My Fuso FM260 is converging...

[blackduck]

Don't count on it! I really appreciate how the white color does not absorb heat from the sun. And based on my experience this summer in the Yukon, I have rigged up a very quick and easy portable wash system that gets us back to white really quickly. I could wash inches of mud off the vehicle using a rain-water puddle in a matter of minutes. [If you are interested, I could post the set up.]

Do they have summer in the Yukon?
I thought it was one of those places like Darwin
same temperature all year round, except in Darwin its 93 deg F all year, bet the Yukon is a tad cooler
YUKON, even sounds cold

I to have a system for washing the truck and restoring that gleaming white (not beige)
I call her Debbie
if you let her hold the hose then make up an excuse to get away from the truck she washes the whole thing
shes good like that

 

[LukeH]

Thanks for the reply John. With two kids I'll be going for the longest one. Hoping to slip it between tanks and body. Didn't know the transom was packed separately; something they carefully omit from the adverts.

 

[JRhetts]

PortaBote Carriage

LukeH

Yes, the seats [2 in my boat, 3 I think in the 12' and 14' boats] and the transom are separate pieces and have to be stowed somewhere. I find this the most awkward part of carrying the boat in my rig. Seats and transom pieces are approx. 2" thick, so the stack adds up. My soft container [bag] for them measures 54" x 18" x 9". Not a small piece of kit.

 

[westyss]

looks good John! I never get tired of looking at that truck, Darrin did some good things with that truck and you finished it off nicely!
It looks like you have stock seats? Did you do anything with the suspension at all and if not how do you find the ride?

Also, looking at the front images, I don't know much about the FM but would think that it is a tilting cab so could you elaborate on the bull bar set up you have and how to go about tilting the cab with it.
I for sure remember those big lights on your truck when you passed me on your way up north but never noticed the boat, did you ever use a roof mounted boat or kayak or did you go right to the folding boat? I see many of those on the lakes here in BC and have always been interested in them, they look good and stable but I have never seen anyone put it together so I have no idea how long it takes to assemble, I did have a hard bottom inflatable for a while but that was a real work out to get that thing into the water, especially getting the floor boards in, so if it becomes too much of a chore to put together eventually it never does get put together, I am looking for something that can be relatively easy to use and havent decided on a path yet, do you have any recomendations?

Yves

 

[JRhetts]

Seats, Tilting Cab & PortaBote

looks good John! I never get tired of looking at that truck, Darrin did some good things with that truck and you finished it off nicely!

Yves,
Thanks for the compliment; coming from you and what you have done with your Fuso I am especially pleased! Yes, Darrin did a terrific job on engineering and fabricating the truck [mount, lift, 4x4, etc]; he's a gifted guy. He just had different criteria for the house than what would work for us, so we emptied it and re-built it completely — along with other aspects since we were at it.

It looks like you have stock seats? Did you do anything with the suspension at all and if not how do you find the ride?

Yes, the seats are stock [no suspension at all.] On the one hand, they are fine as is: 30,000 mi so far and I am not complaining. However, I did want to put air seats in. I have been the beneficiary of Mike Hiscox's generosity a number of times, including his giving me an air seat form one of his earlier rigs. However, even after consulting with the manufatrurer I could not figure a reasonable way to get it set on a platform/pedestal in the existing space, so I gave up on it. If you or someone else reading this has an idea how to get this done, I'd really appreciate any pointers!!! At my age, I'd love a more comfortable ride.

As to the suspension, it is bone stock. As far as drivability and handling go, it is simply terrific. I can drive all day and not feel like I have had to wrestle anything. It goes where it is pointed, it holds the road extremely well, it handles all sorts of rough, soft and off-camber situations with aplomb and even dignity, and — the acid test — my wife does not develop white knuckles. [I cannot say this about it's two predecessors — both were constantly stressful to drive and very tiring over a day's travel.] I am sure that the braking capacity on this rig has something to do with lack of stress while driving, tho of course strictly speaking this is not the suspension.

On the other hand, I can see that I am 'on track' with an inevitable process: the longer I have this the more I sense and attend to new and more subtle aspects of the overall rig. To wit: at 30,000 mi I am aware that the suspension could be much improved as far as handling potholes and major heaves in the road. I bottomed out all over the Yukon this summer, sometimes hitting my bump-stops so hard that I thought I surely had damaged the frame. Not yet, but I would love to attain more travel and progressive absorption in the front. I have simple leaf packs and stock shocks, which were undoubtedly designed for paved-road cargo hauling, not hitting big frost heaves or potholes at 55-60 mph.I have begun to take a peek at this, but have not so far found a way to get traction on any modifications that might improve things. Again, if anyone can give me a lead, I'd be very grateful!!

