The BIG Decisions: fuel, hull type, tracks/wheels, size, power. Bernard Arctic Vehicle Project [4K]

[@williamdowns1917]

Having designed heavy duty trucks & truck bodies for about 40 years, don't worry about being too slab sided with Bernard, you'll need some kind of mold to manufacture the shell, so having curvature won't really be an issue for the shell. Boat manufacturers would be a great resource for collaboration. For the stuff inside, maybe. I generally agree with most of your initial choices. My initial thought was that 4 separate powerplants would be a bit excessive, but I like the idea that a unit could be something 2 or 3 people could wrestle out of Bernard for whatever reason makes a lot of sense where the nearest repair facility may be 100's of miles away. You will need to have good vibration isolation, so don't think you can just bolt stuff down. Lastly, I think you're biting off too much thinking you'll go with airless tires. While neat in theory, you have enough on your plate from a technical standpoint with everything else. At a minimum, make sure the design can accommodate normal tires if airless technology falls flat (sorry couldn't resist the pun).

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Good input, cheers

[@elliott2054]

I really enjoyed the Alan series, but I'm even more excited for this build. Seeing a project grow from a single thought right through to the end product is great to see. Keep up the great work, your videos are enjoyed and appreciated.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

My thoughts too, cheers

[@tigs9573]

Love the fact you are going with a good proven propulsion system. Keep sharing.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Cheers

[@nucleardean1]

Hey Alex, I suggest a collaboration or discussion with Edison motors out of Canada (or at least check out their KZbin channel). They are pretty far along with creating a electric logging truck with a generator on board. Their their core values are reliability with an emphasis on easy maintenance and repairability. They are also making conversion kits for a pickup truck. I see a lot of requirement similarities around the drivetrains on both projects. This project is pretty ambitious, I wish you all the luck!

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Cheers I'll contact them. The motors are to be critical, and an area I'll need to be educated on.

[@ARockRaider]

glad someone else was thinking that as soon as they heard the EV with onboard charger!

[@alphagrendel]

I came here to say the same thing. Edison has already solved a lot of these problems.

[@koanarec]

People have been trying to make and use airless tyre since 1938 and as far as I can tell they have all failed on anything faster than a slow run. The main problems relevant to you would be how they just can't contour nearly as well to the surface as a low pressure air tyre. Giving you less grip and pretty much no dampening to the ride. And also the materials needed to make the airless tyre would probably act completely differently in the cold temperatures and become much more brittle. If it was possible to make good airless tyres (for a non-slow application), the very first group to mass adopt it would be bicycle commuters. As they are already going on flat surfaces, not too quickly and really really really hate punctures. But people hate airless bike tyres more than punctures. I absolutely think airless tyres will get dropped from this project as soon as it starts. (but good luck :)

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'm not nailing the colours to the mast - these are the best solution I can deduce at present. But airless tyres are increasingly used in industry, including construction, mining and tractors. The materials are ever-improving, and resins for fibre reinforced wheels are the same as the hull - great down to -40 with excellent flexural strength, which is more than many normal balloon tyres walls can claim.

[@robinbennett5994]

That raises a good question - does Bernard have a target cruise speed? A 'slow run' might be the best we can hope for if the surface is rough.

[@Obvsaninternetexpert]

@@AlexHibbertOriginalsI came to say this…. Also with airless your physically connecting the bit that hits bumps to you…. Much like suspension I suppose…. But without the dampening of 100 years of proven tech…. Someone might make something good enough soon…. But soon enough?

[@Targe0]

@@Obvsaninternetexpert If you lose dampening from the tires, that just means you have to add it to the suspension. You can have solid tires and still have a comfortable ride if you have enough suspension to compensate for it.

[@pulkpuller]

I would say you are quite off with a lot in the comments here. We run airless Michelin tires on our pickup trucks , we run them on our side by side atv’s. They are not solid they provide great cushioning almost too much. They give a sloppy feel to the steering wheel. They are not popular simply because they are the cost of a set of tires for each one. The atv ones are the same and don’t last as long the webbing design breaks from the tread and the tire becomes un-round. As for bicycle tires there are a lot of options they are very heavy when you compare them. The ride feel sucks it’s like marshmallows

[@0xKruzr]

a multi-input, multi-output series hybrid drivetrain makes a *ton* of sense for something like this. you can add solar, or wind, as backups/supplementary equipment as desired. you will probably want some kind of system for managing whether power is going straight from the generators to the motors or through the batteries depending on the state of the whole system, but this kind of thing already exists. very smart, Alex. looking forward to seeing the rest of the design.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Cheers

[@reekiereekie7264]

How about the fuel as a simple name for the fuel

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Oh.

[@philipclark1109]

With the overly-simplistic claim that Diesel is "just named for the guy who made it popular" and with tongue firmly lodged into cheek, I will propose that HVO should be called Hibbert. I think that might catch on.

[@rhydtuned]

Interesting Alex. Looking forward to this. Couple of thoughts, rear section as a flat bed (batteries and motors inside it) On top you have a small HIAB crane to lift same size modular cubes that contain either fuel, diesel generators, or storage. Modular power packs and fuel packs that can be quickly lifted and 'plugged in' by using the HIAB would give you real flexibility and multifunctionality. Hopefully you can visualise what I mean. The rear being half the height of the front command unit, but with e.g. 10x 1m3 interchangeable modules clipped in on top.

[@solarfunction1847]

If you are going to have wind turbines then you should make a Vertical Axis Wind Turbine, you buy a 10Kw generator to mount onto the 2nd cabin floor that goes through the roof which has 3x 1.5m tall x 2m wide Venturi Wind Turbines which has fixed wind guides to an inner spinning curved rotors which gives over 32% efficiency. Join up 3 of these turbines into 1 driven shaft of the generator. You also should look at having a mud room of sorts where you can go from hot inside to cooler temps to put cold weather clothing on before going outside into freezing temps. You'll also need to be able to use a flexible tunnel between both cabins for conducting routine engine management etc.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'll have a look at the vertical turbines and the config you mention, thanks.

[@solarfunction1847]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals Welcome

[@lordgarak]

I wouldn't be afraid of hydronic heating/cooling. Just good quality hoses and fittings that are overkill for your application. Use hard lines when possible. Have a reservoir level alarm to detect leaks and have isolation valves to contain. Nearly every car and truck on the road heats the cabin this way. I can't imagine cold starting an air cooled engine in -40c. With liquid cooling you can preheat the coolant with a simple oil burner. Once one engine is running it's coolant can heat the other engines and keep everything nice and warm. You could use a controller to automatically start/stop a generator based on coolant temperature so that it never gets cold. With the mass of the coolant system and other generators, that cycle could be quite long. You would always have the oil burner as a backup. You could even have an electric element that can heat the coolant from the batteries in a pinch. I also would use electric cooking appliances. We run our cabin on solar power and Starlink uses more power over 24 hours than the microwave and toaster use. When your talking using a generators waste heat to keep warm, your going to have more electricity than you can use. When underway we are talking hundreds of kWh a day to turn the wheels. Using 2 or 3 kWh a day to cook meals isn't a big deal. Airfryers and microwaves use very little power to cook as they run for very short amounts of time. I don't know if a wind turbine would be worth the trouble. It would have to be very large to produce enough energy to keep you warm. If your going to have to run a generator to produce heat anyway you will have more electricity than you need. I would consider an airlock on the command unit so you don't loose as much warm air getting in and out. Maybe have it double as the bathroom. Airless tires are usually very heavy compared to air filled tires. The durability of both really comes down to the materials and construction. At least with an air filled tire you have the possibility of repair.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Not afraid for sure - I'll always look to A-B test ideas even if I have a gut feeling. Preheating is something you've rightly pinged. I don't think we'll have all the spare power you expect though. The motors will eat through the charge. Air-lock. Excellent plan.

[@GusCraft460]

I propose that the telescopic pole with a camera on it be called the survey mast, recon mast, or simply the periscope. I would also suggest adding some powerful lights to it that are angled down so that you can illuminate the area around the vehicle when doing things like setting up tents and such. It will be much nicer being illuminated from above when working than having the lights shining in your eyes at a low angle.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Agreed on that

[@MaxMakerChannel]

I think the main hurdle apart from money is time. You might spend 5-10 years building that thing. So a design that saves time will probably be better overall. Stitch and glue is a great way to build a hull. Having almost everything CNCed or lasercut saves a ton of time! Cutting a piece of steel to length and drilling 10 holes takes half an hour. Having a laser cutter do it takes 1min. Even better is repurposing off the shelf parts. Even buying a actual flat bottom boat hull and adding wheels to it.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Not sure about the principles here at all. One a custom mould is made, each hull laminated is exactly one day of work. I considered a Pioner Multi or similar, but a carbon-diolen hull is half the weight, twice the strength, and 20% of the cost in materials compared to a £17k plastic off-the-shelf hull. And you control the exact size and shape.

