where EarthCruiser obtained the design for the mounts for use with an overland expedition vehicle, I will leave that for others to address or for you to discover here on the forum.
Regarding the request to pull the shots while they had a shot on their own web site, etc.:
Building a company is a stressful and often fearful experience. Young companies often don't understand factors such as "differentiation" and "barrier to entry" and how to invest their time and energy into what really matters, such as meeting the needs of their customers, rather than down various rat holes, such as worrying about imagined competition.
Lots of young companies are convinced they've got the ultimate secret sauce, even when it's actually well-known, prior-art or easily duplicated.
And all that is to say nothing of the mounts being about the last possible thing that will determine a customer purchase decision, especially at these price points.
For example, do you seriously think you'll ever say to your wife, "Even though this truck and camper box is exactly what you want to travel in, we can't buy this overland expedition vehicle because their mounts use a vertical channel on their payload suspension spring pin instead of a different, but equally effective, way to isolate fore-aft movement." I'm betting you won't.
But, you're outside the fishbowl. You're a customer. Inside the company fishbowl, it's very easy to lose perspective.
When you are a young company, you make some bad decisions; that's just part of the experience. Sometimes those bad decisions have more to do with unwarranted fear than anything else.
Trying to stuff the genie of these mounts back into the bottle would be a good example of that.
Young companies that avoid unwarranted fears make better decisions and can maintain better perspective.
If you were a young company not encumbered by unwarranted fear, instead of chasing the genie you’d do something creative, impactful and buzz-inducing, such as naming the mounts the "RooFlex" payload suspension system and feature photos of them with an overlaid illustration of a grinning Kangaroo ("The No-Bounce Ride").
All the while, you would be encouraging and facilitating enthusiastic discussion of the RooFlex system's features and benefits among the nascent U.S. overlanding market's most ardent social media thought leaders, supporters and influencers (that would be you, ExPo reader). A select few of the ExPo community would become members of the elite RooFlex Rangers, an inner-circle company advisory council of hard-core overlanders.
Or not.
So, yes, this is, up to this point, definitely a great example of how not to do the community aspect of social media. The good news is EarthCruiser only needs to look as far as Roseann Hanson and Overland Expo to see a sterling example of how to execute social media. (In fact, I use Roseann as an example of outstanding social media execution to my MBA students and the startups I mentor.)
While many people here prefer to build their own vehicle, there are many advantages to a series-built vehicle, and that is certainly the only way to fulfill the overland expedition vehicle needs of a growing market. Consequently, it’s important to all of us that the vendors in this segment figure things out and are successful.
EarthCruiser may learn these lessons over time. I certainly hope they do. I’m rooting for their success and everyone I know in the segment is too, especially their market-savvy competitors. Everyone--customers, vendors, media and stakeholders--could all use a roaring success (and more consumer choices) among the overland expedition vehicle manufacturers in the U.S. overlanding market.
I think the EarthCruiser folks are good people who are just trying to figure things out as they go along while building their company. I don’t want them or any other overlanding stakeholder to get unfairly maligned in this situation. I think we’d all like to see EarthCruiser succeed, even when they do things that don’t make a lot of sense to those of us out here.
RE: pulled photos of EarthCruiser payload mounts
1) The photos were taken in a public setting at OvEx 2011.
2) The vehicle is owned by a private owner, not EarthCruiser.
3) I asked permission of the vehicle's owner, Michael, before taking the photos.
4) One of the principals of EarthCruiser, either Lance Gillies or Michelle Boltz, was present for the shooting of all photos.
5) The mounts are not shrouded or protected from view in any way.
6) No protective covering or shielding of any type was removed in order to take the photos.
7) The mounts are publicly and freely viewable on the vehicle, which is operating in full public view and access.
8) Subsequent to me shooting the photos, Lance and I had an extended on-site discussion about the mounts.
9) At no time during any of our multiple discussions during OvEx 2011 did Lance express any desire to limit, in any way, the use or display of any of the photos I had taken of the mounts.
