Round vs Squarish Eggs - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 05-05-2011, 11:26 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
melissab's Avatar
 
Name: melissa
Trailer: 2012 Scamp 13 DLX
Florida
Posts: 1,400
Round vs Squarish Eggs

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?
__________________

__________________
Melissa in Florida
1999 Toyota Sienna XLE
melissab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 11:45 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
honda03842's Avatar
 
Name: Norm and Ginny
Trailer: Scamp 16
Florida
Posts: 7,392
We've towed a 15.5' Sunline that weighed about the same as our Scamp 16 and less than a Casita 16 we towed. We used the same tow vehicle for all three rigs. With the lighter, squarish Sunline we got 20 mpg; with the other tow we got 23 mpg.

The Sunline was a little wider at 7' compared to the others 6'8".

I would say based upon the mileage the roundies put less of a load on the tow vehicle.

Norm
__________________

honda03842 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 11:53 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Greg H's Avatar
 
Name: Greg
Trailer: 72 Boler American
Indiana
Posts: 1,557
Round like a ball, square like a brick. Now you can hit the easy button.
Greg H is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 12:28 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
melissab's Avatar
 
Name: melissa
Trailer: 2012 Scamp 13 DLX
Florida
Posts: 1,400
So if you want to maximize gas mileage go for the Scamps and their relatives.
__________________
Melissa in Florida
1999 Toyota Sienna XLE
melissab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 12:53 PM   #5
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,542
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?
I have owned and towed many shapes and sizes of eggs and there certainly is a difference in towability and mileage among them but it won't be you who makes the enemies when I tell you my results!!

Comparing 13's strictly on towing and mileage, I have found your assumption to be correct.
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 01:20 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
melissab's Avatar
 
Name: melissa
Trailer: 2012 Scamp 13 DLX
Florida
Posts: 1,400
LOL, thank you Floyd. I like how you put that,
__________________
Melissa in Florida
1999 Toyota Sienna XLE
melissab is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 02:42 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Ed Harris's Avatar
 
Name: Ed
Trailer: 1982 Fiber Stream and 2002 Casita Freedom Deluxe,The driveway is a Dark & Lonely Place now!
Missouri
Posts: 1,961
I have had each also from Trills,Fiberstream,Scamp & Casita.

All I know for sure is I have had more fun per gallon with each trip I take.
The tiny difference in mileage is not something I worry about.

I know the newer the trailer the easier it has pulled for me and that makes for more fun per gallon too.
Ed Harris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 03:04 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
honda03842's Avatar
 
Name: Norm and Ginny
Trailer: Scamp 16
Florida
Posts: 7,392
Certainly a few mpg can seem insignificant however we are undergoing almost unbelievable fuel inflation. In a little of two years the cost per gallon has almost tripled and I fear the end is not in sight.

It would be manageable if it was only gasoline, but everything is increasing with the cost of energy. Like many of the posts on this forum indicate, people are simply concerned, particularly as they reach retirement and endeavor to take that long RV trip.

The positive is that RV living of itself is inexpensive.

Norm
honda03842 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 03:34 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
David and Nancy's Avatar
 
Name: David
Trailer: Bigfoot 25 ft (25B25RQ)
Colorado
Posts: 306
I am currently towing a 21' Bigfoot after previously having a Scamp 16 and a Casita 17. I am down 5-6 miles per gallon with the Bigfoot. The flat frontal area on the Bigfoot is far less aerodynamic. I can feel it catching wind in conditions that didn't faze the Scamp and Casita. Of course, the Bigfoot is also bigger and heavier, so not really a fair comparison. We love the extra space and 4-season features, but it doesn't pull like a small egg.
David and Nancy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-05-2011, 04:53 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
theresa p's Avatar
 
Name: theresa
Trailer: Outback (by Trillium) 2004
New Brunswick
Posts: 1,493
Registry
yup...we know there is a bit more drag towing our "squarish" outback...but we simply accept it. we tow with an acura 3.2 tl 6 cyl and average 20-21 mpg. we're content with that.
theresa p is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 07:27 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
Tony Nowak's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2003 Bigfoot 17 (15B17CB), 2017 Escape 17B
Wisconsin
Posts: 341
We get about 3 less MPG with the Bigfoot versus the Scamp, of course the BF is 130% heavier, but as Dave comments the frontal area is a killer.
We lockout overdrive on the Ford 150 (4 speed auto) when using the BF.
Tony
Tony Nowak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:45 PM   #12
Member
 
Ron Stewart's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2009 17 ft Escape
Posts: 95
Registry
Many years ago I took a course in fluid mechanics (air is a fluid in the mind of an engineer). Two things I dimly remember about drag are that shape matters much less than frontal area, and that the shape of the back is as important as the shape of the front. None of these trailers have a tapered tail, so the sterns are creating a lot of drag.

Of course, I tow an Escape.
Ron Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 01:52 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,542
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Stewart View Post
Many years ago I took a course in fluid mechanics (air is a fluid in the mind of an engineer). Two things I dimly remember about drag are that shape matters much less than frontal area, and that the shape of the back is as important as the shape of the front. None of these trailers have a tapered tail, so the sterns are creating a lot of drag.

