R-Vision Trail Lite TCLE-29BHSS

d2tw4all wrote:

SoundGuy wrote:

d2tw4all wrote:
The R-Vision has a more aerodynamic profile for sure at least when compared to my Starcraft. The front of it is much more tapered etc.

The only trailer design I'm aware of that can be demonstrated to actually flow through the air more efficiently and thus reduce fuel consumption is the "airplane" shaped aluminum style such as the Airstream, everything else is a barn door. Front panel slope makes no difference whatsoever, nor do V-nose shaped trailers which manufacturers also tried to claim would "flow better". It's all advertising hype, along with the claim that an enclosed underbelly will have any meaningful effect at all on towing. It's all gibberish.

This really intrigues me. So you're saying there is no difference between a completely flat front relative to the ground, and a pointed front? This seems to defy common sense at least, so do you have anything to back this assertion up in terms of actual tests done, wind tunnel evidence, etc?

This would mean that any vehicle with a flat front would be no less efficient than one with a tapered front. I guess all those race cars with a sleek tapered nose are just doing it for looks? Just doesn't make sense to me, the more it is tapered the less air resistance it should have...

The problem is the rear end, even if the front is "streamlined" the way the air dumps off of the rear of the flat back creates major drag. That's why you see semi trailers with the aero "duck tails" and air deflectors underneath. If you were to add the duck tail and underskirts then maybe you could measure the difference between a flat and curved front but unless you do it's unlikely you would be able to quantify it.