Overland

I looked at the Camp Chef Mountaineer - looks like a copy of the Partner for not much less, plus I don't get the hose coming out the front. Looks like everything in that section of their site is either a copy or relabeling of someone else's product. Not that that's necessarily bad in itself, but still. Don, if you get the Partner, you might take a look at these carry bags from Blue Ridge. They look like a nice addition. - https://www.blueridgeoverlandgear.com/2-Burner-Partner-Steel-Stove-Bag-18-p/21ps2.htm And it's not on their website, but they'll add adjustable feet to the bottom if you want.

I agree that the weight is the big disadvantage of the camp chef. I didn't know that they made an aluminum version though, so I'll have to take a look at that. We need ours to be compact enough and light enough to take on tent camping excursions away from the Oliver, so the camp chef really wouldn't work for us. We will have a single burner portable induction cooktop with us in the Ollie and who knows, that may end up being our primary cooktop. It's hard to say until we actually get out there and start using it. The coleman fuel stoves are great, esp. the older ones. I just don't like fiddling with the gas and want something that works with 12" pans.

I don't have one yet, but it's what we picked after a bit of research. Funny because I was just thinking about this today. We're also looking a the wider 2-burner - the regular one I think would be a tight fit for bigger skillets. They do seem to be the go to stove for among guides and seasoned campers - the crowd over at expedition portal certainly think they're the best. I like that they sell repair kits. The only drawback I've heard is that they can be a little tough to simmer on since they have such a high output. That, and the price, of course.

Is it not a veneered plywood? It doesn't look like the back of that door has been sealed either. I'd think it would have a coat of poly like the drawers.

I agree, it's a great conversation to have. Here's the platform that we have on our list to buy - I don't know if it's the same one Reed and Karen have or not, but it seems sturdy and is height adjustable...https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00G258I0G/ref=wl_it_dp_o_pC_nS_ttl?_encoding=UTF8&colid=15JNG1X28RXCS&coliid=I3LZTQLU2NEMTU&psc=1 They make longer ones also. Some of the trim carpenters and drywall crews on the job sites I visit use them, so they should hold up to abuse. lol, just saw Reed&Karen's post - I guess we did pick out the same step.

Ah, well I was thinking that you might be having your stone stomper shipped to Oliver but if you're not, then saving on shipping cost wouldn't work out. Keep us posted though - I'd like to see what you come up with for the final design.

Buzzy, I've done a good bit of ADA design and like the others, my first question would be whether wheelchair accessibility is necessary. If it is, I have to say that you're going up a very steep hill trying to make it work in an Ollie. The first question would be if there's even 30" of clear space at the front door. It sounds like there's not, and if you can't jump that hurdle then unfortunately that's it. Second question would be if the wheelchair can make the 90° turn to the galley. My guess is no - typically you'd need each leg of the path to be 36" wide and if I'm not mistaken, the Oliver galley is under 30". Though it may be possible if the footwell of the dinette is located just right. Third is bath access - the curb is too high to ramp over, and I doubt that the walls of the bath are strong enough to support the grab bars necessary for someone to move from a wheelchair into the bath or to the toilet on their own. Fourth would be getting back out of the Ollie - there's no room to turn the wheelchair, so your guest would be forced to back down the ramp which can be a nerve-wracking maneuver. Then there's trying to access the various things within the Ollie. The only storage that would be accessible to your guest would be the front closet, and even that would be a bit tricky trying to get a wheelchair oriented to give your friend access. And pretty much all of the switches and control panels are mounted too high. And on top of all of that, you have to ask how you yourself would maneuver inside the Ollie while your guest is there. Climbing around your friend or asking him to back into a corner every time you need to move around or exit the trailer will get old for both of you in short order. On the ramp, ADA is a 1:12 slope, meaning that if your front door is 2' off the ground, your ramp will need to be 24' long. You can go steeper, but that is the slope that your friend would be accustomed to and so a steeper ramp might be strenuous. Too steep and there's a risk of the wheelchair tipping backwards. So, if a wheelchair is in the mix, my advice would be to concentrate on the annex - make it a special place for your friend and create a living space there. You already do your cooking outdoors, so that's good. And you can make a very comfortable bedroom with a cot and a small table and I would think that a propane heater like the Mr. Buddies would keep the space toasty. Make it a real glamper setup with an air mattress on the cot, real sheets, etc. Perhaps you could even create a small bath area around the exterior hose with a table and basin and a privacy tent/curtains. Of course, if you don't have to account for a wheelchair, then I think the game changes entirely - if that's the case, your main concern will be getting in and out of the trailer. For that, I would think that one of the aluminum platform steps, like what Reed and Karen have, would give your friend a nice stable platform for getting in and out. Inside the Ollie, the tight confines might actually work to your friend's benefit, as there will always be a surface within reach for support, or a nearby wall to lean against or grab hold of. And like Randy said, the suction cup grab handles are great and you can place as many as you need in just the right locations. It's an interesting challenge. I'm sure that your friend will appreciate any effort you make, however small.