[@MaxMakerChannel]

@ I think it will be more like one month per hull. And afterwards the real works starts with outfitting.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

It's literally impossible for a hull layup to take more than a day. The resin cures within a day.

[@tobiaslang3621]

Apart from the hull, this still sounds like a very ambitious project. Don't get me wrong, I love your ideas and hope they will be realized. But the scope of this project sounds like years of development and testing a whole team of engineers could work on that for a substantial amount of time

[@dancarter482]

Spit-balling fuel storage ideas - 20litres/kilos is max you can expect an individual to heft by themselves so something resembling a geodesic dome made up of 20litre cells that are linked with quick-connect self-sealing pipes. When empty they will work as floats/fenders. A basic sledge frame could be their base so it can be hauled. Toblerone sort of shaped tanks that are fairly flexible bladders - like boat fenders.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Yes, lighter internal cells are key to limiting spill risk and making it wieldy to work on.

[@danwills7043]

I am really enjoying this new project and the planning process. If I may, I like to chuck a few ideas about. Firstly, I'd rather have equal generators in each of the forward and rear units. I'd just like to be able to rapidly ditch one unit and still be mobile in the remaining one even if it's more catered to a living space. But definitely be able to swap genertaors between units easily. Secondly, I really like the airless tyre idea. However, I'd like you to at least consider Screw drive style vehicles. They're very manoeuvrable, buoyant and work in all terrain and water. They could even be incorporated into the hull shape. Keep up the good work.

[@Hyratel]

a few thoughts, after skimming other comments: (I'll be using the spacecraft terms 'command' and 'service module' here for brevity) so I like the 6x6/12x12 Electric drivetrain. A+ no notes the BV-206 only has steering articulation, the vertical flex is all passive with a damper/strut as I understand it. The articulated waist with completely separate command/service modules is good for engine fume safety, which is something the BV206 can suffer from if the exhaust develops a hole. You'll still want carbon monoxide detectors in all enclosed spaces, even with an air-air heatex Insulating the heatex air hoses between the C/SM is going to be an Interesting Challenge I 100% agree you need dedicated water drives; as you noted, paddledrive is abysmal. Double-glazed windows are a MUST for this. as stated: keep all windows the same size for interchangeability Make both C/SM top shells the same, but with blockoff panels instead of windows for the service module. this way you can cannibalize an entire vehicle to bring 2/3 home if you're convoying 3. You'll need to find a freezer you can do some Harsh Testing of candidate Gensets with HVO down to your expected operating temps, which will probably be well below the Will-Start guarantee on most gensets, which tend to get less sophisticated as the engine size goes down.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks. I think we're likely to use differential steering on the front vehicle, with rear Bernard as a trailer. But torque will decide. Insulating the duct/cable linkage will indeed need work, although warm air will normally be passing through it at speed. Interesting on keeping top shells the same but with mods. Height and things like turbine mounts may/may not get in the way. Cold running the gensets is needed for sure. I've run plenty of them in Northern Canada, so know what foibles are most likely, and what to look for.

[@djremotion2]

Greetings from Finland, I am inventor/innovator like yourself. I dont see how diesel in your opinion is wasteful when it is idling etc. It is keeping you alive as very good efficiency heat source in harsh deadly conditions. It is not wasted at any time, if anything good effort should be concentrated on how to route exhaust inside for some lenght and using the heat very efficiently. I just found the channel and subbed and have to look earlier videos through. Larger engine IMHO would be better choice than 4 small ones, they have larger robust parts that can tolerate more physical stress before breaking and usually they have had more engineering and quality put into them. Carrying motor in tent was your idea, but how about keeping the engine in and instead making service tent around the engine. Could be much more lighter solution. Having 2 engines per unit can be good idea. Here where I live we have different grades of diesel that stay fluid in various temperatures. Gasoline can be added up to 30% depending on coldness, it is good idea to test very thorougly if vegetable oil mixes with gasoline and the other additives. Again might flow a bit better in larger engine with larger fuel lines compared to very small. Airless tire will be massive weight penalty compared to aired tire. Not sure if that is viable. Again durability at real life using temperature might make them shatter easier internally etc...

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'd not use either title, but thank you. When idling, an 'in cab' diesel engine will only be supplying a fraction of the energy being burned in terms of useable heat and perhaps charge via an alternator. Even when underway, a LOT of the diesel energy is lost as unharnessed heat, and noise. I'm not sure of much conclusive evidence that smaller generator engines have inferior parts to large car engines. It's going to matter more who makes the engines. Tent over the vehicle is a solution, yes, but I was just illustrating the need to move a generator, eg into another Bernard. We won't be carrying gasoline due to the safety risk, and there are already additives to improve the already excellent cold temp performance of HVO, without needing kerosine or gasoline. On wheels, I don't think there's any more or less brittleness risk for airless/balloon tyres. All the polymers (and reinforcements) would need to be cold-rated, and all have to flex. There are plenty of resins and PUs that are rated below -40. Weight? Only if fibreglass reinforcement is used. And you save on a large solid steel hub. Cheers for the input.

[@djremotion2]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals There is already 4-6 other generators in the other bernard too in this scenario. Michelin: "A standard pneumatic tire and wheel typically weighs nearly 21 kg, while a mounted zero-pressure (“run flat”) tire can weigh up to 23 kg. Uptis currently weighs about 22.5 kg.” So here they nicely avoid answering the question because it is weight when mounted on wheel, which of weight is not stated. But if the tyre is 10kg, then non-pneumatic tyre is 15% more, but if the tyre is only 8kg, then it is already almost 20% more. It is critical that tyre has full sidewall that wont break. If the sidewall can fill with snow it becomes extremely heavy and extremely unbalanced too. Natural rubber is preferable in snow and ice. Winter tyres use high silica content on the rubber to add grip. PU hardens in cold and comes very slippery. Yeah I have put less than hour to watching and thinking about this so take with grain of salt.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

We'll certainly look into all the available rubber/syn rubbers on the market to maximise flex and grip. Cheers

[@scottyb069]

Just found your channel and I love the scope of this project. As you were describing the challenges I was formulating my own solutions, which supprisingly were almost identical to yours. I haven't used the new sodium batteries yet but I am playing with lithium titanate batteries which have a slightly longer history of use and are easier to design with atm. As others have suggested I would probably stick with the aired tyres with either an inner tube, or maybe they could be lined with a self sealing compound similar to military aircraft fuel tanks? Love the heat recovery idea but think a fluid system is going to be easier to implement, with maybe a two stage system, a high temp initial storage and a lower temp distribution system. This is the sort of project a person can really deep dive into and have a lot of fun with, can't wait to see the results.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Cheers and welcome. Sodium defo not a certain yet, but lots of testing.

[@GusCraft460]

So regarding climbing out of the water onto the ice, I think that you are going to need something to help with this as you won’t always have nice sloped beaches that will just let you drive out of the water. I propose that you have a system to launch an aluminum anchor with a built in electric heater. It would only need to go a handful of meters. It would heat up (the high thermal conductivity and low thermal mass of aluminum being very helpful here) to melt the snow and ice around it, then turn off the heat to allow the ice to refreeze around it, holding it solidly in place, which would help the vehicle pull itself up onto land. Then the heater is reactivated to melt the anchor free of the ice so it can be retrieved and reset into the launcher mechanism. I would suggest that the launcher mechanism be a small catapult arm mounted on the roof. The winch mechanism should be placed relatively low so that it will be inclined to pull the front wheels up as the vehicle tries to climb onto the ice.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Quite, and it's usually tracked vehicles that find this easiest. We'll need to get the bow angle right, and the distance from nose to wheel right. A winch for tricky exits of the water, for sure. I'll think on the heater idea.

[@GusCraft460]

@ I just think it would provide a much more secure anchor point for very little work or weight.

[@GusCraft460]

I would suggest that you reconsider tracks. While more complicated and more prone to failure at high speeds, tracks provide a massively increased surface area. More surface area means less surface pressure. I also don’t think you’ll need to be going particularly fast so tracks should be less likely to fail. Also, in the event that a track does irreparably fail, you could potentially opt to remove the tracks from that hull and drag it as a sled.

[@ThaJay]

It is indeed very important to stagger the overlaps because a fiber composite will always have a weak point where a stiffer section meets a less stiff section.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Quite. An important matter when using a small number of thicker plies.

