Cycling items out of a Pelican/Yeti/similar cooler would probably work just fine to work around the fridge capacity issues.
Thanks for the photos. Definitely keeping it on my radar.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thanks for the photos. Definitely keeping it on my radar.
This article is sobering,
Range and Charging While Towing a Trailer - 2016 Tesla Model X Long-Term Road Test
Range and Charging While Towing a Trailer - 2016 Tesla Model X Long-Term Road Test
Dave, the link you posted takes me to a page at edmunds.com that only shows basic site navigation, no article or "Road Test". It appears to first try to load a page and then redirects to this generic page http://www.edmunds.com/partners/aff...D=11552624&mktid=cj50922499&mktcat=affiliates
I managed to figure out the link you posted, it's this one:
edmunds.com/tesla/model-x/2016/long-term-road-test/2016-tesla-model-x-range-and-charging-while-towing-a-trailer.html
I read the article, and here is the summary data, quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towing distance: 1,003 miles (1,033 total)
Number of Supercharger stops: 11
Average stop time: 1 hour, 34 minutes
Average Energy consumption: 612 Wh/mile
Travel time: 40.25 hours (23.02 hours driving, 17.23 hours charging)
Average travel speed: 24.9 mph
Just look at that travel time. That boils down to two 10-hour travel days to cover the 500 miles to Flagstaff and another two to get home. That's a ton of road time for such a short trip.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is a long time to drive a thousand miles. For those people who are used to ICE trailer towing or an ICE RV I think that would probably be unacceptable.
That said, the Canadian Model X owners towing their Alto trailer across Canada seem to have done just fine and didn't complain. Promoting Sustainable Energy & Transportation
My take on the Edmunds article is that the criticisms expressed are justified, but that doesn't deter me from seriously considering buying an Alto trailer and towing it with a Tesla. You just have to set your expectations to a realistic level. You are not going to easily cover 350 or more miles in one day because of the lengthy charging times required even using Superchargers.
What does seem achievable is covering 200 and maybe 300 miles in a day if you start with a full charge, limit your speed to 55mph at the most, take a midday 60 to 90 minute break for lunch at a Supercharger location (I would eat in my trailer, which I would unhitch so I could easily charge the car and not block any space) and then arrive at your destination mid-afternoon. Your destination will need to have an outlet of sufficient power to enable you to charge your Tesla overnight to full if you intend to continue your journey the next day. If your destination only offers one outlet then you will need to run your trailer off battery power.
So that is clearly a much more leisurely mode of travel than what many people are used to when towing. If that isn't tolerable then towing with a Tesla clearly won't work for you. I think it would work for me. I do not enjoy driving many hundreds of miles in a single day. I generally like to pick a destination where I will stay for several days at a time before moving on. I am not interested in towing a trailer all day, stopping for one night, then again driving all day, stopping for one night, etc. I like to get to a place and stay there for awhile. Maybe I move to a new place after several days. Maybe I turn around and go back home after several days at one place. That's just my preference.
I managed to figure out the link you posted, it's this one:
edmunds.com/tesla/model-x/2016/long-term-road-test/2016-tesla-model-x-range-and-charging-while-towing-a-trailer.html
I read the article, and here is the summary data, quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Towing distance: 1,003 miles (1,033 total)
Number of Supercharger stops: 11
Average stop time: 1 hour, 34 minutes
Average Energy consumption: 612 Wh/mile
Travel time: 40.25 hours (23.02 hours driving, 17.23 hours charging)
Average travel speed: 24.9 mph
Just look at that travel time. That boils down to two 10-hour travel days to cover the 500 miles to Flagstaff and another two to get home. That's a ton of road time for such a short trip.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It certainly is a long time to drive a thousand miles. For those people who are used to ICE trailer towing or an ICE RV I think that would probably be unacceptable.
That said, the Canadian Model X owners towing their Alto trailer across Canada seem to have done just fine and didn't complain. Promoting Sustainable Energy & Transportation
My take on the Edmunds article is that the criticisms expressed are justified, but that doesn't deter me from seriously considering buying an Alto trailer and towing it with a Tesla. You just have to set your expectations to a realistic level. You are not going to easily cover 350 or more miles in one day because of the lengthy charging times required even using Superchargers.
What does seem achievable is covering 200 and maybe 300 miles in a day if you start with a full charge, limit your speed to 55mph at the most, take a midday 60 to 90 minute break for lunch at a Supercharger location (I would eat in my trailer, which I would unhitch so I could easily charge the car and not block any space) and then arrive at your destination mid-afternoon. Your destination will need to have an outlet of sufficient power to enable you to charge your Tesla overnight to full if you intend to continue your journey the next day. If your destination only offers one outlet then you will need to run your trailer off battery power.
