Habitat/Flip pac style top for 2004-2006 Jeep Unlimited (LJ)

[Jim K in PA]

It is no problem through the rear passenger door on the JK Habitat with the seat folded flat. In fact easier than if the access were through the rear due to the very small area between the rear roll bar and the rear of the shell.

Mario - the issue is that the LJ front passenger seat does not fold flat like the JK rear seat. The subject that Mark (and his wife) expressed concern about is not the access to the roof hatch per se, but the collateral mess created when accessing the roof hatch via the front seat of the LJ. Rain, snow, mud, etc. will be tracked into/onto the seat bottom if the seat is up, or onto the rear of the seat back if the seat is tipped forward. Access in the JK via the rear seat folded flat is fine. IMO you would still track mud/muck/debris into and onto the seat back in the JK, but it is less of an "issue" since it is the back seat, not the front passenger seat.

I know I started this thread, but the more we flesh this out, the more I am liking an RTT with an extension over the ladder like the Eezi-Awn T-top.

 

[Haggis]

Exactly Jim. Not only is it an access issue but one of keeping the interior liveable. Which is important here on the East side of the country (or anywhere else for that matter) were rain, snow, muck, forest litter and mud are everyday concerns when setting up camp in our forested enviroment.

 

[haven]

"We seriously considered selling our 2005 LJ and buying a used JK Rubicon Unlimited..."

I'd also consider a Toyota Tacoma 4x4, to which you can add a Four Wheel Campers slide in or an Adventure Trailers Flippac.

Advantages of this approach include
-- no development costs of a custom one-off solution
-- option to carry four passengers instead of two
-- camper easy to remove so you can use the truck for other purposes
-- V8 power available in 2010 Tacoma

Tacodoc's lengthy build thread has lots of information about the Tacoma with bed-mounted tent, and FlipPac
http://expeditionportal.com/forum/showthread.php?t=521

 

[Jim K in PA]

Thanks for the input Haven. Vehicle selection is a touchy and emotion filled subject, and one that I do not want this thread to devolve into. I am not at all dogmatic with respect to my choice of vehicle. In fact, I really wanted to avoid getting into our personal justifications for staying with the Jeep in this thread, but perhaps for others following along, this is a good point to outline what they are.

In a nutshell, what has us sticking with the Jeep is first and foremost, off-road capabilities. We go off-road quite a bit, and not just on fire roads and dirt trails. We have become accustomed to the Jeeps mountain goat-like ability to crawl through, over, and around anything. The LJ Rubicon has solid front and rear axles with 4.11:1 gearing, 4 wheel disk brakes, selectable lockers, 4.0:1 low range, copious low RPM torque, excellent approach, breakover, and departure angles, and narrow track/body width. ALL of these features are things we use, need, and would want in another vehicle, regardless of brand.

A Tacoma would certainly give us the additional size and capacity for the camping portion of the equation. But, it would come at a sacrifice in the form of limitations in the capability of the rig in tough, tight, off-road situations. Now, I am sure there will be 1000 Tacoma owners ready to duct tape me to a Saguaro :sombrero: for saying that, but I really mean no disrespect for those who have, use, and enjoy those rigs. To duplicate just the solid front axle, lockers and low-range gearing that we already have with the LJ would cost at least as much and perhaps more than the custom solutions I am looking at for the LJ. And then we have a vehicle with a longer wheelbase and concurrently reduced B/O, approach and departure angles and is wider as well. We will not be using the LJ for anything more than travel adventures for two people, so the extra length of the double cab Taco for that purpose is moot.

As with just about everything in life and overland travel, it's all about the compromises you are willing to make. A gain in one aspect almost invariably comes at a cost in another. If we did not already have the LJ, and 4 years of experience in using it off-road, an extra-cab Tacoma would be HIGH on my list of trucks to consider for long distance overland travel. However, at this point the LJ Rubicon will be our platform to continue with and build upon.