[@carrot1151]

Diesel electric seems like a sensible option. I had to do the weekly check/maintenance on the emergency generators at my work and ours were around 30 years old. I was told by the engineer that used to do the annual inspection they didn't have a problem with age because they ran at the best rpm for ware and load as well as the weely run up keeping the fuel fresh. Regarding your telescopic camera pole as a further option to consider the RN etc is looking at having tethered drones with sensors to extend the range of raidars etc. civilian tetherd drones are already available and may have less issues than an extendable built into Bernard.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

We'll have drones, but fixed cameras use a lot less power for prolonged viewing. Noted on the aging generators!

[@barrettdent405]

Nesting idea will be first to fall. Too many potential issues. Redundancy sounds good, but may also fall to practicality. Starting cold engines is hard. Starting diesel engines in cold is quite a bit worse. Having to get multiple units running to meet your needs is just magnification of potential issues. I’m not talking about when things are going relatively well. I’m talking, you’re seriously broken down. Your batteries have been drained keeping you warm, alive. You don’t have the energy to generate heat to get the block warm enough to start. Airless tires depend on flexibility of the material - greatly impacted by temperature. Limit the number of windows. Good idea keeping the windows interchangeable. You’re definitely generating some great ideas based on your experience living and working in cold environments. But you really need to find an engineer to check some of your assumptions and ideas. Preferably one with experience in the environment. Planning on using a fuel you must specially import isn’t nearly as green as you’d like to think. The process of creating bio fuels is often less green than the marketing might try to have you believe. By the time you consider the fuel consumed to grow the source crop they can be terribly inefficient. You should be looking at what fuel is available in the area already. Yes, you’re going to bring most of your fuel. But if you end up needing to acquire local, you don’t want a diesel rig if all the locals have is unleaded gasoline (petrol.) As I said, you’ve got some very good thoughts. But I want you to have the devils advocate check to your ideas.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I don't follow most of that. 1. Nesting is merely for transit in containers. Yes it would require roofs to be detached, and wouldn't be 'tight nestles', but may reduce the number of containers needed. 2. In general at least one generator would always be running, keeping the rear cabin at a reasonable temperature. It would be easy to install a small diesel heater to that cabin to get it up to -10 or -5 degC in the event that the generators are off for a day or more. 3. The batteries aren't used to power heaters. All heat is from burning the HVO, either directly in the front cabin or via the heat exchanger and ducting. 4. The current wisdom points to PU for the airless tyre outers, which is excellent in the cold down to sub -40. The 'spokes' could be a flexi-epoxy, and that performs down to -40 with at times enhanced performance (see the Easy Composites video). 5. Windows can easily have foam inserts for insulation when visibility not needed.

[@More_Row]

@@AlexHibbertOriginalsfirst off , exciting project. How are you going to get the heating system and power delivery through the connection between the two hulls. Since you were talking about soft acujacted towing. I think the weight estimates also seemed pretty strange and too hopeful. Thank you for sharing passion, cheers.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Most likely a rigid articulation like the BV206, and then higher up, an insulated reinforced silicone duct that carries the heat duct and electrical cables. The BV206s have to do this too.

[@Youtuber-k2p]

I think you paid too little attention to the dialogue. There will be no diesel engines, they are veggie oil engines and no batteries will be used to keep anything warm. All warmth will be generated by the excess heat of the engines. This was explained in great detail.

[@NoSTs123]

You are an amazing person!

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Well, we'll see.. Cheers.

[@tuylv.g.7976]

Please take good consideration for the voltage of the system. 48 volt seems low for powering your electric motors. Especially if you consider the distance between power source to the electric motors. You might need strong electric motors to go up some steep hills. Wire gauges become a problem at steep inclines and lower voltages. Having higher voltages like other EVs will give more flexibility and easier power distribution (more power through smaller wires). But it comes at some other costs like safety with handeling batteries and cables. Good luck on the project! I’ll be following it. Cheers I’m not an expert in this field but it is something that is definitely worth having a good think about.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

You're right that this needs lot of attention. Although as I'm aware, the main reason EVs are 400-800V is to allow extremely fast charging. Lighter cabling is a bonus too. The high torque low speed motors I'm looking at have 48V as a native voltage, and it means a simple 2 or 4x reduction for basic electrical systems like nav and lights.

[@gafrers]

Love all this planning, thinking, and tinkering. Dream project. Bernard FTW. I might have missed it, but did you mention a fire suppression system?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Not yet, but we shall.

[@gafrers]

@AlexHibbertOriginals Thank You for answering

[@JonnyJKF]

My intuitive guess on the fibre breaking was correct. In my mind I saw it as a kind of reinforced lever, like how you might break a branch or twig in half over your knee.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Good work. My intuitive guess too, but composites are SO weird, that they can surprise. Combining resin and fibre to radically transform both materials is sorcery of some kind!

[@jackfntwist]

Pro tip: To avoid extreme silhouetting and under exposure of subject, always put the light source in front of the subject, and if the differential is large, have the light source be behind the camera (off camera). :) lol

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

You assume I wish to be illuminated ! Saves on makeup.

[@jackfntwist]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals 🤣Adds to your mystique.

[@firefighter4443]

Go for air tires. Air tires with tubes. Sure it’s a hassle to change out a tube if you get a puncture, but tubes are relatively small when packed up. Besides, what is there that will puncture your tires? Also, tubes can potentially be patched with rubber cement or other stuff. I think you can make pneumatic tires with massive redundancy work. Just don’t go tubeless.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Ice is exceptionally sharp.

[@biffjohnson9953]

very interesting. i am hooked.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Welcome

[@jackfntwist]

My GenXness is coming out but I recommend the movie Biodome. Your recycling of desiccant / condensation byproduct as drinking water harkens to the goals of the project in the film.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'll have a look

[@anonaustria9867]

Some thoughts as they come along: 1) Why worry about the efficiency of udling generators? Just have one running and jump-start the others that have been kept warm by the running one? 2) The redundancy (turning a double-Bernard into one wreck and one bachelor-Bernard) sounds nice, but will probably require pretty much everything to be modular. Sounds great, but in my experience "modular" usually means "a lot less efficient" in all regards. 3) "Vegetable oil" means palm oil. Bio-diesel made from palm oil supposedly creates 3x the carbon footprint of normal diesel. Having seen these plantations: don't. 4) Not sure about the airless tires, just as a gut feeling. Keep in mind: A central tire inflation system could just keep a punctured tire going while providing the ability to up the pressure on firm ground for faster going 5) You could have movable foam window covers. Open by day or when certaing windows are needed, closed otherwise (also good for arctic summer) 6) Maybe also have a cable antenna mounted on the mast for long-range comms? 7) May not be necessary at the hull height vs weight, but maybe attach a shield in the front like amphibious AFVs? 8) Have you really thought the dehumidifiers through? You'll have condensation on the walls because of the high local relative humidity, but to get that to stop let alone re-evaporate the liquid water would require you to significantly reduce the ambient humidity? Maybe your thought is already high humidity because of a lot of people in a box though... 9) For water propulsion, why not attach the outboards close to the wheels? You'll already have a power connection there

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks. 1. The generators wouldn't ever be idling - they'd be charging Bernard or off. You're right that keeping one running will be wise for multiple reasons. 2. Yes this won't be perfect, but I'd like to place motor mounts in the rear Bernard just in case. 3. HVO isn't bio-diesel/FAME or made from plantations. It's mostly from waste oils. 4. We'll test with an open mind. 5. Yes that's the plan. 6. Probably two satellite systems will suffice, plus smalll VHF. 7. Armour vs flex for impact needs testing. 8. Yes it won't 100% remove the need to wipe and wring out cloths, but will help. And it may help capture the vapour BEFORE it condenses. 9. Maybe - or just one on the 'transom'.

[@stevehardyuk]

Hi Alex What a project. I have been reading most of the comments and a lot of good ideas in the mix. I have some questions for you. 1)How fast are you looking to travel? 2)have you considered hydraulic drive motors over electric drive if speed is not an issue? 3)do you have an estimated cost?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks Steve 1. on rubble, around walking pace plus stops to assess routes. Perhaps 15-20mph on perfect flat grippy ice. 2. A couple of people have suggested it and I've done a read. Not written it off, but the high pressure worries me from a safety angle, and generally from an energy conversion efficiency standpoint. 3. I do not at present. Aiming for a combination of channel and sponsor funded.

