$135k for a very basic camper?

[burningman]

Have you guys seen this? After seeing the price it looks more like an April fools joke.
They seem to act like the idea of a truck camper is revolutionary.
Loki camper

[StirCrazy]

MORSNOW wrote:


I've noticed the same thing, over 90% of the rear shields are closed up anyways. I'm seeing newer versions of the under trailer skirts and wheel covers lately, we'll see what sticks around and actually helps.

flowbelows work about the same, but dont add any hight or width to the trailer and work on all kinds of trailers not just enclosed. plus they dont require the driver to do anything before they back in or after they leave the dock.that why most of the rear cones are not used, they require the company driver to do an extra step which they probably dont get paid any more money for.

[StirCrazy]

Kayteg1 wrote:
I recall air tabs were heavily promoted about 10 years ago, yet I have not seen a single one on the road.
My take is that would they really work, truckers would jump on them like crazy.
Even 1% in fuel saving for trucker means thousands of dollars every year.
Small percentage of semitrailers have rear shields, making it aerodynamics, but quite often I see them closed, so the same conclusion as above.

air tabs do work, but people expected miricals. there not going to get you 5mpg on a highway tractor and most people don't pull the same tractor all the time. so investing the 2-300 bucks to do a trailer is like throwing money a way as you might tow it every 20-40 trips unless you are the owner operator who owns his trailer. I have seen them set up on some RV's but some dont want them on there because it looks different. my buddy has them on his truck and camper but the camper never comes off the truck so he has them on the back edge of the camper (sides and roof) and then he has them ontop of the truck roof to disrupt the air as it hits the camper. he said he gets almost the same milage as before he bought the camper with a load in the box. so they do work. another thing for highway tractors is most are company drivers who dont care about fuel milage, infact the opposit. they just care about getting where there going fast to make more money on average.

[MORSNOW]

Kayteg1 wrote:
I recall air tabs were heavily promoted about 10 years ago, yet I have not seen a single one on the road.
My take is that would they really work, truckers would jump on them like crazy.
Even 1% in fuel saving for trucker means thousands of dollars every year.
Small percentage of semitrailers have rear shields, making it aerodynamics, but quite often I see them closed, so the same conclusion as above.

I've noticed the same thing, over 90% of the rear shields are closed up anyways. I'm seeing newer versions of the under trailer skirts and wheel covers lately, we'll see what sticks around and actually helps.

[Kayteg1]

I recall air tabs were heavily promoted about 10 years ago, yet I have not seen a single one on the road.
My take is that would they really work, truckers would jump on them like crazy.
Even 1% in fuel saving for trucker means thousands of dollars every year.
Small percentage of semitrailers have rear shields, making it aerodynamics, but quite often I see them closed, so the same conclusion as above.

[StirCrazy]

Kayteg1 wrote:
Talking about aerodynamic design, I did learn aerodynamics in my younger years and when aerodynamics don't have mathematic formulas and require wind tunnels for design, main rule is that shape of the front has neglectable impact on air drag, when >90 % depends on smooth rear.
I see this camper has square rear like most, while narrower front lower the comfort.
In my travels I had 2 campers. 12' Lance and 12' Fleetwood.
When both campers had similar floor plans and similar weight, Fleetwood being basement camper was about foot higher.
Regardless expectation that higher camper will lower mpg, that did not show clearly on my records and I enter each fill up on fuelly.
With camper I always set CC to 60 mph, so that is consistent.
Actually checking my records the taller camper shows better mpg, but I think that is due the fact that I had new truck, who with lower camper was in break-in period, while having over 20k miles on odometer with higher camper, the engine start showing better performance.
Either way, the differences are within common differences due winds and different fuels.

then you also know disrupter angles can be used to mess up the airflow as it leaves the back reducing the amount of drag created by the low pressur zone behind the unit. this is the premis air tabs work on and several others. untill I could see one in preson to be sure, but it looks like the shap of the sides might act that way. will it be totaly effective I doubt it. heck the tail fins they put on semi trucks dont work that great as you would have to have such a long cone it would be stupid. air flow disruption is the way more practical way to go. I am still digging into it on there site to see if I can find more info on this. I do like that its a direct canper to fram mount, no tie downs though..

as for the porty potty, I'm with you there. thats why I wonder if there is a possibility of different floor plans or maybe a longer unit in the future. they say on the site they kept the longest at 8 feet so your tailgate can stay on and back up cameras and such would still be availble. how hard would it be to get a factory camera and mount it to the back of the camper and plug in when you take your tailgate off. thats what I am thinking of doing with my old one.

