Total Composites Slide In Camper Kits

[Victorian]

Cool beans.

A thought for ya.... from experience I know that the large gap between cab and camper is a MPG killer.
Might be worthwhile to offer a couple different length "skirts" or deflectors to take up the gap a bit as needed based upon application.

agreed, will come up with an idea . Thanks!

 

[gsea]

Any updates on availability of dimensions and drawings?


Overall fantastic work on these campers. I'd offer some feedback that there are two things keeping this from being 'perfect' and causing me to get out my credit card, both having to do with the cabover:

1) The 48" cabover could end up being a deal breaker us for without a really good bed extension system (which looks like is pictured in the renderings). Unless there are concerns with structural stress, going to at least a 60" cabover seems like a no brainer. I can't image it would increase the weight by more than 20-30lbs, which is probably what the bed extensions most people will put in there will end up weighing anyway (and then you don't have to design around them). And if it is to preserve roof space, a very large percentage of folks are running crew cabs which have plenty of roof space for a front rack even with the additional 12" of cabover. If I could have it my way, I'd do 75" to enable a NS arrangement as opposed to EW (which would make this perfect).

2) The space between roof and cabover seems like it could be reduced a few inches. As commented, this really hurts MPG as well as looks a bit funny (if I'm honest) by lowering the cabover and keeping the ceiling height where it is, you could retain the low overall profile while bumping the cabover height by a few inches (which would help the EW arrangement work better when climbing over each other). Perhaps this will end up fitting just right for the taller cabbed trucks like the Fords, but worth consideration otherwise.


You're building a great product, so please don't take any of this as criticism, just hoping you might be willing to consider this feedback to make it perfect and see if others agree.

 

[lylethecrocodile]

Great update! Were you able to test the fit of the 6.5’ full size on a Tundra by chance? Looks like these will fit with the tailgate down or removed, but not closed?

I do agree with gsea that a 60” cab over would give more flexibility with the interior layout if you don’t have to account for a slide out, but I’m guessing going longer than 48” would then require some sort of bracing. 60 would definitely be nice but 48 isn’t a dealbreaker for me.

 

[VanIsle_Greg]

Looks great, and fits great in my 2014 4th Gen Ram 1500. Stock suspension, and it dropped 1" or less when loaded... impressive! I have Timbren bum stops, and they were still 1" away from the axle pads... impressively light for the size of this camper. The want is very high for one of these kits! Was fun seeing it loaded up, totally wanted to take it home with me...heh.

 

[Victorian]

Any updates on availability of dimensions and drawings?


Overall fantastic work on these campers. I'd offer some feedback that there are two things keeping this from being 'perfect' and causing me to get out my credit card, both having to do with the cabover:

1) The 48" cabover could end up being a deal breaker us for without a really good bed extension system (which looks like is pictured in the renderings). Unless there are concerns with structural stress, going to at least a 60" cabover seems like a no brainer. I can't image it would increase the weight by more than 20-30lbs, which is probably what the bed extensions most people will put in there will end up weighing anyway (and then you don't have to design around them). And if it is to preserve roof space, a very large percentage of folks are running crew cabs which have plenty of roof space for a front rack even with the additional 12" of cabover. If I could have it my way, I'd do 75" to enable a NS arrangement as opposed to EW (which would make this perfect).

2) The space between roof and cabover seems like it could be reduced a few inches. As commented, this really hurts MPG as well as looks a bit funny (if I'm honest) by lowering the cabover and keeping the ceiling height where it is, you could retain the low overall profile while bumping the cabover height by a few inches (which would help the EW arrangement work better when climbing over each other). Perhaps this will end up fitting just right for the taller cabbed trucks like the Fords, but worth consideration otherwise.


You're building a great product, so please don't take any of this as criticism, just hoping you might be willing to consider this feedback to make it perfect and see if others agree.

No worries! We can handle input, good or bad. That is why I’m posting all of this. We listen to our customers.
In regards of the deeper cab over : in theory it’s not a problem to extent it. But to be honest, this would make the empty camper tip nose over when it’s empty. I can see people fitting a heavy mattress and gear up there, unbuckle it from the truck and having it tip over. The last thing we want, is to ad weight at the rear to compensate for that ? . I guess that’s what you are getting building lightweight ?.

as for the space between the alcove and truck cab: we may reduce the distance and have people ad rubber mats if the camper needs to be raised. Best example are two Tacoma’s we had on the lot. One had the factory roof rails, the other didn’t. same goes with other trucks too... it’s a hard call but will decide on this tomorrow in our board meeting. After that we will generate the final drawings.

thank you for the input!

 

[Victorian]

Great update! Were you able to test the fit of the 6.5’ full size on a Tundra by chance? Looks like these will fit with the tailgate down or removed, but not closed?

I do agree with gsea that a 60” cab over would give more flexibility with the interior layout if you don’t have to account for a slide out, but I’m guessing going longer than 48” would then require some sort of bracing. 60 would definitely be nice but 48 isn’t a dealbreaker for me.

still looking for a local tundra , gladiator and f- series trucks.