[@ThePaulv12]

Re the engines, I like the way you're thinking however you must remember redundancy is one aspect. Another aspect is you get many more points of failure. To illustrate, I'm a mechanic turned truck driver. I collect bulk liquids typically in the 28,000 - 38,000litre range. Of the 1000 or so collections I've done in this job I would estimate there have been just 3 collections where there hasn't been a failure of some description. Almost without exception, every single collection is a drama caused by an equipment failure. Such is the nature of complex systems. eg. Pump blockages, electronic crashes, burst hoses, galled stainless fittings completely seizing due temperature changes, random unforseen external influences such as lost keys or a broken forklift blocking access, misplaced tools causing utter mayhem, gauges going out of calibration or failing making collection impossible, stirring mechanisms failing catastrophically, power outages, no water pressure, blocked drains making pumping impossible because the tanks can't be cleaned afterwards so therefore can't be refilled. Then the receiver has equipment failures the same as just listed at the collection point and of course truck equipment failures. Pumps, motors, solenoids, switches valves everything fails every day just not the same things. It is utterly unbelievable the level of complexity in my life. Here's the really freaky thing, sometimes unrelated things fail simultaneously like a truck will break down, then the calvalry comes you get to the collection point and a mechanical pump switch breaks. You know the system so you enable a computer controlled pump but the touch screen doesn't respond. Every shift is like this. All this BS has taught me the value of simple systems. Mechanical and electrical simplicity is not to be underestimated. The more simple, the less points of failure, the greater the reliability.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I agree completely with your examples of complexity adding chaos to unknown unknowns. However, I don't think a well designed redundancy system causes that. Redundancy for example where five different types of unit are taken in case the first unit fails, is crazy. But by using identical units, or a number of smaller rather than one large unit, you're onto a winner unless there's evidence the larger unit is more reliable.

[@wewillrockyou1986]

Big thing with HVO is that you need special seals and o-rings and other rubber/plastic elements in the fuel system which are HVO compatible. Also, re non-inflating tyres, what I understood is that they have a tendency to wear out quickly due to fatigue damage since the rubber/tyre material is what is absorbing the energy when it deflects, rather than the gas in a conventional tyre, this might make them ill-suited in terms of reliability/dependability.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

As far as my reading has got, modern engines will be HVO compliant, and it's only old engines that have had seals swell due to exposure to kerosine or similar are likely to leak or perish after a fuel change. Point taken on the fatigue of the wheels, although balloon tyres have to flex a lot too.

[@leospitz6541]

Take a look at the Land Master used in the movie Damnation Alley. The vehical was real and almost impervious to damage. use a coupling system to hook vehicals together and share power between vehicals

[@ike1660]

It might be good to put in a diesel heater in both of the modules. Webasto or something like that, if electricity generation isn't needed, the generators might be off or not producing enough heat. The Webasto in the front can burn HVO to make you nice and warm. In the back you can use it if you need to work back there with everything off, working in the back will be much nicer if you're not freezing. It might also be good to preheat the motors and everything else in the back if they have cooled down completely, after parking at the supermarket or something.. The ones that heat air are pretty small and don't use crazy amounts of fuel. Personally I would put 2 in the Command Bernard for redundancy and 1 in the Service Bernard. If any one of them breaks you can always rip out the extra one in the front and put that one in.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I mention a diesel stove for the Command Bernard that can double as a heater. Certainly a yes to preheating the Power Bernard, although at least one generator will generally be on. A small portable diesel heater as a backup will likely be wise.

[@andrewjjhalliday]

Is the music at the start of your episodes "Freakscene"

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

It's a sample from a track I bought from Premium Beats many years ago!

[@reekiereekie7264]

I think inflated tires might help with buoyancy

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Yes, although the whole hull will be too (foam cored) and all the HVO is too. The balance to that is the damage and deflation risk of inflated tyres on hubs. See the damage to the custom wheels in my previous episode.

[@robinbennett5994]

The problem with using tyres for buoyancy is that they're below the centre of gravity, making the vehicle less stable.

[@TheEasyRail]

I'd look at the possibility to include "bus heater" which connects to the engine/generator coolant loop and cycles that through the radiator where simple fan circulates it into the cabin. Many people use them in sailing boats in the Scandinavia/Arctic. Alluring actic sailing channel has one nice video and installation on it titled: "FREE Heat of our boat! No extra running costs". There are lots of variants and models starting from as cheap as low $100's.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

The engines will likely be air cooled and in the other cabin, but we'll look at the various heat reclamation methods.

[@jmwintenn]

a small outboard isn't horrible if you're not going to be in the water too often. prop shape makes a big difference. finding one that can work at your required temps is another thing. old arctic trucks and brand new planes have "hot plates" or electric wires running through part of the windshield to make sure they can see out in icing conditions. if you want to go the poly route than "shields windshields" is one i know of. for the inside, if you want to maximize the space then just have conduit and pipes on the wall. if you could ship these with the wheels off,that would allow you to make them fairly tall,giving more space. having one vehicle carry all the fuel, another the food, etc. is the best way to get the most out of the area. mixed storage is space wasteful, you can't optimize. trade off vs being self-sufficient. gasoline engines have an easier time starting in the cold, diesel is fine but if you're going small generators anyway i would consider small gasoline ones. gasoline is lighter than diesel, burns cleaner, no clue which egt is hotter. i wouldn't put a wind thing on the roof. i get it, but if ice builds up on it that's more load on the roof. also if it builds only on one side then it might try to tip,roof really won't like that. not sure how far you're willing to take it, but having little "escape pods" mounted to the sides could give you more storage at the back or a dedicated sleeping space up front. screw in maybe, to help with shipping.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I like some of this, especially the pods. And the use of space. Gasoline is too dangerous sadly. Windshield heating is on the list for 'problems to foresee'. Cheers!

[@2WHEELSor2WINGS]

Fuel name "DERV" short, neat, easy and correct.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

But not differentiated from general fossil road diesel?

[@Matteo._.]

Mousse? Like on enduro bikes?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Pros & Cons of a Mousse In general, a mousse is known to do one thing very well, NOT go flat. However, they are also known to have several downsides, such as having a slow rebounding or non-progressive effect in their rideability. In the industry, this is often referred to as a “DEAD” feel. This loose or unstable feeling can affect the motorcycles handling and traction applications and unfortunately, you just have to live with it because they are not adjustable (Like pneumatic systems or inner tubes), other than that they do adjust themselves as they diminish and wear. Being a solid foam unit, mousses are generally heavier than most tubes, and the dead feeling only contributes to this effect and feel. Other negatives can be their short life span, made worse by their high cost (Nitromousse is a big improvement compared to past mousses).

[@alwaystinkering7710]

It seems to me the ideal starter hull for this concept would be.... a fully enclosed lifeboat. Add fiberglass hard points to enclose the drive motors. Add a universal joint connection between two hulls, placed rear to rear. You could likely get this in a 40 foot container. Note the if you use a lifeboat hull as your mold, it comes in a hydrodynamic shape. Now, if you're set on carbon fiber, you'll need a mold. In that case, use a lifeboat hull as the mold. You could chop up and reshape it as desired, that become the mold for the carbon fiber and can be use to make as many hulls as you want. Will this have traditional steering, or by flexing the joint between the hulls? There are trade-offs for both, but flexing the joint allows simple, fixed, straight axles. You could then drive two wheels with a single motor. That makes a 3 axle, 3 motor, 6 wheel config fairly simple, like those 6 wheel ATVs from the 60s. In fact, you could link those 3 axles with a chain drive while still putting a motor on each. In the case of a failure of one, you would still have 6WD. I would make the wheel/tire assemblies very quick and easy to change, so they could be removed for shipment and popped on when removed from the container. This would allow the hull to be the full width of the container, no space lost to accommodate the wheels. They would be fully outboard of the hull. Your plan will have terrible conversion losses and wasteful, expensive, heavy copper wiring, and control electronics taking up space. Consider hydraulics. There are eco-friendly hydraulic oils. Hydraulic motors are very powerful in small packages. You can have 2 or 3 pumps feeding the system for redundancy. That oil also gets pretty warm, so it could help distribute heat to the command section by placing the tank in it. When you have a hydraulic pump and tank, there are all kinds of things you can do with it, like power winches, hoists, and a propeller. You can still have alternators on the diesel engines so they will charge batteries when not needed to drive the hydraulic pumps. So here's what I would try. 2 hulls, with a flex joint for steering. Each hull has 3 solid axles and 6 wheels, each with a hydraulic motor. Power hull has 2 6 cyl. diesel engines with hydraulic pumps. Hydraulic fluid tank is in the command hull for heat. Power hull has an auxiliary propane heater keep it warm enough to start, and that same propane is used for cooking.

[@alwaystinkering7710]

Hydraulics would also provide steering.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'll investigate hydraulic motors but don't get grumpy if I don't switch over. All power systems involving energy storage (as fuel or charge) have large energy losses when converting to circular motion. Steering - differential on the front vehicle, and the rear one a trailer.

[@Jonathanbaker]

Hello have you seen the KZbin ussr version is has a full breakdown down about how the was build and operating many problems with condensation. And keeping the occupied warm.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Which vehicle?

[@Jonathanbaker]

@ stb

[@Jonathanbaker]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals kzbin.info/www/bejne/gIqzpaOmjdSHrMksi=WDI0PFNpmAw5E2F2

[@Jonathanbaker]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals kzbin.info/www/bejne/nGe1Xptma66mgNksi=uYvwNgVMV2SlRySm

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Oh that one. Thanks.

