Airstream designs for the next decade

[markdoane]

Despite the publicist's claim . . .

"Mehrzeller will most likely move forward, and not remain just a crazy one-off prototype, because it has the backing of such heavyweights as BMW, 3M and many others."

. . . this will remain a one off because it violates a very important design rule.

There is no discernable purpose behind the oddly shaped trapzoidal cells other than to make the outside a distraction and the inside uncomfortable.

It's looks like a freight container that was rolled down a hill by a bunch of crazy pelicans.

[cameront120]

Architectonically it's interesting, in a Buckminster Fuller sort of way. As a practical RV, it's sh*t. Sorry, but I can't see it being practical for towing nor for me and my two young Labradors to live comfortably in. For something as pragmatic as an RV, the design solution must reflect this. Design for designs sake alone most often flops. This trailer would flop. If you want to start from scratch, understand your target audience and programme accordingly. Upgrade materials and finishes. Explore aerodynamics and weights. But never forget what the object is being used for and the rigors imposed upon it from that use.

[utee94]

I think it's interesting to look at. Modular design in itself can be a great idea for both variability of functionality, and ease of production.

But like markdoane pointed out, there is no functional purpose for the shape of these modules, and the shape itself is what makes the modules both less functional, and more difficult to build. Those are two very, very bad things with respect to mass production.

I won't argue aesthetics because that's very subjective, and there are probably some people who would purchase this based on aesthetics alone. But I have a feeling that after living in it for a short time, they would regret that emotionally driven purchase.

Anyway, if it DOES catch on, more power to 'em. I'll stick with my "retro-cool" aluminum beauty and remodel the interior to suit my needs. And no matter how much I spend, I guarantee it's substantially less than what one of these Mehrzeller units would cost me...

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Hi, the cars in this article are very sleek and aerodynamic looking so I would expect something similar with the trailer. The trailer, to me, looks like an aerodynamic disaster. Hard to describe; Ice sculpture or lead crystal vase on it's side? No Sale!

[Aage]

Originally Posted by markdoane

It's looks like a freight container that was rolled down a hill by a bunch of crazy pelicans.

Yes, it had to be crazy pelicans...!

[Tim A.]

Upon checking the Mehrzeller site in German, it turns out to be a Senior/Master's ("Diplom" degree) thesis of a university student. As such, the cooperation partners are not necessarily commercial partners. They surely are interested in the ideas, but that does not mean they are interested in commercial production of the concept.

[Moonstruck]

QDP,

I read your post with great interest. I must say that the first thought that came into my head was the dichotomy of "radical" and "conservative. It is often the case that a quantum leap in new ideas is lead by the determination of an individual(eg. Wally Byam) and the idea succeeds through it's popularity with the rest of us.

When an idea becomes mainstream you then face the problem that followers join in. The problem with these "followers" is that they practice pragmatism or even expediency and the richness and purity of the idea becomes corrupted - what was radical becomes neo-conservative!

The idea, however diluted, will succeed in the absence of a new order.

...enough philosophy

I feel that the Airstream is still radical. When I read the first posts of new forum members they often talk of their "conversion" to the Airstream. An Airstream is a good idea in the same way as having four wheels on your wagon is a good idea. Seldom does beauty and utility go hand in hand so well. However, the Airstream is an individual choice. As such, it becomes a hostage trying to be all things to all people. I believe it will endure. Demand for improvements and adaptations will find their time without a "radical" change!

[qdp]

I agree, longdog and Moonstruck, that the execution of the Mehrzeller design is- well- primitive. Understand Student Mehrzeller. Has a project, and flat foamboard, probably. So he takes the F117 approach. Not a fan of radical facet geometries myself, I love the conceptual value nevertheless. Using lighter materials, differently. Exactly my point.

The counter-arguments about 'leaving good enough alone" just don't fly, longdog is right. Wally CONSTANTLY innovated.

A honeycomb composite structural floor, slide-out composite (translucent, perhaps?) shells, an operable roof terrace with int. ladder stairs, and a tent structure to cover the upper level, these are concepts that could derive great innovative effectiveness. This is what I mean about design-driven vernacular.

