Overland

We're going to go take a look at the Basecamp as soon as our local dealer gets one in, but I'll definitely look at it with a critical eye. If nothing else, it's made me reconsider getting the smaller Ollie. That really is the right size for us, but it's just so hard to justify, given the small price difference. You just feel like you're not getting your money's worth. Not to say that the trailer isn't worth it on it's own, just in comparison how much more you get with the Elite II for so little more. From a production standpoint, I'm sure that the prices make sense, but from a buyer standpoint, it seems like the pricing should be farther apart. Like 40/60 rather than 55/60.

The basecamp has a plugin on the side for a portable solar panel, and I'm coming around to that idea. It would be nice to have the option of extra solar if we decide we need it, and having flexibility where to put it makes a lot of sense. The plug in at the side would be really convenient. If Oliver is really thinking about going with Zamp for all their electrical, they could add the exact same port to the side of the Ollie.

I don't know what it is with the bug eye headlights and taillights on Toyotas these days. They're just asking to get busted up and frankly, who thinks that's a good look anyway?

John - don't be too hard on the house. It didn't ask to be built. It's a work of art and can be appreciated on it's own. Though, personally, while I think the craftsmanship and detail are incredible, the house as a whole doesn't do much for me. It feels poorly proportioned and has an odd rhythm to it. I've always thought the first story was too short - it looks to me like the whole house sank about five feet. Story time - If you are into the social significance of buildings like this, there's a richer background than just rich people being rich. My great grandfather was an artist and interior designer back when these houses and many of the public buildings that these people funded were built. His parents were immigrants from Germany and he had studied classical architecture there, as did my grandfather after him. They both worked, in succession, as chief designer for a company called Hayden, out of Rochester, which was responsible for many of these homes. They designed and constructed all of the interiors - basically everything you see once you're in the front door, from the wood moulding to the floors to much of the furniture. I don't think that the Biltmore is on the list, but I believe that the Vanderbilt mansion in NYC is. He did the Library of Congress, the NY Public Library, Art Institute of Chicago, etc. in addition to all these houses for people with names like Dodge, Eastman, Rockefeller, Scripps, Woolworth, etc. Lots of stuff. Anyway, my story is this - over time, the industrial revolution had quite a toll on old world crafts, as you can imagine. Faster, better, cheaper meant that the old craft traditions in Europe were all but dead by the turn of the century and many of the people in those trades, who had learned their craft from generation to generation, found themselves with little or no work. So they came to the US, and hundreds of them ended up at Hayden and hundreds more went to similar companies doing similar things throughout the US. Wood carvers, stone masons, metal smiths, furniture builders, etc. And they built all this stuff that was the product of American industrialism - the houses, libraries, museums, theaters, etc. All the landmarks of the classical era in US architecture were built by these immigrants in the same tradition as it had been done in Europe for centuries, with the next generation working alongside the current, learning as they went. Then the depression came and it all ended. The money dried up and tastes changed. Building these great monuments, both public and private, was no longer in vogue. Eventually even public appreciation for architecture in general waned. The would-be next generation of craftsmen went on to other professions - my grandfather went to work as a salesman. So I've always found it ironic, a bit poetic, that these people's final work, and the ultimate expression of their centuries old craft, was building houses and public structures that were funded by the men who had put them out of work. That's something, isn't it? Anyway, that's the context in which I wish people would see these homes - not just awe or indignance, but but a bittersweet appreciation for what the world both lost and gained in their construction. This is sounding more like an essay than a forum post, so I'll stop here. If you guys can go to the Expo, then please do, with or without a visit to the mansion. I went to last year's expo out west and it's really worth the trip. In fact, if you really want to get the most out of one of these expos, sign up for one of next year's and do the full package with all of the classes. You'll be amazed at what there is to learn from people who have spent their lives travelling.