John - any update on this? I'm interested, if you're having something made. I've also contacted the Stone Stomper guys - they gave me the same info packet as you, plus they did the drawing below of how they'd want it to attach to the Ollie. If you're getting one, let me know and maybe we can share shipping cost. We aren't getting our trailer until probably October now, so maybe it won't work out, but if it might, then let me know.

In general, yes I agree. What I don't know is whether the charge controller that Jason is thinking of using is MPPT (I'd prefer MPPT). And I don't know if the MPPT would properly adjust the voltage if it sees both the rooftop and the portable panels as one large array. That is, if the rooftop and portable panels are getting very different amounts of sun, then the ideal MPP for each set of panels would be very different, no? Ideally, I think you'd have a separate charge controller for each set, but close to the battery as you say, as opposed to mounted on the back of the panel.

I have that on my list to discuss with Jason. We're also getting a port on the side for portable panels and from Jason's email, it sounds like the port can either run through the solar charge controller or bypass it and go direct to the batteries. The Zamp, and probably most portable panels, come with a charge controller built in so probably direct to battery is the way to go. I'll need to find out what charge controller he's thinking of using and do some research on the setup. I believe the cost for the port was $140. He gave me an option for a more expensive Furrion port, but I haven't discussed with him what the advantage of that might be. Also, if you don't want to install a side port, I believe that the Zamp rooftop port has 3 ports on it, and so if you have the standard 2 panels, there should be a port free. Getting to it would be a pain though.

Just wanted to bump this to let you guys know that Oliver has given us the thumbs up on the 640 watt panel arrangement above. I can't speak for them as to whether this will become a standard option, but maybe if things go smoothly on ours, they'll be able to offer a range of packages up to 640 watts. Personally, I think being able to offer that sort of choice would be a big competitive advantage for them over Airstream. I haven't had a chance to speak with Jason about it yet, but apparently it will require a different charge controller from their standard and a few other bits and pieces swapped out from Zamp to Furrion.

Thanks for the heads up on the drawers. I was wondering how well they stayed in place during travel and I guess now I know. A lot of purpose-built offroad trailers use pushbutton marine latches on their drawers, like these. I asked Jason if they could fit them on our trailer but they couldn't figure out how to make them work. I haven't put much thought into it myself, but surely there must be a way, though perhaps it would require adding an intermediate rail between each drawer to give a mounting point for the strike plates.

Yeah, the Super Duty is really something. What's holding me back is the size. I'm just not used to a truck of any sort, and knowing that I'll have to drive it every day around town gives me pause.

Sherry, that sounds like our kind of trip. One day we're going to have to find time for a long sabbatical and see about shipping our Ollie to Australia for a few months. Pete, I'll have to look into that. The raptor has an 8000lb tow limit on its own, but some people are complaining that the new version sags too much with any weight in the back. There are several options available for increasing the payload, from airbags of course, to pneumatic bump stops, different springs, etc. Right now it looks like my best choice is the springs, since I'll have an extra 300-500lbs or so in the back full time. But plenty of time now to figure that out, lol. BTW, I don't know if the post above lit a fire or not, but I got pricing back from Oliver yesterday. Looks like we're a go. I'm traveling now but I'll post next week on what the final options are going to be. Not everything on my wish list, but Oliver is definitely accommodating quite a few of our eccentricities. I'm going to ask them to shoot for an early October delivery and that should give us a few more months to iron out all the details. And hopefully the new new truck should be ready by then.

