Towing an Alto F1743 trailer with a Model X

[ecarfan]

Spent 5 nights at Joshua Tree, longest time I have spent with my trailer with no hookup; no power, water, or dump station is available at Indian Cove Campground. With the small holding tanks in my trailer (60L freshwater, 60L grey, 45L black), that’s really pushing the limit of what I can manage. I had three 19L jerrycans of freshwater with me, which I keep in the X on the floor behind the front row seats (since it’s just my wife and I this is the perfect place for them). As it is winter, the sun is very low in the sky and there was some overcast, so my solar produced only 500 to 700Wh/day but my 600Ah of battery storage was more than sufficient for that time period. Temps were 42F high, 34F low, so I had to burn propane to stay warm when we weren’t out hiking but my 24.5L/6.47gal propane tank proved to be adequate.

One challenge was the black tank filling up. I could have used the vault toilets at the campground, but I dislike the smell. The biggest challenge was the grey tank filling up. With both of us taking a daily shower that meant being extremely parsimonious with the water. When we camp at warmer times of the year we use the outside shower head and have a small pop-up tent for privacy if we are at a campground; that dramatically decreases the amount of water in the grey tank. But with Joshua Tree temps in the 30’s, outside showering was not on the agenda. On one day we showered at an RV campground about 8 miles away where some friends we hiked with were staying with their 21 ft fifth wheel, which they tow with a big diesel pickup truck.

Our next stop after Joshua Tree was Santa Barbara. Had remarkably low energy usage on the trip from the Rancho Cucamonga Supercharger to the Oxnard Supercharger: averaged 465Wh/mi at 55 to 58mph. Lowest energy usage I have ever achieved while towing over a long stretch of freeway. It was very windy in Riverside and LA counties, most of which was a crosswind (saw a big rig on its side on 10 in Fontana) but I suspect for part of the time I had a tailwind.

It is much warmer in Santa Barbara and our campground there has hookups. But as with many RV campgrounds, the quality of the electrical plugs at campsites can be marginal. The 50A/240V outlet at my site will not charge the car for more than a few minutes. I dialed it down in the car to 30A but after a few minutes of charging the campsite breaker flips. Perhaps a poor ground. So I charged the car overnight on the 30A/120V outlet, set to 25A just to be safe. That worked, albeit at a rate of 7 miles range/hour. It’s enough. Next time I decide to stay in Santa Barbara there will be Superchargers. Three sites have been permitted and one is under construction right now Supercharger - Goleta (Under construction Dec 2019, 12 stalls) .

Hiking in Joshua Tree at 4,300 ft, two days after the snowfall.

 

[ecarfan]

After sheltering-in-place for several months, my wife and I are now back on the road with our trailer. When you take your “house” with you, it’s easy to stay safe and social distance while traveling. We have a powered Dometic cooler that fits in the Model X trunk which doubles our refrigerator capacity (the Alto F1743 fridge is only 3.2cu ft) so for trips of up to a week we can take all our food and don’t need to go to the market. Just got back from four days in Lassen Volcanic National Park. Lassen; the Under-Appreciated National Park . The new Supercharger at Red Bluff makes getting to Lassen a lot easier than it used to be. Stayed at this campground Camping near Lassen Volcanic National Park It is located about 9 miles from the southwest entrance into the park.

 

[steilkurve]

Gorgeous spot and rig!

We were able to get out and start camping early June in our X/AS combination.

What a relief after months in confinement.

And yes, I agree. It's easy to practice distancing while camping. We leave with all our stuff for the duration of our getaway and so far this year, we have not even needed to charge along the way. Did so once at our campground.

 

[ecarfan]

Now on camping trip in the Mt Shasta area. It’s hot, but beautiful. On the way here had a serendipitous encounter with @ohmman at the Williams Supercharger when he was heading south after spending time at Shasta.

My trailer looks comically small situated between the huge rigs that predominate at this campground.

 

[youscott]

Loved reading about your trip. Thanks for posting!

 

[ecarfan]

We’ve returned to Lassen Volcanic National Park, this time staying at the Shingletown KOA. The new Red Bluff SC is certainly a convenience when accessing this area. Weather has been extremely hot, though yesterday the temperature dropped 15 degrees when a front came through bringing winds, rain, and thunderstorms. We were out hiking when a thunderstorm came up, which made for a nice change from the 90+ degrees of the previous few days.

