Open Source Ecology Forums

spike

so this shouldnt be in the open source car bit but there doesnt seem to be another better place.

This is my thinking about the open source truck with further work to be done

NOTE: it must be said that I am based in Australia and everything
relates to what is available and rules here, before partaking in this activity
please check with your local rules and availabilities.

It has been pointed out that if a vehicle is going
to drive on public streets it needs title/registration/license/insurance/etc
and that stuff only applies to one vehicle. If the vehicle is taken apart and
used to make one or more other vehicles those will need their own paperwork.
Thus, the modularity idea works best for farm/industry vehicles that won't
drive on public roads. All-in-all that's not a particularly significant change
since it's probably a better idea to just buy a used or broken commercial
vehicle and maintain/fix it with your machine shop (so you can drive on public
roads) than to build a vehicle from scratch and go through the process of
getting all the paperwork.

In Australia
at least a vehicle is deemed a vehicle because of the chassis/body, that can be
as little or as much as the builder can get away with. My personal vehicle
collection includes a customs that i have fitted my own Vehicle identification
number (VIN) onto and this is legal. From here I can change engines, gearbox
and most suspension parts without much difficulty, the most being changes to
the registration papers.

It
should be as modular as possible. I'm thinking more of a collection of
parts for building a vehicle than a vehicle that can accept alterations.

In stead of being called modular it
should be a custom built unit every time, using a variety of scenarios and
techniques to be developed.

The
focus on hydraulics should be applied here as much as possible. That
implies a lot of design choices and also opens up some interesting avenues
for experimentation and synergy. For example, can hydraulic actuators be
used as shock absorbers by letting the fluid be pushed out and resisting
the flow with a generator that would capture the energy, then letting the
cylinder fill back up from the reservoir? Additionally, would that allow
the ride height to be adjusted on the fly?

For simplicity and cost reduction i
wont be looking too hard at hydraulics, im not an expert at all when it comes
to hydraulics. The use of hydraulics as shock absorbers has been done in the
realm of Formula one in the form of the ‘J damper’ this may be adaptable for
use in this application however it is currently under patent and cannot be
used. Other options are in the pipe line for reusing energy from the shock
absorbers, as well as adjustable ride height.

There
are already good examples of hydraulic hybrid transmissions being used to
great effect in terms of performance and efficiency. They don't weigh more
than a regular transmission, but they can operate more efficiently
(braking/suspension recapture) and they can provide hp bursts that far
exceed any engine the vehicle could practically carry. Perhaps the Power Cube can simply be augmented with
an accumulator.

Im currently totally in the dark about
this option and will have to look into it. The use of an automatic gearbox with
a manual valving system allows for braking using the engine. The use of the
power cube would be possible however the size may be impracticable.

I
wonder how wide a range of applications can be met with a single set of
parts. Can you use four "wheel units" and one Power Cube to make a 4-wheeler, then
use 6 "wheel units" and several Power Cubes to make a pickup
truck, then use X "wheel units" and X Power Cubes to make a dump
truck?

Yes, yes and yes. In theory however
this would be quite impractical in my mind. The use of somthing more like a
trailer connected to a front drive systems seems to be a better idea, this
leads to traction and other issues but these can be sorted later.

Along
those lines, a nice flexible way to load different "mission
units" into the vehicle could satisfy a number of flexibility
requirements. The roll-off truckconcept seems applicable. Not
only could it load standard open-top dumpsters, it could
be used as a dump truck by holding the dumpster in place. Additionally,
since the dumpster can be secured well enough for driving over rough
terrain, anything that fits in the space of a dumpster could be integrated
into the vehicle. Like a large passenger cabin, or a flat bed, or a pickup
bed, or a trash compactor with robotic arm, or farming equipment, etc.

I agree with the fact it needs to load
different units and have different uses but the method of such will need to be
evaluated.

The
most suitable type of body would be a flat bed

·
It can be loaded with mission units

·
have seats bolted to it and a light weather proof
body built around it as in a bus

·
have a large water tank bolted on it for irrigation
and fire fighting

·
small sides as in a pickup

·
or a large box as in a trash compactor, minus the
compactor

The
"mission units" could be loaded/unloaded onto/from the vehicle
with a hydraulic winch. Then, once they're secured
in place, the winch could be used for whatever else you need a winch to
do.

