Kormos Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 I have been reading with interest the latest MMM article about base vehicles; the section on the Al-Ko chassis to be precise. At the moment I don’t have a MH but I am actively looking for the right one. My wife and I are planning to travel around Eastern Europe, Greece and Turkey. Some of the roads in Eastern Europe are very bad indeed, with many potholes or simply unfinished roads. In addition there will be a need to use ferries, either across the Adriatic or across rivers. This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. My feeling is that the parts of a MH under the body will hit the ground or be subject to a lot of damage from loose stones. I also anticipate problems with the rear overhang when crossing the ramp of a ferry. Have any motorhome owners found the Al-Ko chassis to be a problem on rough roads or getting on and off ferries?
Brian Kirby Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Kormos - 2011-08-31 12:08 PM..............................This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. My feeling is that the parts of a MH under the body will hit the ground or be subject to a lot of damage from loose stones. I also anticipate problems with the rear overhang when crossing the ramp of a ferry. Have any motorhome owners found the Al-Ko chassis to be a problem on rough roads or getting on and off ferries? Misunderstanding! :-) What is the figures relate to, rather misleadingly, is the height of the chassis rails above ground (which is to say, by extension, the height above ground at which the motorhome floor will be set), and not the ride height, or ground clearance. Actual ground clearance beneath the AlKo chassis rails will not differ significantly from that on the commonly used platform-cab chassis - although it will be lower than the standard chassis-cab chassis rails - usually being somewhat improved overall due to the absence of the simple rear axle tube used with the standard chassis. However, it is not usually the chassis, or the axle tube, that grounds, but the side skirts, and/or the rear "bumper" moulding. Having said this, you are, IMO, right to be concerned about ground clearances with the lower AlKo chassis. There are two ways in which this may show up. Certain, larger, vans have an extended wheelbase AlKo chassis and this, coupled with the lower chassis rails (and side skirts), increases the risk of grounding between the axles. Other motorhomes, on AlKo chassis or not, have excessively long rear overhangs that run back parallel with the ground (especially the so-called "garage" models and this, especially if in conjunction with a relative short wheelbase, increases the risk of the rear end grounding. For what you propose, I would say seek out a maximum MWB, RWD, chassis with a compact van body that is somewhat upswept at the rear, so as to minimise mid wheelbase, or rear overhang, grounding risks. Many modern vans are built far too low, and quite a few also have silly, low mounded, front air-dam spoilers. I can't comment on Turkey, though Don Madge is well versed in the country's roads, but have travelled around a fair chunk of Hungary and bits of Slovakia three years ago, and quite a lot of the Peloponnese and bits of northern Greece, last year. Good news first. Greek roads are generally not that bad, though Greek driving habits take some getting used to! Biggest problem we had is running northern European "summer" tyres in autumn on southern European road mixes. Wet grip was not a strong point, with some quite interesting effects! Hungary has excellent road signing, and rather less good roads! There is also a totally bewildering network of roads for which an electronic virtual vignette is required. The intention is to push trucks onto the new motorways, which are very good, but which being toll roads, many truckers were avoiding. So, all the attractive rat-runs also now need the vignette. You buy this, at quite reasonable cost, at the border. It merely involves determining how long you wish the vignette to last, and giving your vehicle registration number, which is then entered on a database. You get a receipt showing your vehicle number, how much you paid, when, and the duration. It is claimed your registration number is electronically checked as you drive around, and you will be fined if using a toll road without the vignette. We saw no cameras, and concluded that if the fuzz pulled you while on a toll section and you had no receipt, you got fined. So, two things. It is important to check that the registration number is shown absolutely clearly, especially in differentiating 1 from I and 0 from O, and it is vitally important not to lose it! :-) Roads, generally, when we were there, were totally shot. Crazed, rough, grooved, and potholed, especially on bends. Standard practise is to weave around the bad bits, and everyone does this. At first you think they are all drunk, or nodding off, which can be a bit