Round vs Squarish Eggs - Page 5 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-15-2011, 09:30 PM   #57
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 1980 Burro
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca Knowles View Post
Are any of the below designs measurably more aerodynamically efficient than the others?
I would guess the Boler because, based on the pictures, it does not have an awning or roof vent or roof AC to create extra drag like the others and it has one of the smaller frontal areas.
__________________

__________________
Andy B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 09:35 PM   #58
Senior Member
 
Greg H's Avatar
 
Name: Greg
Trailer: 72 Boler American
Indiana
Posts: 1,557
There should be a roof vent on the Boler, you just can't see it in the picture. The vent lays pretty low on the roof. GO BOLER!
__________________

__________________
Greg H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2011, 10:07 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Francesca Knowles's Avatar
 
Name: Francesca Knowles
Trailer: '78 Trillium 4500
Jefferson County, Washington State, U.S.A.
Posts: 4,543
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy B View Post
I would guess the Boler because, based on the pictures, it does not have an awning or roof vent or roof AC to create extra drag like the others and it has one of the smaller frontal areas.
Thanks, Andy!
But-
We're talking about basic design differences.
For this discussion, let's leave add-ons out of the equation!
The question is,
Does the Boler's design make it more "aerodynamic" than any other fiberglass trailer of the same size and dimensions?

Francesca
__________________
Francesca Knowles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 12:56 AM   #60
Moderator
 
Frederick L. Simson's Avatar
 
Name: Frederick
Trailer: Fiber Stream
California
Posts: 8,151
Registry
Send a message via AIM to Frederick L. Simson
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca Knowles View Post
Is it the Bigfoot that most closely represents an attempt to imitate the airplane wing model?
It does have the rounded horizontal leading edge that slopes rearward in both directions, and a repeat of same at the back of the trailer.

The Casita does have a bit more of a "Buddha Belly", but then there's the flat surface of the propane tank covers that might negate its "effect".
Plus its back is flat as a pancake, as is the Scamp's back.

Am I missing something, or wrongly interpreting what I see?

....
Francesca
I think you are experiencing an optical illusion re: the BigFoot. The point-of-view angle exaggerates the Lateral slope; in reality what you perceive as a slope at the back is in reality the slope of the sides. The BigFoot's back is actually just as flat as (almost) all the others.

I perceive the front (and back) of Scamp and Casita (and Boler) to be nearly identical. My tired eyes cannot differentiate what might be possibly a 1 or 2 degree difference in slope. The only "Buddha Belly" I can see is my own.

This photo of a poster gives quite a comparison. The 10 trailers pictured are:
The Bigfoot is in reality so much larger than all the rest. It will have much more wind drag.
__________________
Frederick - The Scaleman
1978 Fiber Stream 16 named "Eggstasy" & 1971 Compact Jr. named "Boomerang"
Frederick L. Simson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 05:47 PM   #61
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 1980 Burro
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Francesca Knowles View Post
Thanks, Andy!
But-
We're talking about basic design differences.
For this discussion, let's leave add-ons out of the equation!
The question is,
Does the Boler's design make it more "aerodynamic" than any other fiberglass trailer of the same size and dimensions?

Francesca
Lets assume we ignore the things that are mounted on the outside and we ignore the different size frontal area among the different brands, then the question is only which shape is more aerodynamic. We can also ignore propane tanks and batteries mounted up front because they are in the aerodynamic shadow of the tow vehicle. Lets also assume we ignore the underside of the trailers with all the pipes and frames shapes with poor aerodynamics.

The rounded shape has to be more aerodynamic than the square shape. The phrase "It has the aerodynamics of a brick" points out that square shaped objects do not slip through the air very well. There are no sports cars or airplanes that are square shaped. Now if you compare the shapes but not the sizes of a Boler with a Burro or an EggCamper, there may not be much difference. However comparing those more rounded campers with the square ones like a Hunter or a Play-Pac or a Companion there would be a difference.
There are brands that are somewhere in between the square and rounded because they are a square shape but with more rounded corners. Rounding the corners even a small amount can make a significant difference compared sharp corners.

