Off Road Class C Motorhome and Extended Tray

Formatting has gone bezerk.

PNichols wrote:
You seem to keep deflecting from my original point, but please keep in mind that my emphasis was that my tall, but plenty-low COG, U.S. made Winnebago E450 short Itasca Class C with it's almost 8 foot wide rear track has excellent lateral stability

It does not You do not go Off Road,I have mentioned how lacking in stability it is before.

You are welcome to respond in kind to my request for Australian/European/African offroad RV track width specifications - not offroad racing vehicles - but vehicles intended for living in

I have given you names of the Companies and email addresses. just look up the companies on the net, like everyone else.

engineering was to emphasize that the ultimate off road vehicle, including any expensive expedition vehicle intended for living in and going where there are no roads to speak of ... must be wide in relation to it's height due to the basic physics required for stability.
Seeing you do not go Off Road and you have never seen, been in, or asked the Companies the rationale of why they build them the vehicles like they do you are making a false assumption. Just like my 72yr old "I will never fly in Airplanes" as they are not safe"

The HumVee has an extreme width to height ratio and so cannot be
stood up in, hence it's not an "RV". BUT, it's suspension design could be used in a higher and longer expedition vehicle so as to better maintain ground clearance without having to resort to tires as tall

In a word no. Your obvious lack of experience of Going Off Road is obvious. Even someone who has never been would find something terribly wrong about the above Statement.
If you want specifications about RV's go to their makers website, not me.

Robert,

You still have not published track widths (you've provided only one so far) for a bunch of the tall and narrow "funny looking expedition vehicles" that, with admiration, you have shown many photos of.

You seem to keep deflecting from my original point, but please keep in mind that my emphasis was that my tall, but plenty-low COG, U.S. made Winnebago E450 short Itasca Class C with it's almost 8 foot wide rear track has excellent lateral stability on the tipped offroad surfaces we travel on and high cross-winds we experience as compared to an equally tall expedition-type supposedly offroad RV with it's only 5-6 foot wide track. You are welcome to respond in kind to my request for Australian/European/African offroad RV track width specifications - not offroad racing vehicles - but vehicles intended for living in.

By the way my reason for bringing up the HumVee as an example of professional purpose-built engineering was to emphasize that the ultimate offroad vehicle, including any expensive expedition vehicle intended for living in and going where there are no roads to speak of ... must be wide in relation to it's height due to the basic physics required for stability.

The HumVee has an extreme width to height ratio and so cannot be stood up in, hence it's not an "RV". BUT, it's suspension design could be used in a higher and longer expedition vehicle so as to better maintain ground clearance without having to resort to tires as tall. As you know, tall tires make it necessary to raise the living area up very high - which runs counter to optimizing COG for tip-angle and side-wind stability.

Agreed, it is not a current basis for a class C. I still think it would be, though with just a couple of tweaks.

Jose

DaHose wrote:
What? In light of this conversation, your comment about narrow track or land mine issues make no sense at all.

Now, I will continue to focus on your comment that HMMWV's are not "good off-road vehicles". The 002 was inspiration for the HMMWV as the model T was the inspiration for a 1950's hot rod. Inspiration and final product are two COMPLETELY different ball games.

, We know that, Inspiration is different from the vehiclebut my point is the HMMVV is not a basis for a Class C Motorhome, it got dragged in to demonstrate off road ability.Bit of a red herring

DaHose wrote:
Lastly, I will point out that a MAN full size cargo truck once beat EVERY SINGLE COMPETITOR VEHICLE in the Paris-Dakkar race. That truck was HUGE and ran THE toughest off-road race in the world. Don't talk to me about narrow track usage being one of THE defining points of an off-road vehicle.

Thank You for that. MAN trucks are a base for those 'Funny looking Expedition vehicles" No they are bit too big for small tracks like the Hummvee, but are fantastic on desert dunes and taking massive loads Off Road

I still hold that a real military HMMWV is a great off-road vehicle and would make a very solid foundation for a true off-road motorhome.

Going well up to that point. Notice that none have bothered to use one as an Expedition vehicle, although used ones are around and it should be sort after? They are not that brilliant being a a Motorhome, were never designed for it. too heavy and underpowered.
Payload was listed as 5,200lb but that was the earlier lightweight models.The latest Models are dead slow and way too heavy.

Lastly, I will point out that a MAN full size cargo truck once took first overall in the Paris-Dakkar Rally. Not first in class. It beat EVERY SINGLE COMPETITOR VEHICLE in the Paris-Dakkar race.