Steve

[Kayteg1]

Talking about aerodynamic design, I did learn aerodynamics in my younger years and when aerodynamics don't have mathematic formulas and require wind tunnels for design, main rule is that shape of the front has neglectable impact on air drag, when >90 % depends on smooth rear.
I see this camper has square rear like most, while narrower front lower the comfort.
In my travels I had 2 campers. 12' Lance and 12' Fleetwood.
When both campers had similar floor plans and similar weight, Fleetwood being basement camper was about foot higher.
Regardless expectation that higher camper will lower mpg, that did not show clearly on my records and I enter each fill up on fuelly.
With camper I always set CC to 60 mph, so that is consistent.
Actually checking my records the taller camper shows better mpg, but I think that is due the fact that I had new truck, who with lower camper was in break-in period, while having over 20k miles on odometer with higher camper, the engine start showing better performance.
Either way, the differences are within common differences due winds and different fuels.

[EYEMLOST]

silversand wrote:

StirCrazy wrote:
the fram is all large format alumum "c channel that is fully welded, the outer skin is thick fully welded alumium plate, not thin siding. they achieved a "true" R16 insulation so it is better inslulated than older houses. the design focused on aero dynamics to reduce parasidic drag when driving and get better milage. this one is built with the intention of you never having to replace it in your life time,

....all very valid points on the build materials. I would add that I saw a French Youtube vid of a guy in Quebec that bought a unit, and was showing the incomprehensibly-well-built windows that are going into this unit. I don't know where Lokki is sourcing these windows, but the cost must be in the $1000+ rage for each. Also, have a look at the exterior roof superstructure covering every square inch of roof (allowing only the air conditioner and walk-through glass roof-access hatch to protrude through). That superstructure could cost in the $5000+ range (based on what I've seen the European ActionMobile global expedition living units options are, and the cost).

If this thing could be priced in the say, $80k USD range with basic necessities included, I think that would be more palatable to me personally. But getting these hand-built units into that price range would entail manufacturing a uniform camper "shell" on a production line, and only THEN starting the cost escalation based on "custom options". So, say that (seemingly) indestructible shell only at $60k USD and then adding personal $$$$$ options. Heck, you could add incineration toilets, hydronic zonal heating, 12 to 18 kilowatt electric automobile lithium battery systems, FLIR radar, a roof-top drone aerodrome for a Mavic 2 Enterprise, heated exoskeleton to melt off ice from ice storms.....now you are at $135k......and with options, the sky's the limit.

You bring up an good point.


I wonder if they would build a flatbed shell?
: scratches chin pondering:

[Kayteg1]

For me all the positives go down the drain with Porta Potty.
I made my 1st Sprinter conversion with one, what prompt me to do 2nd conversion as that was not acceptable.

[silversand]

StirCrazy wrote:
the fram is all large format alumum "c channel that is fully welded, the outer skin is thick fully welded alumium plate, not thin siding. they achieved a "true" R16 insulation so it is better inslulated than older houses. the design focused on aero dynamics to reduce parasidic drag when driving and get better milage. this one is built with the intention of you never having to replace it in your life time,

....all very valid points on the build materials. I would add that I saw a French Youtube vid of a guy in Quebec that bought a unit, and was showing the incomprehensibly-well-built windows that are going into this unit. I don't know where Lokki is sourcing these windows, but the cost must be in the $1000+ rage for each. Also, have a look at the exterior roof superstructure covering every square inch of roof (allowing only the air conditioner and walk-through glass roof-access hatch to protrude through). That superstructure could cost in the $5000+ range (based on what I've seen the European ActionMobile global expedition living units options are, and the cost).

