Truck Campers - Smaller For Solo Trips

[MANXMAN]

I have a Tacoma I use as a run around daily driver and was thinking it would be the perfect truck to build a light weight solo camper onto for the trips when my wife can't came along. I'm retired so I spend a lot of time exploring on my own.

A NCO type FWC/ATC style pop-up should be light enough to easily stay under the payload capacity of a Tacoma and have enough room for one person.

The Uro-Camper Biwak is an incredible example but too expensive to import.

FWC made one called a Cajita for a little while. The one below belongs to fellow WTW member BurkeDroppings.
This little camper is the right size for a single person and could even be better in a flat deck style. A couple of sketches of floor plans showed that all needed luxuries can fit into it and the weight should end up around 700 lbs. Plenty payload left for me and a dog, and if kept to 75" wide will go anyplace a Tacoma can fit into.

Maybe Marty and Jeff at ATC would be interested in building one in a flatbed shell for me.

I read a few threads about these little NCOs here and there seems to be very few who think the idea makes any sense, but it sure interests me. What do you think about one of these for solo use. Positive or negative.

 

[JJ1]

What's the benefit of eliminating the cabover? Seems like added hassle for setup to save only a few pounds, and the overall height doesn't look much different. What problem are you trying to solve here? (Not snarky, just in case it sounds that way in print.)

 

[MANXMAN]

What's the benefit of eliminating the cabover? Seems like added hassle for setup to save only a few pounds, and the overall height doesn't look much different. What problem are you trying to solve here? (Not snarky, just in case it sounds that way in print.)

No problem, didn't come across as snarky to me.

The top extrusion which is much heavier than the standard 1" aluminum tube (seen below on my camper) is stuffed with wood and could be eliminated as well as the thick plywood over the cab where the mattresses go. The 3 mattresses and the pull-out bed extension can also be eliminated. I think those items and a shorter roof would lower the weight more than just a few pounds.

The other advantage is the lessening of the wind resistance between the cabover and the roof of the truck. Should help MPG which the Tacoma isn't great at when loaded.

I know a NCO camper isn't very popular here in North America but are quite common in other countries and they seem to make it work ok for two never mind as a solo camper as I would use it.

 

[JaSAn]

I love both ideas (non cab over and flatbed design). I travel alone with a Beagle and have set up my Grandby with the (twin) bed down across the front. At my age and prostate condition, sleeping on the overhang is unappealing. The overhang is just used to store a lawn chair and collapsible kennel. I have plenty of room to move around and lots of storage. I would actually prefer the NCO design and 75" width. I would add radius'd front corners and small wind deflector on the front to help aerodynamics.



I would love to have found a Cajita. I did look at a NCO Alaskan, but rejected it due to its weight and poor condition. And in building my Grandby, I was dismayed at the compromises needed to make the camper fit into a pickup box.

jim

 

[Advmoto18]

I would not be misled by the notion of better fuel economy by eliminating the cab overhead.

Parasitic drag will be nearly as influential in the model without the CO once laminar air flow is mixed with turbulent air.

If weight is a concern, then a NCO would be a logical consideration for elimination if proper CG was maintained.

 

[Vic]

I've always been intrigued by the non-cab over's, especially on a small single cab truck like the one pictured. I envisioned a small Yakima or similar rack on top of the cab for additional storage.

Especially if it was a daily driver, I could see this being closer to a shell than a traditional slide in.

I found an ad for an old one online - shows the base weight at 720 for a Cajita fleet. (also some great pics of one)

http://rockymountainfourwheelcampers.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Fleet-Cajita-Model.pdf

I compared it to the Fleet pop-up which is shown as a dry weight of 845, so a bit of a savings, but these aren't real heavy to begin with.

Interestingly enough, the ad shows a closed height of 50", while the fleet is 54". If that is accurate, 4" 'could' be the difference between parking in the garage or not, depending on your situation.