Good to hear that it isn't a pervasive problem. When I drove the regular F150, I initially interpreted it as just a byproduct of me coming from driving a BMW and not being used to the way trucks in general handle; and so in the end, that could have been the case. Though I will say that the 250 feels perfectly fine to me - harsher of course, but balanced and predictable. There's just something, I don't know - "weird" - to me about the way the F150 feels, and the Raptor especially. Anyway, it's not something that's going to steer me away from a Ford of some sort, and at the end of the day it might not even be an issue for me - since I had already planned to replace the rear springs with a larger set of progressive springs from Icon, and that in itself may eliminate the problem without having to remount the shocks. Thanks for the responses.

Thanks for the input. With Oliver, I probably gave the impression that we're completely fed up, but that's not yet the case. I'm keeping in mind that I asked them for a number of novel upgrades, so patience is definitely in order, it's just that my patience is slowly fading with each passing week. The truck is more interesting. There's a part of me that says just get the regular F150 and another part that's saying go all in and get one of the new 250's instead. There's arguments for each, but for now the Raptor is still in front. One thing I've noticed, and Buzzy you might want to add your impressions on this, is that I think the rear suspension on the F150 has a flaw. I noticed something was weird when I test drove the standard F150, but I couldn't put my finger on it. The rear just felt skittish to me. On the Raptor, though, the problem is magnified enough by the softer springs and stiffer tires that it's obvious. Ford changed the shock arrangement on the new version so that they're staggered, one faces front and the other to the rear. This is making the rear axle twist a bit on bumps - it's plainly obvious on the Raptor as it's a definite kick to the right on every bump. I've driven two now, and both were the same. I don't know why Ford did this, but it needs to be fixed. I found a company that has a fix, for $800 in parts, but if I do go with the Raptor I think it's a must.

Thought I'd update this since I haven't been around much. Our trailer still isn't in production, and in fact we still don't have a price back from Oliver. I got tired of pushing it some time ago so the ball's in their court. They know that since they missed our spring deadline that our next trip wouldn't be until October or so, but it seems like they took that as license to stop working on our project entirely. I'm just curious if Oliver has forgotten that we're customers. The tow vehicle story isn't much better. I found out the end of February that the truck I ordered was finally in production, but that the dealership had screwed up their orders and mine got built the wrong color. I told them I'd take a look and see when it came in, which was today, but the truck really isn't my style. And since the trailer is so delayed, it made no sense to take it. In fact, in 6 weeks, I can order a 2018 model, so we'll wait for that. All in all, probably a four to five month delay. Still hoping to have both before the fall, but if Oliver doesn't get serious shortly, I suspect we'll cut our loses and move on. We're patient, though, so we'll see.

On most vehicles the voltage drop is too great over that distance to get much charge. You can try running a heavier gauge set of cables with a separate connector to see if that works. But back when I was looking into it, there was also the problem that the alternator will sense the vehicle battery charge and cut the alternator output even if you run heavier cables. That's the point I stopped off my research but I do think there were ways around it all. The Victron system that I was looking at had a separate thingamajammer that dealt with charging from the vehicle. I also remember that Super Duty owners had an advantage here, in that those trucks are factory ready for a second alternator and a separate voltage sense cable back to the trailer.

Trying to imagine what a black shade would look like in the Ollie. Hmmm...

