Back to the main page

Mailing List Logs for ShadowRN

Message no. 1
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Sat, 24 Apr 2004 20:10:32 -0500
Ok, maybe I'm just being slow/stupid/thickheaded but I'm not seeing
anything in the chassis/powerplant tables that would be used if you
were trying to design a new "pickup" style truck, if you go into the
design mod options the table that references cost for offroad handling
improvement specifically says something about "Light Truck" which would
be what I'd consider a pickup but there's nothing similar in the
chassis table, the closest thing is SUV and based on personal
experience there is too much of a difference in handling all around
between an SUV and a light truck to just use that as the basis... can
anyone offer any ideas/solutions?
Message no. 2
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 11:04:07 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Sunday 25 April 2004 03:10 the word on the
street was...

> Ok, maybe I'm just being slow/stupid/thickheaded but I'm not seeing
> anything in the chassis/powerplant tables that would be used if you
> were trying to design a new "pickup" style truck if you go into the
> design mod options the table that references cost for offroad handling
> improvement specifically says something about "Light Truck"

Remember that off-road suspension changes the vehicle's Handling: -1
off-road, but +1 on-road for every level taken in it. So that means the
SUV chassis with 4/6 handling (average on the road, not too bad off-road)
would become 5/5 (reasonable on both) with just one level of off-road
suspension. IMHO these kinds of changes to Handling represent the kinds of
differences you notice between driving a pick-up and an SUV.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 3
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Sun, 25 Apr 2004 07:44:10 -0500
On Apr 25, 2004, at 4:04 AM, Gurth wrote:

> According to Derek Hyde, on Sunday 25 April 2004 03:10 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> Ok, maybe I'm just being slow/stupid/thickheaded but I'm not seeing
>> anything in the chassis/powerplant tables that would be used if you
>> were trying to design a new "pickup" style truck if you go into the
>> design mod options the table that references cost for offroad handling
>> improvement specifically says something about "Light Truck"
>
> Remember that off-road suspension changes the vehicle's Handling: -1
> off-road, but +1 on-road for every level taken in it. So that means the
> SUV chassis with 4/6 handling (average on the road, not too bad
> off-road)
> would become 5/5 (reasonable on both) with just one level of off-road
> suspension. IMHO these kinds of changes to Handling represent the
> kinds of
> differences you notice between driving a pick-up and an SUV.
>
except that the SUV chassis is a 4/4 handling, and according to the
offroad handling it'd make it a 5/3, kind of shitty on road but not bad
off road, while this may make up for some of the offroading
differences, my aim is to make an offroading version of something like
a Ford F350/Chevy Silverado 3500/ Dodge Ram 3500....a pickup truck
capable of handling great quantity of weight both in the bed of it and
being pulled by it, in practical experience these "one ton" pickups are
typically capable of hauling about 3000-3500 pounds of weight in their
beds. SUV's of today are smaller than even the "F150"/"1/2 Ton"
pickups are, older ones such as the dodge ramcharger, ford bronco (not
bronco II), and chevy K5 Blazer were based off of the 1/2 ton pickups
however the ones of today just aren't made as large and "capable" if
you will....

I found it in Rigger3 in the description of the SUV Chassis (not sure
how I was looking over it) that it says that you should build a "light
truck" off of the SUV chassis, however, as I said, I'm looking for
something with a little bit more payload I'm inclined to make the
following mods to that chassis in order to make it fit what my target
is for the vehicle

Body:4 Start CF: 35 MaxCF: 100 Handling: 4/4 Armor:0
Autonav/Pilot: 0/--
Sensor/Sonar: 0/-- Seating: 2 Entry Points: 2d+1t Design Points: 65
Markup Factor: 1.0


for the intent of using a heavier grade engine as would be found in a
1Ton pickup I'm also combining and averaging the engines for the RV and
SUV since most RV's (with exception of the ones now made from Busses)
are based off of a truck chassis and have a truck motor in them, as
well as the fact that most SUV's do NOT have as large of an engine or
as much power (excluding ford excursion, it's just an oddball)
Message no. 4
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 10:30:43 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Sunday 25 April 2004 14:44 the word on the
street was...

> except that the SUV chassis is a 4/4 handling

Not in my copy of Rigger 3...

> in practical experience these "one ton" pickups are
> typically capable of hauling about 3000-3500 pounds of weight in their
> beds.

