Apr-10-2018 06:22 PM
Apr-23-2018 06:51 AM
PAThwacker wrote:
Check everything over with a fine tooth comb 6-side vaccuum trailers that leaked are basically scrap Foam floor,sides, and roof is 1/2 inch luan/1inch foam/1/2 inch luan. 30/30/30 tanks, crappy bal Bolt together frame or worse
Apr-20-2018 08:49 PM
Apr-19-2018 09:06 PM
miltvill wrote:
I sold my TT in my sig in October. It was a great TT the only problem I had was the microwave died after 10 seconds. The dealer replaced it under warranty. Then the manufacture went under. That was a awesome TT. Just make sure you keep up on the maintenance. My TT had every option. The crappy radio died and I replaced it with a better one and I also replace the mattress. The tv also bit the dust and I replaced it with a better tv. A great TT.
Apr-19-2018 07:05 PM
Apr-19-2018 06:15 AM
Apr-16-2018 06:45 AM
d2tw4all wrote:SoundGuy wrote:d2tw4all wrote:
The R-Vision has a more aerodynamic profile for sure at least when compared to my Starcraft. The front of it is much more tapered etc.
The only trailer design I'm aware of that can be demonstrated to actually flow through the air more efficiently and thus reduce fuel consumption is the "airplane" shaped aluminum style such as the Airstream, everything else is a barn door. Front panel slope makes no difference whatsoever, nor do V-nose shaped trailers which manufacturers also tried to claim would "flow better". It's all advertising hype, along with the claim that an enclosed underbelly will have any meaningful effect at all on towing. It's all gibberish.
This really intrigues me. So you're saying there is no difference between a completely flat front relative to the ground, and a pointed front? This seems to defy common sense at least, so do you have anything to back this assertion up in terms of actual tests done, wind tunnel evidence, etc?
This would mean that any vehicle with a flat front would be no less efficient than one with a tapered front. I guess all those race cars with a sleek tapered nose are just doing it for looks? Just doesn't make sense to me, the more it is tapered the less air resistance it should have...
Apr-14-2018 12:40 PM
LVJJJ wrote:
The 2000 30' Trail Lite we had was the easiest towing TT I'd ever had.
Apr-14-2018 12:17 PM
Apr-14-2018 08:20 AM
Apr-13-2018 02:35 PM
d2tw4all wrote:
So you're saying there is no difference between a completely flat front relative to the ground, and a pointed front? This seems to defy common sense at least, so do you have anything to back this assertion up in terms of actual tests done, wind tunnel evidence, etc?
This would mean that any vehicle with a flat front would be no less efficient than one with a tapered front.
Apr-13-2018 01:08 PM
SoundGuy wrote:d2tw4all wrote:
The R-Vision has a more aerodynamic profile for sure at least when compared to my Starcraft. The front of it is much more tapered etc.
The only trailer design I'm aware of that can be demonstrated to actually flow through the air more efficiently and thus reduce fuel consumption is the "airplane" shaped aluminum style such as the Airstream, everything else is a barn door. Front panel slope makes no difference whatsoever, nor do V-nose shaped trailers which manufacturers also tried to claim would "flow better". It's all advertising hype, along with the claim that an enclosed underbelly will have any meaningful effect at all on towing. It's all gibberish.
Apr-12-2018 11:32 AM
d2tw4all wrote:
The R-Vision has a more aerodynamic profile for sure at least when compared to my Starcraft. The front of it is much more tapered etc.
Apr-12-2018 11:11 AM
SoundGuy wrote:LVJJJ wrote:
The best thing about the Trail Lites-Cruisers is the aerodynamics, they cut thru the wind and as the undersides are enclosed or smooth, there is little turbulence. The TC is heavier than the Tahoe Lite we got rid of, but its easier to tow cause the design is slipperierSoundGuy wrote:
Sorry to disappoint but that's an Old Wives' Tale - TrailCruisers, Trailites, tow no differently than any full height trailer, nor does the enclosed underbelly make any difference at all other than in advertising. If anything helps at all it's that RVision products were generally lighter than anything of similar sizes at the time. I got the same average fuel mileage returns towing our TrailCruiser C21RBH with our 2006 Silverado as I do now towing our similar size but much heavier Coachmen Freedom Express 192RBS (with an open underbelly) with our current 2012 Silverado. 😉d2tw4all wrote:
Playing devils advocate though, you tow with a pickup and we are using SUV’s, which absolutely have significant differences in how they both tow and the aerodynamics involved.
What his this got to do with whether you're towing an RVision trailer or anything else? :hd2tw4all wrote:
I definitely could see the SUV streaming air differently over the trailer.
How can you possibly see invisible "streaming air differently over the trailer"?? :h
Apr-12-2018 06:57 AM