兩軸【Ｖ０ＬＶ０】↗

咁別家做到而自己做吾到ge
咁仲吾係自己問題?
殼同底都有重量，其實兩者都可著手

btw，兩篇文我完全無拉埋任何ADL落去ge
我吾明你拉ADL做乜?

*吾好意思，當咗威=富豪tim

[ 本帖最後由 DK704_3N133 於 2010-10-23 10:13 編輯 ]

其實門杉問題主要針對D話運吉對於重量方面古板姐
雖然事實的確如此.....

另外，小弟呢部腦ge輸入法出吾到「唔」字，不便之處，敬請原諒

原帖由 petcity 於 2010-10-23 02:06 發表


如果真係車身重量問題，同B9冇直接關係
只可以講或者換左ADL殼冇問題

Actually, I disagree on that assessment, and it can be explained (or rather, speculated) with sense, rather than just talking crap, like a few I've read from this and the other post from a few individuals.

Back when I saw the 2-axle the B9 for the first time, I said that it looks like it has a larger fuel tank fitted just forward of the offside rear axle. Actually, I believe it has a lot to do with the extra weight. The UK-spec 2-axle B9TL, with the fuel tank fitted above the offside front axle (like its predecessor B7TL), should be a bit lighter because 1. its tank is smaller and 2. it hasn't got the additional fuel pipes and floor fittings built around the tank as in the HK version. I can see why they do that - persumably on request from HK operators so that they can use it with their existing refueling facilities without too much hassle (The refilling cap of the HK ones are forward of the rear axle, whilst the UK ones are above the front axle).

Adding on being greedy by fitting more seats upstairs, I am not surprised these B9TLs end up being heavier. However, I think the solution should be simple - just use the existing design as per the B9TLs in the UK., which, as I said, is ligher to start with.

You look at both Citybus and KMB's B9TLs, and you can just tell it has actually incorporated some design features (fuel tank is one, for instance) from the 3-axle version, which in itself is different than the 2-axle ones in the UK. The E400 in comparison, retains much of its existing design feature, except the bigger engine of course. It is not to say either way of thinking is better, but the benefits are fairly easy to see - the E400(HK) ends up being a more optimal design but less common to the E500, whilst the B9TL(HK) being less optimal but retains more commonality to its bigger 3-axle sister - a fairly key consideration when you have 400 upwards in service and on order already.

There is no reason to write off any manufacturers for doing things differently. They do that because every design is a compromise, and it just happens the line of thinking tends to be different within each organisation. At the end of the day, both are notching up orders, so what's the problem?

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2010-10-23 09:31 編輯 ]

原帖由 cn2661_2d32 於 2010-10-21 19:21 發表
今次豪仔出師不利. 攪咁多野都未出牌

真係可能板友話齋, 兩大巴士心諗: 不如唔好再煩.幫我買50部即刻用得的E400就算

同埋.之前有人話, 減幾個座位,加幾個企位就一樣總人數

問題係....運吉批幾多個企位都好, 實際 ...

其實部車減左5個座位都多E400一個位咁大把(座位)，
正如有版友提過企位之係一個無意義既數字，
即係入B9仍然有著數。

原帖由 NV58 於 2010-10-23 17:29 發表

...You look at both Citybus and KMB's B9TLs, and you can just tell it has actually incorporated some design features (fuel tank is one, for instance) from the 3-axle version...

I wondered.
Doesn't the tri-axle version utilize separate tank design?

原帖由 ATE24 於 2010-10-23 10:50 發表

I wondered.
Doesn't the tri-axle version utilize separate tank design?

From the pictures of the chassis in Volvo brochure, I think it is the case. You know where the tank is on the 3-axle ones I suppose, but for the 2-axle ones in the UK, the tanks is concealed just above the front axle, like the B7TL (shown below). What I am saying is the 2-axle ones in HK uses the same fuel tank design as the 3-axle ones, instead of the one incorporated to the UK 2-axle version.

[ 本帖最後由 NV58 於 2010-10-23 11:50 編輯 ]

原帖由 on11358 於 2010-10-23 10:47 發表


其實部車減左5個座位都多E400一個位咁大把(座位)，
正如有版友提過企位之係一個無意義既數字，
即係入B9仍然有著數。

I suppose the production version should just take one row of 4 seats out, instead of taking the back row of 5 as they are doing now as a quick fix, which should give an advantage of 2 seats to the E400.

That said, if the B9 has a straight staircase (like the UK ones), those additional 2 seats will go and it will have the same seatcount as the E400.

原帖由 KS7537_89B 於 2010-10-21 16:14 發表

呢部車昨日又去土驗喎... 可否順利出牌呢 ?

轉載 [土驗速遞] 2010-10-26 15:30:00