A winch is a very valued item however
once units are loaded onto the truck it wont be much use to pull over or around
the mission units. A better option would be something like the backho used for
the Life track, allowing for a crane design off behind the cab or even on top.
It could then be used to load and unload the truck, instead of dragging things
onto it, and also when the unit is full for other items.

The creation of a winch that runs off hydraulics
is a good idea, specifically if it is portable powered from a powercube or the
further hydraulic power systems (life track, truck)

"Wheel
units" that function identically would be the most straight forward
to mass produce. That would mean that every wheel unit was independently
suspended and steerable. The "crew cab unit" could have a
control panel that allowed the driver to select which combination of
"wheel units" they wanted to activate with each control. So they
could switch between a "two front wheel steering" mode and
"all wheel steering" mode, or anything in between.

Brilliant Idea, but not exactly easy. Rear
steer is possible using a full hydraulic steering, but many it is not feasible to
allow a vehicle as large as a car or truck to turn around in its own length as
smaller robots and rc cars can.

If
hydraulic actuators could be used as shock absorbers then a damaged or
flat tire could be forced to lift up and off of the ground. That would not
only mean it wasn't dragging during driving, but also that you wouldn't
need an external jack to change tires.

On anything other than a 6 wheeled vehicle
this would not work, it may be possible with some more functions but more work
is required. If hydraulics are used a takeoff powering an external jack it
seems much more practical.

The
upper wishbone of the "wheel units" (assuming they use double
wishbone) could be made out of threaded rod and turnbuckles. That would
allow the relative dimensions of the suspension in the "wheel
unit" to vary between equal length wishbones (long travel off road)
and unequal length (short travel on road) by bringing the upper wishbone
frame mounting points closer to the wheel.

It seems that a lot of things stated in
the requirements are not equivalent with others. But again as a set of ideas to
build a truck goes this is possible. There is a design called the rock dog that
should be looked at.

Each
"wheel unit" could have a hydraulic motor mounted on a pivot
point with a spline shaft and a universal joint providing torque to the
wheel hub.

I don’t understand this statement at
all. Hydraulic steering is possible, so is having a hydraulic motor on each
wheel for power but the motos must be mounted onto the body/chassis.

The
"wheel unit" could easily be changed from fixed to steerable by
swapping out a turnbuckle for a small hydraulic actuator. If two
"wheel units" are going to be steered together than an
alternative would be connecting them across the body of the vehicle via a
shared steering mechanism. Steering them separately would be more
expensive, but would allow on-the-fly Ackerman steering. It would also allow 4 wheel steering, which has a number of
important advantages.

Interesting idea and very possible,
however the need to change bits over each time just seems impractical, better
yet leave the system in place all the time and use a valve to shut down the
rear steer. A cheaper option for the rear end is a single ended ram on each end
of the vehicle.

Ned_Ludd

There has been debate before on this forum about conformity with legal requirements, but it predates my involvement. My view is that the nature of existing regulatory structures is widely misunderstood, specifically as to their relationship to existing political/economic power structures. The common view of regulatory structures as manifestation of a condition of opposition between Government and industry is false. Rather, regulatory structures are the mechanism by which the corporate mass-producer effectively becomes an organ of the State. And it must be understood that the very concept of a wide-based, open-source alternative is antithetical to the resulting nefarious synthesis.

In less highfalutin' language, the system is going to fight back. It will tolerate us only in so far as we are chasing our own tails. In so far as we are getting it right we may expect to be opposed not only with the threat of violence but also with very sophisticated spin. A lot of what comes out of the processes going on here will be illegal in the exact proportion that it is of use to anyone.

