There has been a pic of a "new" rv circulating that is horrifically ugly. In case it's image hasn't been burned into your mind, here it is:

This has been frequently hailed as a revolutionary design.

Tonight I was wandering the interwebs and while looking at old land speed record stuff I stumbled across this beauty:

Such similar lines, but from 1989- There were several other concepts as well, dating back to 1977. Ironically, the original truck was called the 2001. I guess the new millennium wasn't very vehicularly fulfilling either-

 

Not at all the same -- the older one didn't have the 'pig snout' nose.

I pretty much find all RVs ugly, so if this shape saves a couple of mpgs, that's good. If it's just 'artistic' shame on them.

hj

 

WOW so much ugliness for so little function. It doesn't have to be like that.

To my mind one of the most aerodynamic and overall functional trucks ever put in production was also one of the best looking, the Peterbilt 372. This class 8 truck regularly got over 10MPG loaded(a BIG deal) with late 80s technology. And cab over to boot so with a sleeper you have lots of room without the truck having too long a wheelbase to maneuver. People didn't like them for some reason though, they didn't sell well and were only made from 88-93.

I want one.


x

x

x

x

 

That was another version, the 2002 in the background:

 

sheezuz yer gonna give me nightmares !!!!!!!!!!!!! and i thought all the new international siamese cat on crack designs were horrific !!!!!!! as far as the pete 372 , as an otr driver { past been pushin' lil' 10 ton straight trucks around running mail for the last 14 years } no one wanted cab overs as the ones we all had experience with rode like crap , and just weren't purty like the big trucks , like the 379's , kwhoppers , mack superliners etc. .

 

Now Wal-Mart is joining the aero game-
A Fuel-Efficient Big Rig From Walmart That Looks Like a Smushed Corvette | Autopia | Wired.com

 

Operators dislike cabovers for comfort (which is best with the operator positioned between axles rather than over the front) and because of the hassles involved in raising the cab to inspect the engine.

That Walmart truck has some very cool tech such as Capstone, but when (not if) one of those carbon fiber trailers burns in an accident you would be wise to go far away from the fire and from the wreckage afterwards.

I trained in aircraft crash recovery, where damaged and especially burned composite structures are to be sprayed with stabilizer (floor wax is one method) then wrapped to safely contain them prior to disposal. Crash recovery folks wear protective suits and respirators when in proximity to composite wreckage, but you can bet if large composite vehicle structure is widely adopted that many unprotected people will be exposed.

 

Federal vehicle length laws are what required cabovers.

States east of the Mississippi river had a 65-foot overall length requirement. The only way you could pull a 53-foot trailer east of the river was with a cabover.

Once you could pull a 53-foot trailer in the eastern US without having to be under 65 feet overall length, there was no need for them. That was done in 1986, with passage of STAA. If I remember correctly, there was a 5-year phase-in (the years 1986 and 1991 stand out in my memory).

The vehicle advances made AFTER 1986 in terms of ride comfort and serviceability solved a lot of the problems, but without the laws requiring them, there was no point.

Freightliner still makes the Argosy cabover, for sale in select overseas markets.

-blaine

 

That is mostly true but there is still two practical reasons for cab overs. There is still a 40' single vehicle limit and there is still turning radius concerns. If you want to get as much on the tractor as possible like a bread truck with a drom box, or an OTR with a huge sleeper then cab over is the way to do it.

 

Nothing like having a two bedroom house for a sleeper-