GreyGhost - funny, my eye went right to that dent as well. Strange that they wouldn't photoshop that out. Here's the list I made about what I don't like about the Basecamp: The awning situation is awful - the one they sell with it is tiny and you have to get on a step stool and thread it through a channel to put it up. That's a real pain, it seems, and the curved roof and sides mean that going aftermarket may be impossible. I could be wrong, but it seems like rainwater would all be sent right to the rear hatch. Maybe there's a diverter of some sort over the door. Ground clearance is marginal at best and there seems to be a lot of stuff hanging down to get bashed. Suspension sucks Plywood framing and aluminum sheeting possibly won't hold up well - depends on the frame and how well they've engineered everything, but it's a potential risk. On the video, you can see a caulked seam along the perimeter of the roof, which is an obvious failure point. Black water tank - seems so out of place on this trailer. No idea why they didn't do at least a cassette and they should have really done a composting toilet. Everything else is really price/value. I'd like more solar, batteries, bigger water tank, etc. but for what they're advertising it for they seem ok. ridgwayk - I think that in years past, the small Ollie could be had for a bit over $40k even loaded up. The problem with the small Ollie to me isn't so much the price itself, but how close the price is to the big Ollie. I know there are reasons for that which I'm O.K. with, but when you're making the decision of which Ollie to buy, it's really hard not to go with the big one, which for me is really more trailer than I need. And it comes with the baggage of extra weight, poorer maneuverability, poorer gas mileage, etc. Still, it's only $5 or $10k or so more, so of course I'm going with that one! lol I priced out an Elite with solar last year and it came out to $56k - add a few grand more for this year's model. Add to that - Oliver doesn't deal. You pay MSRP whereas Airstreams are usually 20% or more off their list price. So maybe $25k more for the little Ollie - not chicken feed. In so many ways, the Oliver is better - more rugged, better suspension and clearance, bigger tanks, bigger battery and solar, more options, etc., but you pay for it and it's 1,000lbs heavier. I say 'dark side' fully tongue in cheek. I think Airstreams are the classic to which every other travel trailer should be compared. In my mind, Oliver is their equal - better in some ways, worse in others, but on the whole they're peers and the choice between the two comes down to individual priorities and preferences.

Anyone else having guilty thoughts about the new Airstream Basecamp? So light, so maneuverable, so nicely detailed, only $40k completely loaded... Someone needs to talk me back from the ledge. https://www.airstream.com/travel-trailers/basecamp/

Speaking for myself, I didn't consider any of those dangers to be worth worrying too much about. We did see some black bear tracks in the snow on one of our hikes up around Chisos, but that's it. I think mountain lion sightings are few and far between, like years between. The locals didn't bother us either. They seem to come and go as they please down by the river and I saw no effort to prevent them from doing so. Just people dropping off trinkets for sale. You'll pass by a border patrol station on the way in and will probably have to stop on the way out while the pups do their sniffing. It's a big place, and the roads cover the tiniest fraction, so my guess is that any illegal activity would take place far from campers. I think on their website, they list a few backcountry campsites that are prone to theft or vandalism mainly due to their location on the edge of the park. But those wouldn't be the prime campsites anyway. Speaking of the park's size, getting from place to place can take time. It's worse if you've chosen a campsite that's far down one of the gravel roads. There are a few roads that are short wheelbase 4wd only, and a few, like the one that takes you to the cool rock in the photo above, that are smooth and regularly maintained. But most are somewhere in between, maintained decently enough but not regularly graded - think Subaru level So on those roads you'll travel at a snail's pace to and from. We stayed at the first campsite down Pine Canyon, and I think that hit the tradeoff between remoteness and proximity to the main road pretty well. One more thing - Chisos is pretty well protected, but everywhere else in the park the wind can be relentless.

We visited there last December - it sounds like you guys enjoyed yourself as much as we did. You're right about the crowds. They have some peak weekends on the cooler holidays when the campgrounds will be full, but even then it's easy to get away. It's definitely a winter trip since summer temps are very high. Most of the backcountry campsites would be easily accessible with an Ollie so if you want to be out on your own then that's a good option. Some people will plan out a little trip around the park, staying at different backcountry sites each night.