 

[Victorian]

Looks great, and fits great in my 2014 4th Gen Ram 1500. Stock suspension, and it dropped 1" or less when loaded... impressive! I have Timbren bum stops, and they were still 1" away from the axle pads... impressively light for the size of this camper. The want is very high for one of these kits! Was fun seeing it loaded up, totally wanted to take it home with me...heh.

thanks for helping us with your truck! The one we originally took measurements off 6 months ago. Every truck owner was surprised how light the camper was. The suspension was barely compressed.
cheers

 

[gsea]

No worries! We can handle input, good or bad. That is why I’m posting all of this. We listen to our customers.
In regards of the deeper cab over : in theory it’s not a problem to extent it. But to be honest, this would make the empty camper tip nose over when it’s empty. I can see people fitting a heavy mattress and gear up there, unbuckle it from the truck and having it tip over. The last thing we want, is to ad weight at the rear to compensate for that ? . I guess that’s what you are getting building lightweight ?.

as for the space between the alcove and truck cab: we may reduce the distance and have people ad rubber mats if the camper needs to be raised. Best example are two Tacoma’s we had on the lot. One had the factory roof rails, the other didn’t. same goes with other trucks too... it’s a hard call but will decide on this tomorrow in our board meeting. After that we will generate the final drawings.

thank you for the input!

Here’s hoping the board decides to go with the lower cabover, which probably makes sense for the best “out of the box” fit the most vehicles.

With the cabover depth, I suppose that depends on how the interior is finished out. The center of gravity could vary quite a bit depending on the build out. My plans would likely end up with enough weight on the back to avoid the tipping issue, but that may not be the case for everyone. Perhaps at least on the 8’ model it would balance out better empty and you could consider a deeper alcove if the math works out.

BTW, have you determined where the CoG is these, empty? 30” or so?

 

[Victorian]

Here’s hoping the board decides to go with the lower cabover, which probably makes sense for the best “out of the box” fit the most vehicles.

With the cabover depth, I suppose that depends on how the interior is finished out. The center of gravity could vary quite a bit depending on the build out. My plans would likely end up with enough weight on the back to avoid the tipping issue, but that may not be the case for everyone. Perhaps at least on the 8’ model it would balance out better empty and you could consider a deeper alcove if the math works out.

BTW, have you determined where the CoG is these, empty? 30” or so?

COG for the empty shell is indeed around the 30" mark. This of course changes as soon as you start outfitting it.

Cheers

 

[VanIsle_Greg]

thanks for helping us with your truck! The one we originally took measurements off 6 months ago. Every truck owner was surprised how light the camper was. The suspension was barely compressed.
cheers

Happy to help sir... and man, my truck needs a lift! heh

 

[Semiquixotic]

No worries! We can handle input, good or bad. That is why I’m posting all of this. We listen to our customers.
In regards of the deeper cab over : in theory it’s not a problem to extent it. But to be honest, this would make the empty camper tip nose over when it’s empty. I can see people fitting a heavy mattress and gear up there, unbuckle it from the truck and having it tip over. The last thing we want, is to ad weight at the rear to compensate for that ? . I guess that’s what you are getting building lightweight ?.

as for the space between the alcove and truck cab: we may reduce the distance and have people ad rubber mats if the camper needs to be raised. Best example are two Tacoma’s we had on the lot. One had the factory roof rails, the other didn’t. same goes with other trucks too... it’s a hard call but will decide on this tomorrow in our board meeting. After that we will generate the final drawings.

thank you for the input!

I wonder if the 8ft version would counter balance the N/S bed extended cabover additional weight?

 

[Victorian]

I wonder if the 8ft version would counter balance the N/S bed extended cabover additional weight?

Most likely. As these are sold as "empty" shells we need to tread it like a finished product and consider liability and user "errors" when they move off the lot. Can't imagine anyone getting hurt or property being damaged because of our good intentions.

In any case, we are taking notes and who knows version 2.0 may have some changes in this regard.

 

[Triumphdog]

I am looking for the expedition version. What is the longest length that can be ordered? Considering possibly 16-18'.

 

[skyfree]

In regards to the cabover gap, please consider that a Chevy Colorado 2nd gen will have an even larger gap than a Tacoma. It's a 2" smaller distance between the bedrails and the top of the cab. It would be great to have the smallest possible gap to fit a Tacoma, which would make it not crazy huge on almost every other truck.

 

[Victorian]

In regards to the cabover gap, please consider that a Chevy Colorado 2nd gen will have an even larger gap than a Tacoma. It's a 2" smaller distance between the bedrails and the top of the cab. It would be great to have the smallest possible gap to fit a Tacoma, which would make it not crazy huge on almost every other truck.

Have been trying to get my hand on a Colorado... not easy around here. I even put it on our ranger... Looks very odd...