 

[ohmman]

We’ve returned to Lassen Volcanic National Park, this time staying at the Shingletown KOA. The new Red Bluff SC is certainly a convenience when accessing this area. Weather has been extremely hot, though yesterday the temperature dropped 15 degrees when a front came through bringing winds, rain, and thunderstorms. We were out hiking when a thunderstorm came up, which made for a nice change from the 90+ degrees of the previous few days.

I'll bet those full hookups at Shingletown are coming in handy with this heat. Don't overdo it out there.

 

[ecarfan]

We’ve been running our heat pump in the afternoon to stay cool; it can maintain about a 20 degree differential, so very welcome. And it only draws about 1200W. No hiking today, got rained out (and the temperatures dropped 25 degrees!) but it is supposed to clear tomorrow. Went to Redding today and bought some new hiking shoes; Altra “Lone Peak” with zero heel rise. Looking forward to trying them out!

 

[hgpayne]

We’ve returned to Lassen Volcanic National Park, this time staying at the Shingletown KOA. The new Red Bluff SC is certainly a convenience when accessing this area. Weather has been extremely hot, though yesterday the temperature dropped 15 degrees when a front came through bringing winds, rain, and thunderstorms. We were out hiking when a thunderstorm came up, which made for a nice change from the 90+ degrees of the previous few days.

Hey we followed you there -- sort of. We also stayed at Shingletown KOA, but about 1-2 weeks later. We were there from 26 August to 28 August -- so really just the one full day to explore Lassen. We also had to swing down by Paynes Creek, because, well, you know!

This was the first time I'd seen a campground with a Tesla destination charger. We just used the 50 amp at our campsite but perhaps for those staying in the cabins.

We met another couple in a Model X staying in the cabins. They love this area and normally camp in their RV but it was lost in the Paradise fire. On the plus side, theirs was one of the few houses that survived in that town.

 

[ecarfan]

We met another couple in a Model X staying in the cabins.

While we were at the Shingletown KOA we saw a 3 and a Y staying at the cabins.

Sorry we missed you, would have liked to meet up and seen an A2114 in person! We also charged using the 50A at our campsite instead of the Tesla HPC available at the campground, though we have used that HPC during a previous visit in 2018.

 

[ecarfan]

Was asked some questions in a PM, which I responded to, but thought the answers were worth posting in this thread.

Towing range and energy usage: At a steady 55mph on a level dry road with no headwind the best I can do is about 485Wh/mi, though it can be up to 540 under those conditions. Increase to 60mph and it’s over 600. Add rain and wind and it’s over 700. So best case I can go 150 miles without recharging. My 2017 X100D currently shows about 272 miles at a 100% charge (was 285 when new). Obviously that range number is only achieved when not towing and going 60-65 mph.

If I was buying a new trailer now would I buy an Alto F1743 again: based on my 2+ years of experience towing my F1743 I would certainly buy it again because in my opinion there is still nothing else that favorably compares to it in the 16-20 ft length category in terms of build quality, low weight, features, and price.

If I had more room at my house to store a trailer I would buy an Alto F2114 for the king size bed, bigger table, and more roof area for solar panels. But the F1743 just barely fits in a space I made for it on the side of my 20 ft long driveway so I can’t accommodate a larger rig. I enjoy having the trailer readily accessible at my house instead of having to store it somewhere else, and obviously storage on my property is free.

 

[HyperionMark]

Was asked some questions in a PM, which I responded to, but thought the answers were worth posting in this thread.

Towing range and energy usage: At a steady 55mph on a level dry road with no headwind the best I can do is about 485Wh/mi, though it can be up to 540 under those conditions. Increase to 60mph and it’s over 600. Add rain and wind and it’s over 700. So best case I can go 150 miles without recharging. My 2017 X100D currently shows about 272 miles at a 100% charge (was 285 when new). Obviously that range number is only achieved when not towing and going 60-65 mph.

If I was buying a new trailer now would I buy an Alto F1743 again: based on my 2+ years of experience towing my F1743 I would certainly buy it again because in my opinion there is still nothing else that favorably compares to it in the 16-20 ft length category in terms of build quality, low weight, features, and price.

If I had more room at my house to store a trailer I would buy an Alto F2114 for the king size bed, bigger table, and more roof area for solar panels. But the F1743 just barely fits in a space I made for it on the side of my 20 ft long driveway so I can’t accommodate a larger rig. I enjoy having the trailer readily accessible at my house instead of having to store it somewhere else, and obviously storage on my property is free.

