Off Road Class C Motorhome and Extended Tray
This is a local builder and their Off Road Class C Motorhome with a rear deck. Common on Caravans rare on Motorhomes, especially Off Road ones.
Forum Discussion
This discussion is getting like fellow who argued with me that the Airbus 380 would never fly. "look it is too big and the wings are tiny"
He did not know much about Aircraft design. PNichols has obviously very little idea of the design of Off Road vehicles
The HumVee was a failure as a true Off Road vehicle, it is being replaced. Its width is too wide for small tracks, it was too slow. No they were building a Convoy support vehicle with the Hummvee, but it was getting less and less to its design requirements.
The Itasca is a small Bus and totally unstable Off Road, because of its high COG. The Isuzu actually has a much lower COG, that is what I posted. Think of tbe Plane analysis.
This is the Plane analysis again, it looks funny and therefore it will not work.
Because they work a lot better than what you described a "wide and low" vehicle with a High COG would be a disaster.
He did not know much about Aircraft design. PNichols has obviously very little idea of the design of Off Road vehicles
PNichols wrote:
The real offroad engineering in the HumVee - being described here by the folks who know it - stands head and shoulders above the brute force methods of merely combining more and more steel with ever-larger tires. All these designs get you is high ground clearance at the expense of a higher than necessary center of gravity and (due to the narrowness of the tire track) a poor height-to-width lateral-stability geometry.
The HumVee was a failure as a true Off Road vehicle, it is being replaced. Its width is too wide for small tracks, it was too slow. No they were building a Convoy support vehicle with the Hummvee, but it was getting less and less to its design requirements.
PNichols wrote:
Note how tall (looking at the photo of it) and narrow (from the distance between the tires dimension, above) that very expensive expedtion RV is!
Finally ... to factually make my original point on comparative RV offroad lateral stability ....here's the wheelbase and (most importantly) track width of our modest little 24 foot Itasca built on Ford's ton-and-a-half E450 truck chassis:
E450 wheelbase = 158 inches (13 feet, 2 inches)
E450 front track width = 75 inches (6 feet, 3 inches)
E450 rear track width = 95 inches (7 feet, 11 inches
The Itasca is a small Bus and totally unstable Off Road, because of its high COG. The Isuzu actually has a much lower COG, that is what I posted. Think of tbe Plane analysis.
PNichols wrote:
... I stand by my position that many of them are too narrow versus their heights for the best safety on offroad surfaces that may also tip the vehicle into aggressive angles. I
This is the Plane analysis again, it looks funny and therefore it will not work.
PNichols wrote:
I will grant that their track narrowness does make travel with them in European cities easier, but why would wide-open Australia require unduly narrow RVs offroad in the outback? Wide and low is the name of the game
Because they work a lot better than what you described a "wide and low" vehicle with a High COG would be a disaster.