A few things in the above post resort under chasing our own tails, mostly in the quoted bits. There seems to be some confusion about what the nature of the product is to be. '"Wheel units" that function identically would be the most straight forward to mass produce' for instance. I thought the purpose of the exercise was to come up with an alternative to mass-production. What would the point be otherwise? It seems a lot of the thinking here is still in terms of delivering a physical product. It makes more sense to me that the product consists entirely of information, moreover information that will soon take the form of floating social commons. It is that unprecedented move that excites me: creating designed vernacular knowledge. But if this is to succeed it must be able to work the way vernacular knowledge works. That is, it will be used in whole or in part only to the extent that it finds a use, and it cannot maintain an effective separation from prior or subsequent vernacular knowledge. There is no point in drawing a line around the various parts of this project, to keep them together in a specific and special identity. In so far as the various parts find use they will do so as parts. They will emphatically not do so as a system. That is why I believe some here are overemphasizing the systemic and modular aspects.

It may be a difficult mental leap, to put aside the notion of type as precise determinant, which is a creature of the social pervasiveness of mass-production. I think you are seeing it: that every example of whatever is built according to (or rather, under the influence of) these designs will be to some significant extent unique. Some may hardly bear any resemblance at all; and it is the ability of the designs to tap into those processes - and not resist them - that will determine their success. Thus, the existence of a cohesive background system of related designs might very well be quite irrelevant to the vast majority of actual builds, and what use is modularity then?

Personally I see no point in powering a truck by a Powercube when eight out of ten builders are going to modify the design around the unwanted Rambler 304 or whatever behind the shed. I'd much rather see a design that anticipates and accommodates as much of that as possible, in the most creative ways.

Matt_Maier

"I thought the purpose of the exercise was to come up with an alternative to mass-production. What would the point be otherwise?"

>>> Nope. Not only is mass production a good thing (specialization of labor is one of the keys to civilization) but it would be utterly impossible for the GVCS to exist in any practical sense without replacing human labor with engines. No one is going to hand-build a useful engine. So, at a minimum, anyone who wants to implement the GVCS is going to have to buy and maintain one or more engines. Anyone who has access to engines and the parts/tools necessary to maintain them also has access to the global marketplace. That means they can take advantage of economies of scale by using the same identical modular pieces that everyone else is using. By making them generic, they become commodities and manufacturers will compete on price and availability. That does not mean they should be complicated, it just means they should be multi-function and standardized. Also, from a system-level point of view, the GVCS has assumed mass production from the beginning. All the machines are supposed to be designed with mass produced stock materials and some of the machines are supposed to mass produce those stock materials (on a small scale). So, no, avoiding mass production has never been a goal. The point is to process the world's raw materials into the stuff of civilization more efficiently and more locally.

"It seems a lot of the thinking here is still in terms of delivering a physical product. It makes more sense to me that the product consists entirely of information..."

>>> Someone has to built it eventually, otherwise it won't do anyone any good. So, why would anyone build it if the people who designed it never bothered to build it themselves? The GVCS is supposed to provide an economic benefit. Well, that means it should pay for itself. If no one builds it then they must not think it would pay for itself, which means no one else will bother to build it either. Also, most of the GVCS is heavy machinery. It would be irresponsible to suggest that someone use it without rigorously testing it first.

"In so far as the various parts find use they will do so as parts. They will emphatically not do so as a system. That is why I believe some here are overemphasizing the systemic and modular aspects."

>>> I agree that the GVCS will first be adopted as individual machines, or small groups of complimentary machines. However, the modularity is a key part of improving efficiency, locality and freedom. There will ALWAYS be for-profit entities happy to design, sell and maintain a machine that does one thing very very well. And you will pay them very very well for that one machine. However, many of the machines we depend on are useless in isolation; they are part of an ecology of machines. Most of our machines need to maximize the performance of a system, not their own performance. If we start from scratch, and design "universal" solutions for some of the most basic and common machine tasks, the overall efficiency of the whole system will increase. If all OSE does is design simple versions of existing machines it will be just another business. OSE's contribution should be doing the hard, complicated, un-heralded work that no for-profit organization would ever do.

"Personally I see no point in powering a truck by a Powercube when eight out of ten builders are going to modify the design around the unwanted Rambler 304 or whatever behind the shed. I'd much rather see a design that anticipates and accommodates as much of that as possible, in the most creative ways."

>>> That's what designing the truck to run on a removable engine does. It means they can just not buy a power cube if they want to use some other power source.

spike

ok this is a lot of information to get though (and theres no quote button!!)

