九巴要求Neoplan廠方把康偈安裝在其下的巴士上..

原帖由 kmb_gu657 於 2007-7-22 16:54 發表

轉彎唔夠軚,
主要係睇前, 後跨及驅動軸與車尾既距離,
有冇中軸轉向只係其次

你都講話其次, 個有影响呀...
中軸轉向, 架車轉彎時的軸心已經唔同晒, 成架車可出彎時可以慳到o的位, 唔駛過晒火位...

轉一o的窄街﹐的確係無o甘好﹐比起無中軸轉向的遲o左扭舦﹐
所以的確會大o左。

原帖由 642 於 22/7/07 13:14 發表


乜唔係中軸轉向反而增加迴旋半徑?(即係轉向性能差d...)
中軸轉向既優點只係減少中軸輪胎磨損

empty

本文疑出現違規文章，
本文將暫時鎖上及頂置，
以便調查。

根據本板的分板板規，
調查期間不停修改文章任何部份，
否則本人有權向有關站友作出停板處分。


B2板板主

原帖由 LE3503 於 2007-7-22 09:43 發表


什麼是德國派?我就知MKFF.是低等派..他們是串、爆、臭、益
沒有文化和思想新一類巴士迷。italk係一個成熟和有文化巴士討論區

注意：請尊重他人。


B2板板主

原帖由 kmb_gu657 於 2007-7-22 02:27 發表


早係九十年代中期富豪已經改變 Olympian 既引擎室內部設計,
變成放唔落 Cummuis 引擎

It can fit, as the M11 is the same size as L10. Volvo did claim that they could not
do it, when the L10 engine was withdrawn from offer when the Olympian transited
to Euro 2 emission standard. However, Lothian Bus of Edinburgh attempted, and
successfully, fitted a M11 unit into one of their Olympians.

原帖由 krausssammy 於 2007-7-21 17:32 發表
Leyland Olympian 咪又係 Volvo Olympian 咪又係 Supa Olympian...
只係把油箱搬下佢, 加下升降避震... 後面個引擎箱根本一樣... 漏左講句, 佢把Olympian 的最重点科技, 中軸轉向Cut 左... 唉, 真係浪費!!
冇左中軸轉向, 轉向性能真係差左好多...

No, the only two things that the B10TL shares with the Olympian, Leyland or Volvo, are 1. the name, 2. the engine compartment. The chassis forward of the rear axle, in fact, comes from the B10L/B7L developed  in the 90s.

The self-steer mid-axis of the Olympian is only there to reduce tyre wear. It does not improve its maneuverability at all, contrary to what many people believed. Removing that feature on the B10TL (and of course the follow-up B9TL) provides better maneuverability, and reduce the mechanical component which, as a result, reduce maintenance headaches.

The most important feature of the Olympian is actually the engine compartment, which is designed to reduce vibration from the engine by suspending it, rather than lying it on the chassis frame. This design continue to live on Volvo's B7TL and B9TL, as well as Dennis 2-axle Trident.