[@VinceW187]

What is the budget and timeliness for the project? Or are we still in the dreaming stage where everything is permitted?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

One of the limits in the 'wants' episode was cost, and the planned funding. Dreams are always permitted, but not expensive ones. The scale model goes on the ice February, and I'd like to have a shell laid up by late summer, and then outfitted that autumn.

[@alexsantwyk5732]

How about a 3rd pod? Same size as the 1st 2 but only for fuel/supplies? That can be drop and retrieve as needed? Could also be 1/2 sized 2x2x2.5m ish then you can do 2 supply drops??

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

We might struggle for power for even more, and a long caravan would get stuck more in rubble ice. Two is already ambitious.

[@BDM775]

I think diesel-electric with articulated hulls and separated crew/powerplant is an elegant solution to a long haul problem. However, it does seem to me that either this project is poorly communicated. Is it an expedition vehicle? A custom order vehicle for commercial sales? A vehicle that will be operated by a company for commercial services? A brainstorming of fun and crstive ideas of what could be? It seems to me your initial aim is to build around 2 vehicles for 4 total hulls. The choice of HVO is understandable if you either already have a sponsor, or potentially reaching out for sponsors that would be willing to both provide fuel for marketing and cover some development and operational costs. Regarding costs, if I understand correctly, you would have to basically develop from the ground up and ultimately manufacture or assemble every single major part of the vehicle. As you have mentioned, a lot of your skills and knowledge with working with compositws and modifying a lifeboat hull will be transferable for the Bernanrd, however the scale of developing and manufacturing an entirely new large-scale vehicle puts this within the range of a R&D project for a company with engineers, cash flow and underlying technology that can be used as a core of the vehicle. The shell would need to be lightweight, insulating, durable, expected to handle the extreme conditions and potential stress from flex of the chassis or even the weight of the rest of the vehicle. The requirements are strikingly similar to the lifeboat hull, but with an extra requirement to be extremely light. Said shell would also need to be designed from scratch an it would need to be designed for eventual repeatable manufacturing of starting hulls. It is one thing to create a custom sled, it is completely different to manufacture and test 4 composite shells for 2x5 hulls. And that is only the shell, I really hope that you already have a chassis you aim to modify and put your shell on top of, because, otherwise, the sheer scale of the project makes me hesitant, as a viewer, to emotionally invest into seeing Bernard escape development hell and ever reach 'good-enough' state to see itself deployed on ice. I strongly recommend against going amphibious if this is to be used on ice, unless it's strictly for small river crossings, because outsized risks of getting stuck in the water, ice or even rollin over far outweigh any potential benefits. Making the hulls amphibious will make development requirements for every other part of the vehicle much stricter, if it's expected to enter water willingly and exit it at will on an unprepared landings, too.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I wish people would use paragraphs! I'll pick out a few points. I did an episode on the aims for the craft. Expedition vehicle with potential for second generation vehicles to have charter/rental use. I'm speaking to engineering departments, and many of the parts will be off the shelf. For amphib, it's for very short crossings or lead sections. Or, wheels off, to be towed behind a much larger boat with personnel not onboard. Neither in offshore conditions.

[@HistoryNeedsYou]

How about an airlock/lobby so you can keep the interior warm and dry whilst crew enter or leave. This could also serve as a wet room / bathroom.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Spot on. Yep.

[@McTroyd]

Firstly: This is a really cool project. I look forward to the ongoing progress. Secondly: At best, I'm an audiovisual engineer, and at worst, I'm an automotive & sci-fi nerd who spends too much time on KZbin. I have no vehicle design experience; this is just a thought experiment for me. Please take what follows in that context. I wonder if you're selling yourself short on the power generation. The engine in a small sedan runs around 60-75 kW (~80-100 HP, as this yank understands it). Even if your electrical motors are 100% efficient, that's not a lot of power to move multiple tons across rough, irregular terrain. Also, with only 15 kW of power generation, you're looking at minimum 4 hours of charging time for every 1 hour of movement, assuming you use no other electricity. Being a platform for science and exploration, I'd want to have a power budget for computers, sensors, and communication equipment. All that said, my guess is torque will be more immediately useful than power, and the actual draw from your motors will be much lower most of the time. Batteries will also help smooth out the difference between supply and demand, at least across short time frames (i.e. getting over a steep hill). Using the waterways (leeds was the term?), you might save a bit more power too, since a saildrive will be a relatively light electrical load compared to your wheels. I would brainstorm the kinds of things you would like to pull off in a vehicle such as Bernard, and take a hard look at the actual power use requirements. I would then solve for the following items: * Shoot for a 2:1 ratio of charge time to moving time, based on your chosen power train. (So, 16 hours charging for 8 hours moving, in any given 24 hour period.) Ex: If you end up with 100 kW of drive motors, you'll want 50 kW of generation. * Add your power budget on top of that. Ex: 100 kW drivetrain + 10 kW for accessories (lights? comms? navigation?) and science observations means you need 60 kW of power generation. (This assumes the 10 kW is a constant , 24x7 load.) * Given the experimental nature of this vehicle, and not knowing the unknowns, I would add 20% safety margin to the generators. In my example, that means 72 kW of power generation. In my idealized world, based on my example math, you'd have 2x72 kW generators, so you'd be 100% operational even if one of them takes a dive. I expect those would be too big/heavy/fuel consumptive for your design goal, though. My guess is you'll end up with something closer to 2x40 kW generators, and be OK with a reduction in capability in an outlier emergency scenario.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks for all the detail here. Rest assured all has been read. I'm also keen to make sure we don't sell ourselves short on power, but it's indeed torque that we need, as speed is not an aim. Whilst I may be running a little low, I think you may have overshot. For example, 10kW for onboard systems is probably 10-20x more than we'll need. Lights and comms are very low loads. For motor capacity, I'm concentrating more on the torque they can deploy. 200nm is a very basic early aim. This isn't close to as much as a 4x4 vehicle, but remember they are rated to move not only their own weight (2500kg for a Toyota Land Cruiser, whereas we'd look to for half that for a dry weight), but also a payload of another 700kg, and towing 2500kg.

[@Youtuber-k2p]

27:28 just call it veggie oil. I am displaying endless amounts of wonderment btw. Oh and with a winch you’ll obviously need a lightweight anchor from which to winch when stuck. Perhaps a spare wheel buried in the snow or do you need something sharp to screw into ice as an anchor?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Yes to various types of anchors. I'm closing in on hippy diesel

[@Targe0]

Be very careful when using condensation water, a thing like that can be a breeding ground for some very nasty bacteria. So if you are going to use it, make sure you thoroughly treat the water first, or you risk some serious health problems. For water propulsion, try looking into impellers like a jet ski uses, their advantages over just a propeller is that they are housed inside a tube which will be much more useful for a rugged vehicle. As you could have two, one on either side and that would give you some differential steering which would help with control in the water. And to prevent the intakes getting clogged or damaged, you could have some plates that can be open and closed in front of them with a simple hatch when driving and can be opened prior to going into the water. And if they are powered by electric motors, they can run off of the unit's internal power system without issues.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Certainly some carbon block filtration for the win. Yet another system transferable from Alan. Good ideas to bring into the mix when choosing the small temporary 48V water propulsion system.

[@dnsmcbr104]

Re the exhaust heat recovery: By "wet" systems, are you also excluding refrigerant-based phase-change heat-pumps? ISTM a refrigerant line could be connected between sub-bernards.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Trying to stay dry for now, as leaks or bursts would be a major drama.

[@Targe0]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals Likely a good idea, the less you have to rely on things that are pressurised with particular chemicals like refrigerants, the better. As if the line does break, and you lose that refrigerant, unless you carried extra you would have just lost that whole system. For a reliable system in remote and extreme locations, simple is always better, even if not always very efficient. And, heat pumps are great, but they also lose most of their efficiency when they get way past freezing. They are fine for a short time in sub-zero temperatures, but prolonged operation does become a problem.

[@frukwam]

Dakar rally bikes use foam 'mooses' instead of air filled tubes in tyres. I wonder how difficult it would be to mould larger ones for Bernard.

[@Dirt-Diggler]

You can get diesel cooktops so no separate fuel source and they double as heaters,redundancy 👍

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I link to one in the video

[@Dirt-Diggler]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginals Oppps 👍

[@vikinghamer]

With big tyres will you be able to get away with no suspension to keep it simple and light weight?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

No suspension is unlikely. Looking at torsion bar suspension and a method for the driven wheels to have constant velocity joints.

