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!

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.

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.

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.

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

Yeah I like both of those, actually.

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.  

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. 

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.

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. 

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!

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?

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.

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

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. 

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.