However, let me reiterate that except for encountering big irregularities at speed, the stock suspension is the best by far I have ever driven on a big camper.

Also, looking at the front images, I don't know much about the FM but would think that it is a tilting cab so could you elaborate on the bull bar set up you have and how to go about tilting the cab with it.

Yes, the FM has a tilting cab, one of the many desirable features that drew me to it. I required free access to the engine etc for maintenance and repair. The OE front bumper was a thin sheet of metal with a plastic flange — no strike protection whatsoever. So we designed and fabricated the front bumper out of 1/4" plate, along with extra-thick walled tubular stock for the 'eyebrow.' First consideration was strike protection, so the angles were designed first and foremost to provide strength and deflection, tho hopefully it is not utterly without aesthetics. The eyebrow portion hinges at the bottom — just about even with the two tow-attachment 'ears' — after release of two captive bolts indicated in the attached picture. I carry readily-accessible a ratcheting allen wrench which allows me to remove the two bolts in less than one minute — necessary to check coolant, windshield fluid, and oil level on a regular basis. Once the eyebrow is pivoted out and down, the front cowl opens and the cab tilts normally — and very easily if one leaves the two passenger doors open to move the c.g. of the cab forward. BTW, the 'tow-attachment ears' are tied directly to the frame, so I should be able to pull pretty hard without distorting the frame by lateral or uneven forces. Also BTW, Darrin added the bottom step on each side of the cab to ease entry; because they are so low to the ground and near to the front tires, we drilled the support plates out to make this structure more flexible in the case of a hit, hoping we could bend it out of the way of the tire lor just have it break off rather than damage the tire.

...but never noticed the boat, did you ever use a roof mounted boat or kayak or did you go right to the folding boat? ... I have no idea how long it takes to assemble, ...if it becomes too much of a chore to put together eventually it never does get put together, I am looking for something that can be relatively easy to use and havent decided on a path yet, do you have any recomendations?

I thought long and hard about a number of boats. Stowing a rigid one on the roof of the cab or house was WAY too awkward; the inflatable kayak types were not manageable in any wind, etc. So the PortaBote seemed like the solution — and has proven very good. I went right for the side mount since I had the vacant space and it was a location I could handle solo — they sell the bracket as an accessory. One person assembly is very realistic; it takes about 20 min including mounting the 2 hp outboard I carry. Right now I am considering getting a 4 hp — the 2 hp is fine for trolling with 2 souls on board, but longer-distance exploring at 4 mph is pretty tedious, so I want more SPEEEEEED!!!

Hope this answers your questions.

John

 

[JRhetts]

Wash System

Overland Hadley asked about my wash system. I put this together to cope with the expected — and encountered — mud in the Yukon last summer. I was concerned that I could build up enough off-balance weight on wheels and other rotating parts that something could go awry, plus I wanted to be able to get in, out and around the vehicle without coating myself in mud off the vehicle.

Parts:
water pump
anderson connector
standard 3-wire extension cord
garden hose
wash wand from Expedition Exchange
extension wash brush




1. the Anderson plug that delivers 12v from the truck batteries via a mate attached behind the front bumper to a female standard 3-way plug; this makes maintaining proper polarity literally foolproof
2. an ordinary extension cord, here 50' so the truck can be at some distance from the pump if the terrain dictates that; the pump delivers "pushed" water better than "sucked" water; any 12GA extension cord up to 50' can be used
3. male plug, waterproof switch and pressure-limited pump with screen pre-filter on inlet side; I chose a Jabsco 32605-0092 unit that delivers 4GPM at 60PSI; my filters can't pass more than that flow, and while a few more PSI might make washing more effective, it would require a much heavier gauge electric cord at any length
4. garden hose makes all connections to and from the pumps and filters; I use 5/8 " thin-wall RV hose for its potable water rating and easier coil-ability than 3/4" hose
5. Doulton sediment filter, connected to
6. Doulton Rio 2000 contaminant filter

I carry items 5&6 when I think I may need to replenish potable water from streams or lakes. Definitely needed to do this in the 3 months I was in the Yukon. [See Post #15, http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/82484-Water-purifying/page2?highlight=filtration]. Otherwise, they are redundant with my internal filters in-line from my water tanks and therefore unnecessary when I can expect to get safe water from a municipal source or a rancher's well.



