cost of production

[mudbug3]

This may be a 6x6/8x8 amphib forum so one would expect a "new" 6-8 wheel amphib to start there. You've already stated the obvious to me. To sell into the fast paced 2x4/4x4 market you need speed, suspension, . . . Put a tub on the 4 wheelers design.

Ken Hiltz


I think building an aluminum tub around an atv is a great idea. The majority of people who own atv's know their limitations. With an aluminum tub built in different sizes to fit most popular atv's , you could then drop the whole atv into the alumium tub. Remove the suspension and use a short axle and universal joint to tie into the front and rear differentials. On the out side of the aluminum tub you could build attactments to hold the atv suspension parts that you took off. You would then have water cooling, access to the after market engine and clutch hop up parts, fuel injection, 4 and 5 valve heads, and a suspension seat built in. Most atv riders can't relate to an amphib that uses a briggs or Kolier engine. To the atv riders this is just a plastic bath tub with wheels and a lawn mower engine. Imagine the reaction that you'd get driving through a really challenging mud hole with water in it and lots of atv riders watching you drive through it. Words like " Yeah , I guess so, with 800 Can-am or 800 Polaris stuffed inside of an aluminum tub that floats' ! The great thing about this idea, is the cost of building a machine like this would come down a whole lot, and lots of atv riders would enjoy being able to use their favorite atv, but now able to go places that they always wanted to, but never could.

[roblynn]

the technology exists to (and has for a long time) dramatically improve the performance of our machines.
There are drawbacks to all changes. Just like all modern machines have advantages and disadvantages.
You mention jet pumps: Imagine how well one would work after being packed full of the mud seen in a lot of the adair track videos.
Suspension: Cv joints are not for everyone. I often drive through brushy areas and briar patches that would have me replacing the boots every time out. U-joints could be used, but then you are talking very precise axle length or a sliding shaft that would also clog with mud.
Speed: A little more yes, alot more no. Speed would bring the need for a full roll cage, and that would add weight and raise c.o.g.

There are improvements that could be made, and should be made, but nothing drastic. Many of us have customized our machines. Assessed the weak areas and changed them to fit our individual needs. Whipper has made the springer kit his desert area riding, i made the maxii bigfoot http://www.6x6world.com/forums/max-a...tml#post135330
many of us have put in larger motors, and there are many more examples....too many to list.
Each modification works for that person, and not for everyone. Like my 40 horse eats about 3 times the fuel of the 16 horse that was in the machine originally. I have to be careful not to run out on long trips.
I would encourage you to modify a machine, or make one from scratch to fit your needs. Post up a thread about it, and do some real world testing.

buggy man1 ! hay grate job on that tub project! that was awsome i read your thread about a week ago and was vary impressed with what you did and how you went about it. im looking forword to hearing how the seam holds up over time . i just saw whippers springer kit last night on vidio and some of his freinds ,also vary invative ppl and by the looks of one of the vidios i saw worked very well .

i have to say i agree with some of what you said that mods are limited such as speed . i dont think that things like cv axles or u joint shafts are to fare out of question , for example it would be ez to protect a cv boot by runing a deep offset rim and a aluminum guard on the inner boot,
though i dont think a cv axle is the best or most cost efective way it could be used
my freind and my self have been discussing building an aluminum hual ampihb from scratch , the only thing that stops me is the thought of sinking 20 to 30 thousand into a toy that brings no return on capitol . but if i were to build it would be a sub frame and modular in nature so that the whole unit could be chainged around to suit your needs by unbolting segments and bolting in a new segment . for example a single seater , a anphib truck , personel hualer would all us the same front segment but have a different center and rear segment.
in these segments the drive train remains and is simply aligned with splind shaft or hydro fittings then the hual is bolted up.

as for the jet propulsion im sure this day and age if you sit affew like minded guys at a table with that vary in background you could come up with some sort of trap door to protect it or even a ez to remove cover thats mud tight .

its my view and it looks to me like some others here too, that it would be nice to see a more modern ,usable ,workable , lower maintenance, mod freindly base to work with. and i trully think that if a modern version was built with these things it would draw a large segment of atv byers and utv byers.
i just feel thats whats offerd in the 10 to 15 thousand doller range is vary limited . go to a atv shop show them 15k in cash and they will show you many differnt modles that are all specialized at doing one thing well and not so well at anything ells.

if you build a segment aatv it could be assembled for speed [ with a roll cage and low prfile tires , for mud with tall agressive tires a wench and possible cab, for water with swim tires jet perpulsion bildge pump] for that matter if the show room wearhouse is big enuff it could all be reddy for delivery within 24 hrs from that site.