So what's the problem there? With a gasoline engine, the maximum Load for
an SUV chassis is 1600 kg, which is about 3500 pounds. With a diesel, the
max Load is 2000 kg, IOW more than enough for your 3500 pound capacity
plus room to spare for accessories.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 5
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 09:56:54 -0500
On Apr 26, 2004, at 3:30 AM, Gurth wrote:

> According to Derek Hyde, on Sunday 25 April 2004 14:44 the word on the
> street was...
>
>> except that the SUV chassis is a 4/4 handling
>
> Not in my copy of Rigger 3...
>
mebbe mine's a typo....what should it be? and a follow up question to
that if it's not 4/4, why would an RV be able to offroad better than a
4x4 truck?

>> in practical experience these "one ton" pickups are
>> typically capable of hauling about 3000-3500 pounds of weight in their
>> beds.
>
> So what's the problem there? With a gasoline engine, the maximum Load
> for
> an SUV chassis is 1600 kg, which is about 3500 pounds. With a diesel,
> the
> max Load is 2000 kg, IOW more than enough for your 3500 pound capacity
> plus room to spare for accessories.
>

if loaded out fully like that then yes, it could work, but loading it
out fully adds 10K¥ to the cost if a diesel engine, and 13,500¥ if a
gas engine, that's just the load increase, not to mention the cost for
increasing the CF to max to portray the "bed" of the truck (another
10,100 for an SUV chassis) so now if a gas engine just to get the load
and space that you'd have with a pickup you're automatically adding
either 20,100¥ or 23,600 just to bring an "SUV" up to standards....
Message no. 6
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:44:26 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Monday 26 April 2004 16:56 the word on the
street was...

> mebbe mine's a typo....what should it be? and a follow up question to
> that if it's not 4/4, why would an RV be able to offroad better than a
> 4x4 truck?

I've wondered about that occasionally, too. Maybe part of the reason is
because both (I was going to say "all" :) the published RVs, all the way
back to the RBB, are a very strange RV/off-road vehicle hybrid. Not at all
like the RVs I spent many holidays in during my youth...

> if loaded out fully like that then yes, it could work, but loading it
> out fully adds 10K¥ to the cost if a diesel engine, and 13,500¥ if a
> gas engine, that's just the load increase, not to mention the cost for
> increasing the CF to max to portray the "bed" of the truck (another
> 10,100 for an SUV chassis)

IMHO a pick-up would not have a high Cargo rating, for the simple reason
that the stowage is basically outside, so you can load anything onto it as
long as the chassis will bear it. Unfortunately the pickup stats in R3
don't seem to have followed the same reasoning, though.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 7
From: loneeagle@********.co.uk (Lone Eagle)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 19:36:37 +0100
At 01:44 PM 4/25/2004, Derek wrote:
<Snip>

>for the intent of using a heavier grade engine as would be found in a 1Ton
>pickup I'm also combining and averaging the engines for the RV and SUV
>since most RV's (with exception of the ones now made from Busses) are
>based off of a truck chassis and have a truck motor in them,

<Snip>

Note the VW Combi IIRC, which comes as a pickup, RV and... something
else... That, with an engine customisation (increased load) and a level of
off road suspension if you're feeling generous would be your standard (UK
at least) Toyota Hilux IMO...

However I'm firmly of the opinion that the design and customisation rules
in Rigger 3 are broken - having tried to duplicate a demon tweaks Accord (a
la The fast and the furious) with full tech specs sitting in front of me
and coming up about 8 CF short...


--
Lone Eagle
"Hold up lads, I got an idea."

www.wyrmtalk.co.uk - Please be patient, this site is under construction

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GE d++(---) s++: a->? C++(+) US++ P! L E? W++ N o? K? w+ O! M- V? PS+ PE-()
Y PGP? t+@ 5++ X- R+>+++$>* tv b+++ DI++++ D+ G++ e+ h r* y+>+++++
-----END GEEK CODE BLOCK-----

GCC0.2: y75>?.uk[NN] G87 S@:@@[SR] B+++ f+ RM(RR) rm++ rr++ l++(--) m- w
s+(+++) GM+++(-) A GS+(-) h++ LA+++ CG--- F c+
Message no. 8
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:32:16 -0500
> <Snip>
>
> Note the VW Combi IIRC, which comes as a pickup, RV and... something
> else... That, with an engine customisation (increased load) and a
> level of off road suspension if you're feeling generous would be your
> standard (UK at least) Toyota Hilux IMO...
>
> However I'm firmly of the opinion that the design and customisation
> rules in Rigger 3 are broken - having tried to duplicate a demon
> tweaks Accord (a la The fast and the furious) with full tech specs
> sitting in front of me and coming up about 8 CF short...
>
>
I'm inclined to agree with you there, I've written up my mods and such
and with a fully tweaked out setup the way I modded the chassis as I
posted and using a diesel engine I can come up with about a 3000kg
load, which if I remember right and am translating correctly is over 2
1/2 tons, which by far is a load more than what it should handle, then
again, that could be accurate if you were putting the load on it via
"gooseneck" or "5th-Wheel" hitch......
Message no. 9
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:43:02 +0200
According to Lone Eagle, on Monday 26 April 2004 20:36 the word on the
street was...

