Angled rear panel as fashion

[bajajoaquin]

Can I get something off my chest? I don’t get the angled rear panel on most “expedition” campers. I mean, I understand why they are supposed to be there but I don’t get what they are actually doing on most of them.

If you angle the back panel up to improve your departure angle, but then put the camper on a flat bed (or other solution) that hangs lower, you have just increased manufacturing cost to create an additional angle and reduced the interior storage capabilities.

An example is the camper on the front page right now. If you draw a line from the rear wheels to the low part on the chassis you can see that the angled back wall does nothing other than look cool.

it’s an awesome camper, don’t get me wrong. I just don’t understand why you would go to all the problem of building a vestigial feature.

 

[simple]

Definitely for looks. A stylish way to match a longer camper to a shorter bed and not have it look like it's hanging off the back. Tight jeans, baggy jeans, mom jeans, jorts. IMO most of the overland craze being vehicle centric is fashion oriented.

 

[andy_b]

I agree that there is a lot of fashion involved in this aesthetic (personally, I like it). I also agree that when mounted on a flatbed, it doesn't do anything. Four Wheel Campers do the expo angle and flatbed design so poorly that it somehow looks worse.

I disagree with the notion that it reduces or impairs internal storage. Everything aft of the blue line would not exist in a vertical rear wall configuration. In the Aterra, there is a small amount of additional volume below the dinette seats. One could easily add some wall cabinets or similar for additional storage along the rear wall if there wasn't a window. In a vertical wall configuration, that amount of additional internal volume would come at the cost of the overall interior based on the footprint of the box itself. In a camper with the expo angle, you get that additional space without intruding into the cabin. Of course, a lot of that storage volume is well aft and above the rear axle so it certainly comes at a cost.

 

[bajajoaquin]

What happens when that camper is fitted to doka truck ?

It’s not being hyped as a camper for a Doka. It’s being hyped as a clean-sheet design for a US flatbed camper. They chose to show it off in that configuration. According to the article, they have multiple design awards so they presumably presented it in the best light.

but if it’a on a DOKA, it really depends on the wheelbase and rear axle location of that specific vehicle. Is it being designed for that?

again, I really don’t mean to single this one out. FWC has an ad at the top of the page as I write this. Same issue (as mentioned by another post). Think of all the “Pre-runner” style trucks you see that cut the rear fender line then have a bumper hanging down. It’s the overlanding equivalent of hood scoops.

 

[bajajoaquin]

I read the story yesterday also. I wrote up a response, then when I saw the signup into a program to post up I let it go. Everything bajajoaquin said is almost word for word what I wrote.

I went a bit further in the roof line of the vehicle. I understand the wind resistance and better fuel mileage may make a very slight difference. The deal is you are still driving a refrigerator "Big Box" down the road. That also reduces the inside storage. I do understand that people do around the world with smaller vehicles and survive. The Big BUT is when you have bad weather the little extra space that is a big deal.

In what I wrote and did refer this as a backpacker vehicle. With this I see it as a hard sided tent that can not go on the hike with you and sits at the trail head.

It is not my cup of tea. I am sure that for some people the looks are more important then the function.

Having bashed the upper corners of my various campers over the years, I think the beveled edges are about more than just aerodynamics.

but overall, it is indeed funny how similar our reactions are. I also looked at the comments and saw zero so I didn’t comment there.

(I also didn’t comment when I read the piece about the Enfield motorcycle. It has copypastaed the press release and then has the statement below that they don’t just print hype from the manufacturers. Seriously?)

 

[Victorian]

Departure angles have their place and can safe your butt in an off road situation. In Theory that is....
Imagine the situation you need to be in where you need this angle. At this point you probably have other issues to deal with But there are exceptions: Vehicles that are less tall will benefit from a departure angle much more than a Unimog type vehicle.
Do they look cool and make your camper more "offroadisch" ? yes!
On our last truck we has a 45 degree angle at the rear. I hated it... Because we had our storage compartments in that area it made keeping the storage organized or loaded in an efficient way next to impossible. We lost tons of valuable storage space. Did it look cool? Heck yes!
Our current camper is based on the transit with less ground clearance. In this case it would have made technical sense to do a departure angle. At the end I opted against it as I wanted as much storage as possible. I retrospect I'm glad it is a simple square space. We can fit so much more stuff!

In any case, angles have their place, sometimes for the needed extra clearance, visual appearance and sometimes for fuel efficiency.

I'm personally delighted to see innovations being introduced to the market! It keeps things interesting.

 

[slowtwitch]

Bit better if you get rear ended as well. Chalking it up to fashion seems a bit left field.