So that is clearly a much more leisurely mode of travel than what many people are used to when towing. If that isn't tolerable then towing with a Tesla clearly won't work for you. I think it would work for me. I do not enjoy driving many hundreds of miles in a single day. I generally like to pick a destination where I will stay for several days at a time before moving on. I am not interested in towing a trailer all day, stopping for one night, then again driving all day, stopping for one night, etc. I like to get to a place and stay there for awhile. Maybe I move to a new place after several days. Maybe I turn around and go back home after several days at one place. That's just my preference.
Last edited:
jackbowers
Jack Bowers
Happy to report that getting around with the Bowlus continues to be easier than I thought. Yesterday I drove Rocklin to Truckee, which involves a 7000' elevation gain climbing up Donner Pass (Donner Pass to Truckee is downhill and you can do it on regen alone). It took 190 miles of range driving at 55 mph with climate control off. The temperature was 50s and I have 20" winter tires filled to 46 psi (the Bowlus tires are at 50 psi).
I'm also finding myself driving 65 mph in places where the Supercharger density is high (note: in California there's a 55 mph limit for cars towing trailers). If there isn't much wind and the elevation is relatively flat, the energy draw is usually 550-600 Wh/mile at that speed. You do get some sway if there's a crosswind, but the Model X has anti-sway built into the traction control, and it seems to work pretty well. Another interesting thing is the trip planner has gotten to know the trailer characteristics pretty well over the last 1000 miles, and it now does a good job of projecting the battery range (you can toggle in and out of trailer mode to see the projected impact of the trailer).
I'm also finding myself driving 65 mph in places where the Supercharger density is high (note: in California there's a 55 mph limit for cars towing trailers). If there isn't much wind and the elevation is relatively flat, the energy draw is usually 550-600 Wh/mile at that speed. You do get some sway if there's a crosswind, but the Model X has anti-sway built into the traction control, and it seems to work pretty well. Another interesting thing is the trip planner has gotten to know the trailer characteristics pretty well over the last 1000 miles, and it now does a good job of projecting the battery range (you can toggle in and out of trailer mode to see the projected impact of the trailer).
polymathic
Member
Reading this thread is giving me trailer envy.
Has anyone started a shared Google spreadsheet about trailers, their specs and their impact on range? Seems this would be helpful.
Has anyone started a shared Google spreadsheet about trailers, their specs and their impact on range? Seems this would be helpful.
I've created this thread, which takes a cursory look at it. It's harder to isolate than one would think.
polymathic
Member
I stopped into Bay Area Airstream Adventures today and took a look at three Airstreams in particular (all Bambis): the 16 Sport, the 22FB Sport, and the 19 Flying Cloud. Weightwise, the 19 is the heaviest, but is only slightly (~150 lbs) heavier than the 22 Sport. However, the tongue weight on the Flying Cloud is 550, and the Model X limitation is 500.
What I discovered there, which I hadn't pieced together in my online research, is that the 22 Sport is the narrowest of all Airstreams at 87.25". In fact, it's nearly as narrow as the vintage Airstream trailers (85"). The height is similar to vintage Airstreams - on the website they only list the height including AC. The AC will provide air resistance, and as such it needs to be considered, but as far as the body of the rig, it's very similar to the more slender size of the old Airstreams. I had previously read that vintage Airstreams were lower, and not having the "without AC" height of the current models, I believed it. Turns out that's not really the case.
Interestingly, the 16' trailer is wider, more in line with the Flying Cloud sub-25' trailers at 96". Seeing as air resistance is the biggest drain on range, I'm curious if the added fascia on the 16' (~900 square inches) would negate the weight benefits (base weight 2860 vs. 3634 on the 22').
The bright spot of the 16' is that it's much more spacious than one would think. The sleeping layout for a family of four is actually better (in my opinion) than the 22'. The sacrifices are mostly in kitchen and bathroom. One moves down from having a full bath to having a wet bath, and the kitchen has a lot more countertop space.
For now, I think those two (and the Basecamp) are the only currently available Airstreams that are going to be manageable with a Model X. In late 2017, I believe the Nest will be another option.
What I discovered there, which I hadn't pieced together in my online research, is that the 22 Sport is the narrowest of all Airstreams at 87.25". In fact, it's nearly as narrow as the vintage Airstream trailers (85"). The height is similar to vintage Airstreams - on the website they only list the height including AC. The AC will provide air resistance, and as such it needs to be considered, but as far as the body of the rig, it's very similar to the more slender size of the old Airstreams. I had previously read that vintage Airstreams were lower, and not having the "without AC" height of the current models, I believed it. Turns out that's not really the case.
Interestingly, the 16' trailer is wider, more in line with the Flying Cloud sub-25' trailers at 96". Seeing as air resistance is the biggest drain on range, I'm curious if the added fascia on the 16' (~900 square inches) would negate the weight benefits (base weight 2860 vs. 3634 on the 22').
The bright spot of the 16' is that it's much more spacious than one would think. The sleeping layout for a family of four is actually better (in my opinion) than the 22'. The sacrifices are mostly in kitchen and bathroom. One moves down from having a full bath to having a wet bath, and the kitchen has a lot more countertop space.