disconcerting when it is a 40 tonne artic! However, in defence of your fillings, you then start doing this yourself, and realise oncoming drivers will even slow to give you space around particularly bad patches. Bulgarian truckers were particularly good at this, no doubt for good, home grown, reasons! :-) Watch for ungated rail level crossings on minor roads, there is often only a sign, and it is your duty to stop (often with minimal notice!), as at a stop sign, not just carry on. Ooops! :-) Oh yes, and level crossings should be treated with great caution: crossings they are, level, many are not, requiring tractor-like ground clearances! Long roadside spiels in Hungarian starting with POZOR! mean there is something of a hazard ahead. However, the signs are far too long to read on the fly, and Hungarian is impenetrable, so just slow down and you'll soon find out what it is! Driving, generally, is cautious and courteous and, with the above exceptions, was no problem whatever. Slovakia had even worse minor roads, quite good major roads, and more Italianate driving - so was much more fun! :-D
Kormos Posted August 31, 2011 Author Posted August 31, 2011 Thanks for the info Brian. I now understand that it is the bodywork that is likely to be scraping along the ground. I have seen some MH with an exhaust end pipe that appeared to be no more than 6 inches from the ground. That would be a hazard just driving around Hertfordshire with it's obsession for speed bumps. I will agree to you a certain extent about Hungarian roads. I've just returned to the UK after living in Hungary for 20 years. I hope your comments don't put people off going there. I think that generally Hungarian roads are not too bad. By the way the Virtual Vignette is checked by teams who position themselves at the side of motorways or on the exit of service areas. They can be very strict. It's when you get to Romania that the fun really starts. The EU (that's you and me) are paying Romania to rebuild their roads. Yet on entering the country they insist that you pay a special road tax! It's tempting to point out that we've paid already. Last year we drove south through Romania and found a 100 kilometer stretch that was being rebuilt. However nobody was working and the roads was just rubble. Even in my Land Rover Defender we were struggling in parts. I'm sure certain MH would struggle... and the habitation area shaken to bits.
Dave225 Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Just to make what some may state is a 'picky' point unless you are Hungarian. The OP talked about Eastern Europe, Hungary does not class itself as Eastern Europe, it is Central Europe and the people will tell you they were European long before Brussels was even invented. They can get quite hurt if you lump them in with some of the countries bordering the Black Sea. Having also lived there I can concur with a lot of what has been said. You can get your vignette over the internet and the web page is in English. The roads are usually good, but as mentioned out of the main areas and things are 'interesting'. You will often find your vehicle is 'scanned' if you top at a rest area and if not #legal' will be accosted accordingly. Do not try to pull the 'I am a poor tourist' stunt, it will not wash, although the Hungarians do like the Brits, so be polite and you never know. Watch out for Lake Balaton at weekends and July/August as the population tendsto descend there for a break in summer. Also do try the wine, it is some of the finest in Europe and usually never leaves Hungary. Forget those tales about Bull's Blood etc. Also worth a visit are some of the many thermal baths. The ones in Budapest date back to Roman times. Also never ever travel ona Budapest tram without a ticket. The inspectors are all in plain clothes and can be very harsh on non payers, even if a mistake has occurred. The minimum fine is 5000 Forints and this rises rapidly if you do not pay on the spot. At the current time the temperature there is 30-35 degrees so can get very hot. Romania is usually even hotter so pick your travel time carefully. Good luck and enjoy your stay.
lennyhb Posted August 31, 2011 Posted August 31, 2011 Kormos - 2011-08-31 12:08 PM This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. The Fiat Camping Car chassis which a large majority of new Motorhomes are built on is much lower than the standard chassis cab which I think you are referring to. The camping chassis is about 40mm lower than the Al-Ko, but it's not the height of the chassis that is important besides overhangs already pointed out by other members it's the bits & pices the manufacturers dangle even lower that's the problem. On our first major outing I tore the bottom off my gas bottle locker ( near the front on my vehicle) & the drain tap towards the rear. I have since modified both and now the lowest bit is the exhaust which is at least on flexible mountings. When we change vans better ground clearance will be high on the list.