[roblynn]

Jet propulsion was offered around 1969-70 with the Hustler. The Sperry Rand Wedge also offered it. And there were also other models out there that offered propellers as options, such as the Muscateer. Before you post some of this stuff, you might want to spend some more time reading through the site so you can learn these things first.

http://www.6x6world.com/images/6x6-a...-article-3.jpg

thanks jp im well awere of these, now can you please tell me why no other company currenty producing a low cost 6x6 or 8x8 is willing to offer this .

[thebuggyman1]

The technology exists to (and has for a long time) dramatically improve the performance of our machines.
There are drawbacks to ALL changes. Just like all modern machines have advantages and disadvantages.
You mention Jet pumps: Imagine how well one would work after being packed full of the mud seen in a lot of the Adair track videos.
Suspension: CV joints are not for everyone. I often drive through brushy areas and briar patches that would have me replacing the boots every time out. U-joints could be used, but then you are talking very precise axle length or a sliding shaft that would also clog with mud.
Speed: A little more YES, alot more NO. Speed would bring the need for a full roll cage, and that would add weight and raise C.O.G.

There are improvements that could be made, and should be made, but nothing drastic. Many of us have customized our machines. assessed the weak areas and changed them to fit our INDIVIDUAL needs. Whipper has made the springer kit his desert area riding, I made the MaxII bigfoot http://www.6x6world.com/forums/max-a...tml#post135330
Many of us have put in larger motors, and there are many more examples....too many to list.
Each modification works for that person, and not for everyone. Like my 40 horse eats about 3 times the fuel of the 16 horse that was in the machine originally. I have to be careful not to run out on long trips.
I would encourage you to modify a machine, or make one from scratch to fit your needs. Post up a thread about it, and do some real world testing.

[jpswift1]

one of there big things is a outboard motor mount and then ya go spend afew grand more and bie a yamaha or honda outboard thats vary awkward to use from the drivers seat. when from the start a jet perpulsion unit could have been offerd and integrated as an option for afew thousand dollers but i guess an engineer looking things over once every decade or so must be out of the question. and please dont get me started about engineers iv had to work with quite afew dozens of them over the years and 95% of the time there right the other 5% i think they flip a coin and cross there fingers.

Jet propulsion was offered around 1969-70 with the Hustler. The Sperry Rand Wedge also offered it. And there were also other models out there that offered propellers as options, such as the Muscateer. Before you post some of this stuff, you might want to spend some more time reading through the site so you can learn these things first.

http://www.6x6world.com/images/6x6-articles/1970-May-Poplar-Mechanics-hustler-atv-article-3.jpg

[roblynn]

hope somebody is still thinking about this and it all dident just come and go as a whim

[roblynn]

so any how the last few pages were so fare off subject i all most had to think of why i came to this thread! lol
im so happy i did find this thread though with the help and guidance of 'mike' THANKS MIKE!
im happy to see there are other like minded ppl out there like myself that feel the aatv segment can and would grow with tecnical advances that would do away with old and bygone tec. i vioced my opinion in anouther thread about this and some members wanted to hear none of it and seem to be quite happy with what they have and i say there is nothing wrong with that . at the same time ppl like myself want a whole lot more and you should see nothing wrong with that. for example one person said 'these machines were cuting edge when made' and thats fine the idea may have been but the tec "even then" to propel these units was not new or inovative . the motors were the same motors on snow machines and lawn mowers .

the centrifugal clutch was invented in the vary erly 1940s ,the chane and sprocket was invented so long ago the knowbody even knows who came up with the idea. im sorry but iv seen machinery deliverd on steel bases that had as much thought put into design as the chasis for my max ii vary vary basic . if there was any inovation it was in the thought of crossing a boat with a car or lawn mower or tractor or whatever the man was thinking . and it was a simply ingenious idea that i myself love and enjoy.

