cost of production

[amphibious drew]

M&m you just don't get it. You apologize and then challenge everyone on the site. No-one here needs to prove anything to you. Our members take the time to know each other personally. We drive hundreds of miles to hang out and help each other out. We are a tight nit community with no room for arrogance like you display. And as for your experience, I don't think anyone here cares what you claim to have done. Maybe you should stop insisting on answering questions before your attitude gets you banned from our site. Go back to reading only so most of us can forget about you and your ignorant comments.

[mark m.]

Drew and others. Lets be a little more forgiving towards M&m. He certainly is very knowledgable and I believe he can be an a great source of information and an asset to this forum. I will agree M&m should aquire a 6x6 or 8x8 and run it hard till it breaks. Then that information can be personally scrutinized so as to provide first hand experience and fixes for it. It appears he has commercial/military goals for AATV's but that knowledge which can be gained from that endeaver could help our causes too.

I for one enjoy what he can bring to the hobby.

[Hogneck]

Mnm ,we are talking about small engines man ! There ain't no college courses for off road'n come on, get simple or get real on the topic.

Well, I had no idea my post would solicit the responses it did while I was on a plane and it was certainly not my intent to offend anyone- so to anyone or any organization I did, I offer you my FULL and UNQUALIFIED apology. I have no reservation whatsoever in doing so and even bowing down and begging forgiveness for my impasse. I was basically voicing observations from my experience in areas coupled with posts here and soliciting comments.

Obviously I touched some sensitive nerves and the point to not touch them as been acknowledged and will not be breeched again.

So, formally and officially I offer my sincerest apology and will not allow it to happen again. I hope those offended will accept it in that vein.

That being said, I would like to offer some commentary to some comments made that are based in physics and the reality of business which was the basis of my post because regardless of opinion, those 2 rule the day. Its not like this is a “1 man show” on my end.

Without calling any specific poster out- I’ll address some key points

yes I have. You raised a legitimate question deserving legitimate answers. I was contracted to work with armor holdings and pinzgauer back in the day (specifically on “task force Gates” when it was an operational priority but even before then) long before they were swallowed up by BAE ( who I did later in the sands). I also have a pretty long history with Anniston Army depot where they rebuild tanks. I think I have the “government” and major corporation” end covered. ( completely discounting civilian companies like Cat, Deere, Link Belt) I think I can hold my own there.

Yes, I have an acknowledged deficit when it comes to RV’s and “playing” with things but I believe it’s a little offset when they are used in industrial and combat environments since I have been both crew and evaluator and been one of thes one recommending upgrades. I guess that theater depends on which one you play in or consider of paramount importance. I’m not sure how to correlate it in the recreational world but I really believe I have the “sense of urgency” because if I made mistakes and breakdowns happened then people didn’t get stuck in the mud- they simply died.

Also, it doesn’t take a good engineer to recognize a bad design. The operational failures and physics will prove themselves- I don’t have to. That seems to be an issue if the threads here are believed to be true and accurate.

If anyone ever intends to bring a product to market- you BETTER ask those “painful” questions and bring them to the forefront because if you do not then you need to be prepared to lose your @zz. That’s my purpose here because if I (we) cannot offer something significantly better in some measurable realm then it would be foolish to try. You better know the “good, bad and ugly” and have an infrastructure prepared to handle it or your next step is BANKRUPTCY COURT. Thats a simple guarantee and a mistake I don’t intend to take.

I came here asking questions ( and as an offset offering experience because nothing is for free) for personal and professional reasons. Many have contributed to that and I appreciate that and hope they continue. I thank them all and they have given me invaluable insight.

Again, I apologize profusely to anyone I accidently offended and I promise to try to not do it again. I promise that.

To those that may be fueled by pride, bravado or whatever- start an “octagon” thread and get in it and lets all see what real engineering went into these designs and maybe discover what might have been overlooked.I may not know the answer immediately because I specialize in certain areas but I believe I have the resources and contacts to find out the answer in those areas I don’t.

Since I was challenged- I see it as only honest to answer that challenge and see if the math ( based on the components) or the “field performance” matches up with what they should ( to design specs).

If I mistake this then again I apologize but I view this as a gauntlet being thrown down. I am fully capable and ready to answer any such challenge so I’m throwing my own gauntlet down as a counter challenge.

Give us these “mysterious” design and engineering claims several have obfuscated about but not actually shown and lets all test them for all to see. I would like to see them and do the math personally. They may prove very useful. ( I have no problem whatsoever answering any similar challenge because if my math is wrong I want someone to point it out)

I would love to see vehicle geometry, drive train torques, component application, force to loads for uneven terrain and all these other equations that went into everything- I hope they exist so we can examine them all or otherwise there may be more truth in my post that some seem to despise than some really want to admit because they might want to talk around it rather than answer it directly.

OK, mines on the table, time to ante up- lets see where the data falls

[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

[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

[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

[wfo]

GOLIATH is bullet proof
well at least with nerf bullets

[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

[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

[wfo]

thats a nickles worth of advice...hint hint

[azz7772]

thats a nickles worth of advice...hint hint

that's right

[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 .

[roblynn]

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

[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

[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.