The Habitat/Flippac for an LJ is just one means of accomplishing one particular task. While the initial reaction I had to the JK Habitat was that it would make an excellent addition to the LJ, upon further analysis it may not be such a viable solution. And that's OK! The purpose of intelligent, productive forums such as this one is to have logical discussions about these kinds of ideas. If an idea that starts out sounding fantastic morphs into not such a good idea, it is far better to do that here than with a sawzall in your hand and your Jeep in pieces! :ylsmoke:

<sigh> Sorry for the ramble. I tend to do that.

 

[The Freeak]

What is preventing the manufacturer of the "Flippac" from simply offering a slightly shorter version of their existing tent?

If a version were made that retrofitted to CJ/YJ/ TJ AND LJ's the market would expand significantly.


-Chris

 

[Beowulf]

If an LJ version was ever built I think outside ingress/egress would be the only way to go. There is just not that much room inside to have the back seat in for a child/dog plus all your gear behind that, and then have room to climb up and into the tent. Access from the outside would make this much easier. Plus there would be plenty of room for 4 people once deployed without the need for moving floor panels.

 

[TCM]

I also agree that exterior entry makes the most sense for an LJ Habitat. The ladder could easily be stored on top the roof and would likely not be visible under most circumstances. A Eezi Awn/Hannibal type ladder would be very compact and do little to increase wind resistance or noise. But if interior entry is the goal then doing so from the front passenger seat is the best option by far.

 

[Jim K in PA]

In taking a larger view, if interior access to the Habitat is problematic with an LJ due to the reasons cited above (tracking detritis into the vehicle, contortions needed to ascend/descend, et al.), and exterior access is preferred in order to avoid the above, then it seems false economy to incorporate a fixed Habitat-like stucture to the LJ. For a little more than half the (current JK) cost of the Habitat, an adequate roof rack and an Eezi-Awn 1400 T-top can be put on the LJ that will accomplish the same thing, with just as much interior tent space as the Habitat. A rack and RTT are also removable for when the RTT and rack are unnecessary. CLosing up a wet RTT will not bring any moisture into the vehicle, while the Habitat inevitably will.

Hmph. Unless Mario has some specific ideas or input to convince me otherwise, I may have talked myself out of the very thing I started this thread for.

 

[Haggis]

In taking a larger view, if interior access to the Habitat is problematic with an LJ due to the reasons cited above (tracking detritus into the vehicle, contortions needed to ascend/descend, et al.), and exterior access is preferred in order to avoid the above, then it seems false economy to incorporate a fixed Habitat-like structure to the LJ. For a little more than half the (current JK) cost of the Habitat, an adequate roof rack and an Eezi-Awn 1400 T-top can be put on the LJ that will accomplish the same thing, with just as much interior tent space as the Habitat. A rack and RTT are also removable for when the RTT and rack are unnecessary. Closing up a wet RTT will not bring any moisture into the vehicle, while the Habitat inevitably will.

Hmph. Unless Mario has some specific ideas or input to convince me otherwise, I may have talked myself out of the very thing I started this thread for.

I've arrived at the same place myself. While I like the idea of an aerodynamic camping solution that's always ready at a moments notice for the LJ over a bulky RTT, I can see the same inherent problems that you've pointed out in your last post Jim. Since I don't want to mount an RTT on our Jeep, the idea of a quickly deployed ground tent is probably still the best solution for us. Now if a great concept could come to fruition I'd definitely be interested.

You know, I came to the same conclusion about a FlipPac for our Tundra. I was really thinking hard about one but the realities of living in a wet environment have left me doubtful of how happy I'd be with one.

 

[Dave Bennett]

You know, I came to the same conclusion about a FlipPac for our Tundra. I was really thinking hard about one but the realities of living in a wet environment have left me doubtful of how happy I'd be with one.

If you treat your OEM FP tent with NikWax and deploy the rain cover, they are bomb proof in the rain. My trip to the Olympic Peninsula is WA proved the concept to me.

Now, with the "Gen II" tent materials in use by AT, a rain cover is no longer required as they are as water tight as any high end RTT on the market.