 

[bajajoaquin]

Departure angles have their place and can safe your butt in an off road situation. In Theory that is....
Imagine the situation you need to be in where you need this angle. At this point you probably have other issues to deal with But there are exceptions: Vehicles that are less tall will benefit from a departure angle much more than a Unimog type vehicle.
Do they look cool and make your camper more "offroadisch" ? yes!
On our last truck we has a 45 degree angle at the rear. I hated it... Because we had our storage compartments in that area it made keeping the storage organized or loaded in an efficient way next to impossible. We lost tons of valuable storage space. Did it look cool? Heck yes!
Our current camper is based on the transit with less ground clearance. In this case it would have made technical sense to do a departure angle. At the end I opted against it as I wanted as much storage as possible. I retrospect I'm glad it is a simple square space. We can fit so much more stuff!

In any case, angles have their place, sometimes for the needed extra clearance, visual appearance and sometimes for fuel efficiency.

I'm personally delighted to see innovations being introduced to the market! It keeps things interesting.

The difference between the third and fourth pictures is fantastic. Draw lines from the rear wheels to the lowest hanging part at the rear on each of those vehicles. The Mercedes has the bumper and bevel on the camper all in a line. The angle is totally functional. The Ford, however, has the bumper of the flatbed hanging down, making the departure angle on the camper superfluous.

The structural innovations are indeed amazing. More amazing is the ability of these people to get their ideas from their heads into the real world. I always dreamed about having a custom camper on a Deuce and a Half. But they stayed dreams. I'm really in awe at their ability to build.

 

[tacollie]

I never thought it was for departure angle. I thought they did it to fit a longer camper on a shorter flatbed.

I like the angled roof line if it helps with branches. The sides off our FWC take a beating.

 

[DaveInDenver]

There may be fashion to it but let's say there's a couple of other options, one being to just end the camper at the back of the tray and two being to extend to the current back wall at a right angle overhanging the tray.

Look around at how any truss or bridge is made, all 45° joints to keep elements in compression rather than tension.

So the slope might not be at all about clearance or departure but a compromise to gain some space with a structure that needs less reinforcement and can use lighter materials without sagging or fractures developing.

Consider that AT has experience building things used off highway. If this camper was intended for paved RV parks then it might be fine to be a square simple box but there could be more to it here. I don't know if that's actually considered, just speculation.

 

[simple]

That makes some sense structurally. I'm not sure it applies to this particular camper but a box with a couple super singles mounted on the back might need as much extra strength as it can get.

 

[billiebob]

There may be fashion to it but let's say there's a couple of other options, one being to just end the camper at the back of the tray and two being to extend to the current back wall at a right angle overhanging the tray.

Look around at how any truss or bridge is made, all 45° joints to keep elements in compression rather than tension.

So the slope might not be at all about clearance or departure but a compromise to gain some space with a structure that needs less reinforcement and can use lighter materials without sagging or fractures developing.

Consider that AT has experience building things used off highway. If this camper was intended for paved RV parks then it might be fine to be a square simple box but there could be more to it here. I don't know if that's actually considered, just speculation.

View attachment 690073

I like this, but I wonder why with all the edges and angles, why not taper, swing in the sides at the front corners too. The straight slab sides look out of place. The nose creates a corner looking for a tree.

But this is my preference, a squared off box as small as you can fit. With a fully taper nose. Simpler and way cheaper to build.

 

[RDinNHand AZ]

Odd how some solutions mimic others. I have been thinking about building a fiberglass-over-foam topper super light shell for my first gen. Tacoma. No internal build except a 50”X72” bed with a slide out section. I’m thinking a rear panel with a camper door. I’m 5’7” so it would fit me. It would go into my barn at 101” ground to top. Notice the roof line. It looks Aterra like. I came to that shape to increase the strength of the shell's roof and to cut down on air resistance while still being able to have a place for my feet in the bed. It is somewhat like an upside down boat shape which is strong due to the reduced flat area and overall shape. I have now decided to extend the over-cab section an additional foot to have the bed slideout reduced inside. As this would sit on the bed top and be removable it must be light. I am thinking 1” XPS with two thin layers of epoxy covered fiberglas cloth on the outside and one inside. I’d gel coat it white. No rear expedition angle is planned!

 

[bajajoaquin]

What would the long taper on the rear and the steep taper on the front do to your interior space? All things being equal, it’s more aerodynamic to have the long taper at the rear.

 

[rruff]

What would the long taper on the rear and the steep taper on the front do to your interior space? All things being equal, it’s more aerodynamic to have the long taper at the rear.

The front should not be a taper, but rather a rounded nose piece... big radius on all the edges. You don't need to lose so much space. A gradual taper (~10 deg) on the rear will help a little, but may not be worth the loss of space, depending on your layout.

Something like how 5th wheels are made these days. The front is a molded piece.