Great info!
A couple more questions that others may find useful as well:
Why did you go with the fixed instead of retractable?
And based on your experience, what would be an educated guess as to how much more efficient the retractable might be?
Thanks!

 

[ecarfan]

A couple more questions that others may find useful as well:
Why did you go with the fixed instead of retractable?
And based on your experience, what would be an educated guess as to how much more efficient the retractable might be?

Thanks for your question. I discussed those issues in my personal blog post at A “Safari Condo” is not an apartment in the Serengeti… I do not think the retractable roof Alto takes less energy to tow than the fixed roof Alto of the same length. Here is what I wrote:
———————————————————————————————————————————
(Regarding the Alto trailer) My wife and I had never seen a trailer so sleek and modern, inside and out. And there was a version with a retractable roof that raised up to reveal an astonishing amount of window area! I started researching to see if there was evidence that the “teardrop” shape of the Alto R series and it’s low 83.5” roof height when retracted (allowing it to fit into most garages, a real advantage) would result in a usable towing range when employing a Tesla as a tow vehicle.

Safari Condo claims “…the aerodynamic shape of the Alto, developed in a virtual wind tunnel, creates 75% less aerodynamic drag than a traditional travel trailer. This factor, along with its lightweight, makes the Alto readily towable by most compact cars and small SUVs.” And at about 1,800 lbs, the 17 ft Alto is definitely a lightweight compared to other trailers in its size range: the Airstream Sport 16 weighs nearly 2,900 lbs. Many Alto owners tow with 6-cylinder Subarus and other small vehicles.

My conclusion was that while the retractable roof Alto certainly has less drag than a “traditional” box-shaped trailer, and the low weight does make it towable by smaller vehicles with more modest engines than a Ford F-250, for example, the sharply sloping rear roofline is probably not an advantage. An engineer with aerodynamic experience informed me that air flowing across the trailer roof peak would tend to separate from the roof as it sloped sharply downwards and then would interact with the air coming off the sidewalls, creating turbulence and acting like “twin parachutes” that would increase the energy consumption of the tow vehicle compared to a more gradually sloping roof. A Canadian RV dealership with extensive experience towing a variety of trailers, including every version of the Alto, said that the R series trailers offered no noticeable energy savings compared to the fixed roof version, the 95” tall F1743.

Why I chose the fixed roof Alto

So I turned my attention to the F1743 model (shown above) which still features a generous amount of window area all around while offering more storage and most significantly, an enclosed bathroom. As I compared it to other trailers on the market in the 15 to 19 ft size range, I realized that the 17 ft Alto F1743 had numerous advantages. In a very compact size it provides a queen size sleeping area aft that can be left made up all the time if desired because there is also a very usable two-person dinette table forward which converts to a single bed as needed (with just the two of us, we’ve never had the need for that). The kitchen counter space includes a sink and two-burner stove, lots of storage below and more storage above along with an optional microwave. The 12V 4.3 cu ft refrigerator is positioned below a generously-sized clothes closet. The compact bathroom has a toilet, shower and a small cabinet. Additional storage is available below the sleeping area and dinette seats. Exterior hatches provide easy access to the same storage areas.

Just as importantly, it is clearly made with care and to a high standard, with a very contemporary style. Lightweight materials are used throughout; the trailer frame, exterior walls, and interior walls are all aluminum, as is the floor. There is no wood anywhere; composites are used extensively and the only steel employed is in the axle, suspension components, and tongue. LED lighting is used throughout. The double-wall acrylic windows, made in the Netherlands, include built in adjustable screens and shades. The fresh, grey, and black water waste tanks are located beneath the floor for a low center of gravity. A small exterior hatch next to the freshwater hose connection conceals a shower head and hot/cold water controls for outdoor showering.

The Alto F1743 base dry weight of 1742 lbs is astonishingly light, yet Alto owners with years of towing experience report that the trailer design holds up very well over tens of thousands of miles of travel. In comparison, the 16 ft Airstream Base Camp weighs almost 2,600 lbs, lacks a permanent dinette area, and costs 15% more. The more traditional looking 16 ft Airstream Sport weighs nearly 2,900 lbs and offers a twin size bed (48” wide) instead of the queen size (60” wide) that is standard in the Alto, yet costs about 60% more.