.02

 

[Beowulf]

The fixed Habitat with outside access would have no opening to the inside of the vehicle and therefore would have the same benefit as an RTT in keeping moisture out of the vehicle. Also, you are missing out on the other benefits of a Habitat. A streamlined roof will add in aerodynamics maintaining current fuel economy and wind noise. The habitat will be less susceptible to the elements in the stored position than an Eezi-Awn style RTT. Additionally, the Habitat will weigh less over all than a hardtop, rack, and RTT. That weight will also have a lower center of gravity. Not only will the rack and RTT impact COG it will also inhibit access to some parking garages and many home garages.

If a rack/RTT was always the best way to go, the habitat for the JK would not exist. Personally, I am willing to pay extra for all the pros and cons of the Habitat over a rack/RTT system and if it is made for the LJ I will definitely purchase one.

 

[Haggis]

The fixed Habitat with outside access would have no opening to the inside of the vehicle and therefore would have the same benefit as an RTT in keeping moisture out of the vehicle. Also, you are missing out on the other benefits of a Habitat. A streamlined roof will add in aerodynamics maintaining current fuel economy and wind noise. The habitat will be less susceptible to the elements in the stored position than an Eezi-Awn style RTT. Additionally, the Habitat will weigh less over all than a hardtop, rack, and RTT. That weight will also have a lower center of gravity. Not only will the rack and RTT impact COG it will also inhibit access to some parking garages and many home garages.

If a rack/RTT was always the best way to go, the habitat for the JK would not exist. Personally, I am willing to pay extra for all the pros and cons of the Habitat over a rack/RTT system and if it is made for the LJ I will definitely purchase one.

This approach makes the most sense to me and would be perfect when it's just my wife and I mucking about here in a few years. The LJ with a set-up like this would be great for two people.

If you treat your OEM FP tent with NikWax and deploy the rain cover, they are bomb proof in the rain. My trip to the Olympic Peninsula is WA proved the concept to me.

Now, with the "Gen II" tent materials in use by AT, a rain cover is no longer required as they are as water tight as any high end RTT on the market.

.02

Good gravy, Dave quit making me want one of these things. :elkgrin:

I'd really like to see an AT FP in person some day, I have a hard time committing to something that I haven't been able to run my hands over first. Any chance a certain silver Tacoma DC will be heading east this year?

 

[elcoyote]

There is a design difference between the Flippac and the Habitat. The Habitat has hard ceiling above the passengers when closed whereas the Flippac has a fabric canopy that supports the fabric when closed. Water ingress through the hatch into the passenger compartment is not expected and has not been seen in our tests. We are pursuing R&D to create a flysheet for those users who are in extremely wet environments like PNW who may not be in a position to open up the top after their trips to let them air out as should be done with any tent. For example if the only dry place were your garage but you could not deploy your Habitat in it due to height restrictions. In that case you would want to have a removable fly to minimize water contact with the tent and in your garage you could then open the Habitat shell partially, say 12" or so to allow air to circulate.

 

[TCM]

I too believe an LJ habitat offers many advantages when compared to a RTT mounted to a rack. The advantages include: a lower total weight, a lower total height, a lower center of gravity, better aerodynamics, reduced wind noise, less susceptibility to damage from trail obstructions, quicker deployment and stowage with no cover to take off and put back on, and improved aesthetics via the integrated design.

As for interior access I would not put it on my personal list of advantages even if if were to have this feature. Either way I have to climb up into the tent and unless the vehicle were to have living space inside, interior access is no better than a ladder on the outside. Neither the LJ or the JK have any interior living space thus a ladder is perfectly reasonable. This is especially true when one considers that the tent must be deployed from the exterior thus exposing you to the elements regardless of the entry location.

If an LJ Habitat makes it to production I will most certainly buy one.

Martyn, Mario, how many committed pre orders with deposit do you need to make an LJ Habitat viable?

 

[AmericaOverland]

If a rack/RTT was always the best way to go, the habitat for the JK would not exist. Personally, I am willing to pay extra for all the pros and cons of the Habitat over a rack/RTT system and if it is made for the LJ I will definitely purchase one.

As would I!