[@kdenyer1]

Would go for 2 generators and electric drive units.😊

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Electric drive direct from the AC source? Not having a reservoir would worry me. Perhaps a bypass for efficiency when power is plentiful. Two generators would have to be huge and heavy, plus if one died, you're underpowered.

[@Skorpychan]

So, like a Hagglunds with wheels instead of tracks, and a boat-shaped hull rather than boxes? Makes sense to me. Tracks are great, but you pay a really high price for the performance. The idea of multiple redundant generators is good, especially if they're in separate units that can be lifted out. Maybe consider having a crane of some sort in the engine bay, though; even just a chain hoist or a winch to life things up and swing them outside the vehicle. The supply drop idea is also a good one; maybe design them so they can be airdropped if required, if they're able to be just abandoned out on the ice for long periods. Chuck them out the back of a Hercules, and pick them up later. Or not, because it's not like used chip fat is that harmful to the environment. What's the plan for the heating system? Are you going to use engine exhaust to heat air?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Very roughly, but without all that steel. I like the idea of an infrequently used crane, perhaps tying into the winches already needed. Air droppable eh. Now that would make for fun testing episodes. Yes, I want to reclaim heat from the generators via a heat exchanger. Preferably air-to-air, but we'll see.

[@robinbennett5994]

What was the reasoning behind an articulated vehicle vs a rigid connection?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

All the single vehicles tend to haul trailers. So, I posit that if there are noisy, fumy engines that need not be over your wheels, you put them in a larger, separate trailer.

[@camperlab6546]

The simplicity of air-to-air heat exchange might just be surpassed in morale boosting by radiant floor heating provided by liquid cooled diesel engines.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I'll not discount fluid circuits entirely, but would need to be convinced the risks are worth it

[@AutieTortie]

How are you planning on keeping the batteries warm?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Na-ion run fine, and charge fine, cold. The cabin where they are stored will be heated by either the cabin burner or the generator exhaust heat exhanger and ducting.

[@AutieTortie]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginalshow cold is "cold". The last time I checked Na+ batteries, they only charge above -10°C. And slowly at that, but without the cell degradation that LiFePO4 might experience. It would either way definitely need to be solved and not assumed a non-issue.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I literally have Na-ion in my freezer now charging like a champ at -25. I don't consider anything a non-issue, hence the exploration of the new battery types.

[@AutieTortie]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginalsAwesome

[@LBJHJP50]

Polycarbonate is UV filtering if you didn't know. Might be good for the eyes with all that sun and reflection

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I may be wrong, but I think only certain grades are UV-proof. It's also easy to scratch. Otherwise it would be the obvious choice over acrylic or glass.

[@eliadelucchi5455]

28:59 well if you are asking... I think you are making it more complicated than what it needs to be. the connection between two hulls is a major concern, mainly the heat transfer. I think you (and I'm in no way an expert) you are better off using one single hull and a bulkhead or some access panels to the engine's room. that way it's always accessible nometter the weather, it's much easier to transfer heat and you could possibly even get warm water. depends all on how concerned you are from the noise. other than that, the pole with the camera on top doesn't convince me, again, keep it simple, use mirrors instead. the winches are gonna be electric? you are gonna need a lot of power if you get real stuck (knock on wood). MAYBE you could consider some manual winches?? you have to go outside anyway, with a manual you can store it inside and on the hull have only some anchor points. again, I'm no mechanic nor engineer, but that's what I'm thinking. main takeaway, keep it simple! best of luck! eagerly awaiting for more news, regards.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I did ask I suppose! The linkage will certainly need thought and tests. My experience in Alan is that a bulkhead simply won't counteract noise and fumes. Mirrors for getting distance views forward? Manual winches sound very wise. Cheers for your input.

[@asdfghjkuytrewzxcv]

Are you actually gonna use it or just drive it to Scotland...?

[@ysesq]

its not likely to go anywhere without funding. he needs $1.5 million in dev costs to engineer a vehicle. ironically i am chasing a similar contract so his testing and ideas are useful. but without a multi phase low rate production contract from a national government its not going to happen. but there are contracts in phase 1 evals now for missile armed arctic vehicles so he can likely snag one.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I probably won't need the ordnance. Perhaps a discount can be had.

[@ysesq]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals projected cost for mine is $400k. 6 SSMs cost $3m each. spotter drones run $100k per in a magazine of 6. optionally manned with a crew of 3. likely stick 50 cals on top.

[@whiskeymonk4085]

Sounds like a 3D printer would be handy for making storage boxes that make use of odd shaped areas to ensure maximum use of space.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

It would need to be very large, and outperform carbon sheet!

[@dancarter482]

Lexan windows for the WIN!

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

If we can find a scratch and UV resistant version.

[@Targe0]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals A solution to that might be to put a thin layer of UV resistant glass over the top of them to fend off damage.

[@noken11]

I’m a terrible cynic but this sounds very much like Allen, version 2. Lots of development, lots of donations but then, oh dear. Not safe. Must sell.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Well that's down to every viewer. There are thousands of other KZbinrs to watch. If you think it's a disaster either continue to watch my efforts for free (as most do) or jump ship.

[@OutdoorEnough]

I sure did learn a lot watching Alex build out Allen, and Im sure Alex learned a lot and gained lots of positive exposure, just because plans change doesn't mean the whole project was wasted. Allen has fulfilled his purpose and assisted with Artic Exploration.

[@davidrumsey3180]

With regard to airless tyres: Remember that air-filled tyres, especially large volume low pressure ones, offer considerable buoyancy, which is very useful to amphibious vehicles. Many airless tyres are open at the sides and would not offer any real flotation. If there is an airless tyre that is fully enclosed and offers flotation, great, but if not then I think the loss of buoyancy would be hard to justify. For the electric drive to the wheels.. to maximize efficiency and room within the hull, wheel motors would probably be the way to go. The only question would be their ability to operate in salt water reliably, especially considering the range of temperatures they will be subjected to.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

They certainly do, although due to wheel positioning, rather low down for good stability. It may be better to use inflatable bladders higher up should we find buoyancy lacking on short water sections. Wheel motors/belt drive is a MAJOR debate we can all have in due course.

[@RalfAbbt]

I think you overcomplicate it. Two Generators are enough, you also need additional wiring and Inverters, this uses space and brings complexity. Also for the Tyres, the airless Tyres are maybe good for on Road usage, but for off Road usage you need the fexability, the Tyre needs to flex over the Obstacle. Two teamed Vehicles are not so simple then you think, look at the Häglunds it is really complex. More complexity means more Points of Failure.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

If one generator dies, you'd then be underpowered and keep having to stop to recharge. If the rear shell is towed like a trailer, you avoid much of the complexity of the Hagglunds.

[@GordonWrigley]

An electric induction cooker might be more efficient than a diesel stove, they are very good at transferring all the energy into the pot/pan, and much easier on emissions.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

That will include the energy conversion losses though, and lose us a front cab backup diesel heater.

[@GordonWrigley]

@AlexHibbertOriginals the backup is a valuable point, but otherwise I'd be quite curious to know how much diesel it takes to boil a large quantity of water with the diesel stove vs generator powered induction stove

[@ARockRaider]

you really need to try and get some of Edison motor's EV axles! they should have some heavy duty pickup truck axles if you can get hold of some and that sounds like exactly what you want. I would go with some sort of modular coupling that will allow the command units to attach to front or back of the power units, or even better allow any units attached to front or back of any other unit, like railroad AB units! you could imagine all of them working together in a train should you have problems with several units or even just want to reduce the number of drivers for whatever reason. also have a control station on the power units so the CAN be driven alone if ever needed.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Another person mentioned Edison. I'll have a closer look. Unsure about the size/load being the same for Bernard, but the principle perhaps. Good points on the coupling method.

[@ARockRaider]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals I'm not sure of your scale yet, but Edison is making retrofit kits for heavy semi trucks AND for big pickup trucks (i think they said 1 ton axles but that side didn't interest me as much) so I'm sure one of those scales will work, and sense it's a retrofit you could use the axles they are replacing as placeholders until they arrive. either way, i think they are working on something close to what you want and they are good people as far as can be seen from KZbin.

[@AutieTortie]

Technically a standard tyre filled with hydrogen is also "airless"

[@johnkey1682]

so is a tyre filled with HVO

[@licencetoswill]

and wont stay filled for long.

[@Targe0]

@@licencetoswill Will also likely overpressure to hell and back as well. Hydrogen likes to do that.

[@Aheitchoo]

8x8 driven hub motors, 2 identical hulls, 2 identical cabins, 2psi (exhaust or air). I wonder if a jet drive would be a good option for water travel. Very robust, simple, and you could get a used consumer 200ish HP version cheap.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

That's a lot of motors - seeing whether some wheels can merely be load bearers.

