Forum Discussion
- RobertRyanExplorer
DaPope wrote:
The HMMWV was a failure? Oh boy .....
Production numbers of the HMMWV are into the multiple hundreds of thousands and spans over 30 years in a boat load of configurations that are ALL off-road ready. That is a pretty ridiculous number of "failures" in current and active military service, in every major world military force in existence
They , primarily they are not that good on small tracks or running over mines. remember the Lambogihini oo2 was the inspiration. As a RV they were a failure. The Military Hummvv is being replaced ,testing on protoypes of the replacements continue In Light of this thread about a Class C Off Road Motorhome ,there has never been a
Hummvv Motorhome. - pnicholsExplorer II
RobertRyan wrote:
Pnichols I have driven a 41ft E450 and the "Winnebago" Now AVIDA esperance and your vehicle has an exceedingly high COG. Best thing you can do is find out why people use the Chassis's they do to build Expedition vehicles, they are Automotive engineers, it is not some style statement.
Your vehicle is an exceedingly poor "Off Pavement" vehicle and would be very dangerous if driven even sedately off pavement.I would go 4 X4 Sportsmobile if you want to do that.
Robert,
I'm an engineer, so ... please provide facts not opinions, if possible, that will raise my Itasca's COG relative to an expedition vehicle's. What would be best is if you would respond to my Itasca's mass-location list that I provided, item by item, comparing it to an actual expedition vehicle typical of those in your photos. You might be surprised as to where their designers wound up putting the heavy parts of the vehicle.
I know how to drive offroad (not rockcrawling, however) and I know what's required for extremes - I've done much of it since 1997 in the California outback and some in the High Sierras in a pretty much full-on Jeep with huge tires and about 16 forward gears. My father had over-the-top hunting vehicles and I was raised around them and other trucks.
My Itasca will not do extremes and I've never claimed that. However FWIW, assuming your photo can be taken at face value our Itasca would also do just fine in the Algerian desert if I could get the parts and gasoline for it there (which I couldn't). I'm curious, have you ever been on the Monument Valley's not-recommended-for-RVs road??
My Itasca will not go to a bunch of places offroad, but it will go to to a bunch places offroad, too. The key is to go slow and pick your track. Firefighters, other offroad emergency responders, forest rangers, oil field workers, and field scientists usually do not have the time to go slow so they need more raw steel around them to keep things together - but ultimately winding up with about the same COG location as that of our Itasca.
P.S. Of course our Itasca DOES NOT have slides to reduce the strength and integrity of it's wall structure. - DaHoseExplorerThe HMMWV was a failure? Oh boy .....
Production numbers of the HMMWV are into the multiple hundreds of thousands and spans over 30 years in a boat load of configurations that are ALL off-road ready. That is a pretty ridiculous number of "failures" in current and active military service, in every major world military force in existence.
Sounds to me like you just don't like HMMWV's, Robert. If that's the case, then good on ya. However, your OPINION is not supported by facts. Calling a HMMWV an off-road failure makes you look off yer rocker, mate. What are you possibly basing your opinion on?
Jose - RobertRyanExplorerPnichols I have driven a 41ft E450 and the "Winnebago" Now AVIDA esperance and your vehicle has an exceedingly high COG. Best thing you can do is find out why people use the Chassis's they do to build Expedition vehicles, they are Automotive engineers, it is not some style statement.
Your vehicle is an exceedingly poor "Off Pavement" vehicle and would be very dangerous if driven even sedately off pavement.I would go 4 X4 Sportsmobile if you want to do that. - pnicholsExplorer IIRobert,
Where did you get the idea that my Itasca doesn't have a low COG?? That's absolutely not the case.
I've been all over it, inside it, and under it.
Here's how it's organized and how we have it packed - just like, or better - than any rig in any of your photos no matter how much they might cost:
1) 55 gallon gas tank between the frame rails.
2) 40 gallon heated black tank between the frame rails.
3) 30 gallon heated grey tank between the frame rails.
4) 18 gallon propane tank right beside a frame rail.
5) Onan generator right beside a frame rail.
6) 6 gallon water heater right on the floor.
7) Refrigerator just above the floor
8) Oven just above the floor.
9) Auxillary generator right beside a frame rail.
10) Heavy tool box stored right beside a frame rail.
11) Heavy compressor stored right beside a frame rail.
12) Heavy hydraulic jack stored right beside a frame rail.
13) Auxillary gas tank stored right beside a frame rail.
14) Hardened steel tow chain stored right beside a frame rail.
15) Two Group 29/31 batteries mounted right beside a frame rail.
16) Five large leveling blocks stored right beside a frame rail.
17) Main converter mounted right on the floor.
18) Auxillary charger stored right beside a frame rail.
19) Auxillary water stored right on the floor.
20) Overhead cab bed with nothing stored on it except two lawn chairs, an aluminum picnic table, and bedding.
21) All heavy truck components from Ford are of course down low at, in between, or below the frame rails just like on any other truck or expedition vehicle is built.
22) Full size spare tire stored right between the frame rails.
Don't forget that the lateral stability of all the above for offroad use or in high highway sidewinds is further enhanced, in addition to it's wide track, by it's too-stiff shock absorbers, by it's front and rear sway bars, and by it's too-stiff springs coming from our coach that is too light for the springs that come on a ton-and-a-half truck.
I challenge you to present sound facts on how any expedition vehicle can, or would, or should, have heavy items any lower placed relative to their construction than on our Itasca. Granted an expedition vehicle has "heavier stuff" for a much larger overall weight, but their heavier COG cannot be winding up much lower at all - except for maybe some small contribution (percentage-wise) from their massive wheels, axles, and drive shafts.
Granted my Itasca is 11'3" high, but the bulk of it's mass is way done on or beside it's frame. I'm sure many of the expedition vehicles are even taller - but unfortunately - have a narrower track right along with their additional height.
P.S. Your Class C picture above is of one lower, longer, with less of a rear-egress angle, and one with much more wallowing down road driveability - than our perky, high spirited, high sitting, non-stock-tired, Class C. Winnebago doesn't even offer anything like it anymore in their line ... were are fortunate to have it. - RobertRyanExplorerPNichols This the type of vehicle you have, it is about Off Road as the Queen Mary.yes off pavement" that is about it.
- RobertRyanExplorer
DaHose wrote:
Now, I say a GREAT offroad RV would be built on a military spec HMMWV chassis. Imagine the ambulance version with a taller roof and extend it past the rear a bit with a rear kitchen/bathroom. Change out the full time 4WD for a selectable transfer case and you can have 2 wheel drive at RPM's that are reasonable for 65 MPH highway driving.
Same problem too wide a track for many bush areas. Humvee would be good in sandy areas. Actually the Lamborghini 002 would be great and awfully fast Off Road with the V12. - RobertRyanExplorer
PNichols wrote:
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:
The "Winnebago" I showed in the Video was 26ft Long, not an Off Road vehicle and the IVECO base has a lower COG than your Itasca - RobertRyanExplorerEvery small Community in Australia has these to fight Bushfires. No they are not wide and low do not have a high COG, unlike your Itasca. Now I mentioned the 380 have you flown in one or thought they were unsafe to fly in?
- RobertRyanExplorerThis 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 vehiclesPNichols 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.
About Motorhome Group
38,705 PostsLatest Activity: Jan 27, 2025