MAN SV, any good?

#1
Now that the big green German truck is out there in the big Soldiery world, what are the views of it?
Without going into OPSEC issues as they are also deployed, any dramas so far? Or even good points?
But before anyone says, No, there was no room for beds and No, there wont be a electrically operated spare wheel winch!!!

Helmet on, incoming! :threaten:
 
#3
Peter_Skellen said:
The BV in the front is the best bit!
One tick in the box then!
 
#4
The only drama is that there is only 500 trailers available that are compatable with it (according to my VT Ststems instructor). Which is why my unit is having to retain 2-3 Dafs for towing the Feps.....well thought of then!
 
#5
Yes, not all present trailers can be towed. This is due to the SV towing pintle height.
The FEPS problem was known about early on but the ongoing problem is down to Rolls Royce who manufacture FEPs. It requires a re-design of the towing arm and eye.
This may of been sorted now and a solution in one of those long dark pipelines!!!
 
#7
buryfc66 said:
MAN SV(R) = Top wagon, excellent.
Having seen a few ex-TELIC Fodens in Ashchurch the other day im not surprised!!
 
#9
Hmmm the FEPS problem is down to Rolls Royce, how come

FEPS has been in service for 5+ years (got my first ones in 2003 with the short A frames which could not be towed by Box Body Vehicles 'MOD F up not Rolls Royce' never mind the euro law about air taps on the Bedfords 'manufactured date')

How long the Man's been in service just a tadge less I think. Typical not doing a proper evaluation with all possible kit used by all arms
 
#10
Leccy said:
Hmmm the FEPS problem is down to Rolls Royce, how come

FEPS has been in service for 5+ years (got my first ones in 2003 with the short A frames which could not be towed by Box Body Vehicles 'MOD F up not Rolls Royce' never mind the euro law about air taps on the Bedfords 'manufactured date')

How long the Man's been in service just a tadge less I think. Typical not doing a proper evaluation with all possible kit used by all arms
Because Rolls wouldnt sign off the modification to the towing frame on the FEP's (this may of changed now though). They own them after all!
Ref your comment about "typical not doing a proper evaluation.." We did and thats when we found out it would'nt tow it. But if we were to lower the towing pintle you loose the departure angle on the truck. And to be fair, why change 6000+ trucks to tow some big large ass genny when you can mod 1300 FEPs.
 
#11
CH512O said:
Leccy said:
Hmmm the FEPS problem is down to Rolls Royce, how come

FEPS has been in service for 5+ years (got my first ones in 2003 with the short A frames which could not be towed by Box Body Vehicles 'MOD F up not Rolls Royce' never mind the euro law about air taps on the Bedfords 'manufactured date')

How long the Man's been in service just a tadge less I think. Typical not doing a proper evaluation with all possible kit used by all arms
Because Rolls wouldnt sign off the modification to the towing frame on the FEP's (this may of changed now though). They own them after all!
Ref your comment about "typical not doing a proper evaluation.." We did and thats when we found out it would'nt tow it. But if we were to lower the towing pintle you loose the departure angle on the truck. And to be fair, why change 6000+ trucks to tow some big large ass genny when you can mod 1300 FEPs.
Oh come now CH, surely in the true fashion of MOD procurement the 6000 SVs would be modded, as well as the 1300 FEPs resulting in the SV still being unable to tow the FEPs! :wink:
 
#12
Can we get one of the bloody things? I want a bigger fitter truck. :)
 
#13
vampireuk said:
Can we get one of the bloody things? I want a bigger fitter truck. :)
Well when you do get one for fucks sake dont start drilling holes all over it!
 
#14
Can I at least hammer nails through the side of it? Where else am I going to hang my tan dust coat? :)
 
#15
Depending when the Bedford was manufactured they can no longer be used to tow airline braked trailers.