7. Is the absolutely best wash wand I have found. Its combination of pressure and area of spray worked extremely well. I tried over a dozen different nozzles and tips, including those from my pressure washer. None came close to the effect and efficiency of this wand — available from Expedition Exchange. [Worth every penny!!] Its right angle allowed me to wash my undercarriage and inside of wheels easily, and as far as effect goes, the wand alone produced the effects in the before and after pics below [no brushes used in that wash — it was raining and blowing so darn hard I wasn't willing to spend the extra time to use the brush.]

8. Is an extending arm for the brush heads that one can get at any RV supply store. It, like the wand, should have a shut-off valve so one can control the pump without having to go back and forth. I carry two brushes — one for the residual dirt after spraying with the wand, and the second for a final cleaning if I feel the need to really look squeeky clean [which, candidly, I have not yet. This one is still pristine.] I toyed and experimented with carrying a pressure booster or an small pressure washer, but truth be told I think the combination of a wand followed by a brush beats higher pressure all to hell, both in terms of cleaning and time/equipment involved. [I really don't want to carry more 'gear', and the brush wand and (2) heads are way more compact and stow-able than any pressure equipment.

9. The two brushes: dirty and 'virgin'

10. The whole wash kit in an ordinary wastebasket for stowage — I carried this behind the drivers seat, so I could and did get it out readily at lake- or creek-side to do a fast wash. Easy accessibility meant it got used when ever needed.

In real life, I use all sorts of water sources, including a rain puddle next to the road atop Keno Hill in the Yukon.




I usually put my intake hose in a plastic bowl and weight the intake hose and the bowl with a rock — to keep the hose in the water and sediment out of the intake as much as possible.



This converted the muddy rig



... to a much cleaner one, meaning I did not rub mud on my clothes and bring it inside all the time!!

 

[JRhetts]

Storage and Organization

Storage and Organization

There are a lot of joys to having a capacious and capable vehicle to go exploring in. However, I've found — whether carrying a backpack, paddling a canoe, leading a pack horse, driving a Jeep through Central America, or wheelin' my Fuso — that capacity absolutely is a two-edged sword — cutting both for me and against me: With a bigger, more complex rig, I both need and can carry more stuff; and, inevitably, I am inexorably tempted to carry more stuff.

The more stuff I carry, the more capacity I need — and, at the same time, the more organization becomes truly critical to the pleasure and success of my travels. Whether I need something unique or hard to come by, or simply some electrical tape or parachute cord: I want to have it with me, and I also want to be able to access it relatively efficiently rather than spending an hour searching thru all manner of possible places I might have ‘hidden it' from myself.

Inside Kizungu we planned lots of cupboards, drawers, and opportunistic space [like in the seat-backs of the bench seats at the table and a shoe drawer next to the door.] Outside, we have three steel boxes, each generally having a purposeful-use design, with some boxes or containers therein to help structure what each one holds.

In addition, across the entire width of the vehicle [under the bed inside] we have a large open space; it has fixed contents only of (2) long-handled shovels and an extendable limb-pruner strapped to the ceiling. I knew I would want to be able to carry long and bulky things, so for the first several trips I did not fix on any particular organizational scheme.

After a year or so, I could begin to see patterns in what I elected/needed to carry, both large items [ladders, awnings, and outboard motors] and small [spare and replacement parts, tools, etc]. But, not knowing fairly precisely where to find specific items began to tick me off. So I began to think about a general organizational structure for this space. I envied the stacking-sliding bins I have seen in several Unicat/ActionMobile rigs, as they sure organize a space efficiently!

But I could not discover how to get ahold of them; plus I guessed they would be extremely expensive.

So I sat down with GoogleSketch and information from trips to the big-box home stores, and I came up with what has now proven to be a pretty good solution for me. Maybe it will give you some ideas.

Throwing stuff [or even stacking it ‘nicely'] into a big cavern means that after a few miles things will get jumbled, plus you always have to remove the top stuff to get at what's on the bottom — isn't that always where what you want has ended up? So I wanted to be able to stack or layer things in ‘coherent' columns or piles; and I wanted to be able to move/remove columns or piles easily to be able to get at/into other columns or piles.