[@Aheitchoo]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginals Im picturing a fiberglass monocoque which is identical top and bottom. The transom can either function as a trailer hitch or an apeture for a jet drive/outboard.

[@solarfunction1847]

I've got these & they are amazingly bright lower power spot lights. STEDI™ MCX10 Motorcyle LED Light Driving Beam 10 degree 1052LM 400m range DC 10v to 30v & STEDI™ MCX25 Spot Motorcycle LED Driving Light 1950Lm 245m range DC 9v to 36v, OPERATING TEMPERATURE -40°C to 60°C 50,000 hrs. The problem with lightbars are that they are all flood type lights doing very short distance & much of the light is spread up in the air. What you need is multiple spot lights that can do long distance as well as a few that do medium distance light.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

For distance, check out the vid I did on kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6PVpJJmo7eWba8si=2BGHjHomMaa0eWvN

[@solarfunction1847]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals Yeah they are flashlight but they don't make vehicle lights with zoom function as far as I know ??? After looking for a long time the 10 degree spot lights were the most focused lights on the market I found.

[@Targe0]

@@solarfunction1847 A lot of light focus is based on the housings shape and the shape of the lens. If, while it would cost more, a custom light box using the light source of choice could be made and developed to give the ideal effective range.

[@davidsachs4883]

Alternative name for HVO: VO which can stand for vegetable oil and also vehicle oil and it’s a shorter name

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

So much Voice Over confusion!

[@camperlab6546]

How thick does polycarbonate have to be if a polar bear sees food though it?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Depends if it flexes. Ultimately it can never be bear-proof, but just tough enough so that humans are awake and able to scare with flares/horn etc.

[@dancarter482]

_One big tank ~ one BIG problem!_

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

A flock of Bernards - no problem.

[@johnkey1682]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals good collective noun.

[@dancarter482]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals _A CONQUEST of Bernards!_

[@Lopez_the_heavy]

A *host* of Bernards!

[@ibid49]

I really do think you're mostly on the right track here. People are going to pick up and mention the things they disagree with and forget the things they agree with. Don't be discouraged by that. I will echo other's concerns with airless tires. I know you have a nearly religious aversion to pneumatics. But maybe try to look for contrary opinions out there and see what the cons are to the airless. I believe I've seen people say that they fall short in terms of force absorption, and they will definitely not do as well as a low pressure (nearly flat) pneumatic in terms of sheer square inches of rubber touching the ground, which translates into both traction and ground pressure. If you haven't come across them yet, you may be interested in thermoelectric generators using the Seebeck effect. They are very pricey per watt, but they do best with extreme temperature differentials, like say, a running diesel engine and the arctic cold. I'm guessing you could at most hope for 200 watts while the generators are running, but if you can get those 200 watts off waste heat, maybe it's worth it? I really like the redundancy of 4 generators and running electric hub motors off them. I think you're very much on the right track there in terms of greatest fuel efficiency, and hot-swappability. Very clever approach. And I think your double-keel monohull is a very good design choice well. Should give good stability both as skiff and as a sled, while still allowing good directionality. I'd also suggest some small-scale tests regarding having the wheels in the water during water travel. My intuition says that drag will be more of a factor than you think. Maybe if they are allowed to free-spin and if the axles are well above the water line. But even that, I'm not sure. It might make a big difference. If you could have some sort of parallel linkage that allowed the wheels to swing up and attach higher on the hull, that seems ideal for water travel, but introduces a lot of critical failure complexity for land travel. Also, don't do what I always do and forget about gravity during construction. I always engineer my designs in my head, and then when it comes time to actually build the thing, I have to ask, "hm, how are we going to actually lift that piece into place?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Cheers. People are generally being sensible, and most of the 'annoying' ones I think are due to new viewers not having seen the last three episodes. I'm not religious against anything, save for religion, but yes I'm aware of the pros and cons. I'm looking for a combination of 'give' in the wheels and basic torsion suspension to give us a reasonable ride/not shake the internals to pieces. I've tried those thermoelectric generators before, and they are wildly low power. I'll have a look though to see if larger scale ones are better. Point taken on the wheels in the water issue. But we'll see if it's a major issue when merely pootling along at 5 knots. Compared to wheels madly spinning in the water like Sherps and Argos though.... Gravity noted as still in effect!

[@utahjag]

6 driving motors for redundancy, 6 no-flat (honeycomb) balloon tires so you can inflate and deflate for buoyancy or efficiency, an additional propeller driven motor seems a waste of weight, space and is not needed with balloon tires that will provide some propulsion, auto shut-off for diesel generators (which are a great idea) to maintain power as needed and not wasted, HVO awesome, add wind generators and solar if possible. Would be nice to have sodium ion batteries being used in electric cars, like in China. US and Western Europe political and capitalistic systems make that difficult for some time, so, perhaps source your batteries from inside China rather than from outside. Dehumidifiers seem sketchy. A lot of energy for something you could expel with less energy since you will have plenty of water around you. Bio-diesel is the name you are looking for? Awesome sound effects with the folding carbon fiber :P Loving the new project, I predict a jump in subscribers, more if you suggest people "like and subscribe". That's my $0.02 so far :)

[@pandemik0]

Carbon fibre hull would make me nervous the way it can catastrophically fail from impact, especially a piercing one. I would use UHMWPE for the lower hull, even just as a outer layer it will take impacts and slide over the ice like teflon. It's often used as armour on the bottom of aluminum jet boats to take impacts with river rocks due to it being kevlar like tough, slippery and tending to return to it's original shape. I'd imagine a 6mm to 10mm thick layer of this on the outside of your composite. It could potentially be thermo formed to fit curves, I don't know. I have heard of a boat manufacturer making an experimental hull out of it, though external plates where the hull is vulnerable may be a better way to go than attempting to use it for structure.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

If you check out my previous impact and deflection tests, including diolen and Innegra hybrid, and the series with easycomposites, we explore all these materials you mention in detail.

[@johnkey1682]

Fuel spheres would be good for not being trapped by ice but they aren't good at stacking efficiently. As for the composite challenge why not construct in a similar fashion to composite pressure vessels with a wrapped tow style construction?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

A tow style construction? Can you link?

[@johnkey1682]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals you wrap the carbon in the direction that you need the strength. Similar principle to those airfoil style sails.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Oh I see. Yes indeed, we'd choose a fabric to maximise performance around the 'waist'. Maybe not carbon for the sphere.

[@johnkey1682]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals I linked a couple of gas cylinder examples, i was thinking for the hulls.

[@joshuahansen5486]

The problem with airless tires in an Arctic environment is the rubber is going to become more stiff and brittle you're not going to be getting the same kind of shock absorption you will out of an air Tire

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Same as the rubber in the balloon tyres of all the existing ones. Luckily, syn rubber and plastic technology is developing amazingly.

[@joshuahansen5486]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals I agree that better a rubber technology making the more effective in a greater quantity of temperatures but I wonder if that's enough you think having an embedded heater in the tires would be too much

[@scotscheideman9800]

I am skeptical of the low temperature gelling issues with vegetable oil based fuel. The oil companies here in Alberta are blending in canola oil (possibly HVO or some similar version) to the diesel fuel during summer. If you do not have separate tanks for summer and winter fuel, a blending of even less than 1/4 summer fuel will result in disabled equipment during a minus 40 cold snap. Diesel fuel conditioners made to reduce the flow point of regular diesel are ineffective on the canola oil, once the fuel has gelled, you have to wait for warmer weather , or heat the entire vehicle (tank, fuel lines and engine must all be warmed up It has become a real issue for farmers here when the temp drops suddenly to minus 40 or colder. Airless tires are also likely to be adversely affected by extreme cold(becoming hard, poor traction and possibly even brittle ; pneumatic tires will be superior in cold weather traction and don't forget that the tires will be your suspension - as the airless tires become more rigid, you and your vehicles contents will get bashed around.Tire repairs are not rocket science and can be performed in the field. Carrying one spare tire per group of vehicles would provide a massive additional margin of safety. Most rigid multi tire vehicles , such as the LAV 25 IFV can run just fine with missing or flat tires. I would stick with the time proven pneumatic tires for this project.If no military's have adopted airless tires , that should tell you they are not yet ready for expedition applications. Edit- I just looked up HVO- it's freezing point is minus 30c, not good

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I've commented on reusing heavy military vehicles in other comments, but on the HVO temperature issue: gelling in the -30s is wildly better than untreated diesel. I'm not sure what miracles we can expect short of using much thinner and more dangerous fractions of CHO fuels. We can only test, test, and then conclude.

