So we recently checked out the 195 at a dealer and wow it is a whole different pod.  So here are some of my questions and concerns.   I would love to hear other thoughts on this.

1.  The bed.  -  Well of course this is the big seller.  I'm the one on the inside so this is really appealing to me.  But at what cost.

2. The storage.  Wow this is a big seller too. That pantry is really nice.  I'm pretty tired of trying to stuff dishes and food into the overhead cabinet in the 178 we currently own.  Plenty of room for dishes above the sink and stove and plenty of room from clothes.  Not sure why they didn't make the underbid storage more assessable but hey, got to have something to mod.  And the underneath passthrough storage is still sizable and clean (open all the way with little obstructions.

3.  The roof.  Noticed the roof is no longer a one-sheet of fiberglass but has gone to a typical rubber roof.  I'm excited about being able to climb up on the roof and having an attached ladder, but what are the downside of this type of roof.

4.  Awning.  This is a big seller for me.  With the 2016 178 model there just isn't a real good option for an awning.  This would be really nice.

5.  The dinette.  Don't like it.  It's why we opted for the 178 instead of the 179.  We must have walked from the 178- 179 50 times trying to decide.  Finally it was this darn dinette that did it.  It's not comfortable, it ugly etc.  I noticed some dealer showed a 196 which just had the ottomans removed.  I might be able to live with that.   

6.  2600 empty weight to 3300 empty weight.  Hum. We can tow 5,500 lbs with our truck but I hate to be close to the limit.  Even full I still have 1000lb cushion but it's something to think about.  Am I really going to notice a big difference in hauling this trailer.  Zipping around in the 178 is pretty easy.

7.  Width   So the overall width is the same but the side now are about even with the tires. So visibility is going to be different. Will I need to extend my mirrors?

8.  Cost   Well of course. It's still not a bad price but our 2016 is paid off.  Do I like it well enough to trade in or sell outright. 

9. AC The AC in the model I saw was a smaller footprint (or ceilingprint) that in our 178.  I'm not sure about the actually AC capacity but I liked the smaller unit.

10.Stove and Sink  I like the new stove with the glass top and the sink is a good size too.

So far we have resisted the pull to "go bigger"   But I'm getting tempted with this one.  Someone want to talk me out of it?  

Thanks!!

Well, not talk you out of it, its fine, but I agree with you that the 195 is not like other rPods. Its much like many other trailers out there in size and construction.  FR is I think just calling it an rPod as a marketing "step up" strategy for current rPod owners.  It has little in common other than the brand name with the original rPod concept which was a light, narrow, easy to tow trailer with a fiberglass single piece roof. 

That is the exact point I made, it is a matter of personal choice. I think your choice is great - for you, and I understand your reasoning, I'm happy with mine and wouldn't want to change, I prefer the lighter, smaller trailer. We have plenty of space for our needs and the wet bath and fridge work fine for us. I would not tow a 195 with my tow vehicle and have no interest in changing it for a larger heavier one. So its all good. 

I only have one point of disagreement with you, you have not "put to bed" the towing efficiency issue. The fuel economy is not going to be the same for a standard width rpod and a 195. About 2/3 of the energy budget to tow an rpod or any trailer at highway speeds is drag, and drag is Cd X A where Cd is the drag coefficient and A is the frontal area. So drag increases with increased frontal area, and since a 195 has 12-15% more frontal area it is going to require about 2/3 of 12-15% or about 8-10% more energy to tow, resulting in about 8-10% worse fuel economy somewhere around 1 to 1.5 mpg difference. The only way around that is if Cd (the drag coefficient which is based on the shape of the trailer) is significantly better for a 195, but there's no reason to think that's the case, the shapes are essentially the same.  You'll lose a little more ground from higher rolling resistance due to the heavier weight, but that's going to be small at highway speeds. 

There are too many variables for anyone to tell from going on any given trip what their fuel economy actually is, you'd have to do some controlled no wind flat ground testing, so you can't go by that. But the physics of drag and rolling resistance in vehicles is well understood, no big surprises there. Here's a nice fuel economy calculator if anyone wants to fool around with it. 

https://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php - https://ecomodder.com/forum/tool-aero-rolling-resistance.php

Anyhow, there is no argument from me on anyone's choice, as I said, if you like the 195, buy it, if you like the smaller more compact rpods, buy one of those. There are both smaller and larger trailers besides rPods, and if one of those fills your needs better, that's just fine too. 

