Square "Teardrop". Are aerodynamics really important?

[Rainier70]

I think that the Tote 4 looks like it would be light enough for your tow vehicle. If you only have 1000 lb tow rating, I wouldn't want to get anything even close to the max rating.

[S. Heisley]

Aside from cost, I like the five wide SignaTour too but with a dry weight of 860 lbs, it wouldn't have much room for cargo. How much cargo weight do you all normally carry?

I still had some calculations on file from my trailer. Before I built, I actually weighed each item or group of items from tent camping. This may help:

3 gals H2O @ 9 lbs/gal..................27.00
Luggable Loo............................. 5.00
2 rolls Porta Potty tissue.................0.50
Kitchen pans(not CO),dishes,utils:.....25.00
5 lb propane tank, full (tank=10)......15.00
Medium Igloo Ice Chest.................50.00 Please note that it is sometimes best to carry the ice chest in the tow vehicle.
1 Duffel w/Clothes, Towels, etc.......30.00
Slpg Bag & pillow..........................5.00
Box of food 20x8x14":...................25.00
=====================================
...............................Total:.....182.50 (I would tack on a little more because there is always something more that you'll want to add.)

The above was for a weekend trip for 1 person. Multiply the last 3 by the number of people going and add that additional weight and add a little more to the ice chest weight.
As this was for a three day weekend trip, add extra for additional days, etc. Add and subtract as needed...Each camper is a little different from the next camper.

[grantstew8]

Given your constraints: Jump in and build a square one. You could add a large aerodynamic tongue box later.
If you plan is to use it full time or every weekend the mpg and aerodynamics become significant. For a weekend a month in the summer it's not really going to hit the radar. I'd keep your tow speed between 55-65. Any faster and you'll probably be in single mpg figures.

[working on it]

The squared off back of the trailer also creates a low preasure area behind the trailer that will increase drag. The teardrop shape eliminates this low preasure area. Now how much an effect this will have is debateable. The trailer I built is squared off and it tows fine.

I also have a square-back trailer, and originally planned it for under 1000 lbs to be towed by my little cars. I angled the nose to help somewhat with the aerodynamics, even trying to set it within the wind shadow of my wife's Cobalt. I scuttled that lightweight plan by going over 1500 lbs, and now it has to be towed by my truck(s). I didn't even notice the trailer back there, nor detected a drop in gas mileage, when I towed it behind my 2500HD Chevy. It gets 12-15mpg, at 75mph, whether towing the tiny trailer, my loaded car-hauler, or empty. Not much difference. A 6 liter engine with 4.10 gearing is not conducive to econo runs. However, I have a semi-aero Gurney Flap in the way my bulging hatch seal rises above the flat roof; maybe that's a vortex breaker? Other aero mods to come: a Sochi Winter Olympics-proven Mach 39 inspired trailer suit/skin, a triple wing spoiler (with requisite fart-can sticking out from under trailer), or even portholes along the side (Buick owners forgive me). Actually, aerodynamics aren't as important for a once in a while trailer excursion...get what pleases you, and make up your gas savings somewhere else.

[BrwBier]

Are aerodynamics really important? Yes. You bring up several points in the following statement.
While they lose aerodynamics and looks, the squared shapes seem to have the benefit of simplicity, cost, and interior space. I'm guessing the mpg difference for sedans must be noticeable or why would so many people go through the trouble of making aerodynamic ones all these years. It's seems so much easier to make a box
To answer them first simplicity and cost, The curves add strength, think egg, to build the same strength into a square is more complicated. More interior space, while that is true remember that you are not standing in them and the extra room is wasted. Also the ones shown do not have a galley and in my opinion being able to walk around the back and open a hatch and have everything right there is priceless. A car with a 1000lb towing limit is usually a smaller lighter car and towing all day in any kind of head wind will make the ride unpleasant.
If all your camping is short trips then most of this will not matter but just one tense day behind the wheel will make a poor start to a vacation. Can you tell I like the conventional teardrop shape? They provide you with all kinds of interesting people where ever you go and there are hundreds of people here to help you find what works for you at a cost that seems right.
Any way, that's how I feel.
Brwbier

[rowerwet]

if a square front trailer hurts your gas mileage badly when towing, you can always add a rounded or V nose to the front later.
I found my tear could hurt as much as 10 mpg at 75, slowing down could reduce it to about 4 mpg (but you get run over in the traffic up here when you are only 10 mph OVER the limit) of course I don't camp without the kayaks, and I don't travel light, bikes grill, commercial grade ez up.
You will find the aero dynamics of a car tend to bring the airflow down over the back window, that square front will be a drag, even the flat front of my tear gets hit by the air sweeping down over the car.

[grant whipp]

The short answer to your original question is, Yes! ... aerodynamics can be HUGELY important in trailer design, especially if you are towing with a small car with a limited amount of power and overall towing capacity!

But, as previously mentioned in other replies, a lot depends on how far and how often you'll be towing the trailer. There has already been, and will undoubtedly continue to be, lengthly discussions around the various subjects of the drag coefficients of the different shapes, how they are affected by the slipstream in the "shadow" of the different shaped tow vehicles, weight, balance, and so many others ... but it's the real-world seat-of-the-pants experiences that, I think, are-and-will-be the most important to consider.