It's probably also worth noting that it would be a very odd situation where you'd have both sets of wheels off the ground while camping. So for all practical purposes (discounting the problem of the wheels sliding on soft soil), there will always be one set of wheels acting as a 'pin' to hold the trailer in place, and any major side to side forces from wind or whatnot will end up being translated into a rotational movement around those wheels. As a result, most of the force on the opposing jack will end up being front to back, and the force on the tongue being side to side. (Think of a clock with the pinned wheel being the center, the tongue being the minute hand at 12 o'clock, and the opposing jack being the hour hand at 3 o'clock; then imagine the forces generated at the tip of each hand as it moves.) With that in mind, I think it's less likely that you'd bend the frame around one of the rear jacks rather than the mount itself, since the force will primarily be along the axis of the frame, where it is the strongest. I also think that if a jack mount bends or fails, that it would be the tongue jack, if only because it's the one farthest from the pinned wheel and so would see the most movement.

For the sake of accuracy, since prospective owners will be reading this thread, so far only the Lukens have experienced this sort of frame flexing. There is of course a disagreement among owners about the wisdom of raising the wheels off the ground using only the jacks, for the reasons that Steve & Tali mentioned. But I've searched the forum and asked for other people to post if they've experienced the frame flexing problem to see if indeed this is 'normal' for an Oliver, but so far, it's only the Lukens who have posted about it. It's a pretty major problem that we're talking about, so if it were common, you'd expect more than one owner mentioning it over the years. There would have to be considerable evidence to convince me that there is anything 'normal' about not being able to close the door. I would consider that to be nothing short of either a structural failure due to damage or construction error, or inadequate design. And my fear if that were happening would be that constant deflection over the design limit would eventually lead to a catastrophic failure of one or more of the aluminum welds at the front of the frame near the door. It could be that one of these welds has already failed, hence the increased deflection. For that reason, I am firmly steadfast in my recommendation to the Lukens that they speak with Oliver about this. Of course every beam deflects, but every beam is designed to be within a specific deflection limit for a given weight. When you jack up the trailer, the loads on the frame will change and it will deflect a bit differently, so you'll likely hear it creak a bit as the shell shifts on the frame and that is certainly 'normal'. And since beams flex proportionally to the weight applied, if you overload the trailer or place a heavy point load near the door, it's certainly possible that the frame would then flex beyond it's designed limit, only because you've exceed the loads that the frame was designed for. How much weight? No idea, but for a uniform load, it certainly should be more than the 7000lb limit of the trailer. For point loads, you'd have to experiment. To address the danger of actually bending the jacks or frame at full extension with the wheels off the ground, another solution might be to install some adjustable diagonal braces like I see on many RV's. Though Steve and Tali's solution of just blocking up so that the jacks aren't fully extended is probably the easiest solution and a best practice anyway. Another little correction from above - if the trailer is lifted entirely onto the jacks, the frame will supported by three points, and as a result won't have any twisting forces applied to it. If you tilt it out of whack, of course, you'll introduce bending moments at all of the jack connections since gravity will be pulling at an angle to the columns and the weight of the trailer will be working against you - but you wouldn't do that unless the site is too sloped to get the trailer leveled, and I think in that situation, caution would dictate that you don't want wheels off the ground (or that you find a better spot to camp). But apart from that, when we're talking about the twisting forces on the jacks, we're talking about wind loads and the incidental side to side motions from people moving about inside, which I'd have to hope are well within the design limits of the mounts.

Reed, I think you should see if anyone else has this problem before you accept it as normal. This is the first I've heard of it and searching around I can't find any other posts complaining about the same problem. There's no reason that a trailer frame and body should be designed to flex.

So far so good - no issues for me. Speed is good and everything seems to update immediately. Thanks for the time you spent!

I can't imagine that this is normal. Can any other owners comment if this has happened to them? It doesn't seem to me that the rear jacks are that far from the centerline of the suspension to make that much of a difference. Not only should the frame not be that flexible, but to bend the fiberglass tub that much? I don't care how much time we've invested in getting an Oliver - if that's normal, we're cutting our losses pdq.

Randy, is that an actual TemperPedic? I didn't know you could get one custom made. We've been looking at memory foam mattresses and the difference in quality among brands is surprising. I'd love to get a true TemperPedic cut to size.