R-pod Owners Forum Homepage

This site is free to use.
Donations benefit a non-profit Girls Softball organization

Forum Home Forum Home > R-pod Discussion Forums > Podmods, Maintenance, Tips and Tricks
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: Gas Mileage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedGas Mileage
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 21>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
Tidalwave4455 View Drop Down
Groupie
Groupie
Avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2011
Location: minnesota
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 57 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: Gas Mileage
    Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 4:38pm
When I ran the aerodynamic simulations (does someone have the 'thread address' for these?)...I also ran several for aerfoils placed as per Xpod's sketch.  There was not a lot of difference in the airflow with no foil, hi foil, low foil.  What made a big difference was the distance between the TV and the Pod.  The longer the gap...the more turbulence.  I also modified the Pod shape from teardrop to rectangular 'breadbox' shape.  There was a noticeable improvement with the rectangular shape.  The 'squared' off back did not make much difference...but the 'squared' off front
did smooth the flow much more than the Pod shape.  The curved front of the Pod created a large open air pocket with large turbulence, whereas the squared off front cut the open space and turbulence.
The rooftop AC and TV antenna also contributed slightly to the turbulence of the air going over the roof.
The teardrop shape would be quite aerodynamic if you didn't have to have a TV in front
The Pod is one of the lowest cost TTs on the market...but certainly not by mileage cost.  The teardrop shape also cuts down on the overhead storage capacity.
If my Pod were destroyed by an accident...I would have to think about it to decide if I were to
buy another Pod.
Back to Top
tma-333 View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 05 Sep 2010
Location: Miramichi, NB
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 2:45pm
Had not seen this topic much, glad to get an update.
 
We had the spoiler combination light recall kit installed at the end of last summer when most of the camping season here in New-Brunswick Canada was over so I have not had the chance to test mpg. As for those hoping to have Forest River jump into this topic, FR may be waiting to see if Transport Canada's requirements for the installation of the lights, which is installed into the spoiler, will appease their customers concerns over aerodynamics. The conclusions of the more knowledgeable of contributors to this forum on this topic over the past year and a half tend to indicate it would take more than a 4¨spoiler to alter significantly aerodynamics. I tend to agree.
 
For sure, some questions raised int this forum remains, did Forest River do any testing of the aerodynamics of their R-Pod? Are they willing to do react to the concerns expressed by many in this forum by acknowldeging a problem and try and work with their customers? I am not point a finger, mereley trying to rally the experts around this issue.
 
Looking forward to Spring and testing the mpg...
 
Back to Top
XPod View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 08 Oct 2011
Location: Evansville IN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 29 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Jan 2012 at 1:57pm
Hello Tidalwave...thank you for the simulations you have run.
In one of the early posts in this thread, someone suggested an airfoil that would direct the air down along the back of the rpod, filling the vacume, instead of trying to send the air up over top.
 
Boat tailing may do more for the R-Pod than a spoiler.
Is that a simulation you could run on the software?
 
 
 
Back to Top
KJR View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Location: Frisco, TX
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 13 Mar 2011 at 9:57am
It's not the best aerodynamic design and the factory is got too much invested to admit it. The MPG probably has the same problem. I decided to forego the Rpod and MPG route and found a clean pre-owned fiberglass egg, a Casita 17' Spirit Deluxe. I've never towed a trailer before and got 14 mpg towing it back home from the location I bought it. My tow vehicle is a 2005 Toyota 4Runner V8. I'm expecting 300 miles per fillup (23 gallon tank).

Kelvin
Back to Top
TIDALWAVE View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 21 Nov 2009
Location: MINNESOTA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 315 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Mar 2011 at 8:04pm
I am not sure about reports of someone getting more than about 13mpg towing a Pod...
You would need to run whatever route in both directions with the same wind conditions.
I did get a very noticeable increase in mpg (2+) with a strong tailwind when I hauled my Pod over to a dealer one day.  But when I returned home in the opposite direction the same day with the same wind my mileage dropped like a rock and my gas computer showed an average mpg for the whole trip as 12.6 mpg.
TIDALWAVE
Back to Top
brownd View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 06 Mar 2011 at 3:15pm

I attended the Chicago and Quad Cities RV shows.  Both had several models of 2011 R-Pods.  Each had the spoiler on the roof above the rear window as the 173t did last year.  

Last fall two individuals with 173Ts reported mileage from 13-15 mpg but just from one run.  The rest of us without the spoiler were reporting 9-12.  Would those of you who have any model of Pod with the spoiler please report your mileage, conditions, type of vehicle and transmission.  Also if anyone else has mileage above the 9-12 range please report that.  For example, I talked to a Pod owner in the UP Michigan who had a Ford F150 with the six speed transmission and he said he got 15 mpg. 

