Easiest to drive
-
Of course you can hardly hear the sound of merz engine because the engine is at the back!! You can also hardly hear the sound of MK III when you sit at the back because the engine is in the middle! -___-Originally posted by chickenlittle2:Mercs would be good compared to volvo and those scania. Why mercs is best? You can try this, try to sit at those seats that are behind the drivers (those green seats). You can hardly hear the engine sound from there, the whole bus seems to be very stable. You also can hear the "Pss..ss" sound when the brake is released. Mercs also had easy setting to operate the bus. Compared to volvo which locate their engine on the front. Volvo like those striders and DM 3500. Those drivers who are very tall, seems to bend their back to be able to look out. As the windscreen seems to be quite low and the driver seats was very high! The worst would be those scania. OMG, I think they are too light and tend to shake a lot. When it passes by those road that were irregular, they would shake hardly and may cause you to puke! -
MK 3s are considered the most stable bus to me. They don't jerk so much like merz. They shake a lot? Merz shakes more then.Originally posted by chickenlittle2:Those MK3 too! They are very unstable! They tends to shake a lot! Same issue, the driver seats and the windscreen. The driver seats was so high and the windscreen was rather low.. -
yea, but stable buses to me, seem slower while jerkier buses seem to be faster in speedOriginally posted by SBS 233 X:MK 3s are considered the most stable bus to me. They don't jerk so much like merz. They shake a lot? Merz shakes more then. -
not really, B9 accelaration power...Originally posted by kenn3th:yea, but stable buses to me, seem slower while jerkier buses seem to be faster in speed -
The chassis was so light. I remembered when I was small, that was the time when MK3 was placed on the road. I remembered that I felt very dizzy after taking this buses. Even the new CNG bus too! Their chassis were very light, tends to shake a lot!So after that, I always think that MB 0405 was the most stable one and had good suspension compared to others. It maybe the jerking problem but most of this bus do not had hard jerking problem after they are maintained well. Those DM 3500 and Strider were one of my favourite too, they are very stable. Sometimes, when you board DM 3500, you can hear the metal bars under the bus when it passes by those uneven road! This sound can be found on SBS 276Y, I think the only bus that has the same metal sound produced below the bus. Sometimes I thought that I was onboard a DM 3500! So, I also think that the stability of the bus matters a lot, especially when you are taking in a long distance journey. [b]Originally posted by SBS 233 X:MK 3s are considered the most stable bus to me. They don't jerk so much like merz. They shake a lot? Merz shakes more then. -
--Duplicated--
-
The Strider body on the Mk IVs is designed for rear engined buses, with double, single or zero steps. Hence the windscreen goes so low, and why the driver's cab is high in a B10M. Why do you think the Alexander PS body was still produced on Mk IV B10Ms in the UK???? Last ones I believe were delivered in 1997/98 loooong after the Mk IIs in Singapore were delivered.Originally posted by chickenlittle2:Those MK3 too! They are very unstable! They tends to shake a lot! Same issue, the driver seats and the windscreen. The driver seats was so high and the windscreen was rather low.. -
How do you come to the conclusion that a chassis is light??? If it is a light weight chassis, it wouldn't be used for citybus work. AFAIK, it is rated for 18 tonnes GVM, which is hardly light. the B10M chassis is also used in coaches. You find me O.405 coaches which are as numerable as the B10M coach. You'd struggle, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE! Why don't you learn to back up your statements with facts?Originally posted by chickenlittle2:The chassis was so light. I remembered when I was small, that was the time when MK3 was placed on the road. I remembered that I felt very dizzy after taking this buses. Even the new CNG bus too! Their chassis were very light, tends to shake a lot!So after that, I always think that MB 0405 was the most stable one and had good suspension compared to others. It maybe the jerking problem but most of this bus do not had hard jerking problem after they are maintained well. Those DM 3500 and Strider were one of my favourite too, they are very stable. Sometimes, when you board DM 3500, you can hear the metal bars under the bus when it passes by those uneven road! This sound can be found on SBS 276Y, I think the only bus that has the same metal sound produced below the bus. Sometimes I thought that I was onboard a DM 3500! So, I also think that the stability of the bus matters a lot, especially when you are taking in a long distance journey. [b] -
Yeah..i agree with Windy_Loves_B10TL..haha..A Volvo B10M is definitely more stable than a Merc O405..The engine in a B10M is placed horizontally in the middle of the bus between the 2 axles! The engine in the Merc O405 is placed at the back of the bus. The only reason why some people would think the Merc is more stable than the Volvo is because the suspension of the Merc is more supple than the suspension of thr B10M, which is very crashy..