The new 16.6 ft Airstream Nest caught my eye with its modern style, rounded corners, queen-sized sleeping area, and sink in the bathroom (only available in the Alto by special order). But it lacks a permanent dinette table, costs 60% more than the Alto F1743, and despite featuring a fiberglass body shell weighs a shocking 3,400 lbs!
—————————————————————————————————-

 

[HyperionMark]

Thanks for your question. I discussed those issues in my personal blog post at A “Safari Condo” is not an apartment in the Serengeti… I do not think the retractable roof Alto takes less energy to tow than the fixed roof Alto of the same length. Here is what I wrote:
———————————————————————————————————————————
(Regarding the Alto trailer) My wife and I had never seen a trailer so sleek and modern, inside and out. And there was a version with a retractable roof that raised up to reveal an astonishing amount of window area! I started researching to see if there was evidence that the “teardrop” shape of the Alto R series and it’s low 83.5” roof height when retracted (allowing it to fit into most garages, a real advantage) would result in a usable towing range when employing a Tesla as a tow vehicle.

Safari Condo claims “…the aerodynamic shape of the Alto, developed in a virtual wind tunnel, creates 75% less aerodynamic drag than a traditional travel trailer. This factor, along with its lightweight, makes the Alto readily towable by most compact cars and small SUVs.” And at about 1,800 lbs, the 17 ft Alto is definitely a lightweight compared to other trailers in its size range: the Airstream Sport 16 weighs nearly 2,900 lbs. Many Alto owners tow with 6-cylinder Subarus and other small vehicles.

My conclusion was that while the retractable roof Alto certainly has less drag than a “traditional” box-shaped trailer, and the low weight does make it towable by smaller vehicles with more modest engines than a Ford F-250, for example, the sharply sloping rear roofline is probably not an advantage. An engineer with aerodynamic experience informed me that air flowing across the trailer roof peak would tend to separate from the roof as it sloped sharply downwards and then would interact with the air coming off the sidewalls, creating turbulence and acting like “twin parachutes” that would increase the energy consumption of the tow vehicle compared to a more gradually sloping roof. A Canadian RV dealership with extensive experience towing a variety of trailers, including every version of the Alto, said that the R series trailers offered no noticeable energy savings compared to the fixed roof version, the 95” tall F1743.

Why I chose the fixed roof Alto

So I turned my attention to the F1743 model (shown above) which still features a generous amount of window area all around while offering more storage and most significantly, an enclosed bathroom. As I compared it to other trailers on the market in the 15 to 19 ft size range, I realized that the 17 ft Alto F1743 had numerous advantages. In a very compact size it provides a queen size sleeping area aft that can be left made up all the time if desired because there is also a very usable two-person dinette table forward which converts to a single bed as needed (with just the two of us, we’ve never had the need for that). The kitchen counter space includes a sink and two-burner stove, lots of storage below and more storage above along with an optional microwave. The 12V 4.3 cu ft refrigerator is positioned below a generously-sized clothes closet. The compact bathroom has a toilet, shower and a small cabinet. Additional storage is available below the sleeping area and dinette seats. Exterior hatches provide easy access to the same storage areas.

Just as importantly, it is clearly made with care and to a high standard, with a very contemporary style. Lightweight materials are used throughout; the trailer frame, exterior walls, and interior walls are all aluminum, as is the floor. There is no wood anywhere; composites are used extensively and the only steel employed is in the axle, suspension components, and tongue. LED lighting is used throughout. The double-wall acrylic windows, made in the Netherlands, include built in adjustable screens and shades. The fresh, grey, and black water waste tanks are located beneath the floor for a low center of gravity. A small exterior hatch next to the freshwater hose connection conceals a shower head and hot/cold water controls for outdoor showering.

The Alto F1743 base dry weight of 1742 lbs is astonishingly light, yet Alto owners with years of towing experience report that the trailer design holds up very well over tens of thousands of miles of travel. In comparison, the 16 ft Airstream Base Camp weighs almost 2,600 lbs, lacks a permanent dinette area, and costs 15% more. The more traditional looking 16 ft Airstream Sport weighs nearly 2,900 lbs and offers a twin size bed (48” wide) instead of the queen size (60” wide) that is standard in the Alto, yet costs about 60% more.

The new 16.6 ft Airstream Nest caught my eye with its modern style, rounded corners, queen-sized sleeping area, and sink in the bathroom (only available in the Alto by special order). But it lacks a permanent dinette table, costs 60% more than the Alto F1743, and despite featuring a fiberglass body shell weighs a shocking 3,400 lbs!
—————————————————————————————————-

Thanks for your response! I can definitely appreciate the extra room aspect of your purchase. However I'm not sure I understand the comments made on the teardrop vs standard shape. This goes against everything I understand about aerodynamics. Also begs the question why they would make it in that shape if it isn't more efficient. It's definitely not for looks, and obviously not for utility either. What about the tails they put on semi trucks? According to your source those would also create a parachute and drag the unit instead of giving each truck a 7% fuel efficiency increase they see in the real world. Definitely not attacking your response, just really trying to work through these science questions.

