Large Truck Campers: how practical?

[RobertRyan]

I just noticed this photo of a TC that is on a for sale site is very large being 18ft overall with 12ft 4 inches floor.
How practical are large Truck Campers Off Road? It is actually a Custom build

[RobertRyan]

Steve wrote:
The only disadvantage I have found would be if I were 4X4ing in big moguls I may tag the ground on an uphill transition but that's for me to know the limits of my rig.

In this case you do not have to worry. Still these would be too expensive as Expedition vehicles but TC's are also built on them Video below
Eathcruiser extreme Off Road
It can do that as an Expedition vehicle here it is as a TC. No you cannot buy them in the US. Truck payload is 10,000lbs GVWR goes to 15,500lb



Off Road and extended wheelbase as an Expedition Vehicle

[RobertRyan]

Joe wrote:
This is not a truck camper!
https://www.globalxvehicles.com/
This is called an expedition vehicle by the manufacturer.
https://earthroamer.com/
These are truck campers. You keep comparing apples to oranges when you talk about your idea of a truck camper. trailers and overland vehicles are missing the most important aspect of off roading in a truck camper and that would be the truck...
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/best-truck-campers

No Expedition Vehicles have the bodies attached to the truck. A TC has a demountable body. To Bedlam I said like an Expedition vehicle. All Terrain Warriors here who helped EarthCruiser here develop
Expedition Vehicles builds a TC version of of one of their Expedition Vehicles, they are Cabovers Trucks. Like Valhalla said th 3/4 to F550 type trucks are useless Off Road. EarthRoamer is as limited to extreme Off Road as much as a Mammoth. Turning circle would be enormous as well
If TC maker in the US was to make something similar people like you would think it was weird. In other words would not sell.
Earthcruiser is now helping GM develop an Extreme Off Road version of their EV Hummer. Come a long way since All Terrain Warriors helped them out

[RobertRyan]

Grit dog wrote:
^Huh??
Do you even camp?

Yes do you?

[notsobigjoe]

RobertRyan wrote:

Bedlam wrote:
If truck manufacturers were serious about the TC market, they would bring back the camper special design where the axle sits far back in the frame with less overhang. The shift of the axle rearward would address much of the CG issues people experience when they hang too much weight off the rear. My Mammoth is tail heavy unless I have water in the fresh or gray tanks that sit forward of the axle. With my trailer, I use a WDH to restore 100% of the front axle weight. Once you do this long enough, you find ways to compensate for a less than ideal design. I suppose you could start with a 84" CA chassis cab and lop off the rear overhang, but now you are looking where your primary fuel will be carried...

Something more inline with an Expediton Camper. They can carry a substantial payload and can off road as much as a much small TC I think most TC manufactuers in the US would be reticient to do something to differrent as they might lose their cudtomer base

This is not a truck camper!
https://www.globalxvehicles.com/
This is called an expedition vehicle by the manufacturer.
https://earthroamer.com/
These are truck campers. You keep comparing apples to oranges when you talk about your idea of a truck camper. trailers and overland vehicles are missing the most important aspect of off roading in a truck camper and that would be the truck...
https://gearjunkie.com/motors/best-truck-campers

[StirCrazy]

jimh406 wrote:


Back to my first post, I'd rather not have a long overhang since that weight is all behind the rear axle. Based on what others have posted here, long TCs can actually take weight off the front axle. I don't think putting all of the weight on the rear axle can ever be.a good thing.

That all depends on if the center of gravity is proper for that truck also. if it is at or ahead of the rear axle that weight will act like it is all at that point and should be good. If it is behind the rear axle, then you could have issues. they don't mark that on campers because it isn't important 😉 I have a 10.5 foot camper and it adds 150 lbs to my front axle with the center of gravity 1" ahead of my rear axle.

The only disadvantage I have found would be if I were 4X4ing in big moguls I may tag the ground on an uphill transition but that's for me to know the limits of my rig.

Steve

[Grit_dog]

^Huh??
Do you even camp?

[RobertRyan]

Bedlam wrote:
If truck manufacturers were serious about the TC market, they would bring back the camper special design where the axle sits far back in the frame with less overhang. The shift of the axle rearward would address much of the CG issues people experience when they hang too much weight off the rear. My Mammoth is tail heavy unless I have water in the fresh or gray tanks that sit forward of the axle. With my trailer, I use a WDH to restore 100% of the front axle weight. Once you do this long enough, you find ways to compensate for a less than ideal design. I suppose you could start with a 84" CA chassis cab and lop off the rear overhang, but now you are looking where your primary fuel will be carried...

Something more inline with an Expediton Camper. They can carry a substantial payload and can off road as much as a much small TC I think most TC manufactuers in the US would be reticient to do something to differrent as they might lose their cudtomer base

[Bedlam]

Off topic trailer posts were removed from this truck camper forum.

[Bedlam]

If truck manufacturers were serious about the TC market, they would bring back the camper special design where the axle sits far back in the frame with less overhang. The shift of the axle rearward would address much of the CG issues people experience when they hang too much weight off the rear. My Mammoth is tail heavy unless I have water in the fresh or gray tanks that sit forward of the axle. With my trailer, I use a WDH to restore 100% of the front axle weight. Once you do this long enough, you find ways to compensate for a less than ideal design. I suppose you could start with a 84" CA chassis cab and lop off the rear overhang, but now you are looking where your primary fuel will be carried...