Definitely a niche product but probably has its place. I like odd ball/ unusual things so it appeals to me. Good luck with your search.

 

[MANXMAN]

The Phoenix Geo-Den looked good from the outside. Tapered sides and rounded corners with a weight of 570 lbs. Unfortunately though, it as well as the FWC Cajita, had a less than inspiring interior layout.

 

[RC Pilot Jim]

A stripped Eagle shell weighs about 545 pounds. Gas milege is affected by turbulance or drag created when the vehicle moves through the air. If a curved aluminum wind deflector (like the one on the Four-Runner roof rack) was installed across the back roof (above the door) of the camper you would see an improvement in mpg.

Speed also affect milege. When truck is loaded for camping. Driving at 60 mph produces 18 + mpg on our rig. (One drives 55-60 mph in Oregon). At 70 highway milege drops to 16-16.5. Pulling the Samurai we average 14.5 at 60 mph.

Manxman, Since you are retired and like to tinker a good project would be "fabbing" a wind deflector. Mounting it and reporting on the results with pictures.....If you buy an ATC/FWC shell.

 

[Advmoto18]

A stripped Eagle shell weighs about 545 pounds. Gas milege is affected by turbulance or drag created when the vehicle moves through the air. If a curved aluminum wind deflector (like the one on the Four-Runner roof rack) was installed across the back roof (above the door) of the camper you would see an improvement in mpg.

Speed also affect milege. When truck is loaded for camping. Driving at 60 mph produces 18 + mpg on our rig. (One drives 55-60 mph in Oregon). At 70 highway milege drops to 16-16.5. Pulling the Samurai we average 14.5 at 60 mph.

Manxman, Since you are retired and like to tinker a good project would be "fabbing" a wind deflector. Mounting it and reporting on the results with pictures.....If you buy an ATC/FWC shell.

I certainly don't want to turn this thread into an aerodynamics discussion...but, here is my 2 cents.

The idea that an air dam or similar device on top of the cab of a pickup will appreciatively improve fuel mileage (more than 1 MPG) is simply not the case.

I use airframe aerodynamics for the following discussion. But, whether a land or air vehicle is really irrevalent for this discussion.

Prior to retiring as a Boeing 777 pilot I was introduced ("fire hose" introduction) to modern aircraft design/aerodynamics (the 787 is a quantitive aerodynamic leap beyond the 777). Boeing has demonstrated aerodynamic design for improved fuel economy and range is not simply addressing/minimizing the displacement of air in the front of the vehicle, but also (and equally important) minimizing the mixing of smooth and turbulent air as it passes over the vehicle. As such Boeing designs attempt to minimize the disruption of laminar air flow. Minimizing the disruption of the air flow over the vehicle ultimately reduces turbulence and the size of the low pressure area aft the vehicle which is as important as minimizing the disruption of the air flow at the front.

Why? A large low pressure area created by turbulent air aft of the vehicle will be equally if not more influential in degrading fuel economy and ultiamtely range. The use of an air dam on top of the cab will only create more turbulent air and enlargen the size of the low pressure area aft of the vehicle. Wind tunnel studies show that air dams significantly disrupt boundary layer air creating even larger areas of turbulence and vortices, thus enlargening the low pressure area aft of the vehicle.

Recall the trucking industry used air dams on top of the cab for a number of years until cab designs included aerodynamic profiles. Just like modern airplane designs with "butter knife" tails to retain laminar flow, reducing turbulent air and the size of the low pressure area aft of the of the fuselage, 18 wheel truck rigs are now showing up with deployable "turkey feathers" installed aft of the rear doors. All to reduce turbulent air and the size of the low pressure area aft of the vehicle.

IMO, without doing exhaustive research, I think an air dam on the cab of a pickup is a non-factor, if not a degradation to overall vehicle aerodynamics; even with a FWC camper in the bed.