[@scotscheideman9800]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals HI Alex! Apologies for the poor wording regarding the LAV 25. I was not suggesting that sort of monster for your design , but rather illustrating that since that 12 tonne behemoth on smaller skinny tires can still get around with 4 of it's 8 wheels missing, your much lighter vehicle with much larger tires would not be stopped or incapacitated by one or even 2 flats. The likely hood of ever having some full on catastrophic " unpatchable" failure of a top quality off road designed low pressure tire under such light vehicles as you are proposing is likely close to same probability as being hit and killed by a meteorite! On the second point, diesel fuel gelling point, your statement that HVO's gelling point is "wildly better than untreated diesel" I fear you are quite misinformed. Yes "Summer Diesel" (also known in some parts of the world as #2) has a gelling point of around -10c but the "Winter diesel"(aka #1) being delivered to every gas station in Canada now in early December has a gel point around -40. This is not done by adding "dangerous light fractions" but instead by adding less additives(mostly paraffin wax) to the base stock which is Kerosene. This will be the same in Northern Europe as well. McMurdo runs a unique variant of diesel for power, heating and vehicles that is called AN8 but has a gelling point around -57c (-72f) yet a higher flash point than most jet fuels( which are also basically kerosene with additives). Hope this helps ! CHEERS!!

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks. Very familiar with the differences between summer, winter and polar diesel. It's worth noting that the HVO could also use high ratio additives to improve its cold rating yet further from its superior native CFPP, and there are lots of other benefits like shelf life, resistance to water and bacteria. Also, the blending or additives to winter fossil diesel reduce fuel efficiency and can introduce other problems. Anyhow, I'll consult industry bods and do an episode on it, with tests.

[@MaxwellBurton]

Are you going to have an automotive engineer help you with the engineering and fabrication?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Currently speaking to engineering departments, but experts from the YT community always welcome.

[@mikecarnivale7304]

What is this going to cost And how are you raising this kind of money?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Tuppence, via a fundraiser at my local.

[@thomasklinger4829]

Alex check out the Russian burlac artic expedition vehicle for

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I do a whole section on it in the previous episode 👌

[@PortugalCarp]

HVO = Bernard's Fuel.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Bernard is clearly giving off the sense it's all about him.

[@PortugalCarp]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals By accident, I have just come across the life-boat/tenders of the Queen Mary 2, although a lot taller than what you see Bernard becoming, they could give you some cues. Just an idea.

[@dobob9635]

If there are 2 sub modules you could name them Bernard and Bianca

[@bikeforever2016]

Fuel = Bernard juice 😁

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

You're not the first. It may not be investor/sponsor friendly !

[@devinholland2189]

If you have to ship in a container. perhaps that container can become part of the vehicle.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I may need persuading on that one!

[@monkeysausageclub]

Half track?

[@ross82]

Wouldn’t airless tires get clogged with snow turning them into solid frozen donuts? Maybe if they were fully enclosed and sealed to keep the snow out…..

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

That's certainly a challenge to solve.

[@niallbaker5937]

What about an aero sled

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Fun, but super-power intensive. And some muppet would fall into the fan.

[@solarfunction1847]

Every 100 litres of HVO or BioDiesel weighs 87.47 Kgs so a typical Diesel Tank of 1000 Litres will have 874.70 Kgs of fuel plus the weight of the tank.

[@dreifear]

separating the power unit from the steering and other controls with a coupling? Not sure this rocks my world.

[@ultramarinus2478]

This point is something i do not understand, why it was not adopted - Why any and all those arctic vehicles consisting of two hulls connected to each other, do lack a connecting bridge from ONE car to the second? I mean, that would allow the crew to FULLY use the inner space of the second vehicle and double their living space, not to telling it would let them to easily and longer check the connecting powerlines and towing part... BTW sugesting you to leave a space for third "car", wich would be simple sled-tank for extra fuel. Regarding the airless tires, i sugest you to first check out, what will the (relativly thinn) slice of material do, when affected by arctic freeze and put weight on. Me personaly would fear it will brake the slices inside the airless tire design. Maybe try to find the drivers of kharkovchanka or other arctic vehicles, and ask THEM. Or go for tracks, but spent a month or two by getting them down, repairing them and getting them back on again. I wrote that in your vid "Ultimate arctic vehicles" - try and check "Vityaz ATV". It is bigger than you want, but its capabilities are unbelivable and it was BUILD for arctic military actions. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vityaz_(ATV) If you will pick tires, get inspired by hardship any and all vehicles with tires have when trying to crawl from water on ice. Sugesting to add a short tracs in the front of your vehicle, not used for regular movement, only for scaling up from water on the ice. Interesting idea you adopted, but did not see all possible ussefull applications - Each driving/command vehicle should have a telescopic pole (possibly with camera or thermo cammera for easier orientation) and extra bright light (LIGHTHOUSE bright light). That will give your vehicle: 1) extremely help with spotting other vehicles in bad weather, even when further away (speaking about the "lighthouse effect" when you place there a powerfull light) 2) give your radio a hell of an height location for antena to increase its range 3) better lookout position for enhanced situational awareness, witouth need of radar. (camera or Infra camerra will do just fine). Regarding the kithen - I sugest you to bring with you a box of MREs - preferably some kinds you KNOW you like. It does not need utensiles, dishes, not even glass or mug - all of that can be simply heated and eaten in and from the packaging. Another up point for pre-prepared food - it is counted as food with enough energy for hard working military men - that should came handy in environment, where simple walk can cost you heaps of calories. And it is heated by heating tablettes being soaked in water, wich wapours and the steem does heat the package of food.... Why storing ONLY FUEL like that? Add some food, medical supplies, alcohol and lubricants, just to be sure. If i remember, during the first years of conquering the poles, smarter expeditions did pre-preepare a chain of supply-stations, BEFORE the main expedition even departed. Extremely ussefull ability for sub-zero expedition vehicle is access to the engine from inside, for possible repairs. For the (especially destructive) test of carbon fibre material, you should use FROZEN sheet of said material. At least the outhermost part will be much colder, than inside temperature. EXPEDITIONARY SHIPS (i.e. those going to the arctic) are usually NOT build out of carbon fibre, although tropical going yachts are. I sugest you to ask the ship builders why. They might know things about the carbon fibre when frozen, no other knows.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Thanks. I'll have a look at design features to inspire us from the Vitayz. We might struggle for the power to tow a third shell, and it's also about noise and fume isolation. Yes I showed a plan to use a tall pole for the uses you outline. MREs are pretty awful! Sorry - we'll go with out expedition grade meals. And we can fish too. Stowing other supplies on the ice in spheres is certainly possible. We've done lots of cold testing of carbon matrixes, and they perform brilliantly at -40.

[@GusCraft460]

Turn Alan into a monster truck.

[@AutieTortie]

You will need a lot of speed, low weight, and low drag if you want to go "semi-planing". Good luck with that.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

It's for when being towed on the water by a larger vessel.

[@AutieTortie]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginalsAnd the wheels/tracks are somehow just magically not going to be an issue? Drag kills planing.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

For long tows, the wheels come off. They stay on for short floating sections.

[@johnkey1682]

@@AlexHibbertOriginals quick release wheels?

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Perhaps but maybe a robustness issue. If planning a serious tow for a day or three, a couple of hours unbolting wheels is fine.

[@AutieTortie]

Why would HVO be more expensive? Where I live it is about 40% cheaper than "normal" 50ppm diesel.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

Where's that? Here there's a premium for it due to lack of economy of scale.

[@AutieTortie]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginalsFair enough. We have many diesel vehicles here and also lots of vegetable oil manufacturers/users. The energy density is definitely a bit lower, so the "mileage" (i.e. fuel efficiency for us non americans) is worse, but it still works out quite a bit more economical cost-wise.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

The stats I have show HVO 3% greater energy per unit mass compared to fossil diesel. And higher cetane.

[@AutieTortie]

​@@AlexHibbertOriginalsMaybe where you live. Here it is completely unregulated and varies wildly.

[@firefighter4443]

@@AlexHibbertOriginalshigher mass, but maybe it takes up more space volumetrically? Idk, just throwing ideas at the wall, see what might stick.

[@alphagrendel]

You're double hull boat bottom is added complexity that you will be cussing every time you have to work on a fiddly bit under the vehicle. Ladder frame or something like a MAN chassis would be a simpler and less irritating solution.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

I don't think there will be anything underneath to access!

[@deltacx1059]

2:19 i don't think that's a good idea, if it's anything like what you just showed it's going to act like a catamaran in the water which also gives it the critical angle issue. I think you are better off with a single semi displacement/planing hull with a drop keel, yes you lose that bit of inside space but you do gain the benefits of a deep single keel without needing extra ground clearance for it.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

For the amount of time we'll have a wet keel, a drop keel is a massive compromise for the ice time, surely ?

[@deltacx1059]

@AlexHibbertOriginals depends how much time you want to spend in the water, do you want a land capable boat or a water capable truck.

[@AlexHibbertOriginals]

The latter.