Chris Deam did a great leap in simplifying interiors. Some like the granny-look cabs, he didn't. I'm simply stating that with some innovative use of new materials increased floor area, lighter tow weight and greater structural rigidity are possible, AT a lower cost. As Moonstruck mentions with pragmatism and expediency, this IS beauty and utility.

The "don't mess with tradition-leave it alone" concept is corrupt because change is constant, even in business. Thor and Airstream think conservatively because their Classic training and box-like thinking are habitually enforcing. No need to change until radical new designs FORCE them to react. This problewm is that then the Nø 1 is reacting to market. As Ries and Trout state in 22 Laws of Marketing, the leader has to constantly innovate to keep the other competitors to reacting in therir design layouts. On the defensive they can never increase marketshare.

Moonstruck, AS is no longer radical, in fact I never think they were. Perception varies, and the public is mutable.

qdp

[Over59]

I just want them to make a model like the late 50's again. Make it the same way but upgrade the appliances and utilities. Of course it would be cool if they polished it....

[Moonstruck]

Originally Posted by qdp

I agree, longdog and Moonstruck, that the execution of the Mehrzeller design is- well- primitive. Understand Student Mehrzeller. Has a project, and flat foamboard, probably. So he takes the F117 approach. Not a fan of radical facet geometries myself, I love the conceptual value nevertheless. Using lighter materials, differently. Exactly my point.

The counter-arguments about 'leaving good enough alone" just don't fly, longdog is right. Wally CONSTANTLY innovated.

A honeycomb composite structural floor, slide-out composite (translucent, perhaps?) shells, an operable roof terrace with int. ladder stairs, and a tent structure to cover the upper level, these are concepts that could derive great innovative effectiveness. This is what I mean about design-driven vernacular.

Chris Deam did a great leap in simplifying interiors. Some like the granny-look cabs, he didn't. I'm simply stating that with some innovative use of new materials increased floor area, lighter tow weight and greater structural rigidity are possible, AT a lower cost. As Moonstruck mentions with pragmatism and expediency, this IS beauty and utility.

The "don't mess with tradition-leave it alone" concept is corrupt because change is constant, even in business. Thor and Airstream think conservatively because their Classic training and box-like thinking are habitually enforcing. No need to change until radical new designs FORCE them to react. This problewm is that then the Nø 1 is reacting to market. As Ries and Trout state in 22 Laws of Marketing, the leader has to constantly innovate to keep the other competitors to reacting in therir design layouts. On the defensive they can never increase marketshare.

Moonstruck, AS is no longer radical, in fact I never think they were. Perception varies, and the public is mutable.

qdp

I would tend to agree that the Airstream is not definitively radical. I'm on record as saying that it is derivative of technological advances in the early 20th Century. If you want to highlight an example of a market leader who constantly innovates, look no further than my second love, Apple Macintosh. Although, if you know anything of their history, it is the strong leader, Steve Jobs who singularly drove them back from failure to success. I repeat that future developments will find their time and I believe energy efficiency will be at the top of the list. This will force design innovation into a niche market for those who can still afford to waste.

Marc

[Woody.303]

Originally Posted by qdp

Thanks guys, your comments are much appreciated. The "they think will sell well" is the problem. Markets, products change, and leaders -in any field have to recognize the wave trend before it arrives on shore. Hello, are you seeing green now? What was it, the polar bears swimming, the increase in climatological event impacts, or just higher gas prices? Iwas screaming for change with my efforts 30 years ago with Club of Rome Limits to Growth, and Malthus' projections and a first place in the E.P.R.O.M. design competition at NCSU. Few were listening then, but common sense has never been much of a cultural priority in our society.

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." Einstein. You've read Lee Iaccoca's 7 C's of leadership ability? It is about honesty, trust, motivation, visualization, creativity and applied science (answers). I see complacency here in our leadership, continuing what is outmoded.

Thanks for the Award reference, I'll check.

Wally was wrong in his improvement quote. Question everything is a better start. Stressed skin structure, shape, methodology, use and adaptability, weight loss, here are concepts where I'd start. Here's my reasoning: Everything is about weight, or lack thereof. The lighter, the stronger, the easier to build, the better it performs. Forget crashworthiness by mass inertia, because hauling all that mass around is more dangerous. Case in point, the tiny Smart cars earned highest safety rating because of the Tritium cell and applied design methodology. Gordon Murray, McLaren chief designer, is recommending tiny compact cars for the same reasons.

