Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-03-2006, 10:13 AM   #15
Rivet Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,485
Images: 19
Weight begets weight.

The big change came with holding tanks. Once you start carrying water and waste you not only have the weight of the tanks, but also their supporting structures and the rather considerable weight of the water itself (about eight pounds to the gallon - 30 gal. = 240 lbs.)

But there is more. More weight turns out to require a heavier frame - as Airstream found in the late 70's. More weight also requires heavier axles and tires, themselves being heavier as well.

And, as noted, there are the ammenities. Airconditioning, microwaves, charger/converters, forced air furnace, solid wood cabinets, and on and on.

Mark
__________________

__________________
'85 Sovereign, 25'
j54mark is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2006, 10:28 AM   #16
Rivet Master
 
safari57's Avatar
 
1951 21' Flying Cloud
1960 24' Tradewind
West Coast , BC
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 3,790
Images: 10
Send a message via MSN to safari57
Quote:
Originally Posted by anholman
Anyway, we seem willing to put up with it and buy bigger and bigger tow vehicles.
Quote:
Yeah, and I thought 'we' are supposed to be conserving our environment. I have a big '71 Buick to tow my '66 Tradewind. The cars then were made for working. Today even tho I believe automotive technology is much better it still takes brute power to pull the new trailers.
Neil.
I as well use an old car to tow my trailer Neil. I grenaded the optional Trail Blazer as it was a pig on gas when pulling the trailer and when just commuting (that new inline 6 of GM's was a big disappointment to us) and I am on the prowl for just the right replacement truck for when the '57 is not the right vehicle to use. As noted by others, by the time you add your large fridge, TV, A/C, power jacks, microwave etc necessities to survive today, and then load all the things we each think we need on our "simple" camping outings the trailers get pretty darned heavy. I'm certainly guilty of taking a vintage light weight and adding the luxuries . But it sure is fun "roughing it" this way.

Barry
__________________

safari57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2006, 12:03 PM   #17
4 Rivet Member
 
DFord79's Avatar
 
Currently Looking...
Yakima , Washington
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 381
For heaven sakes folks...don't complain about the weight. Someone from Airstream might just be reading these posts?????? Remember something about making them light. The lighter they make them the less quality you have. If you don't agree with that talk to the designers. With the materials availible to them quality equals wieght with a BIG emphasis on PRICE control at the same time. There are lighter ways to make these trailers...but the price would blow you away. Composit materials are very very exspensive.

And as to pulling your tailer with an 71" buick and being more enviormentally friendly? I dont' think so. The emissions from a V-10 Ford truck is many many times less then the buick. And pulling your AS would probably get better fuel milage. I will never forget my father pulling a 23 foot trailer with a 1968 Ford stationwagon. Empty was a strong ...lol...13 miles per gallon...pulling and I will never forget this......8 mpg. May people in this forum pull new AS with new trucks and get 10-12 pulling with much much cleaner emmions than years past.
DFord79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-09-2006, 01:12 PM   #18
Rivet Master
 
2005 22' International CCD
Buckhorn , Ontario
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 8,449
Blog Entries: 5
Modern con's vs 60's con's veniences that is...

they had awnings

they had AC's - that blew cold not look warm

they had ceiling fans - that sucked the air out in 10 seconds flat!

they had the beautiful veneer - but strudy press board to make them durable

they had bags of storage (you just have to bend over) a novel idea when camping

they had torsion axles with 12inch brakes -

aluminum wheels are lighter than steel so not much savings there -with exception of t in the old days many longer trailers had single axles opposed to dual

they had fresh water tanks - water in water out (on the ground or into another tank) so where is the extra weight there? Most do not travel with tanks black or grey full anyway so that is only sitting weight at the best of time.

I would guess that it is the longer wider counterparts and as pointed out base weight NO options for the older trailers giving a false weight to use as a comparison. Dual battery, solar power extras, solid oak cabinet facings. The cabinet frames in both our early 60 and late 60's where made with oak. Bigger black tank, bigger fresh water tanks. Glass shower/bath doors instead of curtains.

Plywood vs particle board sub floor weight comparison???

More of the things we really do not need but just have to have or have come to expect!

To say the Quality is better with heavier - hmm I don't think so. Look behind the scenes of a 50's which is better than the 60's. The 70's is basically plastic and light weight materials that were alot cleaner behind the scenes (modual systems). Now take a look behind the scenes of 2000+ what the hell is holding this fancy stuff together - staples! - not much! There is a lot of press board (heavy stuff in CCD's and Safaris) even today - and that really is not expensive - just recycled sawdust...from all the heavy cabinet facings used in the Classics

More complicated windows, frames, hardware and the bigger appliances - that today do not last half as long as the 50's and 60's did - we live in a disposable world....

Just my take on how we have all got heavier over the years.

Simple equation - 17' x 7' (body of a 26' 1961 Overlander) = 119 square feet / 3750# dry weight listed = 31.5 pounds per sqft.

1 foot wider = 17 square more feet x 31.5 pounds = 535pounds plus a few items like Awning 110# + A/C 100# and we are already up to 750# not too mention all the other items mentioned above - like everyone says here they add up real quick.

Especially when gas economy on a v6 vs v8 as well as cargo weight is at best 500# for most trailers....why we can reach that in just Canadian Ice

Just our take on the difference between the old and the new - but we would take any Airstream over an SOB because of looks alone!
__________________

05ModPod is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sovereign weight and Preferred tow vehicle JLD 1974 - 1979 Sovereign 24 06-26-2017 10:17 PM
Weight 1987 34' Excella 83Excella 1987 - 1989 Excella 6 03-26-2003 06:43 PM
weight specs for 68 Overlander 26D PeterH-Airstreamer 1965 - 1969 Overlander 5 02-08-2003 03:49 PM
Trailer weight Dbraw 1969 - 1973 Safari 3 06-26-2002 12:01 PM
'71 Airstream Caravel 18' weight specs PeterH-Airstreamer 1969-1971 Caravel 0 06-15-2002 06:28 AM


Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:12 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.