No it did not. The HDT trucks run last for the categories involved, It did not take First KAMAZ the Russian Truckmaker and IVECO with an Australian designed Powerstar have won that class, The "cars" include Pickups, they are not classified as trucks.Overal winners are divided between the Bikes and cars. In the last race between a Tundra engined Hilux and a 3 Litre Diesel engines "Mini".

Robert Ryan wrote: 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.

What? In light of this conversation, your comment about narrow track or land mine issues make no sense at all.

Now, I will continue to focus on your comment that HMMWV's are not "good off-road vehicles". The 002 was inspiration for the HMMWV as the model T was the inspiration for a 1950's hot rod. Inspiration and final product are two COMPLETELY different ball games.

The salient point is that you are saying a HMMWV is a "failure" as an off road vehicle. That requires one to completely ignore its massive global success as an off-road transport vehicle. THAT is what it was designed to do. In addition to meeting that mission, it can do so with an ambulance or an (INCREDIBLY HEAVY) communications or weapons platform mounted.

Comparing a HMMWV to the MRAP or JLTV is apples to oranges. The HMMWV met its design and mission objective and does so WELL. The needs of the military have changed over the 30+ years it has been in service and now they want something that is multi-function for urban and non-conventional warfare. Look at the track of the MRAP and JLTV competitors. They are just as wide (if not wider) than a HMMWV. The Oshkosh L-ATV only has 17" of ground clearance (barely 1" more than a HMMWV) and stands about 3 feet taller WITHOUT a secondary weapon or service platform mounted. By your own words that makes it high COG and a bad off-road vehicle, but you would call them "better" than the failure of the HMMWV for off-road use? That is contradictory and again makes absolutely no sense.

Lastly, I will point out that a MAN full size cargo truck once took first overall in the Paris-Dakkar Rally. Not first in class. It beat EVERY SINGLE COMPETITOR VEHICLE in the Paris-Dakkar race. That truck was HUGE and ran THE toughest off-road race in the world. Don't talk to me about narrow track usage being one of THE defining points of an off-road vehicle.

So then, I have provided many facts to support my argument and you have only provided your opinion. I still hold that a real military HMMWV is a great off-road vehicle and would make a very solid foundation for a true off-road motorhome.

Jose

carringb wrote:
Im sorry your rental did not handle well. The vast majority of E350/450 rigs handle just fine on the road.

It was just not the rental others we spoke to on the journey had similar tales(Not just fellow Convoy members).The AVIDA IVECO based unit was much better in that respect, when driving on highways in Australia.

RobertRyan wrote:
I know the E350/E450 are unstable at best on a highway., so how does you packing items at the bottom of the RV improve the handling? i.e even against a Sprinter, another Box on wheels.

Im sorry your rental did not handle well. The vast majority of E350/450 rigs handle just fine on the road. The ones that don't usually are either worn out (rentals) or were not built to Ford specs, primarily keeping adequate weight on the front axle due to a short wheelbase, or overloading the rear axle.

I've driven class Cs that handle as good as some pickups. I've also driven box trucks that will out-handle many family cars!

I've also seen Sprinter RVs struggle to stay on the road while driving through the Columbia River Gorge, where strong winds are the norm rather than the exception. The narrow track width does not favors when you're being hit with 60 MPH side-gusts.

PNichols wrote:
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??

French Rvers in a Convoy in Algeria , in case one has problems. I have been on roads not recommended for RV's in Australia and New Zealand.It would not be Gasoline but diesel in Algeria.

PNichols wrote:
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.

Generally applies to all RVers no matter where they are from. In their case they are going Off Road where they can, not driving Off Pavement as you have stated and shown.


The last image is of a fairly large 4 x4 bus going across the desert in Australia.

PNichols wrote:
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.

As an engineer you know it is not a sensible thing to take a road based RV Off Road or "Off Pavement" so why do it? Better a 4 X4 .
Your list means very little , I know the E350/E450 are unstable at best on a highway., so how does you packing items at the bottom of the RV improve the handling? i.e even against a Sprinter, another Box on wheels.
You are right I was surprised, more horrified at the construction and general engineering on that Motorhome I drove.
I suggest to you Like I did with the 72 yr old Gent who had extreme fears of flying and rationalized it as the plane falling apart. That you email or write to manufacturers of these Expedition vehicles and ask the pro and cons against your vehicle Off Road. I cannot explain it better, they can. Here are some.
UNICAT Does US and European based vehicles.German based
info@unicat.com

SLR Motorhomes
bozcrome@bigpond.net.au

Amesz Motorhomes
sales@amesz.com.au

Earth Cruiser Motorhomes
sales@earthcruiser.com.au

EarthRoamer a US based Expedition vehicle.
info@earthroamer.com