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 Ground clearance or rather the lack of it,is one of my bugbears..along with ridiculous,cartoonesque,rear overhangs!? *-) ...don't these "designers" ever envisage their creations sitting anywhere,other than on perfectly level campsites? (..their marketing departments on the otherhand, seem fill their brochures with images of them perched amongst rocks,next to mountain streams....I can only assume that in some cases,they''ve dropped then in by Chinook! *-) )
lennyhb Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 pepe63 - 2011-09-02 11:18 AM ...don't these "designers" ever envisage their creations sitting anywhere,other than on perfectly level campsites? Don't be silly you don't expect the people who design them to actually use them in the real world. (lol)
pepe63xnotuse Posted September 2, 2011 Posted September 2, 2011 Oh yeah!..sorry..! what was I thinking.. :$ Edit: slightly off the main topic..but could someone please identify the model at the top left of this page? http://www.dethleffsowners.co.uk/news.php (..the previous model Fiat,with the red front..having said that, this page may alternate images tho'?) I saw one the other day but didn't manage to catch any model name/number and it seemed to have good ground clearance and ideal proportions(..or maybe I just need to get out more?!? :-S )
Rayjsj Posted September 3, 2011 Posted September 3, 2011 My Autocruise is mounted on a 'low-line' Alko chassis, after a year of use and lots of going onto and off of ferries (at least 10-15 times,) whilst travelling to the Hebrides, Mull etc., the chassis has caused no problems at all, (and i was a bit worried). The Starburst has 'a wheel at each corner' and no appreciable overhang so I knew that wouldn't be a problem, but i was worried about the low ground clearance. It never proved to be a problem, also it is galvanised so, it shouldn't rust (for a long time). I think Alko chassis are great, I prefere the Torsion Bar/shock absorber suspension set up too, holds the road very well, Just make sure it gets greased every year. No bad things to say about it really ! also it makes it almost impossible for any 'Toe-rag' to get underneath to steal the 'cat' as well. ;-) Ray
George Collings Posted September 21, 2011 Posted September 21, 2011 lennyhb - 2011-08-31 6:40 PM Kormos - 2011-08-31 12:08 PM This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. The Fiat Camping Car chassis which a large majority of new Motorhomes are built on is much lower than the standard chassis cab which I think you are referring to. The camping chassis is about 40mm lower than the Al-Ko, but it's not the height of the chassis that is important besides overhangs already pointed out by other members it's the bits & pices the manufacturers dangle even lower that's the problem. On our first major outing I tore the bottom off my gas bottle locker ( near the front on my vehicle) & the drain tap towards the rear. I have since modified both and now the lowest bit is the exhaust which is at least on flexible mountings. When we change vans better ground clearance will be high on the list. The bottom of the standard Ducato chasisis has the same ground clearance as the camper van version. It is the floor of the camper that is lower due to the top of the chassis box being omitted. Despite the Al ko chassis rails being lower they are wider apart and close to the rear wheels where GC is less critical.. Front and rear overhangs are where ground clearance is usually crucial unless you go off road where grounding under the middle of the vehicle can occur. I have seen rollers fitted to the rear end of long 'vans to ease the passage onto ferry ramps etc.
lennyhb Posted September 26, 2011 Posted September 26, 2011 George Collings - 2011-09-21 11:04 PM lennyhb - 2011-08-31 6:40 PM Kormos - 2011-08-31 12:08 PM This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. The Fiat Camping Car chassis which a large majority of new Motorhomes are built on is much lower than the standard chassis cab which I think you are referring to. The camping chassis is about 40mm lower than the Al-Ko, but it's not the height of the chassis that is important besides overhangs already pointed out by other members it's the bits & pices the manufacturers dangle even lower that's the problem. On our first major outing I tore the bottom off my gas bottle locker ( near the front on my vehicle) & the drain tap towards the rear. I have since modified both and now the lowest bit is the exhaust which is at least on flexible mountings. When we change vans better ground clearance will be high on the list. The bottom of the standard Ducato chasisis has the same ground clearance as the camper van version. It is the floor of the camper that is lower due to the top of the chassis box being omitted. Photos on Fiat website show Camping Car chassis with complete box chassis. They say it is lower but don't say why.