-
Where got enigne position determine stability? That means you're saying O405, N113, etc, got more chance to topple to the back?Originally posted by alleggerita:Yeah..i agree with Windy_Loves_B10TL..haha..A Volvo B10M is definitely more stable than a Merc O405..
-
Take the hammer for example. If you throw the hammer up into the air, the hammer head part, which is the heaviest part of the whole hammer, will always wants to fall first. However, if the hammer head is positioned in the middle (which is weirdOriginally posted by stooper:Where got enigne position determine stability? That means you're saying O405, N113, etc, got more chance to topple to the back? 
) , the whole hammer may want to fall straight, in a level manner, meaning the whole body falls together, as compared with head first in the first explanation.
Saw this explanation on Discovery channel of dunno what show, cannot rmbr, while explaining the problems of rear engine cars. This also applies to rear engined buses. If the bus speeds and turns, the heavier rear part with the engine, may cause the back of the bus to be "pushed" sideways, causing the bus to be out of control. However, if the engine is positioned in the middle, the weight is distributed evenly and the chances of the bus being "pushed" out is lessened.
In other words, the heavier rear part of rear engined buses will have a greater inertia at the rear when turning, as compared with mid-engined buses. -
By the way, in physics term. If you throw an elephant and a rat down the building. Both would reached the bottom at the same time. Firstly, I think that 100% of SBST buses would not topple as their max speed would only be 60km/h! For about 16 years, did you see any case of MB 0405 topple before? I always think this model was the even best chassis and engine that SBST brought. That give the least problem to SBST!
-
Actually it will take alot to topple a 12m SD bus, think the bank angle is about 22 degrees? Cant remember, i saw a Volvo safety test on Youtube which test the roll safety of the bus, and the bus is tilted about dunno? 22-33 degrees?Originally posted by chickenlittle2:By the way, in physics term. If you throw an elephant and a rat down the building. Both would reached the bottom at the same time. Firstly, I think that 100% of SBST buses would not topple as their max speed would only be 60km/h! For about 16 years, did you see any case of MB 0405 topple before? I always think this model was the even best chassis and engine that SBST brought. That give the least problem to SBST!
Actually, what im trying to say is that rear engined are more proned to steer outs (is this what they call it?) than mid-engined buses, not the toppling of buses.. Or you can try this.. U are riding a bicycle, then u 'tompang' a big and heavy person at the back, but you are light urself... then speed along a straight road and make a sharp turn, the bicycle will confirm lose control and topple, because the back of the bicycle has a greater inertia than the front. So the front is turning, but the back wants to go straight, therefore causing the bus(bike in this case) to steer out...But dont worry when u take a rear engined bus, you wont encounter such situations, unless the BC speeds like a speed demon, say 180km/h? 
-
We talking about topple backwards lah, not topple sideways...Originally posted by Scania N113CRB luver:Actually it will take alot to topple a 12m SD bus, think the bank angle is about 22 degrees? Cant remember, i saw a Volvo safety test on Youtube which test the roll safety of the bus, and the bus is tilted about dunno? 22-33 degrees? So we never see a bus topple backwards before. -
Wa..of cuz a bus won't topple backwards if the engine is placed at the back..if the mid-engined layout is not stable, why would most supercars like ferrari and lamborghini adopt this layout? Only porsche adopts the rear-engined layout for it's 911..that's why a 911 is more prone oversteers (I think this is what Scania N113CRB luver is trying to say instead of "steer outs") or more commonly known as drifting..hehe..Ferraris and Lamborghinis are super stable, the only way they will drift/oversteer is when u release the accelerator in the middle of a turn..Thus a mid-engined Volvo B10M will definitely be more stable than a rear-engined Merc O405..Originally posted by stooper:We talking about topple backwards lah, not topple sideways... So we never see a bus topple backwards before.