now with that all said to bring a new generation of aatvers to the table its my thought that suspension is a must more speed needs to at least be an upgrade option. jet perpultion needs to be an option . one guy in the last thread said he has an argo and they offer all kinds of options. yes they do ! but just about every one is a doodad bolt on option that dosent segnificantly make the machine more capable. 'more capable yes , segnificantly no...[tracks aside]

one of there big things is a outboard motor mount and then ya go spend afew grand more and bie a yamaha or honda outboard thats vary awkward to use from the drivers seat. when from the start a jet perpulsion unit could have been offerd and integrated as an option for afew thousand dollers but i guess an engineer looking things over once every decade or so must be out of the question. and please dont get me started about engineers iv had to work with quite afew dozens of them over the years and 95% of the time there right the other 5% i think they flip a coin and cross there fingers.

with all said i would be more than happy to put $5000 in this summer. and by the way everbody erly in this thread was talking about cheap land and a building and equipment for cheap . look at Youngstown Ohio lowest price relastate in the us its all there including a skilled labor force with no work and large buildings sitting empty .

[azz7772]

thats a nickles worth of advice...hint hint

that's right

[wfo]

thats a nickles worth of advice...hint hint

[azz7772]

they are getting rid of the penny in Canada so you can no longer get two cents worth from now on it will be a nickels worth

[Robinhood02]

ok all you guys, don't get your panties-in-a-bunch,
i think all he was askin for is the engineering crunched numbers, THERE ARN'T ANY, if the engineers back in 1967 used numbers, weights and stresses back then in their original designs then they are long gone over the past 45 years, the stress load numbers and any sort other actual engineering that was done back then has since been prooven wrong over the years of "public testing" . If you went by engineering specs alone then our axle shafts at 1 1/8" would be far stronger than would ever be needed for these machines , but reality is quite different LOL,
all i'm sayin is that any actuall engineering that originaly went into these machines is loooong out dated and all the upgrades that have come out since 1967 have been out of nessesity not engineering, that is why there are no engineering specs on these units
thats my 2 cents

[wfo]

GOLIATH is bullet proof
well at least with nerf bullets

[Model Citizen]

Personally, a lot of the posts lately have made me want to cry. It appears that we are all driving around in useless pieces of crap. I guess, everything about these machines is wrong...EVERYTHING.

We drive machines averaging 800- 1000 lbs, not 2 TONS & 150K to produce. Why would anyone consider any input based on OUR applications (that do work good enough) to something of the size envisioned?

Also, there are some companies that start on a shoestring, in a garage, & depending on perseverance & a willingness to work without pay for months , do/can survive & become successful. Microsoft comes to mind.

No new ideas ever come to fruition if you keep shooting yourself in the foot thinking about it or talking ones self (or others) out of it. For us, these machines are great, in spite of some maintenance issues. I, personally, don't believe there is or will be a perfect machine of ANY kind. Nothing with moving parts or even computers on board has evolved to that point, nor do I believe it ever will. Everything breaks sooner or later.

Any data received from our members just doesn't seem relevent or would be helpful to the project you have in mind.

Bridget

[mudbug3]

That is exactly what the forum member BW6 did. He had ridden an Argo 6x6 and an Argo 8x8 and knew what was needed to make them better. He later bought a Max II 6x6 and experienced first hand how much better a T-20 transmission performed over the older Argo transmissions that he was familiar with. BW6 was aware that both the Argo and Max could benefit with more ground clearance in certain off road situations and also more aggressive mud tires for extreme mud conditions. This prompted BW6 to design the aluminum tub Bushwacker1 and Bushwacker2 6x6. BW6 took the best features of both the Max and Argo and came up with an amphib design that suited his needs for recreational use. Recreational use is the key here, since this is what the majority of forum members use their machines for

[lewis]

I've tried to stay out of the furr ball but here is my 2 cents. What is all this noise about? If you can build it build it, but since you have no AATV experience then.........why not get one and come to a ride and see what we do with the machines. You will have plenty of time to talk with the members and do examinations of the machines and thought processes that made them what they are. Mnm we enjoy or machines and the adventures that they bring along with fellowship and good times. My suggestion is: get a machine and come ride with us, the best way i know to design a piece of equipment is to know what you expect out of it and that can only be obtained in the field where it must perform it's designed task.

SO my challenge is come share some fun with us and then crunch some numbers.

Lewis