10) I was wearing an OJ hat and my OvEx presenter name tag in plain view at all times.
11) Upon meeting Lance at the truck, prior to shooting the photos, he recognized my name and knew who I was.
12) I did not and do not have any official or unofficial relationship with any vendors, including EarthCruiser.
13) We do not currently and have never accepted any sponsorship or free use, cash or product, from any vendor, including EarthCruiser.
14) I was not and am not working in any capacity or any form for OvEx, OJ or ExPo.
So, there was no “freedom of the press” issues, there were no “hidden secret” issues and there were and are no conflict of interest or hidden agenda issues.
Regarding the mounts themselves:
During our conversation about the mounts, Lance Gillies told me:
1) The mounts were developed in the U.S. decades ago to mount liquid transport tanks (the movement allowed by the mounts prevented empty tanks from splitting).
2) There is no patent protection on the mounts or their design.
3) This type of mount is in wide use in the U.S. and Australia for a variety of field service, tanks and other types of payloads.
4) That EarthCruiser did not invent this mount.
So, between displaying the mount unconcealed in a public place and no IP claims or protected status, there were and are no “trade secret” or other intellectual property (IP) issues.
As to those asking where EarthCruiser obtained the design for the mounts for use with an overland expedition vehicle, I will leave that for others to address or for you to discover here on the forum.
Regarding the request to pull the shots while they had a shot on their own web site, etc.:
Building a company is a stressful and often fearful experience. Young companies often don't understand factors such as "differentiation" and "barrier to entry" and how to invest their time and energy into what really matters, such as meeting the needs of their customers, rather than down various rat holes, such as worrying about imagined competition.
Lots of young companies are convinced they've got the ultimate secret sauce, even when it's actually well-known, prior-art or easily duplicated.
And all that is to say nothing of the mounts being about the last possible thing that will determine a customer purchase decision, especially at these price points.
For example, do you seriously think you'll ever say to your wife, "Even though this truck and camper box is exactly what you want to travel in, we can't buy this overland expedition vehicle because their mounts use a vertical channel on their payload suspension spring pin instead of a different, but equally effective, way to isolate fore-aft movement." I'm betting you won't.
But, you're outside the fishbowl. You're a customer. Inside the company fishbowl, it's very easy to lose perspective.
When you are a young company, you make some bad decisions; that's just part of the experience. Sometimes those bad decisions have more to do with unwarranted fear than anything else.
Trying to stuff the genie of these mounts back into the bottle would be a good example of that.
Young companies that avoid unwarranted fears make better decisions and can maintain better perspective.
If you were a young company not encumbered by unwarranted fear, instead of chasing the genie you’d do something creative, impactful and buzz-inducing, such as naming the mounts the "RooFlex" payload suspension system and feature photos of them with an overlaid illustration of a grinning Kangaroo ("The No-Bounce Ride").
All the while, you would be encouraging and facilitating enthusiastic discussion of the RooFlex system's features and benefits among the nascent U.S. overlanding market's most ardent social media thought leaders, supporters and influencers (that would be you, ExPo reader). A select few of the ExPo community would become members of the elite RooFlex Rangers, an inner-circle company advisory council of hard-core overlanders.
Or not.
So, yes, this is, up to this point, definitely a great example of how not to do the community aspect of social media. The good news is EarthCruiser only needs to look as far as Roseann Hanson and Overland Expo to see a sterling example of how to execute social media. (In fact, I use Roseann as an example of outstanding social media execution to my MBA students and the startups I mentor.)
While many people here prefer to build their own vehicle, there are many advantages to a series-built vehicle, and that is certainly the only way to fulfill the overland expedition vehicle needs of a growing market. Consequently, it’s important to all of us that the vendors in this segment figure things out and are successful.
EarthCruiser may learn these lessons over time. I certainly hope they do. I’m rooting for their success and everyone I know in the segment is too, especially their market-savvy competitors. Everyone--customers, vendors, media and stakeholders--could all use a roaring success (and more consumer choices) among the overland expedition vehicle manufacturers in the U.S. overlanding market.