NOW imagine it is raining heavily and there is a B10M and O405 both wanting to turn a corner fast because the green arrow is already flashing, the O405 will definitely be more prone to oversteer than the B10M because of inertia..the engine at the back of the merc has inertia (which means the reluctance to accelerate or reluctance to deccelerate) and the engine won't want to change direction much, thus the rear of the O405 will "push out" wide and cause it to oversteer and lose control..but in the B10M, yes the engine has inertia too, but it is placed horizontally (not vertically, most cars engines are placed vertically, so when it horizontal, it's centre of gravity is even lower, thus more stable) and in between the 2 axles, thus the inertia of the engine is cancelled out..making a B10M more stable.. -
And like someone else just said, do you see more Merc O405 or Volvo B10Ms on the road? More B10Ms right?! So it proves that it is the better choice and easier to maintain..lolx..
-
Merc O405 also quite a lot. Most of them bear TIB rego.Originally posted by alleggerita:And like someone else just said, do you see more Merc O405 or Volvo B10Ms on the road? More B10Ms right?! So it proves that it is the better choice and easier to maintain..lolx.. -
FYI, the engine of the O405 is also placed horizontally. Actually, the reason why horizontal engines are used on both B10M and O405 is not because of having a lower centre of gravity like what Subaru claims, instead since the engine is horizontal or "pancake", theres no need for extra space/room for underfloor equipment, which explains why B10M has a horizontal engine. If the B10M were to have a horizontal engine, the platform height would be so high due to the need for space for underfloor equipment that its platform height would almost same to those tourist coaches.Originally posted by alleggerita:..........want to change direction much, thus the rear of the O405 will "push out" wide and cause it to oversteer and lose control..but in the B10M, yes the engine has inertia too, but it is placed horizontally (not vertically, most cars engines are placed vertically, so when it horizontal, it's centre of gravity is even lower, thus more stable) and in between the 2 axles, thus the inertia of the engine is cancelled out..making a B10M more stable..
Buses that are fully low floor, but uses vertical engines, has the engine placed in transverse position, in order to enable full low floor. An example is the N113CRB (altho not low floor), its engine was placed in transverse position, meaning engine is parallel to the axle. Another example of low floor buses with vertical engines placed in transverse position is the B9TL. -
there are more O.405s as public buses in Singapore, 1010 of them (exlcuding O.405Gs) 1323 (including O.405Gs), while there are only 900+ B10Ms as public buses. Despite this, there should be more B10Ms in Singapore than O.405s, if we count in all the coaches and private buses, though the exact number of B10Ms in Singapore is unknown.Originally posted by alleggerita:And like someone else just said, do you see more Merc O405 or Volvo B10Ms on the road? More B10Ms right?! So it proves that it is the better choice and easier to maintain..lolx.. -
I remember someone said that the B10M is one of the most sold bus chassis in the world. It has much more sales as compared with any other bus chassis. Almost every part of the earth you can see a B10M, esp in the UK.Originally posted by Scania:there are more O.405s as public buses in Singapore, 1010 of them (exlcuding O.405Gs) 1323 (including O.405Gs), while there are only 900+ B10Ms as public buses. Despite this, there should be more B10Ms in Singapore than O.405s, if we count in all the coaches and private buses, though the exact number of B10Ms in Singapore is unknown.
Too bad its now overtaken by B12M...But also good....B12M got a bigger and more powerful engine.... -
But if we're trying to compare the number of rear-engined buses to mid-engined buses... The number of rear-engined buses wins hands down...Originally posted by Scania N113CRB luver:I remember someone said that the B10M is one of the most sold bus chassis in the world. It has much more sales as compared with any other bus chassis. Almost every part of the earth you can see a B10M, esp in the UK.
-
HEY GUYS! Actually I wrote this out. I was talking about MK3 was the one I do not like and was the one I felt that it was too unstable!