 

[bruce4000]

Shows there really needs to be a “epa” rating for trailers to give some idea of aero efficiency when comparing trailers. Is complicated by interaction with tow vehicle but maybe could have a rating for towing with cuv and for pickup. FWIW, the most aero shape is an egg strangely enough.

 

[ecarfan]

I'm not sure I understand the comments made on the teardrop vs standard shape. This goes against everything I understand about aerodynamics. Also begs the question why they would make it in that shape if it isn't more efficient. It's definitely not for looks, and obviously not for utility either. What about the tails they put on semi trucks? According to your source those would also create a parachute and drag the unit instead of giving each truck a 7% fuel efficiency increase they see in the real world. Definitely not attacking your response, just really trying to work through these science questions.

Fair questions. In the thread in this forum about towing and efficiency, member @Zoomit explained the issue with “teardrop” style trailers. In reality they are nothing like an actual “teardrop” or drop of water since they have many 90 degree angles and are not symmetrical around the long axis and they generally taper rapidly over a short distance. Note that the “tails” placed at the end of a semi have a gentle taper and are placed on all 4 sides, so symmetrical. In a trailer shaped like an Alto R1723, one surface, the roof, tapers very sharply while the other three surfaces do not taper at all, and that is far from optimal. Air flowing off the trailer side walls collides with air flowing along the roof, air which has become turbulent in the area behind the roof peak because the sharp downslope causes that air flow to separate from the rear roof surface. Aerodynamically it is a big mess!

I find the name “teardrop trailer” not helpful. It evokes connotations that are grossly inaccurate.

More data in post #200 at Model X Travel Trailer Consumption Analysis that shows the R1723 uses more energy to tow than the F1743, and the F1743 energy usage data in that table is actually higher than I typically get at 55mph. In a later post in that thread the member states all the data is at 55mph.

 

[HyperionMark]

Fair questions. In the thread in this forum about towing and efficiency, member @Zoomit explained the issue with “teardrop” style trailers. In reality they are nothing like an actual “teardrop” or drop of water since they have many 90 degree angles and are not symmetrical around the long axis and they generally taper rapidly over a short distance. Note that the “tails” placed at the end of a semi have a gentle taper and are placed on all 4 sides, so symmetrical. In a trailer shaped like an Alto R1723, one surface, the roof, tapers very sharply while the other three surfaces do not taper at all, and that is far from optimal. Air flowing off the trailer side walls collides with air flowing along the roof, air which has become turbulent in the area behind the roof peak because the sharp downslope causes that air flow to separate from the rear roof surface. Aerodynamically it is a big mess!

I find the name “teardrop trailer” not helpful. It evokes connotations that are grossly inaccurate.

More data in post #200 at Model X Travel Trailer Consumption Analysis that shows the R1723 uses more energy to tow than the F1743, and the F1743 energy usage data in that table is actually higher than I typically get at 55mph. In a later post in that thread the member states all the data is at 55mph.

On that table...how was the heaviest Alto with the most frontal surface area the most efficient?

 

[jointed]

Thanks, I will definitely do that. BTW, about an hour after I left the dealer, I saw an Alto in the wild. Same model as yours, parked by the side of the road, with Quebec plates. That is a *nice* trailer! It was hitched to a Toyota of some sort, with some very nice towing mirrors clamped to the stock mirrors. I left them a note, and they emailed me the info on the mirrors. I have ordered a set for my M3, which is just barely wider than the teardrop.

Misterbee, what type of towing mirrors did you end up with? Any pics?

 

[HyperionMark]

@ecarfan the Alto site says 95 inches on your F1743. Would you be so kind as to verify that for me? Just measured my garage and it is also 95 inches. If the F1743 was 94 or so I would definitely consider it.

 

[ecarfan]

On that table...how was the heaviest Alto with the most frontal surface area the most efficient?

The heaviest Alto is the A2124. Note the shape; pointed at the front, tapered at the rear. However, that table is compiled by someone who pulled energy usage data from various sources, it is not the last word on the subject. It shows the A2124 as using 499Wh/mi during a driving test. At times I’ve achieved even better numbers with my F1743, but not often.