淺談Volvo Super Olympian底盤

[ref=383661]98d[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 02:39 PM 發表:



奶兄, 好好的圖文解釋文!
其實s. oly.得兩個油缸對比oly.的三個油缸, 會唔會入油要密d呢?

上面張oly 12m樣版大約係邊年到港的?

ps問有無人有10.6 s oly的底盤相, 大家講到咁差, 好想睇下...#

謝謝您的支持先!

S.oly油缸的容量應該不比oly差很遠﹐雖然oly有3隻油缸﹐但
每隻油缸都是扁身的設計﹐反之﹐S.oly兩隻油缸厚身得多﹐
所以兩者油缸容量應相差不遠。

上面那張oly 12m相是volvo官方的﹐我朋友是在95左右在鴨廠
見過這條底盤。

10.6m s.oly底盤的相﹐我過幾天imsg給你吧﹐因為我不是拍攝者﹐
不太方便在此公開給你

[ref=383744]homanbean[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 05:23 PM 發表:



其實alexander/volgren s.oly有冇裝到中尾軸側架呢?
我感覺上volgren車身內籠近中尾軸好似比alexander車身窄

當然有﹐那段側架是底盤不可或缺的一部份﹐裝車身時絕對
不能拆去。

[ref=383538]B12[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 12:00 PM 發表:

個人認為.
Volvo應該重新設計一條低地台底盤. 且看B9TL, 仍脫不到Olympian影子
佢應該仿效Trident 咁用第二軸驅動, 甚至用B12改可能會好小小...
眼下ge B10TL底盤真係有點兒"膚衍"了事(唔記得點寫 ...

正如TfL兄所言﹐其實B9TL底盤可謂已完全脫離昔日olympian的影子﹐
B9TL中尾軸部份跟olympian完全是兩個設計﹐大陣的分佈亦有不同﹐
引擎艙的設計則沿自B7TL。

[ref=383508]oxball[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 11:24 AM 發表:

相信去了城巴手上的樣版oly盤最後是被拆毀﹐至於那條S.oly樣版盤
的下場則不得而知。

想問這個底盤是否就是 #25004？為何會決定拆毀？

[ref=383799]tomchen[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 06:23 PM 發表:



想問這個底盤是否就是 #25004？為何會決定拆毀？

很有可能是﹐拆毀的原因大慨是被城巴取去所有有用零件後﹐
餘下的部份就變成廢鐵﹐所以就拆毀了。

[ref=383538]B12[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 12:00 發表:

個人認為.
Volvo應該重新設計一條低地台底盤. 且看B9TL, 仍脫不到Olympian影子
佢應該仿效Trident 咁用第二軸驅動, 甚至用B12改可能會好小小...
眼下ge B10TL底盤真係有點兒"膚衍"了事(唔記得點寫 ...

其實 B10TL 底盤o既組件來自於普通版
o既奧林匹克係一件好事, 因為方便維修嘛.

假如 B9TL 好似你咁講改到 B12, 我唔係唔
贊成, 不過大前提o既係方便乘客, 尤其係
如果將中軸同尾軸改到 Trident 咁, 引擎果
邊o既位置就要重新放; 若果改到好似 B
12 咁, 下層地台就要加多兩級, 而且仲要
係一排排凳面向前, 乘客要經過下層車尾
o既時候, 坐又坐得唔舒服, 起又起得唔舒
服, 所以我情願用番依家o既設計, 最緊要
方便到乘客.

[ Last edited by a396 on 2005-10-2 at 19:07 ]

[ref=383835]a396[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 19:05 發表:
其實 B10TL 底盤o既組件來自於普通版
o既奧林匹克係一件好事, 因為方便維修嘛.

假如 B9TL 好似你咁講改到 B12, 我唔係唔
贊成, 不過大前提o既係方便乘客, 尤其係
如果將中軸同尾軸改到 Trident 咁, 引擎果
邊o既位置就要重新放; 若果改到好似 B
12 咁, 下層地台就要加多兩級, 而且仲要
係一排排凳面向前, 乘客要經過下層車尾
o既時候, 坐又坐得唔舒服, 起又起得唔舒
服, 所以我情願用番依家o既設計, 最緊要
方便到乘客.

但係D位全面向前，行長途線既話
個Feel會好好多
我相信九記批Man o係晒屯門都係因為咁

[ref=383490]B12[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 11:04 發表:


佢個入油位響左面tim...

其實係有兩個, 留意右邊前軸之後
o既一個.

另樣辦底盤o既霖把係 29033, ASV50
o既係 50002, 3ASV3 o既係 50003.

[ref=383767]B12[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 10:02 發表:
不過始終係比較大型雙層車
如果用B7來改個, 咁個負載量會唔會兒戲左小小?
雖然有d位強化左

What is the matter of concern? In terms of structural strength, the B7TL is
at least built to the same standard as the B10TL. Both are semi-integral
chassis' and depend much on the body to provide the required strength
anyway.

As for the loading capacity, Volvo could well build a tri-axle chasis if there
is an order, which never happened obviously (except, obviously, the in-line
engine B7LTs). I believe that Volvo offered the B10TL instead of B7TL to HK
because of the following reasons:

- the D7C engine is deemed uncapable to handle the operational environment
in HK to power a 24ton double decker;
- The D10A cannot be fitted into the B7TL chassis because it is too big
- Volvo was preoccupied by the development of the B7TL at that time, as
Dennis took much of its marketshare in Britain with the Trident
- Volvo decided to go down a low risk approach by mating the B10L front
module with the Olympian rear module to create the B10TL.

As I said, the B9TL is essentially a B7TL fitted with the new D9A engine.
If you compare both chassis you'll see what I mean. Obviously, if the B7TL
chassis is not strong enough to cope, Volvo wouldn't have bothered putting
the bigger engine and offer the new chassis to customer in the first place.

[ref=383767]B12[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 10:02 發表:
但點解佢唔用B10L做藍本而要用B10TL+B7TL?

Sorry but I don't get what you mean. If you are saying why Volvo did not
adapt the B10L as double decker, the simple reason is B10L was out of
production at that point, replaced by B7L a couple of years ago. It is not
a good basis for a double decker design anyway, with a rear overhang too
long for anyone's liking.

[ref=383459]oxball[/ref]  在 2005-10-2 10:02 AM 發表:

相信一如阿都兄所言﹐問題出在平衡感應器上。曾聽過一個解
釋﹐指Volvo裝平衡感應器的原因是底盤本身已經左右不平衡﹐
所以裝感應器希望底盤能自行調節平衡﹐但礙於感應器太過敏
...

謝謝檸奶兄詳細解釋   不過我想問的是更為愚問...

我明白超豪的平衡感應器會久不久將巴士平衡, 但為何
超豪需要這個平衡感應器呢? 其他巴士又有沒有?
如果其他巴士沒有, 那超豪的設計有甚麼不同而需要它?

我知道廿多年前開始的巴士, 其氣墊避震都會因為車廂
重量而調節高度, 當巴士滿載時氣墊會"充氣"令車身不會
碰及車輪.  那每個車輪的氣墊是否獨立的? 左邊的氣墊
能否知道右邊的氣墊的高度? 如果是獨立為何不會有超豪
的問題... #:-[