[/QUOTE]

1.  The bed.  -  Well of course this is the big seller.  I'm the one on the inside so this is really appealing to me.  But at what cost.

That bed is very appealing to me. I am also the one on the inside and have to do the crawl-over. As I age, that gets less and less easy so the bed is very attractive to me.

2. The storage.  Wow this is a big seller too. That pantry is really nice.  I'm pretty tired of trying to stuff dishes and food into the overhead cabinet in the 178 we currently own.  Plenty of room for dishes above the sink and stove and plenty of room from clothes.  Not sure why they didn't make the underbid storage more assessable but hey, got to have something to mod.  And the underneath passthrough storage is still sizable and clean (open all the way with little obstructions.

The 179 has a lot of storage space, but I do like the cabinets over the sink. The down side is the loss of counter space but the refrigerator would more than compensate. I had to do some modifying to get my 179 to have underneath storage all the way across to store my Gardenline pop-up gazebo (like a Clam).

3.  The roof.  Noticed the roof is no longer a one-sheet of fiberglass but has gone to a typical rubber roof.  I'm excited about being able to climb up on the roof and having an attached ladder, but what are the downside of this type of roof.

The roof is not a typical rubber roof. It is a PVC roof which does not require treatments like a rubber or TPM roof would and the material comes with a 15 year warranty according to the video I saw on the https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9tI_tRbjfo - Couch's RV YouTube walk-through (around minute 14:35). It looks like the PVC roof will end up being better than a one-piece fiberglass roof would have been for this model.

4.  Awning.  This is a big seller for me.  With the 2016 178 model there just isn't a real good option for an awning.  This would be really nice.

My 2016 RP179 came with the track for an R-Dome. When it went to the factory for repair following an accident, I was able to get a Thule awning installed since the side needed to be replaced. I wouldn't recommend that method to get an awning. However, for us, the awning suits our style of travel much better than an R-Dome would have. If I need the additional space, I have the pop-up gazebo.

5.  The dinette.  Don't like it.  It's why we opted for the 178 instead of the 179.  We must have walked from the 178- 179 50 times trying to decide.  Finally it was this darn dinette that did it.  It's not comfortable, it ugly etc.  I noticed some dealer showed a 196 which just had the ottomans removed.  I might be able to live with that.

I modified our 179's cushions and made a platform for the conversion to a 3/4 width bed and ditched the mechanism for the table. I put pedestal mounts in for the table and it stows flat with the ottomans. It suits us much better. My wife likes the ottomans both for storage and for lounging while she is reading. It is a matter of personal preference though.  

6.  2600 empty weight to 3300 empty weight.  Hum. We can tow 5,500 lbs with our truck but I hate to be close to the limit.  Even full I still have 1000lb cushion but it's something to think about.  Am I really going to notice a big difference in hauling this trailer.  Zipping around in the 178 is pretty easy.

We tow with a 2010 Nissan Frontier with a 6100 lb rating, but that would be a concern for me also. The increased width means more frontal area which means more wind resistance. It likely isn't quite as bad though. The wind resistance impacts much more than just the weight.

7.  Width   So the overall width is the same but the side now are about even with the tires. So visibility is going to be different. Will I need to extend my mirrors?

Overall width is to the outside of the wheels, so the overall width remains the same but the body of the trailer is wider. Yes, you would likely need to extend your mirrors. I purchased https://www.1aauto.com/search?q=towing+mirror+pair - towing mirrors from 1A Auto that replaced the stock mirrors on our Frontier. They are fully heated and powered like the original, but they manually extend for towing and retract for when I am not towing. They make our little Frontier look like a grown-up truck. They are expensive, but they beat any clamp/strap on mirror by far. For me, they are worth the price.

8.  Cost   Well of course. It's still not a bad price but our 2016 is paid off.  Do I like it well enough to trade in or sell outright.

