ferrari might make it's own pepperwagon

[svandamme]

at least that's what msn.nl reported this morning :

http://www.autoweek.nl/newsdisp.php?cache=no&ID=m3121

short translation :

according to Italian news paper Finanzia & Mercati, Ferrari is considering making it's own SUV , no details yet, but a Ferrari Spokes says ferrari hasn't decided anything yet, studies are ongoing . no prototype has been made yet... further more, Fiat group would still need to approve such a thing. Another argument would be that arc rival Lamborghini is possibly planning it's own version of an SUV based on the Touareg/Cayenne Platform.

[jluetjen]

Didn't Lambo make something called the Chetah over 20 years ago that looked like a Hummer, but had a Lambo engine in it?

[svandamme]

lm001 it was called

[MotoSook]

They also made an LM002. I recall the LM was designed for some Mid-east army (with bullet proof tires and the rear bed for a turret mounted machine gun), but it never became a reality...so they turned it into a street vehicle.

[MotoSook]

On a search...we all were right!


http://static24-72-18-78.reverse.accesscomm.ca/Cheetah/index.html

http://static24-72-18-78.reverse.accesscomm.ca/LM002/

[Adam]

The LM-002 had a Weber-carburetted Countach V12. I remember some interesting magazine road tests on it... Very much designed for the load-bed pintle-mounted machine guns.

[911mot]

[svandamme]

nice design ripp off by GM

[MotoSook]

I was wrong. It wasn't a Mid-east army!

"The Cheetah was first introduced to the public at the 1977 Geneva Motor Show. Built on contract for Mobility Technology International of the United States, the Cheetah was developed with hopes of selling it to the United State Military."

[Don Z.]

Originally posted by svandamme
nice design ripp off by GM

??? HMMWV was built by AM General... bought by GM about 15 or 20 years later.

BOTH the LM002 and the HMMWV were designed for the same RFQ. HMMWV won the competition. Considering converting to diesel from the M151's petrol engine was one of the requirements, somehow, that's not surprising.

[svandamme]

Originally posted by Don Z.
??? HMMWV was built by AM General... bought by GM about 15 or 20 years later.

BOTH the LM002 and the HMMWV were designed for the same RFQ. HMMWV won the competition. Considering converting to diesel from the M151's petrol engine was one of the requirements, somehow, that's not surprising.

ok , i'll rephrase that :

nice rippoff from the lm001 ( public on display in '77 while the HMMWV contract was in '83) and LM002 LM003 LM004 ( all around '83 ) by whoever it did the copy-design before beingtaken over by GM about 4 years ago or something in that area....

[Joe Bob]

Today's paper announces that the Army is importing the old M113 and the armored command vehicles to use in place of the flimsy Hummer's....seems the unarmored Hummers can be taken out my a hand thrown grenade....the old school armored vehicles are easier to ship.

Go figure....

[wrx paul]

It's funny this has come up. I used to be a jeep owner and was really into them, so if my memory serves. The history of jeeps were that they were designed by Kaiser overland (or something like that) for the US military for WWII. Since they were not a large company, the good ole government took the plans, gave them to Ford and Willy's and then was gracious enough to let Kaiser make some trailers.
So it sounds as though history has repeated itself!

[Joe Bob]

Bantam Motors....

[safe]

Originally posted by Souk
I was wrong. It wasn't a Mid-east army!

"The Cheetah was first introduced to the public at the 1977 Geneva Motor Show. Built on contract for Mobility Technology International of the United States, the Cheetah was developed with hopes of selling it to the United State Military."

Well, the US Military has been spending a lot of time in the mid-east over the past 10-15 years so you weren't of by that much

[Don Z.]

Originally posted by mikez
Today's paper announces that the Army is importing the old M113 and the armored command vehicles to use in place of the flimsy Hummer's....seems the unarmored Hummers can be taken out my a hand thrown grenade....the old school armored vehicles are easier to ship.

Go figure....

You know, the newspapers only report half the story!