After a bunch of dead ends, I came up with a set of (12) containers that could fill more than 90% of my available floor space, and could extend from floor to ceiling — way more efficient than loose piles or stacks.

The sides of the containers are not perfectly vertical [like the German units], but they come pretty close. The walls are thick enough to easily contain heavy items, yet I could easily cut and trim them to fit inside, under and around the shovels etc. on the ceiling. I managed to ‘standardize' on (2) form-factors, so things can be interchanged re: position to adjust ready access to specific types of things depending on the specific trip.



In the pic above, you can see the (12) containers, seven square ones in the back row [from side to side], and five narrower/rectangular ones in the row closer to you. The square [back-row] containers at each end of the row had to be cut down and shaped to allow them to tilt and fit in, specifically under the shovels and pruner, while the center ones come up full-height in the space. I also cut down three of the rectangular [front-row] containers so that I could rest a plywood strip on them to make a 5' long space [‘shelf'] for larger/bulkier objects.

In the two pics below you can see alternatively that my ground cloth ,roll-up table and 5' ladder fit on that ‘shelf', or that my ground cloth and outboard motor fit, etc.





One of the major advantages I enjoy is being able to know that some specific item is going to be found in a specific container, and that I can quickly and easily remove containers to access what I need and then just as quickly and easily put things back in order for traveling. For example, I have my motorcycle gear [helmet, jacket, pants, tank bag, etc.] in box #1 and #2; the BBQ is in #7. My leveling blocks are in #A, and my motorcycle parts and maintenance stuff is in #E. Less-often needed stuff [extra winch, replacement filters] are in #C & D. #B holds my external Doulton filters if I carry them, along with a 50,000# recovery line which is kind of bulky and not often needed thank goodness. Most of my small spare parts are in #3, whereas Fuso filters, fluids, and serpentine belts are in #5 which is relatively ‘buried.' I really appreciate this flexibility and organization. I may have to rummage thru a specific container to find what I want, but I don't have to search more than one — I do keep a master list current; right now it has over 250 individual items and their locations indexed on it.

Traveling again in the US, with parts widely available, I can repurpose several containers from the spare-parts inventory I took to the Yukon where there wasn't any parts availability except in Whitehorse. With the re-purposed space closer to home I can easily carry my wife's helmet, lifevest, and the like.

I welcome any comments or suggestions!

 

[steve4wdaus]

Fantastic information John. A really great setup for not only washing down the truck, but also collecting water when the rations run low.

And I still have your new article on storage to read yet. A bonus for us.

I see that you are running dual wheels. What size rim and tire and what tire "make and model".

Have you felt a need to go to the large Super Singles?

Thanks

 

[Overland Hadley]

Have you felt a need to go to the large Super Singles?

Thanks

x2

I also would be very interested in hearing your thoughts about traveling with the dual rear wheels.

 

[JRhetts]

Tires & Dual Wheels

...I see that you are running dual wheels. What size rim and tire and what tire "make and model".

Have you felt a need to go to the large Super Singles?

Thanks

Steve4wdaus


Yes, I am running duals in the rear. The rims are 22.5x8.25 in size — sorry, I do not know what the metric equivalent is. Since I have (2) mounted spares, I have 8 rims total:

(4) Accuride 22.5" x 8.25” steel disc, and
(4) Alcoa 22.5” x 8.25” forged aluminum​

The aluminum rims were chosen for appearance for the front and outside rear; the less expensive steel are used for inside rears and spares.

The tires I am running are Bridgestone M711, size 22.5-11. They have what I would describe as a moderately aggressive tread, with open side-tread pattern. Bridgestone characterizes them as a “long haul tire”, along with having:

"Deep tread depth for long original mileage. Staggered tread block design distributes forces evenly to resist irregular wear. Aggressive traction pattern for solid grip in rain, mud and snow." (quoted from Bridgestone website)​

The diameter of these tires is approx 41", helping me with clearance under my rather large front and rear diffs.

Clearance= front diff 12"
tie rod 13"
tie rod knuckles 10.5"
transfer case 15"
rear diff 10.5"​

When I first began with this arrangement I had some concern about both rapid tire wear and perhaps some lack of stability or cornering control in the front end due to the deep lug pattern. So far, NEITHER OF THESE CONCERNS HAS COME TRUE.