That is our consideration as well.

9. AC The AC in the model I saw was a smaller footprint (or ceilingprint) that in our 178.  I'm not sure about the actually AC capacity but I liked the smaller unit.

I would like to see and hear it. I don't know if it is any taller than the one on our 179. I also don't know about power needs (can it run on a 2,000 Watt generator?).

10.Stove and Sink  I like the new stove with the glass top and the sink is a good size too.

The glass top can be retrofit to the stove in our 179, but I made a cutting board cover that is more useful and is not as likely to break. I'm not sure about the round sink. I would have preferred a larger rectangular sink like I put in our 179.

So far we have resisted the pull to "go bigger"   But I'm getting tempted with this one.  Someone want to talk me out of it?

I'm very tempted also but my wife is so far successfully keeping me from "going bigger."   She is wondering if we will get the use out of it before our health makes it less likely that we will be able to do so.

Thanks!!

You're welcome!

THAT is the biggest reason I can think of TO make a move immediately. Time waits for no one. I wasn't going to get one till next year originally, but then I realized, NEXT YEAR isn't guaranteed for anyone. 

Originally posted by mjlrpod Originally posted by StephenH I'm very tempted also but my wife is so far successfully keeping me from "going bigger."   She is wondering if we will get the use out of it before our health makes it less likely that we will be able to do so

-------------
StephenH
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,...

http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=7712 - ouR escaPOD mods
Former RPod 179
Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS

If 1 to 1.5 mpg isn't an issue for you then that's fine. IIt would concern me. And certainly I agree that a tow vehicle with a 6000 lb tow rating is capable of towing a 195. My tow vehicle has a 5000 lb rating which is inadequate. Again, its a personal choice. 

I'm curious about the pro's and con's of the rubber roof vs. the one piece fiberglass roof.  

For example, the rounded high butt on a 179 might very well contribute to a higher drag coefficient. Also, the wheels and fenders poking out from the sides of a 179 most probably contribute to a higher drag coefficient compared to the tucked-in wheels/fenderlettes on the 195.

Yes, drag coefficient is Cd, drag is Cd x A as I stated. The fenders poking out of a narrow rpod aren't any wider than the fenderettes on a 195,  they just look narrower because the trailer is wider. They are small features compared to the whole trailer.  The standard size rPods have a spoiler to deal with rear drag, the 195 apparently does not. 

We could speculate a variety of things, but there is no reason to think that Cd is significantly different for a 195 rig vs a narrower rPod rig. Unless there is actual data to the contrary, the logical conclusion is that a trailer with a 15% larger area that is similarly shaped is going to exhibit higher drag. 

There just ain't no free lunch, a bigger heavier trailer is going require more power and fuel consumption will go up accordingly.  A lighter smaller trailer like say a NuCamp TAB is going to generate less drag than a standard rPod and require less power to tow. Each of us has made that trade off and has our own sweet spot. 

There is no one right answer. Its not taking anything away from someone who chooses a 195 when I give my reasons why I don't want one, or vice versa. What concerns me is if/when folks think that they can use a tow vehicle that would be adequate for a standard rPod for the much larger 195 because, well, its an rPod. That is a safety issue. 

On the safety aspect, I agree whole heartedly. I would add, using a tow vehicle that barely meets the r-pod minimum requirements as well. Nobody ever seems to consider payload capacity, just tow capacity. Many 3500 pound tow capacity vehicles have 1000 pound payload caps. A family of 4 probably weighs 500 pounds. A 179, 180, etc., have a tongue weight of about 340 pounds. That leaves 150 pounds for the dog, the cooler, a full tank of gas, and all the other crap we take with us. I am very serious about safety, infact I believe people should not be allowed to purchase, or register a camper if they can not show they have a capable tow vehicle. We could replace the current "We just pack light" method used today, with actual safe standards.

As a pilot, on a ramp check by the FAA, I could be stopped and asked to show my weight and balance calculation for that flight. Not every pilot does that every flight of course, because most flights are a repeat of another one, but you sure better be ready to show you know what you have on board where and what your aircraft's limits are. Doing a loading assessment of a rig is basically the same thing as a weight and balance analysis when loading an aircraft. Its not difficult but it does take some thought the first time or two. 