Of coure, I tow an Escape.
"none of these trailers has" nothing like a good education to trump experience!
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 02:27 PM   #14
Member
 
Ron Stewart's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2009 17 ft Escape
Posts: 95
Registry
I teach math, not grammar.
Ron Stewart is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 05:00 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Jane P.'s Avatar
 
Name: Jane
Trailer: Bigfoot 25B21RB
California
Posts: 575
Quote:
Originally Posted by David and Nancy View Post
I am currently towing a 21' Bigfoot after previously having a Scamp 16 and a Casita 17. I am down 5-6 miles per gallon with the Bigfoot. The flat frontal area on the Bigfoot is far less aerodynamic. I can feel it catching wind in conditions that didn't faze the Scamp and Casita. Of course, the Bigfoot is also bigger and heavier, so not really a fair comparison. We love the extra space and 4-season features, but it doesn't pull like a small egg.
I was originally looking at a Casita 17 because of gas milage (plus it's cute), but decided on the Bigfoot because of extra basement storage, and the fact that it would be more comfortable for my husband and dogs.

I try not to think about the additional gas milage.

I did consider a Egg Camper. It is round and wider than the Casita. It is designed and built by an ex-Airplane manufacturer who warrants that maximizing gas milage stood prominently his design decisions.

However, the Egg Camper lacked certain comfort features which were of interest to me (like a larger freezer, storage space & a LP System to accommodate dry camping).

But if you want to go round and have some room to "stretch out" in the cabin, and maximize gas milage, I'd definitely consider an Egg Camper.
__________________
'02 Bigfoot 21 | '07 Chevy Tahoe
Jane P. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-06-2011, 08:50 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Bruce Thomas's Avatar
 
Name: Bruce T
Trailer: Hunter compact jr
Indiana
Posts: 778
Registry
Things that need to be moved through the air efficiently are hardly ever "squarish"......jets or planes..cars..a bullet.....anything actually. There are no square birds either... Frontal area matters alot too and its shape. thats why you see the sloping roof style on top of big rig trucks, they're trying to direct that air up and over in a hurry......so streamlining.......over the life of that thing it must save alot, not sure yould be able to claim that kinda savings yanking an egg with a toyota etc but it's there i'm sure.
All that said I think alot of the squarer looking campers are really sharp looking and probably have much better interior usefulness without the rounded ends etc. I'd buy either
Bruce Thomas is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 12:15 AM   #17
Moderator
 
Pam Garlow's Avatar
 
Name: Pam
Trailer: U-Haul 1985
Michigan
Posts: 3,335
Registry
I just had to google the 'have or has' question. It appears that either useage is correct, depending upon whether or not you are speaking in terms of singular or plural in reference to the word 'none'. Website and portion of explanation is below. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.co...26513/9903.htm
"When the sense is plural (as indicated by a plural noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase "none of [plural entity]"), none is plural; when the sense is singular (as indicated by a singular noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase "none of [singular entity]"), none is singular.
Futhermore, we may have some instances in which either is correct. The American Heritage Dictionary notes: "The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial." And that is true because the sense of none may be construed here as either "not one" or "not any."
Pam Garlow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2011, 08:26 AM   #18
member
 
Name: Michael
Trailer: Li'l Hauley
Oklahoma
Posts: 5,892
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pam Garlow View Post
I just had to google the 'have or has' question. It appears that either useage is correct, depending upon whether or not you are speaking in terms of singular or plural in reference to the word 'none'. Website and portion of explanation is below. http://www.grammarmudge.cityslide.co...26513/9903.htm
"When the sense is plural (as indicated by a plural noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase "none of [plural entity]"), none is plural; when the sense is singular (as indicated by a singular noun or pronoun in the following prepositional phrase "none of [singular entity]"), none is singular.
Futhermore, we may have some instances in which either is correct. The American Heritage Dictionary notes: "The choice between a singular or plural verb depends on the desired effect. Both options are acceptable in this sentence: None of the conspirators has (or have) been brought to trial." And that is true because the sense of none may be construed here as either "not one" or "not any."

Thanks for clarifying that. Good grammar is important to me, but this is one that I have puzzled over. Nice to know that I'm safe either way.

At this stage in my life, this much I am sure of: I am not really sure of much.
Mike Magee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 08:22 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 1980 Burro
Posts: 288
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?
Round vs squarish may have less of a factor on MPG than all the things that some people rivet, bolt or glue on the outside. Awnings, air conditioners, solar panels, and large roof vent covers can really disrupt smooth airflow over the surface of a trailer. I would bet that a squarish egg without any of that stuff would have less drag than a round egg with all the exterior flow disrupters. The best would be round without the exterior stuff. Even things like protruding door handles, porch lights, vent panels and access hatches can have an effect although smaller than the big stuff.
Andy B is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2011, 08:27 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,542
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy B View Post
Round vs squarish may have less of a factor on MPG than all the things that some people rivet, bolt or glue on the outside. Awnings, air conditioners, solar panels, and large roof vent covers can really disrupt smooth airflow over the surface of a trailer. I would bet that a squarish egg without any of that stuff would have less drag than a round egg with all the exterior flow disrupters. The best would be round without the exterior stuff. Even things like protruding door handles, porch lights, vent panels and access hatches can have an effect although smaller than the big stuff.
Even more so above 160MPH!
__________________

floyd 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 10:24 PM
4 flat with 7 round?? Joan D Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 10 06-15-2008 09:05 PM
4 flat with 7 round?? Joan D Problem Solving | Owners Helping Owners 0 01-01-1970 12:00 AM

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

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
×