[valhalla360]

notsobigjoe wrote:

Jim you make a good point about the overhang. I removed everything I could from my 4 foot overhang and the the front end still bounces a bit. "In my opinion" The large TC industry is going straight to the 5500 series truck and the small TC industry is going straight for the 1500 series truck. That leaves the rest of us to deal without the most efficient design for a truck camper. Why can't they design a truck camper with the weight forward and standard on the mid range models? I included this article to make my point. All these campers fit extremely well on the 1500 series trucks and I think the industry could do the same for the 2500 and 3500 series trucks. Keep the length and size but move the weight to the front of the rear axle.

https://www.truckcamperadventure.com/10-best-truck-campers-for-the-ram-1500-half-ton-pickup-truck/

Probably because once you up to a 1 ton, it's not much more to go to the 4 or 5 series and you get a noticably bigger living space with the giant campers. Anything from a 3/4 ton to 5 series is a lousy off road vehicle anyway.

[notsobigjoe]

jimh406 wrote:

RobertRyan wrote:
Well in the first photo, the TC is fine for nice dirt roads. In the second he had it overloaded, on a dirt road with undulations pulling a trailer that was already stressing the chassis. A large jarring bump would be the straw that broke the Camels back.

You are making a guess which is fine. However, we don't know if the failure case is actually the trailer hitch weight, the TC, or a combination of both.

Back to my first post, I'd rather not have a long overhang since that weight is all behind the rear axle. Based on what others have posted here, long TCs can actually take weight off the front axle. I don't think putting all of the weight on the rear axle can ever be.a good thing.

Jim you make a good point about the overhang. I removed everything I could from my 4 foot overhang and the the front end still bounces a bit. "In my opinion" The large TC industry is going straight to the 5500 series truck and the small TC industry is going straight for the 1500 series truck. That leaves the rest of us to deal without the most efficient design for a truck camper. Why can't they design a truck camper with the weight forward and standard on the mid range models? I included this article to make my point. All these campers fit extremely well on the 1500 series trucks and I think the industry could do the same for the 2500 and 3500 series trucks. Keep the length and size but move the weight to the front of the rear axle.

https://www.truckcamperadventure.com/10-best-truck-campers-for-the-ram-1500-half-ton-pickup-truck/

[StirCrazy]

RobertRyan wrote:

StirCrazy wrote:
This is actualy quite silly. The first pic is a dually with a large camper on it, and nothing looks that bad. as long as the center of gravity is in the proper place at or ahead of the rear axle this will be fine as long as you're not grosly overloaded.

The second picture is the same thing, but what's different? They put an enclosed car trailer behind it and added a **** ton of weight behind the real axel that is most likely at its limit to start with.

The first pic is all good, second pic, the owner deserved what he got.

Well in the first photo, the TC is fine for nice dirt roads. In the second he had it overloaded, on a dirt road with undulations pulling a trailer that was already stressing the chassis. A large jarring bump would be the straw that broke the Camels back.

you could go on lot of forestry roads with that first one that have wash outs and such. hard core 4x4ing no not really a stock truck isn't the best for that anyways, but if you take your time with the first set up you could get through some rough stuff, and for the second pic thats kinda what I said isn't it..

[jimh406]

RobertRyan wrote:
Well in the first photo, the TC is fine for nice dirt roads. In the second he had it overloaded, on a dirt road with undulations pulling a trailer that was already stressing the chassis. A large jarring bump would be the straw that broke the Camels back.

You are making a guess which is fine. However, we don't know if the failure case is actually the trailer hitch weight, the TC, or a combination of both.

Back to my first post, I'd rather not have a long overhang since that weight is all behind the rear axle. Based on what others have posted here, long TCs can actually take weight off the front axle. I don't think putting all of the weight on the rear axle can ever be.a good thing.

[RobertRyan]

StirCrazy wrote:
This is actualy quite silly. The first pic is a dually with a large camper on it, and nothing looks that bad. as long as the center of gravity is in the proper place at or ahead of the rear axle this will be fine as long as you're not grosly overloaded.

The second picture is the same thing, but what's different? They put an enclosed car trailer behind it and added a **** ton of weight behind the real axel that is most likely at its limit to start with.

The first pic is all good, second pic, the owner deserved what he got.

Well in the first photo, the TC is fine for nice dirt roads. In the second he had it overloaded, on a dirt road with undulations pulling a trailer that was already stressing the chassis. A large jarring bump would be the straw that broke the Camels back.

[StirCrazy]

RobertRyan wrote:
This is what the post is about
How practical is this top heavy monster on a small trail? Excessive overhang and a high centre of gravity. A photo of a broken RAM 1 Ton went viral showed what overloading and the fulcrum effect can do. Should large Truck Campers be more like Expedition Vehicles? Expedition Vehicles do not have broken chassis

This is actualy quite silly. The first pic is a dually with a large camper on it, and nothing looks that bad. as long as the center of gravity is in the proper place at or ahead of the rear axle this will be fine as long as you're not grosly overloaded.

The second picture is the same thing, but what's different? They put an enclosed car trailer behind it and added a **** ton of weight behind the real axel that is most likely at its limit to start with.

The first pic is all good, second pic, the owner deserved what he got.