Build lighter always in things that move. Call it Q's law.

Design is everything. In a new house it is just as easy to build a $300/sqft mistake, as it is to build a $300/sqft masterpiece. The only difference is in the design and the application/interaction to the site. (and the costs therein) The same, even more so, applies to trailers and mobile accommodations. No matter how good profit driven companies are, if leadership lacks, it's in trouble. Charles Handy: The Age of Paradox. Sure there's business inertia, but by the time the warnings sound or even start to appear, it's too late. See GM and their announced changes? It's a sad joke that they still do not get.

2air has no argument from me, about towing, gleam, curves and repairable. What ISN'T? I could tow the Titanic, but should I?

That is not the question I ask. When we add 115 pound huge anti-sway hitches, moment arm/trailer hitch connections, instead of 15lbs. of cross braced unequal arm suspensions on the units, this is ineffective, costly, and with higher risk. Cabinetry and layout preferences I care little about. The big picture is something else. Every part I've held up on my Airstream, I've thought of better solutions that are stronger, simpler, easier to build, and mostly cheaper. The problem is exactly this complacency of tradition, and 'don't change what isn't broke' mentality. It is why Airstream is not increasing market share, EXCEPT when new product lines show improvements, as with CCD interior design 'decorations'.

Look at the shell, how it is built.

Everything designed is purpose-driven, sometimes only by the aesthetic. When both beauty and function combine along with innovation, then the magical occurs. Most of our leaders, in their knowledge base, are very unimaginative. Educationally, they are not trained for this. Case study at Harvard, Stanford's Masters MBA programs all use existing models to illustrate the best and most effective programs for business tools applications and methodology. The how-to on buy-outs is pre-emminent study. Understand the value based criteria and lack of morality that fuels our leaders fear-driven ability to lead. What are they preoccupied with?

Build a better product which responds better to consumer needs is what will sell better. Duh.

None train educationally in understanding the dynamic range that product R & D has. If 30% of your operating capital is not going into increasing and diversifying product lines, you will be outsold, purchased or with a lowered market share, inevitably. Ries and Trout: the 22 immutable laws of Marketing. Sorry, I'm digressing.

A few years ago I was interviewed by Fleetwood for a Sr. level position. Nice people, but a huge void, where Craine was retiring. Lack of Direction, mid management vying, the whole political circus. Here's a company with massive opportunity and lack of vision. ideals that are voidless, and clueless methodology looking for business as usual. When I presented ideas about the direction of mobile homes, the same barriers. In products, in assembly, in marketing, in environmentalism, in every single sector I could identify, including vertical marketing techniques for their existing hiarchy-based sales organization, common sense did not prevail. An emerging market called 'the internet' allowed for instant VR reality based fly-thrus, MooVs, and pick and order connectivity unheard of. Too effective, was over their heads, but it required motivation, incentive, vision and carry-through. Don't misunderstand me, they are a great business, they just lacked vision.

Look around: Why are there so many small cap start-ups now? Because leadership in big business did not see the new emergence.

Hence A/S has the opportunity here, and it is being squandered. It is all about design, inherent in their genepool of products. It just is NOT being built, or conceived of, because leaders have other priorities, and no incentive for creative applications, as wally meant: evolution.

Read, look up, and gimme response! thx
Q

Q,

As I've said before, and I will say again, "A little less yack yack; and a lot more whack whack."

Woody

[slowmover]

I'd rather see light weight and long-term reliability. No more corrosion, and an anodized covering. Ease-of-service. If I am paying for quality, then where -- as mentioned above -- is the ability to change things out?

My next trailer may be an early 70's Streamline. Better built than this brand, light AND strong. All-aluminum cabinetry. Far easier to service. All it needs, IMO, is a change to 4 whl independent suspension and disc brakes. Maybe.

Streamline Trailer Brochure

But it was not as aerodynamic as it could have been. Even a 5,500# [empty] 29' trailer needs more help.

[Journalist]

Originally Posted by REDNAX

My next trailer may be an early 70's Streamline. Better built than this brand...

Them's fightin' words 'round here! J/K