Factory Reinforced Floor in R-Pod 179

With all due respect StephenH, that article is worthless. The authors are towing a geoPro 19 FBS which has an dry weight of 3075 lbs and a GW of 4400 with a Jeep with a 3500 lb tow capacity. In my opinion they are an accident waiting to happen and are either idiots or worse are shilling for FR in a way that puts others at risk. I wouldn't believe a word they say.

It is some people's opinions, not a professional evaluation. I thought it interesting to see that some people are taking them off-road, although I agree that they are taking risks towing with that limited a tow vehicle. The point is that the NoBo is better suited than the RPod for such off-road situations.

If anyone is considering a GeoPro or a NoBo for actual rough road boondocking use they should take a very close look at its wheels, tires, axle(s), frame, floor, and interior construction. Not saying that a NoBo or GeoPro can't go offroad, just that you can't assume it can just because FR markets it that way.  Caveat emptor, you get what your pay for, etc....

Again, agreed! One should look and evaluate whether any model from any manufacturer will meet the desired needs. One point stated in the article was that units even better suited for off-road (Black Series and Brüder) cost twice as much.

As I didn't like the layouts of the Geo-Pros and No-Bo's along with their inflated price, we settled on the Sonoma for the following reasons:  1. It has a full bath that I preferred for my old bones.  2. We liked the larger refrigerator and 3 burner stove that was not available on many of the other trailers in the weight class in which we were looking.  3.  The frame and wheel construction appeared to be more able to handle bumpy road conditions with I-beam frame rails, a non-cantilevered axle with leaf springs , a relatively short tongue, and higher ground clearance than we were able to achieve with our lifted 172.  4.  A 7' wide reasonably roomy interior not needing mirror extensions for our truck and no slide out which can be a source of leaks and other problems [at least one would glean from the pages of this forum].  5.  It was several thousand dollars less costly than the comparable r-Pod 192, likely due to brand name inflation since the trailers were nearly identical in other respects.

So far, the heavy I-beam chassis has worked well for our camping this summer.  We have been able to manage some pretty bumpy roads and have had no issues frame or suspension issues.  We're off again in a few hours for more Sierra Nevada camping.  So far there are no fires in the area where we'll be staying, but that can change in a heartbeat.  

Yes, I have actually experienced not being able to continue down an otherwise very passable trail or road do to dip or hump that would have the back end drag - stabilizer jacks removed. One time, I had to back down and was lucky to find a tiny wash on the side of the road to barely back into, which still required a 27 point turn to get turned around. Oh, and it was night time in a wind storm. A fun adventure in the end, but a bit hair raising, and all of which could have been avoided with a little extra height.