One of my gripes is that the whole industry (vehicle manufacturers, trailer manufacturers, and  the dealers) all have set things up seemingly to encourage new owners to push the limits of their rigs. Sure they are trying to sell stuff on commission and caveat emptor at some point applies but in my opinion an ethical person should stop short of knowingly letting someone put themselves in danger without warning them. 

BTW, if you have dual batteries, a single full propane cylinder,  and full fresh water on board a 179 has a tongue weight well exceeding 500 lbs. 

Actually the coefficient of drag is more complicated than that. It's 

Yeah, you can hang some aerodynamic hardware on a towable camper, but would it be 'acceptable' to the buyers? All this hardware adds weight and cost, but they do save fuel in most cases.

Can you see the buying public paying more to have tow vehicle cab-extenders and rooftop spoilers, under-trailer skirting, smooth wheel-covers, and foldable trailer-tails? 

I don't think they would, but it would be interesting to see what effect those might have on fuel mileage.

I would think that Forrest River did some kind of study before they added the spoiler that is at the rear of most of the "fat butt" R-pods, but maybe that is wishful thinking?

When towing my r-pod (or any trailer) I typically drive at about 55-62 mph unless traffic dictates otherwise. I tend to accelerate smoothly, stop gently, and 'play' the lights if possible. 

Recently I made a 200 mile leg of a 700 mile trip with another camper pulling a Tab 400 and I was very surprised at how much faster he preferred to travel. I watched my Scangauge II register lower mpg than I normally get for most of the mileage we did on mostly flat terrain.

Drive like there is a fresh egg between your right foot and the gas pedal, and you will save fuel, guaranteed!

Yeah, my bad, to be accurate I should have said the piece of the drag equation associated with the vehicle itself is CdA. If you rearrange the above equation you get

D = Cd*A*ρ*V^2 /2

So to podwerk's  comments, yes by far the easiest way to improve fuel economy is to slow down. Running my rig through the mpg calculator I sent the link to, changing from 60 in cruise on the freeway to 65 costs me about 1.5 mpg. So, that 5 mph increase in speed is roughly equivalent to the difference between the frontal area of a 195 and a standard size rPod (and in the other direction probably also a Tab vs a standard rPod but I haven't checked that).  Similarly, dropping from 60 to 55 saves about 1.5 mpg.

Re the "egg over the pedal" driving style, that's what the Prius hypermilers do. It won't of course do much for you driving straight and level on the highway but in urban traffic its a significant savings. Best thing I think on a flat open freeway is to set your cruise control at the lowest speed you and the surrounding traffic will tolerate and just relax and enjoy the trip. If you have a 200 mile trip the difference between 60 and 65 is all of 15 minutes, not a big deal most of the time. 

Re adding some aero tricks to our trailers I've been thinking about that too. One that some of our members have tried is to add a deflector to the rear of the tow vehicle. I've been thinking about doing that with a solar module rather than spending a bunch of money on an inert chunk of plastic. I also don't see why cleaning up under the trailer would cause anyone heartburn, and it could do combined duty as freeze protection as well. Skirting which reduced ground clearance would probably not be very acceptable. 

As to the rear treatment, tapering the aft roof area down more gently for awhile followed by a sharp cutoff like the trailer tails or the rear of a Prius is a proven solution (originally invented in the 1930's  by a German aerodynamicist and called a Kammback). The slope can't be more than 15-20 degrees or the airflow separates too soon so some of the teardrop trailers you see probably don't really get the benefit.  Not sure it could be done on an rpod but I'm thinking about placing a solar module over the rear window at about a 15 degree angle with aluminum support plates to close in the sides.  That would shade the rear window as well. 

As with all things human, we are rarely satisfied with what we have and always are trying to improve on them.  FR marketing people realize that this very human characteristic applies to the buyers of r-Pods and they have tried to capitalize on some kind of perceived brand loyalty to offer something bigger and "better" to their existing customer base.  Whether it is "better," it certainly is bigger, is an open question.  If you are looking for a roomier trailer with more accommodations of home, one could say it is "better,"  but if you are looking to stay within the original concept of a basic small trailer as was offered in the original 171's and 172's, then it ain't "better"; just bigger and heavier, requiring a much bigger investment in a TV that has the capacity to tow it.

