4 ms·

My bus/RV conversion weighs about 18 tons. It has 6 ton front axle and in the rear it has an 11 ton and an additional 6 or 8 ton axle. While a fire truck has a

My bus/RV conversion weighs about 18 tons. It has 6 ton front axle and in the rear it has an 11 ton and an additional 6 or 8 ton axle. While a fire truck has a ridiculously strong suspension, if you used that for an RV, you would get a punishing amount of vibration and shaking. I guess you could ballast it, but you'll waste a lot of fuel hauling ballast around, in addition to being dangerously underpowered in some situations. I think that a fire truck is not a good candidate for an RV conversion, unless you have a very specific definition of "Recreation" in mind.

ChuckMcM 14y ago
That is a great point about the suspension. The water doesn't care about bumps. A bit of searching lead me to this interesting page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_apparatus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_apparatus which supports your thesis. Since a bus is designed for riding comfort much of the suspension work is geared to that. That is something I really hadn't thought enough about.
Retric 14y ago
If you significantly increase the bus's weight your going to want to change the suspension anyway. So, really it's just a question of how much of a conversion are you doing. With a bus you can just rip out the seats add a bed and a fridge and call it done as you keep the weight about the same. However if you going wild and thinking about adding your hot-tub then I think a firetruck may be a good option.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
  I tore so much industrial strength junk out of it. The seats? They were incredible, built to last many years of transit system abuse. Another example, a wheelchair lift that looks like it came from an aircraft carrier, and could lift an aircraft. I don't see ever re-adding that much weight. The most significant thing I've ever had was 300 gallons of potable water (and 8 companions + gear) for our last trip to BRC.
jychang 14y ago
I remember a mythbusters episode where they stuck a half a ton of clay on a regular car, and it didn't affect fuel economy. So there's that.
- hfsktr 14y ago
  Rewatched and they did test with the full weight and as you said no (noticeable) change with the added weight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI#t=322s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI#t=322s I know that Mythbusters isn't generally hard science but you know.
  - jpitz 14y ago
    Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/397/ http://xkcd.com/397/
- amalcon 14y ago
  As I recall that episode didn't test 'fuel economy' as most people think of it, but instead 'fuel economy when driving straight at a constant speed on flat ground'. This was not an error -- they were up front about it; it was more a question of controlling variables. Still, it keeps us from generalizing the weight data to actual vehicle cost of operation.

ChuckMcM 14y ago

That is a great point about the suspension. The water doesn't care about bumps. A bit of searching lead me to this interesting page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_apparatus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_apparatus which supports your thesis. Since a bus is designed for riding comfort much of the suspension work is geared to that. That is something I really hadn't thought enough about.

Retric 14y ago

If you significantly increase the bus's weight your going to want to change the suspension anyway. So, really it's just a question of how much of a conversion are you doing. With a bus you can just rip out the seats add a bed and a fridge and call it done as you keep the weight about the same. However if you going wild and thinking about adding your hot-tub then I think a firetruck may be a good option.

fnordfnordfnord 14y ago
I tore so much industrial strength junk out of it. The seats? They were incredible, built to last many years of transit system abuse. Another example, a wheelchair lift that looks like it came from an aircraft carrier, and could lift an aircraft. I don't see ever re-adding that much weight. The most significant thing I've ever had was 300 gallons of potable water (and 8 companions + gear) for our last trip to BRC.

jychang 14y ago

I remember a mythbusters episode where they stuck a half a ton of clay on a regular car, and it didn't affect fuel economy. So there's that.

hfsktr 14y ago
Rewatched and they did test with the full weight and as you said no (noticeable) change with the added weight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI#t=322s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKxEkT2H8pI#t=322s I know that Mythbusters isn't generally hard science but you know.
- jpitz 14y ago
  Obligatory: http://xkcd.com/397/ http://xkcd.com/397/
amalcon 14y ago
As I recall that episode didn't test 'fuel economy' as most people think of it, but instead 'fuel economy when driving straight at a constant speed on flat ground'. This was not an error -- they were up front about it; it was more a question of controlling variables. Still, it keeps us from generalizing the weight data to actual vehicle cost of operation.