@ned, I see where your coming from with the gubberment and stuff BUT we are looking at building a civilisation, we shouldnt look at the civilised world but more like Africa (some places where laws barely exist) cars made of wood etc its all relative

OSE (as far as i can see) doesn't want to stop mass production, as matt says above me. What we do want to stop/limit is the cash flow going to people who own the market. if you read the cost comparison you will see the differences between our costs and the inflated prices of large companies.

As for this only being a plan, everything starts as a plan and when its finalised i will try and get some funding to build one, or stay in permanent contact with someone else building it.

@ matt

something has occurred to me that will require more information, the running of a hydraulic motor in reverse. Im not sure if its actually possible but i will have to do some further research.

Atm im thinking an IC engine, preferably diesel running the front wheels only. This could run a hydraulic system that powered the rear wheels aswell. making it 4wd when needed and giving a massive amount of power take off.

now breakfast time before i blow my mind

Ned_Ludd

Matt: Specialization of labour, etc. does not in itself imply mass-production. Nor is "economies of scale" a phenomenon that is just "there", unitary and exempt of critique. Taking "economies of scale" apart is quite a revealing exercise, when one begins to consider the relationship of method to systems of social and economic power, etc. Yes, there is such a thing but it isn't the universal cost solution it's blindly thought to be.

Economies of scale are only economies if one can find a sucker to pay for the other 9,999,999 exemplars. Note that "pay for" doesn't necessarily mean "buy". A huge chunk of taxes go to paying for surplus output. Defense budgets are only the most obvious example. I don't expect them to deliver my 1/3768 of a jet fighter soon ...

Nor is mass-production ecologically neutral: ultimately mass-production is the sole cause of the present ecological crisis. Eliminating mass-production is the primary core solution, the only way to achieve stable sustainability (a tautology, I know, but the latter term has become unclear through abuse). The market-magnifying effect of the mass-production system is not widely understood. Incremental efficiencies will get us nowhere: even the most monastic austerity would get us barely a quarter of the way, if the necessary tyranny doesn't spur revolution first.

Spike: The third world doesn't conform to the image people elsewhere have of it. It isn't ungoverned; if anything it is as overgoverned as anywhere else, just not very consistently. Nor is it uncivilized: there is no need to introduce civilization there. If anything the African in particular is too civilized, and values social relations to the detriment of our barbaric preoccupation with machinery. At the risk of generalizing, the African engineer would sooner chair the board of an engineering institute than do engineering: make of that what you will, but it does not speak of barbarism.

I do not see the greater need for this in the third world. Where methods exist that do not require machinery, let them continue. In fact, would that we learn some of that. We need to find respect for non-industrial method, lest we fail to see its inherent efficiency. I do not say "pre-industrial", because there is a questionable historic implication in the term: though we can learn as much from our own history as from the residual methodology of the third world.

No, I see the greater need among ourselves, in the so-called West. These are solutions to the crises of our own context. We are in the midst of a crisis of the State, which is only rarely understood clearly to be an edifice built around and for the practices of mass-production. Read Ellul. Read Carson.

Earth-moving equipment for Africa would only dig the hole deeper - if you'll excuse the pun.

I agree with both of you that it is necessary to test the designs, perhaps more rigorously than usual even, in the light of the fact that one would be dealing not so much with a prototype in the conventional sense as a sort of practical seminal suggestion. It makes the job harder.

Matt_Maier

@spike

"Atm im thinking an IC engine, preferably diesel running the front wheels only. This could run a hydraulic system that powered the rear wheels aswell"

>>> Yeah, a reversed hydraulic motor is a hydraulic pump. Some of the more complex hydraulic motors are exactly the same design as the pumps; they work equally well in both directions.

@ned_ludd

"Specialization of labour, etc. does not in itself imply mass-production"

>>> Sure it does. What do you think a farm is? One guy learns how to grow corn REALLY well, so he makes all the corn for everyone. No one else has to buy any corn-making equipment, or learn about the latest corn-related insects, etc. It works as long as other people are specializing in the other necessities and mass producing them for everyone. That's civilization. You can thank mass production for all the stuff people do in their free time, like invent things and produce art.