CAN those who have eyes see what I wrote? And u see some Fu**** and some doggie giving the wrong reply and follow the wrong direction! Si Bei F** up!Originally posted by chickenlittle2:The chassis was so light. I remembered when I was small, that was the time when MK3 was placed on the road. I remembered that I felt very dizzy after taking this buses. Even the new CNG bus too! Their chassis were very light, tends to shake a lot!So after that, I always think that MB 0405 was the most stable one and had good suspension compared to others. It maybe the jerking problem but most of this bus do not had hard jerking problem after they are maintained well. Those DM 3500 and Strider were one of my favourite too, they are very stable. Sometimes, when you board DM 3500, you can hear the metal bars under the bus when it passes by those uneven road! This sound can be found on SBS 276Y, I think the only bus that has the same metal sound produced below the bus. Sometimes I thought that I was onboard a DM 3500! So, I also think that the stability of the bus matters a lot, especially when you are taking in a long distance journey. [b]Originally posted by Windy_hates_B10TLs:The Strider body on the Mk IVs is designed for rear engined buses, with double, single or zero steps. Hence the windscreen goes so low, and why the driver's cab is high in a B10M. Why do you think the Alexander PS body was still produced on Mk IV B10Ms in the UK???? Last ones I believe were delivered in 1997/98 loooong after the Mk IIs in Singapore were delivered.Originally posted by alleggerita:Yeah..i agree with Windy_Loves_B10TL..haha..A Volvo B10M is definitely more stable than a Merc O405..The engine in a B10M is placed horizontally in the middle of the bus between the 2 axles! The engine in the Merc O405 is placed at the back of the bus. The only reason why some people would think the Merc is more stable than the Volvo is because the suspension of the Merc is more supple than the suspension of thr B10M, which is very crashy..Originally posted by alleggerita:Wa..of cuz a bus won't topple backwards if the engine is placed at the back..if the mid-engined layout is not stable, why would most supercars like ferrari and lamborghini adopt this layout? Only porsche adopts the rear-engined layout for it's 911..that's why a 911 is more prone oversteers (I think this is what Scania N113CRB luver is trying to say instead of "steer outs") or more commonly known as drifting..hehe..Ferraris and Lamborghinis are super stable, the only way they will drift/oversteer is when u release the accelerator in the middle of a turn..Thus a mid-engined Volvo B10M will definitely be more stable than a rear-engined Merc O405..
NOW imagine it is raining heavily and there is a B10M and O405 both wanting to turn a corner fast because the green arrow is already flashing, the O405 will definitely be more prone to oversteer than the B10M because of inertia..the engine at the back of the merc has inertia (which means the reluctance to accelerate or reluctance to deccelerate) and the engine won't want to change direction much, thus the rear of the O405 will "push out" wide and cause it to oversteer and lose control..but in the B10M, yes the engine has inertia too, but it is placed horizontally (not vertically, most cars engines are placed vertically, so when it horizontal, it's centre of gravity is even lower, thus more stable) and in between the 2 axles, thus the inertia of the engine is cancelled out..making a B10M more stable.. -
You are the one who fu cked up, quoting the wrong post, or seeing the wrong post. There were two posts by the same person, and you either quoted or saw the wrong one.Originally posted by chickenlittle2:HEY GUYS! Actually I wrote this out. I was talking about MK3 was the one I do not like and was the one I felt that it was too unstable! -
Mr Ayam's claim
The chassis was so light. I remembered when I was small, that was the time when MK3 was placed on the road. I remembered that I felt very dizzy after taking this buses.
Windy_hates_B10TL's answerHow do you come to the conclusion that a chassis is light??? If it is a light weight chassis, it wouldn't be used for citybus work. AFAIK, it is rated for 18 tonnes GVM, which is hardly light. the B10M chassis is also used in coaches. You find me O.405 coaches which are as numerable as the B10M coach. You'd struggle, BECAUSE THERE ARE NONE! Why don't you learn to back up your statements with facts?
When the facts are given and you still give some stupid post to defend your claim, its really shows that you are fu.ked up this time. -
okok! May I know wat are the B10M u all r toking about? wat MB 0405 u all r toking about? State it out clearly! I WANT U ALL TO KNOW! From the start I am only toking about MK3 not Mk4 or DM 3500 or Strider and also not MK2!Originally posted by Scania:Mr Ayam's claim
When the facts are given and you still give some stupid post to defend your claim, its really shows that you are fu.ked up this time.