> However I'm firmly of the opinion that the design and customisation
> rules in Rigger 3 are broken - having tried to duplicate a demon tweaks
> Accord (a la The fast and the furious) with full tech specs sitting in
> front of me and coming up about 8 CF short...

You could use a house rule that CF is only a limit for determining how
visible the modifications are. IOW, that any modifications that exceed the
vehicle's CF are immediately apparent -- for example having parts of the
engine stick through the bodywork, etc.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 10
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:47:48 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Tuesday 27 April 2004 07:32 the word on the
street was...

> a 3000kg load, which if I remember right and am translating correctly is
> over 2 1/2 tons

3000 kg is 3 tons -- metric, anyway; if you're talking about US tons, it's
about 3.3 tons.

> which by far is a load more than what it should handle

This is not really a valid argument for why the rules are wrong, though --
it should easily be possible to build a RL pick-up that can carry this
kind of weight. It'd be more expensive (due to being sturdier, bigger,
etc.) than your average pick-up, but it's still possible to do it.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998
Message no. 11
From: d_hyde@***.com (Derek Hyde)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 07:26:29 -0500
On Apr 27, 2004, at 3:47 AM, Gurth wrote:

> 3000 kg is 3 tons -- metric, anyway; if you're talking about US tons,
> it's
> about 3.3 tons.
>
did mean US....but the translation site I was going off of said that
1kg = 0.6lbs


>> which by far is a load more than what it should handle
>
> This is not really a valid argument for why the rules are wrong,
> though --
> it should easily be possible to build a RL pick-up that can carry this
> kind of weight. It'd be more expensive (due to being sturdier, bigger,
> etc.) than your average pick-up, but it's still possible to do it.
>
uhm....yes, I suppose you could beef up a 1 ton pickup....or with that
load out fully added on it'd be closer to a 1 1/2 ton truck (F550
Pickup from Ford for example)

but there's still little to no reasoning with why after I get the
numbers to about what a real truck can do that the vehicle should cost
almost 110,000¥, seeing as the sensor 2 and autonav4 that I put onto it
as well aren't THAT expensive....(nor is a small vid screen for which
to display the sensor/nav data)
Message no. 12
From: gurth@******.nl (Gurth)
Subject: Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 16:52:58 +0200
According to Derek Hyde, on Tuesday 27 April 2004 14:26 the word on the
street was...

> did mean US....but the translation site I was going off of said that
> 1kg = 0.6lbs

Not sure what kind of kilograms and pounds they were talking about, but
probably not the metric and imperial types :) 1 lb = 0.45 kg or 1 kg = 2.2
lbs (approximately, anyway).

> but there's still little to no reasoning with why after I get the
> numbers to about what a real truck can do that the vehicle should cost
> almost 110,000¥, seeing as the sensor 2 and autonav4 that I put onto it
> as well aren't THAT expensive....

Those two add up to a fifth of that cost already...

> (nor is a small vid screen for which
> to display the sensor/nav data)

I would assume vidscreens etc. for the vehicle's own electronics are
already factored into the cost. A separate vidscreen would only be needed
if you want a TV or something, IMHO.

--
Gurth@******.nl - Stone Age: http://www.xs4all.nl/~gurth/index.html
Those who ignore history are doomed to keep liking crappy dance
covers of great songs.
-> Probably NAGEE Editor * ShadowRN GridSec * Triangle Virtuoso <-
-> The Plastic Warriors Page: http://plastic.dumpshock.com <-

GC3.12: GAT/! d- s:- !a>? C++(---) UL+ P(+) L++ E W--(++) N o? K w(--)
O V? PS+ PE@ Y PGP- t- 5++ X(+) R+++$ tv+(++) b++@ DI- D+ G+ e h! !r y?
Incubated into the First Church of the Sqooshy Ball, 21-05-1998

Further Reading

If you enjoyed reading about Rigger 3/Vehicle Design Question, you may also be interested in:

Disclaimer

These messages were posted a long time ago on a mailing list far, far away. The copyright to their contents probably lies with the original authors of the individual messages, but since they were published in an electronic forum that anyone could subscribe to, and the logs were available to subscribers and most likely non-subscribers as well, it's felt that re-publishing them here is a kind of public service.

Thwap!