If this thing could be priced in the say, $80k USD range with basic necessities included, I think that would be more palatable to me personally. But getting these hand-built units into that price range would entail manufacturing a uniform camper "shell" on a production line, and only THEN starting the cost escalation based on "custom options". So, say that (seemingly) indestructible shell only at $60k USD and then adding personal $$$$$ options. Heck, you could add incineration toilets, hydronic zonal heating, 12 to 18 kilowatt electric automobile lithium battery systems, FLIR radar, a roof-top drone aerodrome for a Mavic 2 Enterprise, heated exoskeleton to melt off ice from ice storms.....now you are at $135k......and with options, the sky's the limit.

[StirCrazy]

I was thinking the same thing, wow thats a lot. but go to the actual website read ablut it. the fram is all large format alumum "c channel that is fully welded, the outer skin is thick fully welded alumium plate, not thin siding. they achieved a "true" R16 insulation so it is better inslulated than older houses. the design focused on aero dynamics to reduce parasidic drag when driving and get better milage. this one is built with the intention of you never having to replace it in your life time, so is it worth more nonty that the ones that cost 50K and are having issues within 5 years and most people font keep more than 6 years? personaly 135Cdn is a little expensive for me, but if it was a 10 to 11 foot model maybe sell the 40 foot 5th wheel now that the kids are gone and just have a indestructible well insulated true 4 season camper..... its somthing to think about anyways. especialy when we have no issue paying 50000.00 for junk....


I will admidt I do like the fact that you can use the normal door, or lift the whole back wall like a suv hatch back if it is nice in the summer and use your tailgate as extra space.


Steve

[mkirsch]

"FINDING a market?"

I think they're still LOOKING for a market.

[HMS_Beagle]

They are building these one off, basically a custom unit. If the quality of construction is decent, then the price is about what you are going to have to pay for the hours put in. Plan is not my cup to tea, but:

If you are going to pay custom built prices, why not have one built the way you want it? The answer is that the people buying these have neither the imagination nor the experience to do so. Yeah that is a broad brush but I think generally the case.

Campers do not lend themselves very well to mass production, or one might get decent quality for a reasonable price. They compete primarily on price, so the road to a competitive unit is to reduce the build cost, and that means cheaper materials and mainly, cheaper labor. The result is predicable and can be seen on any RV lot.

So Kudos to them for finding a market for something different, but for $100K + I can have exactly what I want, built exactly how I want it. And the Loki isn't it.

[burningman]

Bigfoot and Northern Lite are the best thing going these days if you want a reasonably well-built camper without trouble and leak prone slide-outs.
For the price of a Loki you can get one AND a brand new diesel truck to put it on.
And it’s a better camper anyway.

[silversand]

Jimh425 wrote:
Previous thread with additional comments

....yeah. That is a Post I had started. My thoughts in the end were, "They are positioning into the "expedition overlanding" cohort it appears. Competing directly with truck campers like OverlandEx here--> where pop-up truck campers start at $72,000 CAD. And competing with truck camper expedition manufacturers like Nimbl pop-up ($121,000 with flatbed tray without truck)....and many others. Buyers seem to be lined up around the block to buy them...all".

I was viewing 3 Youtuber's channels, as they filmed their walk-around of the previous overland expos. I was gobsmacked at how many new mini popup truck camper manufacturers there are. I think at last count 16 ? Most of those tiny popups (not all) were starting in the $40,000 to $56,000 USD range.

I remember when we bought our Outfitter, we paid in the $14,000 USD range for it brand new! Our Outfitter is far and a way larger (inside and out) than those $50 to $72 CAD grand popup expedition truck campers and we have many more options. That was 16 years ago, and our camper (and, 17 year old truck) is/are still in extremely good shape today


Click For Full-Size Image.