Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
marwayne
Senior Member
Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton AB Can
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1004
|
Topic: Prospective r-pod owner Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 10:21pm |
Jules
We have a 172 we are in our fifth season love the bunks, I would not trade my 172 for any other pod.
|
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
2011 RP172, 2016 Tundra 5.7 Litre, Ltd.
|
 |
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9062
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 9:16pm |
Originally posted by CharlieM
Note the National Forest sign, 10114 feet, in the picture. |
We got our pod up over 10,000 last summer, that was cool! 
|
|
 |
techntrek
Admin Group - pHp
Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9062
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 9:09pm |
According to an old post 200 pounds on the top, 300 pounds on the bottom.
|
|
 |
Outbound
podders Helping podders - pHp
Joined: 19 Nov 2009
Location: Oshawa, Ontario
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 8:17pm |
Somewhere back in my dusty memory a question/concern is milling around... it may be nothing, or I may be confusing it with a different trailer...
What's the weight capacity of the upper bunk in a 172?
|
Craig :: 2009 RP171 towed by a 2017 F150
|
 |
Mountainrev
Senior Member
Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Location: Eagle, Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 193
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 7:22pm |
Back to the topic: I hope no one is offended by me alluding to bunks as kids' beds. To each his own. If you're comfortable with them, go for it. But have you gone into a 172 and actually lied on them? I would be claustrophobic in them, not only because of the low headroom, but the lack of windows.
It sounds like you are looking for a lighter R-pod, that is, one without a slideout. Have you looked at the 171? As I mentioned above, with the dinette set down, you could both have beds without having to crawl on top of each other. The dinette is a bit small, but with just one person on it, you can go diagonal. This would give you two windows and no claustrophobic lack of headroom. The weight difference between the 171 and the 172 is only about 80 lbs., so that shouldn't be a determining factor.
Again, check out as many floorplans as possible before making a decision. We were set on getting a 171 until we checked out the 177 and 178 with the slideout. The slideout makes it feel much larger and open (although they weigh a couple hundred pounds more).
|
2014 177
2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Turbodiesel
"I lift my eyes to the hills."
|
 |
CharlieM
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Location: N. Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1797
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 7:02pm |
Originally posted by Mountainrev
[QUOTE=CharlieM]
I know where that is! Were you camping at Silverjack? We did that (in our popup) a few years back. A bear ran down the road ahead of us as we coming down Owl Creek Pass to Ridgway. Neat place.
(Sorry for the thread hijack!)
| I believe we ended up at Big Cimarron GMUG USFS CG. I think Silverjack was closed for the season.
|
Charlie
Northern Colorado
OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD
PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD
|
 |
Mountainrev
Senior Member
Joined: 22 Jul 2014
Location: Eagle, Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 193
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 6:49pm |
Originally posted by CharlieM
Note the National Forest sign, 10114 feet, in the picture.

|
I know where that is! Were you camping at Silverjack? We did that (in our popup) a few years back. A bear ran down the road ahead of us as we coming down Owl Creek Pass to Ridgway. Neat place. (Sorry for the thread hijack!)
|
2014 177
2008 Jeep Grand Cherokee Turbodiesel
"I lift my eyes to the hills."
|
 |
CharlieM
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Location: N. Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1797
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 6:48pm |
Yes, you are following our trail and thinking exactly. We went with the pod knowing it might not be the last camper we owned, but it really was the best starter for us and the Pilot. If we didn't like the RV camping life we wouldn't have lost a ton of money. Experience with the 172 made us much smarter when upgrade time came. Note the picture I added to an earlier post.
|
Charlie
Northern Colorado
OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD
PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD
|
 |
Jules
Newbie
Joined: 12 Mar 2015
Location: WI
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 38
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 6:27pm |
Sounds like we are following in your footsteps. The only thing I am not thrilled about with the pod is the bathroom but we really don't want a bigger vehicle at this point. All the campers we have looked at with the walk around bed and full shower weigh a lot more although both items are appealing. As newbies moving from a tent, I am thinking it will be quite luxurious at first. And you are right, this is a great forum! I am learning a lot.
|
 |
CharlieM
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Nov 2012
Location: N. Colorado
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1797
|
Posted: 12 Mar 2015 at 6:11pm |
Yes, we had the 172 and selected it specifically for its light weight, bunk configuration, and bunk size. We did not want to climb over each other to get up at night. The 172 was our first camper after returning to the camping scene (retired, kids gone, tired of motels, etc). After the first year we decided to go a bit bigger, primarily for a larger fridge, dry bath, and walk-around queen, but it also required an upgrade to the tow vehicle. We loved our 172 and still consider ourselves Podders in spirit. This forum is one of the best around with lots of friendly folks and the answer to any questions you can think of. Note the National Forest sign, 10114 feet, in the picture.

|
Charlie
Northern Colorado
OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD
PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD
|
 |