At 30,000 miles I have between 56% and 69% of my original tread depth remaining [varying by tire and position; the front having the most wear, as you'd expect.] I have encountered some moderate ‘cupping' of the outside front lugs, but several different truck tire shops have pronounced this as normal due to cornering and steering; rotation to a rear position seems to even everything out pretty well so far. As far as handling, I have never driven another big truck/camper that handled nearly so well. At 23,000# it's no sports car, but I do sometimes push it on winding roads and I have never felt the front end to be mushy or to roll as I definitely have experienced on some other rigs I have owned and driven.

I would highly recommend the tire if available, not cost prohibitive in the local market, and fitting one's weight requirements. I have driven them fairly extensively in snow, sand, and mud, and I absolutely plan to repurchase the same tire when these wear down.

As to ‘super singles': Gosh, I don't want to start a debate or flame war on this subject, but you asked and I will offer my 2-pence worth.
SAND-I have read in lots of places about how dual wheels are not supposed to track and perform as well as in-line singles in sand. I confess, I can't yet understand why more floatation in sand wouldn't be better, but I don't ‘get' lots of things in life [e.g., relativity theory] that apparently are true. At any rate, my driving in relatively deep sand through dry stream beds and moderate desert crossings in our SW have not been a problem for me. However, I admit up front that I cannot attest to how they would do on the deep-brekable-crust of Sahar sand dunes south of the Atlas Mountains — I haven't been there yet.
SNOW-With a light vehicle, I could well understand how the greater surface area of duals could make one float — and skid or spin — in snow, but my vehicle is heavy enough and my tires are narrow enough that, so far, as much a 2' of snow has been absolutely no deterrent. The rig seems to cut down into snow sufficiently to secure adequate traction. I will not attempt to argue that my duals are better than the singles I have driven [(2) EarthRoamers for nearly 80,000 mi], but I will say that I am MUCH MORE RELAXED after a number of hours in snow in the Fuso than in any single-rear-wheel rig I have personally driven, and I have certainly not gotten stuck nor slid off the road with duals.
MUD-Regarding mud, I drove the EarthRoamers with a horse trailer attached thru tens of miles of at least axle-deep mud, never getting stuck; I have not yet had an equivalent mud challenge in the Fuso, so my jury is still out on mud. I am inclined to think that it depends on the mud: if it's truly bottomless one would want floatation, if it has a bottom then one would want a narrow single to reach to the bottom for traction — but that's all conjecture.

Notwithstanding, I am nevertheless somewhat subject to group think. I really wanted to get singles on the rear when I first got the vehicle. The designer/builder refused to put singles on; both Dana Axle [rear axle] and Marmon-Harrington [front axle] refused to warranty the axles if he did so. Both companies claimed it would change the force vectors on the axles and bearings and do damage. 30,000 miles later I feel almost no residual ‘urgency' to do a switch. I just haven't found a situation that justifies/rationalizes it. So, in the interest of honesty, I admit to being vaguely aware of a socio-cultural norm that says that a ‘real' expedition vehicle has single rear wheels. [One of Jung's archetypes?] If I could do a switch for a very modest cost, I would look at it, if for no other reason than curiosity — but in the bigger picture I, for one, am not fretting any purported inadequacy a bit.

Question: do you think the weight of the vehicle may have to be factored into the equation to really understand the value/need of single vs dual rear wheels?

Overall on this subject: For me the bottom line is with DRW after thousands of miles truly off-road I seem to be able to go where I want to go. This has included open sand desert, sand-gravel washes, raw lava fields, deep gumbo mud while hauling a horse trailer, and most recently this summer driving to the end of the North Canol Road at the NWT boundary where I got hit with 18” of snow on July 8. I began my dual-wheel ownership more than a bit skeptical, but I have not yet actually encountered a problem due to dual-lies, though I certainly am not saying I won't and that others haven't. In winter I do carry chains [state law and insurance], but have never had to put them on 'in anger', only practicing in my driveway. In a week or so I will be heading to the SW to drive snowy passes along with sandy and muddy ‘roads'; I'll report my experience.

10-26-2017 promised update report Nearly 5 years and a lot of miles later, I still have not managed to actually create a problem with the dual rear wheels. Haven't managed to get a rock in them, nor slide off the road in snow or get bogged down in mud. On the other hand, I will bet that this is less due to any 'prowess' of dual wheels and a great deal more to the advice I remember getting the first time I bought a 4x4 - "John, remember 4 wheel drive can mean you get yourself just as stuck but even farther from rescue." Especially with a 23,000 # rig, I don't drive out onto the bleeding edge very much. I try to drive only as far as I have confidence & experience that I can drive back out under my own power. My moto and my feet are for beyond that.