For now, I think those two (and the Basecamp) are the only currently available Airstreams that are going to be manageable with a Model X. In late 2017, I believe the Nest will be another option.
qadaemon
Member
Well crap. The 2016 19c was under 500 tongue, at least from the documentation. Guess we're looking at used ones then. Doesn't someone on here have a 19?
For now, specs state 550. The historical document archive corroborates that going back quite a few years.
I'm considering contacting these guys about a custom lightweight build in a vintage (or at least used) shell.
Sounds like a good idea. That company Hofmann Architecture | Design & Build For Life sure does nice work! I would be wonderful to be able to have an interior customized to meet your needs and have a weight less than the original factory spec.
The modern Airstreams seem heavy: 2,860 lbs for the Sport 16 and 3,684 for the Sport 22FB. The new Base Camp model Basecamp Floorplan | Airstream.com is compact and looks aerodynamic, but it still weighs what to me is a hefty 2,585 lbs for a 16 ft trailer. In contrast, the approximately 17 ft Alto Safari Condo is 1,725 dry weight, tongue weight no more than 350 lbs.
Last edited:
qadaemon
Member
Weird. I'm going to have to dig out my 2016 brochure. We almost purchased one but decided to wait for the '17. Probably good we did, as I'm guessing it's a document problem and not an actual change in the trailer.
That'd be cool. Wonder how long it would take. Guess we'll still be towing the x for awhile.
qadaemon
Member
Do you have any information about _max_ tongue weight on the model x? The manual says 10% _minimum_ of trailer weight but provides no absolute max unless I'm missing it. I'd assumed it was 500lb which is typical in the class, but I don't know. There is plenty left on the rear axle rating but I doubt that is the weak point.
I agree, it seems heavy. Do you know what Alto uses as insulation inside of the walls? I know the windows are acrylic, while Airstream uses double paned glass. Airstream uses Eco-Batt across the line, sandwiched between the aluminum interior and exterior panels. I understand that the Alto has fiberglass (alu-fiber) inners and aluminum outers, but I didn't find anything describing the insulation.
What I've learned from my research is that the weight comes from somewhere. There are ways to strip it, but with the exception of groundbreaking (or very expensive) technology, it is stripped to the owner's detriment in one way or another. I would imagine that the Bowlus is a trailer that meets both groundbreaking and expensive, but executes on the weight/quality tradeoff very well.
The Alto does have a fresh, grey, and black water tank. That's more flexible than the Basecamp, which has a combo black/grey. However, the freshwater tank on the Alto is 15 gallons while it's 22 on the Basecamp. The black+grey on both is about equal (even though the Basecamp has a shared tank) at about 29 gallons. The Basecamp comes standard with a 14,300BTU furnace - I can't find reference to what's in the Alto's base weight - do you know?
My point isn't to line-item them as a comparison, anyway. It's just to point out that the differences in weight are often quantifiable and not just shell/material based. At least, that's what I feel I've learned to date.
Aerodynamics still rule except in those mountain climbs where Superchargers are sparse. Those exist, but I think for most owners it won't be a major problem. For me, I'm still trying to figure out how I can weekend in Tahoe without camping halfway up the mountain en route to Donner Pass.
Hi guys! I am an RV Dealer and sell Jaycos. They just came out with a new line called the Hummingbird last year. The first 2 we got in sold immediately. They are worth a look and I think would be a nice fit with X. Here is where you can check them out. 2017 Hummingbird Travel Trailers | Lightweight Campers | Jayco, Inc.
rw86347
Member
Mathematically I can tell you that weight should have little bearing on mileage. Wind resistance will be paramount!
I've searched and I can't find that info either other than this phrase "plastic honeycomb core".
According to this page Safari Condo the Alto upper windows (that are exposed when the roof is raised up) are "tempered glass'.
Another spec that is hard to find, it's not on their website or in the trailer spec PDF at http://www.safaricondo.com/pdf/caracteristiques_alto_en.pdf
That spec sheet shows optional heaters but not the standard one. However, I asked two different Alto dealers about the optional heaters and they said their Alto customers think the heater that comes standard is fine unless you are winter camping. They said the standard heater is part of the hot water heater system.
Agreed!
Absolutely. Low drag is a major reason why I decided to order an Alto along with the modern design and lightweight materials. But it's layout and size are certainly not optimal for everyone.
JimVandegriff
Member
I'm looking forward to more data from the trailers being towed! My wife and I are beginning planning for our next road trip (2 to 3 months of traveling in the southwest in March/April/May), and would like input about what data would be useful to you from pulling our Airstream 22 ft Bambi with our 90D. Any thoughts?
Check out the T@B Outback and launching this week the T@B 400. We drove up to Canada to see the Alto. Nice but its NOT weatherized.
and nüCamp’s T@B 400 debuts to rave reviews
Similar threads