Stupid rule we had one bedford that was made after the cut off date (exactly the same veh apart from age as the others)

Picked up on unit PRI thingy

Rolls Royce already modified the A frames because when they were trialled they were trialled on GS wagons, the box body over hang meant that they could not be towed except by GS wagons (entailed a much longer A frame being fitted which changed the centre of gravity and the tow hitch weight load

Now its Rolls Royces fault again because a new vehicle has entered service that can not tow all in service trailers ?????

we had this before with vehicles and trailers and ended up with the vehicles being modified with adjustable tow eyes instead of fixed (it was a simple fix at the time old tow eye fixed to a bracket that could be adjusted and the bracket bolted into place where the tow eye used to be)
 
#16
Leccy said:
Depending when the Bedford was manufactured they can no longer be used to tow airline braked trailers.

Stupid rule we had one bedford that was made after the cut off date (exactly the same veh apart from age as the others)

Picked up on unit PRI thingy

Rolls Royce already modified the A frames because when they were trialled they were trialled on GS wagons, the box body over hang meant that they could not be towed except by GS wagons (entailed a much longer A frame being fitted which changed the centre of gravity and the tow hitch weight load

Now its Rolls Royces fault again because a new vehicle has entered service that can not tow all in service trailers ?????

we had this before with vehicles and trailers and ended up with the vehicles being modified with adjustable tow eyes instead of fixed (it was a simple fix at the time old tow eye fixed to a bracket that could be adjusted and the bracket bolted into place where the tow eye used to be)
Ref the Bedford tow thing. Who ever on the Unit PRI( i think you mean ECI) may of meant the following. Im assuming that you are on about Bedford MJ's? When they are first manufactured, even if it takes 5 years to build the whole fleet, the design process and therefore Regulation conformity is from when the design was first submitted, at beginning of year1. This then runs till end of manufacturing run. As long as the design is not changed then last truck built at end of year 5 is same as year 1, in theory (except in Land Rovers case and WOLF!!).
Now if there were modifications required on trucks to apply evolving Regs, then it may of only applied to "newer" trucks which then may meant trucks built in year 3, 4 and 5 (ones that may of been sat in Depots, most of their time) with the older trucks pensioned off.

On the overhang on SV, yes, there is a big overhang. This has nothing to do with the box-body but the fact the cargo-bed is bigger than a 4t (increased capacity). The pintle is recessed further and a very costly design change to the rear cross-member would of resulted if we wanted to move it out to the rear more to enable the CO's personnel generator to be towed down the M3! Hence back to the original point of mod'ding the frame....again!
 
#17
I used a 9T one on med man 1 last year and was really happy with it but for the x country capability
This was shocking I was told on my conversion course it was the tyres if so why not issue the proper ones?
Other than that it looks like good money spent :D
 
#18
HEART_STOPPER said:
I used a 9T one on med man 1 last year and was really happy with it but for the x country capability
This was shocking I was told on my conversion course it was the tyres if so why not issue the proper ones?
Other than that it looks like good money spent :D
I came out to MM2 last year to see the problems on SV after MM1. Coupled with worst rain in BATUS for a fair few years and the, wait for it in true RailTrack fashion, the type of mud(!) SV did indeed not fair well.
Some of it is down to the tyres and part down to training on SV.
The tyres are Continentals that are fitted to all SV apart from SV(R). They performed fine on the 1000's of km's on the trials with no dramas. There are better ones available, such as the Michelins fitted to SV(R) which have better tread profiles. But it was down to a weight (load carrying capability) and cost issue why Continentals were fitted to the fleet-wide. There was talk after our visit to do a further trial with SV, at BATUS with the Michelins fitted, at the end of last year, so not sure what the results were. What a lot of people are unaware is MAN suggest fitting of mobility chains (Snow!) to SV for inproved traction. Also lowering of tyre pressures. All this is in the User Handbook, but then who reads the instruction manual anyway!
 
#19
Can you not get some very large BFG Mud tyres? ;)
 
#20
we have been using the epls for our pdt and have had so many dramas with them, like the oil fault coming up when its absoultely fine, ignintion diagnostic coming up and just bringing you to a complete halt, im currently on herrick 10 and were ment to be getting 30 of them to take over the outdated drops mm and im, we have to epls out here out the moment and one of them you are unable to use the "chu" on because the lhs will not come close enough i think they are far to tempremental.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top