Derek Uzzell Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 lennyhb - 2011-09-26 2:49 PM George Collings - 2011-09-21 11:04 PM lennyhb - 2011-08-31 6:40 PM Kormos - 2011-08-31 12:08 PM This brings me to the point of the article. I read that the Al-Ko chassis has a very low ride height. “300mm lower than a typical commercial vehicle and 200mm lower than the Fiat chassis used by motorhome manufacturers”. The Fiat Camping Car chassis which a large majority of new Motorhomes are built on is much lower than the standard chassis cab which I think you are referring to. The camping chassis is about 40mm lower than the Al-Ko, but it's not the height of the chassis that is important besides overhangs already pointed out by other members it's the bits & pices the manufacturers dangle even lower that's the problem. On our first major outing I tore the bottom off my gas bottle locker ( near the front on my vehicle) & the drain tap towards the rear. I have since modified both and now the lowest bit is the exhaust which is at least on flexible mountings. When we change vans better ground clearance will be high on the list. The bottom of the standard Ducato chasisis has the same ground clearance as the camper van version. It is the floor of the camper that is lower due to the top of the chassis box being omitted. Photos on Fiat website show Camping Car chassis with complete box chassis. They say it is lower but don't say why. George's comment "The bottom of the standard Ducato chasisis has the same ground clearance as the camper van version. It is the floor of the camper that is lower due to the top of the chassis box being omitted." should not be a surprise - I know I've mentioned more than once on this forum that the Ducato 'low' motorhome chassis is essentially the normal ladder chassis with its top section shaved off to permit a lower floor height. I don't know which Fiat website you've been looking at, but the photos on pages 6 & 7 of the .pdf version of Fiat's October 2007 advertising brochure http://www.nor-com.co.uk/assets/pdf/motorhome-brochure.pdf make this evident. The "Leisure time chassis-cab" is the normal chassis and the "Special leisure time chassis cab" is the "new, sturdy, low-floor, 'Chassis Special' version" as referred to on pages 8 & 9 of the brochure. If you study the appearance of the chassis rails of the normal and special versions and where they link to the cab-section, it's clear what Fiat has done to achieve the lower floor-height and that the ground clearance below the two versions will be the same. Although only an (inaccurate) sketch of an AL-KO chassis is provided, the attachment brackets fitted to the cab section are shown and It should be apparent from these that the underside of the rails of a Ducato's AL-KO chassis will be significantly closer to the ground than the Fiat original-equipment chassis.
Derek Uzzell Posted September 27, 2011 Posted September 27, 2011 A follow-up... I suspect that confusion over the ground-clearance of the various Ducato chassis has probably arisen from the comment on pages 8 & 9 of the advertising brocure "Chassis Special. A Fiat Auto concept, featuring light-weight construction making for enhanced loading capacity, and reduced ground clearance making for easier access to the living area." In fact, it's the lower height above the ground of a floor installed on the top of the shallower 'special' motorhome chassis that makes for (potentially) easier access to the living area.
George Collings Posted September 29, 2011 Posted September 29, 2011 Some pics 1. Ducato Standard chassis 2. Ducato Motorhome Chassis 3. Ducato with Al-KO chassis If my memory serves me correctly The strength of a beam goes up with the cube of its depth. On that basis the motorhome chassis might seem a little lean but no allowance needs to be made for dropping a half ton pallet from a fork lift truck or an fearless white van man on a promise driving an overloaded vehicle down an unsurfaced track. Note how big a drop there is from the top of the standard chassis to the top of the very deep AL-KO chassis rail.