One of the design specs for the HMMWV was that it be externally lifted by a medium helicopter. The M151s could fit inside a CH-53 (actually that's not 100% correct, in fact the CH-53 was designed to fit around an M151, but I digress). The M151 was too narrow (tips over easily) and can't carry enough cargo. So they needed something that could do that, and still be light enough for lifting.

Thus, the HMMWV.

The "armored" version (the type that carries M2s, Mk19s, & TOWs is actually Kevlar armored. Keep in mind, if you're doing the type of thing that you need to do with an M2 or a Mk19 or a TOW, speed is life, not armor. For the same reason, an LAV-25 is thin skinned.

In any case, sure, they could have developed an armored HMMWV, but then you can't lift it. As it is, the ones with Armor Kits (steel, not kevlar) are beating their engines, transmissions, and suspensions. That's why they're bringing in the old M113s.

Of course, I think they should design an Ontos with a bushmaster, but that's just me.

Now, the "old school" armored vehicles are easier to ship, compared to what? Sure, they are smaller, but Airlifting them is problematic. So I can fit more old ones on the same ship. The new ones (i.e. the M2 Bradleys) are either being used, or being repaired. Call it eight years of budget cuts.

And there aren't enough LAV-25s, which are proving superior to the Strykers... one of the reasons being when they morphed the LAV into the G3 variant, they added too much weight. Speed is life. Any fighter pilot can tell you that, no matter how much the tankers disagree. Come to think of it, ask that tanker about the Sherman/King Tiger competitions. One of those blew up better when hit, sure. Somehow, that one came out on the winning side though, didn't it?

And StJin... How many ways can you design a box? Front end design needs to be big enough to fit the engine, but long overhangs impact your take off angle. then you need a passenger compartment. Windshields and windows perpendicular to the ground are neither stylish nor aerodynamic, but they do maximize interior volume. Once you get to the rear, again you have the take off angle issue, and your wheelbase is going to be defined by the breakover angle. Track was specified by the design spec. A body that hangs over the wheels doesn't help you off road. One inside the wheels neither maximizes cargo, nor does it provide anything else useful.

Oh, and it has to be modular. That is, the high back, low back, hard back and communication variants use as much of the same parts as possible, including basic chassis.

So, given that, how many ways can you design a box, given the wheelbase, approach and take off angles, and cargo capacity and max weight?

[Joe Bob]

Sherman Tanks...didn't they call them Sherman Coffins? In my readings they were more numerous....and the German tanks were defeated by shear volume.....the Shermans were inferior in every way to the German models.....but they were CHEAP, burned less fuel and there were a LOT of them.

The Germans simply ran out of $$, fuel and people....if you throw enough against a wall...some sticks and the wall eventually falls over.....

[safe]

Originally posted by mikez
Sherman Tanks...didn't they call them Sherman Coffins? In my readings they were more numerous....and the German tanks were defeated by shear volume.....the Shermans were inferior in every way to the German models.....but they were CHEAP, burned less fuel and there were a LOT of them.

The Germans simply ran out of $$, fuel and people....if you throw enough against a wall...some sticks and the wall eventually falls over.....

I saw a documentary on Discovery on this. The tactic was to sacrifice 3 tanks so a forth tank could get the German in the back.

Luckely the Germans couldn't build enogh tanks. I think the germans lost more tanks to break downs and no fuel than in actual battle...

[Don Z.]

Originally posted by mikez
Sherman Tanks...didn't they call them Sherman Coffins? In my readings they were more numerous....and the German tanks were defeated by shear volume.....the Shermans were inferior in every way to the German models.....but they were CHEAP, burned less fuel and there were a LOT of them.

That's exactly the point. A lot running around will beat an immobile big gun any day.

While "sheer volume" was important (it's hard to beat the industrial base), the way they won was to be fast enough to get behind and into the bad guy's weak spot. Same principle helped the Harrier beat the Mirage in the early 80s...

[svandamme]

so the lesson to be learned here is :

get 3 hummers to draw out the sand monkeys with them rockets , while a 4th hummer can catch em from behind?


man , if it were me , i would have said no thanks for the offer , i'de rather do some time for dodging service, and stay alive than to go over to some sand box, and get shot for no reason whatsoever..