We bought our Pod because we liked the original concept and didn't want to have to go to the expense of buying a heavier TV than our Dakota.  Though it'd be nice to have more room, a walk around bed, and a separate shower, the trade offs aren't worth it for our camping needs.  But that's not to say that others really prefer to have a bigger RV and if they have the resources, they should get one if that's what will make them happier.  

The bottom line is that the 195 is not really within the concept of the original Pod though it carries that brand name.  It is one more of trailer in a flood of comparable trailers.  That one should chose a 195 as opposed to others in the RV market, is simply a question of perceived value for the buck.   I think I'll stick with what I have.

Just a comment here but I don't think these two guys are intending to be disrespectful, they're just pointing out that the 195 is a departure from the original marketing concept behind the rPod. That's true.  I don't think anyone is saying that there's something wrong with you for buying the trailer you like. I certainly don't think so. 

You also raise a very good point about the tow vehicle . The biggest hurdle to "going bigger" is the TV as those cost a lot more than the trailers do. If you already have a TV that's sufficient its purely a matter of preference. If like me you don't have a big enough TV then it can be a non starter. 

I think perhaps the opposite comment is also true, there have been some comments by 195 owners that could be viewed as disrespectful to those who have chosen other rPods. That doesn't mean that that was intentional, folks of course tend to get excited about what they've chosen and tend to think its always better than the other guy's choices.   'Nuff said.  

BTW, I agree, there are really now 3 categories of rPods, at least insofar as trailer weight and TV requirements are concerned. Roughly speaking, you need a tow capacity equal to the trailer max gross weight plus around 1000 lbs so you can put some gear and people in the TV and have some safety margin. That puts the non-slide rPods at about 4000 lbs, the standard width slide equipped rPods at about 5000 lbs, and the 195 in its own category so far at about 6000 lbs. 

I would argue though that for most folks there is really not much practical difference in TV selection between the two lighter categories, because there are pretty limited TV choices in between 4000 and 5000 lbs these days. Off the top of my head only the Jeep Cherokee comes to mind, but there might be more.  There is a category of compact SUV's grouped around a 3500 lb tow capacity and another bunch of tow vehicles clustered around the 5000 lb step. But I expect most of us would agree that 3500 lbs is pushing it for any rPod.  The width of the slide and non slide trailers while running down the road is the same as well. So, practically speaking the distinction between the non slide and slide rPods up through the 191 is pretty small, at least in terms of towing.  

Or we can call my slide-less 171 an 'r-pod LITE'.

Yeah I like both of those, actually.

For sure, I am very happy for you and your decision. No doubt about it. I am also (for the time being) very happy with our decision. Time will probably tell.

One of the hard things is expressing opinions and such in this text-only medium. So my apologies to you if I came off being disrespectful to you. That was not my intent.

But objectively, though it bears the FR name of r-Pod, the 195 is really not in the same class as the original concept with a wet bath and narrow body.  Using the name r-Pod with the 195 is a marketing strategy, in my view, to get people like me to upgrade to a bigger trailer.  That's what business is about:  Create a desire for a bigger better widget, then get people with smaller widgets to upgrade.

I realize that many people don't share my views about brand loyalty, and if I was a little too blunt in stating it to the point that you felt offended, please understand that was not my intent and I am sorry you had hurt feelings.

r-pod xtra

r-pod max

r-pod wide-trak

r-pod XR (for xtra room)

....how about 'big-r-pod'  (big 'R' pod, or bigger pod, you decide)...

Hey if they pick one of these, I'm all for it....I just want a discount on my NEXT r-pod!

Of course, by the time that happens they might have a new tandem axle 38 foot toy-hauler r-pod.

Lets call that one the R-POD SUPERDUTY!

Ok, I'll stop now.

Come to think of it, even Scamp, the little fiberglass camper from the Great White North, has a fifth-wheel version, the Scamp 19.

So...you just never know!