 

[mhiscox]

Thank you, John. In years of ExPo discussions about the need or non-need for SRWs, this is about the best report we've had. I'm sure I'm not the only one to appreciate information based on personal experience with a heavy truck, rather than speculation. Much appreciated.

 

[steve4wdaus]

Thank you John. I agree with Mike that this was a great report on your experiences with dual wheels.

My FG649 Canter has the original Bridgestone 857 7.5R16 LT tyres and so far we have not had any real opportunity to test them out on anything other than highway conditions. Hopefully that will change at Christmas when we go away for a couple of weeks.

I liked your observation about the socio-cultural norms re Super Singles and "real" expedition vehicles. The reality is that some only have a limited pool of resources to throw at our beloved trucks. I have started with spring and shockies upgrades, and so far have beem happy with the results. When this set of tyres wears out then will look at the alternatives. However the outlay required for Super Singles is quite substantial.

All in all some great information. Thanks again.

 

[whatcharterboat]

Hi John,

Yeah...I also wanted to thank you for such a great write up..not just about your experience with duals but the whole thread from the beginning.

As to ‘super singles': Gosh, I don't want to start a debate or flame war on this subject, but you asked and I will offer my 2-pence worth.

Yeah ...not my intention either and I certainly do not want to appear to be contradicting anything your axle manufacturer or Darrin (whom I hold in the highest regard) has advised you on.....buuuut just a couple of things If I may .

SAND-I have read in lots of places about how dual wheels are not supposed to track and perform as well as in-line singles in sand. I confess, I can't yet understand why more floatation in sand wouldn't be better, but I don't ‘get' lots of things in life [relativity theory] that apparently are true.

You are absolutely correct......more flotation in sand is better!!!!! What you may not realise is that the singles usually have more flotation than duals. If I could clarify that......one of the great mysteries around here is why FUSO never brought a 4x4 FM to compliment the FG...but if they did they would probably run the same tyre size as the others in class ( Isuzu FTS and Hino Gt) which run 22.5 x 7.50....... Just on width alone and not taking into account the larger diameter of most singles that would increase the footprint even further, that gives a total width of 45" (6x 7.50) compared to running singles at 68" (4x425) ..... I believe one of the reasons your truck does as well as it does is because of your tyre selection running 11" and that gives almost the same width (equating to increased flotation) of (66") as the singles we would commonly see in use here on that style of truck.

Please forgive me for posting pics of another truck up on your thread but only to help validate this. Below is a park ranger service FTS 800 running 425x65x22.5's and to the right of the picture are the OEM 22.5 x7.50's..... Note that I am trying to show a similar model truck to your 4x4 FM and not a Mog /MAN, etc that was designed for singles as OEM.....the ranger service specify the SWC for predominantly sand use. Duals do not work for them in the type of conditions they run. The Fire Service running in the same conditions also cannot perform on duals. I could go on but these guys rely on the performance first and foremost rather than the "cool" factor.


Hey, they run in deep powdery sand ......your running may be very different.

I would also add from experience that the gearing on these size trucks ( and yours I am sure ) is pretty good from the factory and if you try to run too much taller tyres they can suffer. As far as that is concerned, the FG's and NPS's are a different story.......if my misses said i was only allowed to buy one thing for the truck, ( from what I know) the singles would be it .

Overall, I seem to be able to go where I want to go,

John, that is the big picture.

Thanks again.
Kind regards John.

 

[JRhetts]

Dual vs Single Rear Wheels

... I certainly do not want to appear to be contradicting anything your axle manufacturer or Darrin (whom I hold in the highest regard) has advised you on........
Kind regards John.

John

Thanks for posting here!! Your experience is invaluable and you have proven it again. The content and tone of what you wrote kept us well away from any flames. And thanks for positing your pic to illustrate your point.

I had never even thought of doing the math you posted: if I understand it, super singles have an especially wide footprint, such that my (6) tires may be achieving roughly the same footprint as (4) super singles — but only because I have relatively wide tires for my vehicle? [If I got this right, would you now explain relativity theory to me? Off line?]

So that clarifies one major value of super singles. What about the "in-line tracking" claim that is proffered by some? If my rear dualies track overlapping on either side of my front tires, is there some performance loss compared to in-line singles?