The things that we are ignoring in this discussion have a greater influence on the aerodynamics than the shape does.
__________________
Andy B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 05:52 PM   #62
Senior Member
 
Greg H's Avatar
 
Name: Greg
Trailer: 72 Boler American
Indiana
Posts: 1,557
Ah, but there is more turbulence between the Tow Vehicle and the trailer than you think. That's the reason semi trucks have that small extension at the back of the sleeper, the closer the truck is to the trailer the less air gets in there.
__________________
Greg H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 06:31 PM   #63
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 1980 Burro
Posts: 288
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg H View Post
Ah, but there is more turbulence between the Tow Vehicle and the trailer than you think. That's the reason semi trucks have that small extension at the back of the sleeper, the closer the truck is to the trailer the less air gets in there.
Francesca asked that we not include factors other than the trailer shape. I don't think it was ever said that there was no turbulence between the tow vehicle and the trailer (an aerodynamic shadow is made up of turbulence). The tow vehicle size and shape and proximity to the trailer all have effects but it is only the trailer shape that Francesca asked about.
__________________
Andy B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 06:33 PM   #64
Senior Member
 
Francesca Knowles's Avatar
 
Name: Francesca Knowles
Trailer: '78 Trillium 4500
Jefferson County, Washington State, U.S.A.
Posts: 4,543
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by melissab View Post
With e'body watching their MPG's, I was wondering if anybody has towed both a round egg and a squarer (is that a word??) egg and can report on the MPG differences? In particular I was thinking of the Scamp/Bolers compared to the Trilliums/Escapes. I'd think the squarer FG rigs would fare worse. So is there a difference between the 2 shapes and gas mileage? And if not, why not?
Not to mention the original Poster!

Francesca
__________________
Francesca Knowles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 06:36 PM   #65
Senior Member
 
Greg H's Avatar
 
Name: Greg
Trailer: 72 Boler American
Indiana
Posts: 1,557
Oh, now it's a shadow. Ok, back to round versus square nothing else matters. I got it. Francesca, I like round, so I'm going to say round.
__________________
Greg H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2011, 06:56 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
Francesca Knowles's Avatar
 
Name: Francesca Knowles
Trailer: '78 Trillium 4500
Jefferson County, Washington State, U.S.A.
Posts: 4,543
Registry
(heavy sigh)

Melissa inquired 65 posts ago as to whether there's any significant difference in the aerodynamic design among the most common trailers under discussion in this forum.
When it comes to gas mileage, you understand.
She names the "types".
I posted pictures of the "types".
I see very little "shape" difference among them.
I say, Melissa, if you're still with us- stay within this "group of shapes", and you'll do as well as can be expected of any large object being towed down the road.
But there isn't a spit's worth of difference within the group as far as design is concerned.
This is the OTHER situation where size matters, though, so if you expect "satisfaction" at the pumps, buy the trailer with the smallest frontal area whose interior space works for you.

Francesca
__________________
Francesca Knowles is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-17-2011, 06:26 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
Mike Magee's Avatar
 
Name: Michael
Trailer: Li'l Hauley
Oklahoma
Posts: 5,142
If I were to have a testing setup and wanted to make a prediction, I would expect the more rounded eggs to outperform the less rounded eggs by perhaps 1 mpg. I base that guess largely on the fact that my Burro beat my totally-square-edged cargo trailer by 3 mpg. A difference of, say, 16 vs. 15 mpg will only yield a savings of $21 per 1000 miles traveled, assuming $5/gallon gas. It's not much.
__________________

__________________
How much time do we have left? 2 Chr. 7:14
Mike Magee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Roddin' Round Doug Mager Hobbies & Passions 24 01-06-2013 06:58 PM
Casita Mods - Round Two Rob and Linda Modifications, Alterations and Updates 13 09-20-2010 11:24 PM
4 flat with 7 round?? Joan D Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 10 06-15-2008 10:05 PM
4 flat with 7 round?? Joan D Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 0 12-31-1969 07:00 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.