"Nor is "economies of scale" a phenomenon that is just "there", unitary and exempt of critique."

>>> Sure, anything can be overdone, but the fact that things become more efficient at larger scales is just mathematics. It's only a matter of growing the denominator.

"Economies of scale are only economies if one can find a sucker to pay for the other 9,999,999 exemplars. Note that "pay for" doesn't necessarily mean "buy". A huge chunk of taxes go to paying for surplus output. Defense budgets are only the most obvious example. I don't expect them to deliver my 1/3768 of a jet fighter soon"

>>> I didn't follow any of that. Could you restate it?

"Nor is mass-production ecologically neutral..."

>>> Nor is ANYTHING ecologically neutral.

"ultimately mass-production is the sole cause of the present ecological crisis"

>>> Haha, yeah; mass production of people.

"If anything the African in particular is too civilized, and values social relations to the detriment of our barbaric preoccupation with machinery"

>>> I don't think "civilized" means the same thing to you as it does to me. Personally, I don't think you get to call someone "civilized" just because they're nice to a few people they know. That's just tribal. It is Africa's inability to produce anything of value aside from raw materials that renders it unable to speak for itself. The reason it can't build anything complex is that its people haven't gotten past the concept of blood feuds. As soon as someone builds something someone else tears it down instead of building their own thing. That's not civilization.

"We need to find respect for non-industrial method, lest we fail to see its inherent efficiency"

>>> Are you stretching the term to include variables and externalities that are not traditionally encompassed under the term? When most people say "this process is efficient" they are speaking about a balance sheet, which is a particularly well established standard for evaluating the economic structure of an endeavor. If you are expanding the term to incorporate things that are normally considered side-effects you need to be clear.

spike

@ned

oh i didnt mean to imply they were barbaric but in this context

on the TV ive seen pick up trucks with body pannels missing, people riding long distance in the back etc

if we design a truck system that cant be used in america because the government blocks it im sure that it would be usable in africa

if that makes sense?
Unless we become a big company in ourselves we wont have and power in america and thats not going to happen

@matt

what neds means (i think) is that if 10 cars are built because its cheaper to make 10 than 9 when only 9 are needed the other one is still paid for (look at the bail outs) the other car is then sold for more profit or disposed of.

the manufacture of parts on a large scale is much better than of a complete component, if 2000 hydraulic motors are made they are all likely to be used in one project or another, but if 200 trucks are made with those motors and only 1 is needed its a hell of a waste. ill try and do write up later

any way

The truck cant use all 4 hydraulic motors because then it wont have a reverse function, like a gearbox. you cant change the direction of the flow to spin the motors backwards (i dont think) using a conventional motor on the front wheels and hydraulic for the rear wheels (no matter how many of them there are) allows regenrative braking, lower gearing going forwards, and the reverse gear i need

Matt_Maier

Of course you can reverse the direction of a hydraulic motor. How do you think the current LifeTrac turns and backs up? It's just a matter of flipping a valve.

Hydraulic motors would also allow regen. If you were spinning the hydraulic pump with a motor you could reverse it and recharge a battery. Or you can just drive the rotary actuators backwards (with the wheels) and pressurize an accumluator, then release the hydraulic pressure in the accumulator to spin the wheels. You can check out the stuff I added to the wiki; just search for 'hybrid hydraulic.'

spike

Sorry i thought it just used steering brakes to turn around, instead of reversing just turn it around.

im going to try and do a model later of my design using a swing axle rear end

mntman

Hello Everyone, Blessings to all...I have often thought a modular design vehicle would have functionality. Small stackable hydraulic drives.Plug together, stackable power train. Things such as wheel size, regenrative braking, quick hydraulic connectors to enable modularity. Electric bikes are viable now. Perhaps with nickle iron batteries, we could make sustainable transport, that is effecient. With solar power, a person could become independent of the grid and the oil company's. This is where freedom starts. And economics start to work for us instead of against us.

What is needed, is a viable way to change the cost structure of transportation...Free's up a lot of captal to invest in alternatives, starts an economic feedback that becomes self fulfilling.and reinforcing. Blessings to one and all ! Mntman...

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories

In this Discussion

Tagged

Open Source Ecology Forums