Finally, what is your experience with possible axle/bearing damage from the offset of single rims [to get them lined up front and rear]? I know you have done a whole bunch of them and had people drive all the hell over the place with them, so your database probably exceeds any other.

My current rims have an offset or cantilever of the center disk compared to the centerline of the tire; super singles have a different offset; why might one do damage and the other not? Are the bearings designed for one offset and not the other? Is physics or mythology determining this question?


To come at this whole topic another way, it seems to me that there are at least two 'forces' that intersect here: i) adventure and 'raw' capability, and ii) safety and reliability. Whether it's me by myself or my wife, grandchildren and I all together, there is some calculus about optimizing 'going as far as we can' along with 'not screwing things up too much.' Specifically, I want to be able to go in and back out of as many remote places as possible, yet I don't want to break anything serious or injure anyone "too much" [bandaids are OK, but broken bones or worse are not.]

So, how much extra capability do SRW confer? And to what extent do they move the safety/reliability point?

[12/6/2012: part of original post deleted by JRhetts as not really contributing to the discussion]

.... so liability issues are not of especial interest to me. I am interested in that balance point between adventure and safety.

Finally, I would like to correspond separately about suspension issues on my front end.

Many thanks, John!!

John

 

[whatcharterboat]

Hi John,

I had never even thought of doing the math you posted: if I understand it, super singles have an especially wide footprint, such that my (6) tires may be achieving roughly the same footprint as (4) super singles — but only because I have relatively wide tires for my vehicle?

Yeah...actually I have never done that math before either but calculating the overall width of the tyres seemd like an easy way to demostrate the overall floatation of each tyre setup. I suppose you could incorporate the diameter of the tyres and the load weight on each wheel to give the actual footprint or contact patch and the ground pressure but at the end of the day it's still theory and I'm sure we both have a life outside of this forum. Haha.

So that clarifies one major value of super singles. What about the "in-line tracking" claim that is proffered by some? If my rear dualies track overlapping on either side of my front tires, is there some performance loss compared to in-line singles?

Look this is only my opinion but I reckon the biggest problem with your normal duals in soft sand with a typical truck camper of your size (where most would tare around 10T with 4 t on the front and 6t on the rear) is that the front tyres do not have enough floatation and will knife in deep while the rear will have an abundance of floatation and spin at first then bury them selves.......again, just my opinion and I am sure you have read the theory on single rear tyres running in the compacted tracks of the front rather than trying to break new ground if they overlap the tracks.

Finally, what is your experience with possible axle/bearing damage from the offset of single rims [to get them lined up front and rear]? I know you have done a whole bunch of them and had people drive all the hell over the place with them, so your database probably exceeds any other.

My current rims have an offset or cantilever of the center disk compared to the centerline of the tire; super singles have a different offset; why might one do damage and the other not? Are the bearings designed for one offset and not the other? Is physics or mythology determining this question?

That's easy .....we have never seen noticeable premature bearing failure as a result of SWC on any truck we have had experience with . Sure you could say "that doesn't mean it won't happen" .....and if we did a 1000 more I still think both responses will be the same..... the bearings are usually overkill.

To come at this whole topic another way, it seems to me that there are at least two 'forces' that intersect here: i) adventure and 'raw' capability, and ii) safety and reliability. Whether it's me by myself or my wife, grandchildren and I all together, there is some calculus about optimizing 'going as far as we can' along with 'not screwing things up too much.' Specifically, I want to be able to go in and back out of as many remote places as possible, yet I don't want to break anything serious or injure anyone "too much" [bandaids are OK, but broken bones or worse are not.

So, how much extra capability do SRW confer? And to what extent do they move the safety/reliability point?

Again, my opinion.....and this is far more noticeble on the smaller trucks but I believe handling is improved when front and rear axle are in the same track....on trucks your size , they tend to have less body roll so it isn't so noticeable but then that's usually at the cost of suspension movement.

Also braking capacity is reduced slightly if rolling diameter is increased so the brakes must be capable from a safety (and legal) perspective.

Hey John, I just wanted to add that there are plenty of very tough trucks running around here on duals in commercial situations and in extreme conditions without a drama but usually running more bad dirt roads than pure offroad sand/mud. This one below would be very close to the weight of your truck and is fitted with 22.5 x 7.50 duals.

View attachment 134558