Mel B Posted September 30, 2011 Posted September 30, 2011 Interesting pictures. I would be a little concerned as to the long term life of the 'special MH chassis' though, it does look a bit 'weak' compared to the other chassis - in my experience a beam is always stronger when it is taller and thinner, than shorter and fatter. Try bending a ruler along the thing edge rather than the fat edge and you'll see what I mean. What about the reduced ground clearance on the new Transit wider track chassis - whilst I believe the chassis itself has the same ground clearance, the axle is certainly lower to the ground.
George Collings Posted October 1, 2011 Posted October 1, 2011 Ground clearance under a beam axle is only critical if the ground is really uneven. How many motorhomes are used for serious off roading. Beware of manhole cover left proud during resurfacing though. The longer the wheelbase and both front and rear overhang the more you need decent ground clearance.
Brian Kirby Posted October 2, 2011 Posted October 2, 2011 Not just for intentional off roading, though George. Approaches to campsites and even picnic spots can be surprisingly rutted, leaving a high centre to the track where no wheels roll. Then there are the little things, such as old tree stumps, that can lurk in roadside grass, if you pull over to check directions etc, plus the odd culvert, drainage ditch, etc, all of which can hide, until you "plop" into them. Personally, I think motorhomes with poor ground clearances are a contradiction in terms. One shouldn't need 4x4 clearances but, IMO, less than the base van gives in standard form is not in the buyer's best interests, even if it does look prettier!
pepe63xnotuse Posted October 3, 2011 Posted October 3, 2011 Mel B - 2011-09-30 8:33 PM I would be a little concerned as to the long term life of the 'special MH chassis' though, it does look a bit 'weak' compared to the other chassis.... ...perhaps it would be best not open all the windows at the same time..just in case it buckles in the middle..?! (lol)
Derek Uzzell Posted October 6, 2011 Posted October 6, 2011 Mel B - 2011-09-30 8:33 PM Interesting pictures. I would be a little concerned as to the long term life of the 'special MH chassis' though, it does look a bit 'weak' compared to the other chassis - in my experience a beam is always stronger when it is taller and thinner, than shorter and fatter. Try bending a ruler along the thing edge rather than the fat edge and you'll see what I mean. What about the reduced ground clearance on the new Transit wider track chassis - whilst I believe the chassis itself has the same ground clearance, the axle is certainly lower to the ground. Unlike a commercial vehicle with a traditional sturdy ladder-frame chassis, neither the Fiat nor Ford specialised motorhome chassis (nor a motorhome with an AL-KO chassis) will be suitable for being driven 'naked' on the road, because much of the overall strength of the completed vehicle will come from the coachbuilt bodywork that's been grafted on to the chassis structure rather than from the original chassis itself. I've looked under a few motorhomes built on the Transit FWD 'motorhome' chassis-cab and (by comparing that chassis with photos of the latest Transit 'ordinary' chassis-cab designs) it does appear that the motorhome chassis is unique and - like the Fiat equivalent - has a pretty lightweight construction. I doubt though that this would adversely affect the expected lifespan of a motorhome. I don't think there should be any ground clearance problems regarding the structure of the Transit motorhome chassis, though (having followed for a while a motorhome built on the wide-track version) I agree that the underside of the rear axle is significantly closer to the ground than previously. Having said that, I suspect that it's probably no closer to the ground than a current X/250 wide-track rear axle with 15" wheels. See the centre-right photo on pages 08/09 of the following file: http://www.nor-com.co.uk/assets/pdf/motorhome-brochure.pdf
Mel B Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 Obviously some of you haven't got the road 'cushion' type speed bumps that we have experienced in various places that are quite tall in the middle and just waiting to catch on the wider track motorhome axles!!! With the choice of a wider but lower axle, or a narrower but higher axle, I'd stick with the latter ... which I have! :-D
Derek Uzzell Posted October 7, 2011 Posted October 7, 2011 There are 'speed cushions' dotted around streets in Hereford, but none of these are anywhere near high enough to strike the underside of a Transit wide-track rear axle. I think you'll find that the absolute maximum recommended height for a UK speed cushion is 80mm (just over 3 inches), while 75mm is more normal. As far as I'm concerned, the main advantages of a wider track rear axle on a coachbuilt motorhome are a) moving the wheels outwards can gain useful interior space and b) placing the wheels near to the edge of the vehicle's sidewalls pretty much forces motorhome converters to use wheel-arches that don't mask the rear wheels making wheel changing a potential nightmare. Having the wheels not buried in the wheel arches is also more pleasing aesthetically, but I don't believe a Transit wide-track axle (per se) will make any significant difference to road-holding/handling.