Performing an "on the road" evaluation will not be scientifically supportive due to constantly changing environmental and road conditions. Wind tunnel testing in a highly controlled environemnt is the only method to either support or debunk the installation of an air dam over the cab of a pickup truck with a slide-in camper.

But, in the end, individual perception is half the battle. If one feels an air dam helps, by all means install one.

Finally, engine RPM due to axle (gear) ratio determines fuel economy at any given speed. Ford, Chevy and Dodge offer a range of axle ratios based on the need and intended use of the buyer. If purchasing a new truck for your FWC camper, be sure to look at a suitable axle ratio for your predominate driving style.

 

[ntsqd]

Done well and placed right an air deflector on the cab roof will promote better laminar flow onto the camper. It is beyond the skill-set of most to build such a device that would be turbulence-free, but a reduction in turbulence is welcome.

The point made about that very large "hole" in the air immediately behind the camper might best be illustrated by my experiences with a long body '66 Econoline Van. On the highway, but not towing, it got about 10 mpg from it's 300 ci straight 6. Flat towing the avatar dune buggy, a case study in what not to do in aerodynamics, would yield 12-13 mpg at the same speed. The buggy itself was nothing but turbulent flow, but putting that turbulent flow in the vacuum behind the van made the sum much better than the parts.

One thing that has bugged me from the beginning are the corner jack brackets sticking out. Makes mounting the jacks easy, but they really should be pointing fore or aft.

My grandparents' '68 Town & Country station wagon had deflectors up the rear-most pillar that re-directed air into that hole. I'll venture that they added considerable drag in the process, but the telling thing was that dirt never built up on any of the horizontal surfaces at the rear of the car. They lived in Powell Butte, OR and had a 1/2 mile long dirt driveway. Not to mention all of the then dirt roads in the area. (None of Shumway Rd. was paved in those days!)
Contrast that with the incredible build-up of dirt that both my tail-gated '79 Suburban and my Ambi-doored '91 Suburban experienced on dirt roads. Neither had any sort of deflector in place.

 

[Advmoto18]

Anything that sticks into the air stream creates turbulence and ultimately an area of low pressure behind it. The area of low pressure created by turbulence must be overcome to move and object forward. And the larger the area of low pressure, the more energy required which ultimately degrades fuel economy and range in our trucks.

Remember roof top gutters on car and trucks? They created turbulence and contributed to the area of low pressure behind them. Now gone from automotive design for the most part.

I don't know where the idea of cab mounted air dams came from, but, the inventor seemingly was not aware of Bernoulli's Principle derived from Sir Issac Newton's 2nd Law. And these 2 gents published their findings in 1738 and 1687, respectively.

So none of this is new or voodoo science.

 

[Advmoto18]

Done well and placed right an air deflector on the cab roof will promote better laminar flow onto the camper. It is beyond the skill-set of most to build such a device that would be turbulence-free, but a reduction in turbulence is welcome.

It would have to be designed and installed in such a way as not to disturb adjacent boundry layer air.

I'm not sure such a device is attainable as an after-market item. I think such a device would have to be intergrated into the design of the cab, as with modern motor cabs for 18 wheel haulers such as the Peterbilt 579 Highway model.

The design minimizes disruption of air flow in and around the cab and trailer and accepts the size of the low pressure area behind the trialer.

This is the Trailer Tail that attempts to reduce the area of low pressure behind the trailer thereby reducing drag from turbulence.

 

[ntsqd]

We're digressing this thread, so one more from me and I'll leave it alone. Take the typical failing water drop's shape. It isn't that shape by accident. The pressure of the air that it's failing thru combined with the surface tension of the water makes it take that shape. The frontal area, the hemispheric portion has the most volume for the least surface area. The tail shape is due to the air drag. There are other shapes that can be made to work well (witness not many cars look like a tear-drop), but need a wind tunnel to develop and fine tune. In building aero aids I keep the water drop shape in mind.