As an example, I tow with a small vehicle that is rather sensitive to aerodynamics ... both of/on the car as well as what's being towed. While on paper it's rated to tow 2,000# with a 200#+ tongue weight, the real question is whether or not it can do so comfortably, safely, and economically ... and, in my experience, aerodynamics has played a much greater role than overall weight/tow-capacity. My car can (and has) pull(ed) our 1,700# vintage canned-ham tiny travel trailer 500 miles out into the Nevada desert for a great weekend get-to-gether ... it did so reasonably comfortably, reasonably safely, but I wouldn't consider 10mpg very economical ... ...! My daily highway average is right around 31mpg ... adding the (empty) roof-rack & basket drops that to about 28, putting stuff in the basket puts it at about 25 ... when I'm pulling a KIT-style teardrop (no rack on the car), I'll get about 28mpg, adding a rack to the 'drop nets about 25, adding the rack/basket to the car drops it to about 23, and adding stuff to the racks/baskets puts me at 20 or less.

Now, my previous TV was about the same size with a slightly smaller engine but with a 5-speed transmission, and I had the opportunity over a few successive years to track the mileage difference of several different teardrop shapes on the same 750-mile (one way) trip, and the results were rather eye-opening. Typical highway driving mileage (running at 70-75 mph) was right at 38mpg ... towing an original 600#+ Modernistic (at those same speeds) netted me between 36 & 37 mpg (which, I don't mind telling you, was a very pleasant surprise!) ... the next year I towed an original Benroy on the same route at the same speeds and got 35 mpg (which tells me that the shape of the front and the rear can make a difference, though I suspect the front design made the most difference) ... and the following year I pulled a 5' wide, 5' high, 10' long fiberglass TD (with a Benroy-type front) that dropped the mileage down to just over 25mpg!

So, this is (some of) my real-world experience, and undoubtedly, others' experiences WILL vary ... but the bottom line, here, is that aerodynamics can be damned important ... so, take your time and consider ALL of the factors before you decide ... ...! And, please ... consider the possibility that "boxes" aren't necessarily easier to build than a nicely curved teardrop shape ... there are hundreds of folks who will happily tell you otherwise ... ...!

What ever you choose, and how ever you choose to go about it, Good Luck! And, as always ...

CHEERS!

[Glenn Butcher]

After thinking about it a bit, I believe the effect of trailer shape depends somewhat on how closely coupled the trailer is to the car. If your trailer is close enough to draft the car, the front can be flat and not appreciably add drag, unless it juts into the slipstream created by the car.

On the rear, however, flat just creates a suction, which almost any front-to-rear taper should mitigate somewhat.

Also, the degree of difference (percentage change) to MPG imparted by your trailer probably also depends on the power of your towing vehicle. So, I would think in those terms that an aerodynamic shape would more important behind a small car than behind a full-size SUV with a V8.

This musing is based on what I remember from learning the aerodynamics of wings in pilot training, oh so long ago (disclaimer: I washed out). Those more versed are welcome to correct me at any time...

[rowerwet]

out of the three you gave websites for, the runaway camper has the best chance of good front and back aero dyamics, thanks to the curve down near the back of the roof.
Reading a thread on here a while ago, one person had added some vortex generators to the back end of their CT conversion that showed a noticeable improvement in MPG.
While the trekker is cheap, I wouldn't want to be seen towing one, it is just plain ugly to me.
the lack of a galley would keep me from buying any of them, for the money and your target weight, I would build a foamie, even a foamie weekender would tow better and have a galley.

[91kuhndog]

I'm with Rowerwet... U.G.L.Y.... they aint got no alibi... it's UGLY! For the cost, a guy could build a plywood box on a HF trailer and add air for under $1000. As for fuel economy, I'm accustomed to pulling a 10,000 5th wheel so the gains I've experienced pulling my tear are nice! Granted, I only have one trip of 90 miles under my belt, I experienced no drop in fuel economy running 55-60. Good luck on your search, hope you find what suits your needs.

[DropTear]

Thanks for all the great feedback! Ha ha, yes the TrekkerTrailer SquareOne in that link is pretty ugly. On the Trekker Trailer Facebook page, there is a hunting version with RealTree camo wrap and offroad tires that looks pretty tough. They also did a five-wide with galley that looked better.

I actually met the Trekker Trailer owner Andrew at a local campground. He's the one that actually got me considering micro-campers. He's a good guy and does a lot of custom trailers. You can see his work on his Facebook page. Basically, he's got a few base models but is willing to build whatever the customer wants. That being said, I'm actually leaning away from the Trekker SquareOne mainly because of weight. I think the dry weight is about 850# in the base model.

And yeah, I think the poor aerodynamics of a squarish trailers would be more noticeable further behind an aerodynamic car (like mine) than if it was closely following a big SUV.

As far as cargo trailers, the only potential trailers lightweight enough that I've seen are poorly constructed 4X6s that are too short for a conversion (even if I had the tools and workspace).

Also, where could I purchase one of these "foamies" mentioned above? I know there's a section in the forum for people building them, but I didn't know anyone sold them.

[Racquetman]

If you want a nice light TD, talk to Roly, He builds some beautiful trailers!

[GPW]

Somebody say Foamie' ??? Anything’s possible there.... One only has to ask ....

[rowerwet]

Foamie is still such a new concept most don't believe it won't be destroyed by a bear, nose bleed bridges, low flying turkeys or and ill timed sneeze in bed. (there have been many miles put on foamies with only one over tall one being blown over, so no worries) There was one guy on the big thifty thread looking to build with foam to sell, but the last time I checked his links it didn't seem like much was happening. If you want a foamie you seem to be stuck building it yourself or paying someone to build one for you. (GPW, do you still have the square foamie for sale?)
good luck, let us know what you come up with.

[GPW]

There are some ^ that still believe Foam won’t work ... Well, we know they’re Wrong , but we indulge them because they’re such “good folks” ...
Yes the square one is for sale at a Good price...