From last year’s reports I think we all know that without some kind of improvements we are going to get between 9-12 mpg.  The only reason to report mileage in the 9-12 range is if you tried an experiment with foils, spoilers, deflectors, or engine modifications that yielded no improvement.     

My Pod is still in full winter in Northern Wisconsin, but there should be some folks in the south who have started to camp by now. 

 

Thanks

 

Dave
Dave
Back to Top
brownd View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 25 Jul 2010
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 36 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30 Oct 2010 at 9:37am
When I first started this thread it was my hope that Forest River would help us look for a solution to improve our gas mileage and wear and tear on our six cylinder vehicles which should easily pull the pod.  A lot of folks have commented on this thread and at least one has noticed that when he places his kayaks in a v to break the wind hitting the pod it seems to increase mileage slightly.  There were also some posts that seem to suggest that the spoiler on the 173 may have increased mileage several mpg. 
 
Myself, I have tried speeds from 50-65 and noticed that in that range the mileage was always 10-12 mpg unless going into a strong wind or up and down the hills of the up of michigan.  The only improvement that I have been able to really notice was to level my trailer more while towing.  My dealer set up the trailer to be about 16 inches high at the tongue and level would have been 12 inches.  I lowered it to 13 1/2 inches by purchasing an 8 inch drop for the ball.  After that for one trip which is not a study I got 12.9 mpg with no wind and 12 heading into the wind, each was about a 200 mile trip.  That was my last trip of the winter as my pod is now resting in its winter storage, but I am hoping it did ease the tow somewhat. 
 
I think we would all really appreciate if Forest River would help us out and do some studies of their own.  It would be great to hear that they found something we could either add to the tow vehicle or the pod but it would also be appreciated if they would just tell us if they can find nothing that will improve the tow.  Overall, my wife and I really like the pod for 2 people and relative to stable towing it is great. 
 
Dave
Dave
Back to Top
David and Danette View Drop Down
podders Helping podders - pHp
podders Helping podders - pHp
Avatar

Joined: 24 Nov 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1215 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct 2010 at 9:00pm
    Great article, that may explain better the differance in towing the Gulfstream Visa and the R-Pod using the same tow vehicle. By what I have read on the Gulfstream forum towing the Visa you got better gas mileage. The Visa is heavier and larger than the R-Pod 171. This information is not as exact science with same towing conditions as the test done in the article but it makes since that the Saturn Vue FWD V6 could get better gas mileage with the Visa compared to the R-Pod. My thoughts is that the downward slope of the back of the R-Pods is creating a big vacum and causing a lot of drag. It may be that Forest River did not test the R-pods shape for wind resistance. Maybe they were just asuming the  tear drop shape would be less drag. But if they did test the shape for wind drag in towing I think they could have chosen a better shape with more interior room and less wind drag better MPG. Forest River has not said much about this, they have told us they read R-pod forums It would be nice to know their results of any testing they have done.        David
2018 Vista Cruiser 19BFD (2018-              
2012 Vibe 6503 (2014-2019)
2009 r-pod 171 (2009-2014)
Middle Tn
2014 Ram 1500 Quad cab


Back to Top
KJR View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie


Joined: 19 Sep 2010
Location: Frisco, TX
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 11 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29 Oct 2010 at 12:40pm

I found this interesting article about weight vs aerodynamics. The TV pulling a larger and heavier  but more aerodynamic trailer gets better mileage than the more boxey lighter trailer. From what everyone is stating in this thread the R-pod shapes presents a "boxy trailer" profile for the TV despite it's curved front and rear. I would imagine the Heartland MPG suffers the same aerodynamic issues. It doesn't appear the R-pod shape really offers much compared to more conventional designs. You loose interior space but this is  not offset by superior towing mile/gallon.  I would like to see a mileage test pulling something like Forest Rivers Wolf Pup ( curved front but straight back) vs their R-pod. They are similar size and weight.
Back to Top
Runebane View Drop Down
Newbie
Newbie
Avatar

Joined: 25 Apr 2010
Location: Visalia, CA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 39 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Oct 2010 at 9:24am
There are other manufacturers in the US that have similar weights and no curved walls.   They, like the UK ones you listed, are more expensive but have similar weights.   The tear drop shape is more for fashion than utility.  Which was one of the reasons that appealed to the wife and I.   As for aerodynamics, I'd like to see real world tests on any of the light weight trailers and see what they're getting.  I'm betting about what we are, now matter how aerodynamic that barn door is, you're still hauling it down the road at 65mph, you're going to make your vehicle work much harder to maintain the speed.

My $0.02.

-Runebane
RP-177
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 23456 21>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz