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.
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.
不過我想問的是更為愚問...