Wanderbirds Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Hello Mel, Whilst I agree with your comments on road 'cushion' type speed bumps, I have not come across any in the UK to "match" many of the whole road width ones we find in France. We have a Knaus on an Alko chassis which has a spare wheel "dimple" below the floor on the overhang. We find that we need to travel over some speed cushions at about 5 mph as they can be so high with near vertical drops that if we travel over any faster the "dimple" bottoms. The upside is that I can safely look at the villages through which we are passing with no danger to the populus or any passing snails. Regards, Carl
Guest Tracker Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 I too have an Autocruise Starburst on an Alko chassis and make the following observations having taken it to Morocco and Norway as well as the more usual France and Spain - but not all in the same week. Low ground clearance can be an issue on very rough ground but so too can it on standard chassis vans with underslung tanks and lockers - but it is exacerbated by the longer wheelbase of the Alko. The ride comfort is significantly better than standard chassised vans and that alone makes it worthwhile for us - but it might not matter to other people - yer takes yer choice As mentioned, the longer wheelbase has good and bad points. It can make you look very silly indeed when turning round with it's much wider turning circle but it also help improve cornering and pitch and yaw due to the more 'wheel at each corner' stance. The longer wheelbase also makes you more careful about the side panels on very sharp corners but makes the wide swing of longer overhangs easier to contend with in tight spaces. Never once have I regretted having the Alko but there have been a few times when a shorter wheelbase would have been easier to get in and out of tight spaces - like diversions through villages on market day that were only intended for cars but nobody tells you that in advance! All the tanks and heating and wiring gubbins is located above the lowest chassis rail height so when you do do hit the ground it is generally only the chassis and no harm has been done - yet! I've only used about 20 ferries so far but I have only grounded on one of them so far and that was in Norway and even cars were grounding on that one! It's never grounded on any 'traffic' calming humps and indeed it rides them quite well considering if you fail to spot them soon enough and hit them too fast! A small point - ensure that when you hit a large bump or pothole that your foot is off the brake pedal. That will remove any compression from the front suspension and improve the bounce comfort factor considerably - in any vehicle. Not a lot of people know that!
George Collings Posted October 14, 2011 Posted October 14, 2011 Following on from Trackers comment about not braking over speed humps. By braking hard momentarily just prior to the bumps the resulting bounce actually extends front suspension travel but the timing is very critical, It is especially effective with tired dampers. This method was used back in the 60s by rally drivers in Africa to deal with enormous potholes but is hardly the way to drive a motorcaravan.
Guest Tracker Posted October 15, 2011 Posted October 15, 2011 George Collings - 2011-10-14 10:25 PM Following on from Trackers comment about not braking over speed humps. By braking hard momentarily just prior to the bumps the resulting bounce actually extends front suspension travel but the timing is very critical, It is especially effective with tired dampers. Exactly right George - but as the timing is so absolutely critical I thought it better not to mention it in case it made the bounce worse by wrong timing! I too have got it slightly wrong at times and wished I hadn't bothered!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.