By the way, here's a link to 80/20's website if you aren't familiar with it - https://8020.net They run an eBay store where you can get small quantities at a discount, overruns and the like - http://stores.ebay.com/8020-Inc-Garage-Sale Here's a roof rack that I built a few years ago to hold Hardigg cases - it's way overbuilt but I wanted the depth to lock the cases in place -

I doubt if either the pantry or bath wall would be strong enough for a hammock. The simplest solution would be to build a frame out of 80/20. I'm thinking something like a crate - two 4-piece platforms and a leg/riser at each corner connecting them. Probably all out of 1" x 2" pieces - it's strong stuff. 12 pieces total. You could use plywood or, if you want to be fancy, honeycomb panels for the mattress platforms. You might want one 1x1 mid brace for each platform. If you really got into it, then you could do multiple cross braces and then set the platforms into the frames so that you end up with a 1" lip all around to hold a mattress pad in place. You'd have to measure carefully to account for the angled outside wall, radiused corners, etc. Set the frame across the dinette seats, fasten in a few good points to keep it from moving during transport, and you're done - though I'd probably want to bolt it through the seat bottoms to make sure that it doesn't tip when climbing into the top bunk. You might build a ladder out of 1" x 1" extrusion and attach it to the face of the frame. Their standard corner connectors would probably provide plenty of rigidity, but if you want to be super safe, then they have diagonal corner braces too that would guarantee that it doesn't rack. The whole thing would make for a nice storage platform even if you don't need bunks. The only drawbacks would be cost, since there would be a lot of connectors, and maybe weight - those extrusions are pretty stout. But I've built stuff out of it before and it's super easy to work with and incredibly sturdy. You can cut it with a miter saw and it all goes together like an erector set. Slam dunk. Go for it. edit - like so:

The USFS MVU maps are indispensable since they show where you can and cannot camp. Buzzy, you can get them at the ranger stations, or order them ahead of time here - http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/ohv/ohv_maps.shtml They also have a nice online version now that should be a great help when planning - http://www.fs.fed.us/ivm/ It's always advisable to check in with a Ranger when you arrive to get the current road conditions. Also good to know the locations of the BLM offices so you can check in on road conditions, camping restrictions, etc. Not a bad idea to just let them know you're out there anyway. Like Ray said, GPS can sometimes lead you astray, but then so can any old map. A combination of a dedicated GPS like a Garmin, that you can use offline, as well as an online solution like Apple or Google maps, seems to work well. There are also apps that are designed specifically for overland travel, like Delorme Earthmate, Motion X, Gaia or the new HEMA Explorer. These can be preferable to a dedicated GPS since the maps can be displayed on an iPad at a much larger scale. HEMA North America is a bit rough around the edges still, but they promise to make it as robust as their Australian version and if they do, should be pretty nice.

I hate the term 'boondocking'. I don't know why, I guess it sounds a bit hick or something, plus it really has no meaning to me. It's strictly an RV term, and I think to most RVers, it just means not having hookups. With that in mind, I can see that you'd run into expectation problems when organizing a 'boondocking' trip. I don't really know if I understand the distinctions you're making in the other 3 categories, but I'll see if I can give it a shot - Base Camping - this is probably what my wife and I plan to do 80% of the time. Setting up the Ollie on BLM or National Forrest land near a National Park and then making day trips to where we want to go, either in the park or 4x4 trails, etc. Having nearby access to facilities if we need to go get more propane, water, food, etc. Staying 3 or 4 days and then moving on to our next 'base camp'. Off Grid - I guess you mean long-term self-sufficient living in your trailer. Access to fuel, water and food may be further away. Boondocking Adventure - Overlanding. Going from point A to B to C being mostly, if not entirely self sufficient and often being pretty far away from supplies or assistance. Camping in a different spot each night and really needing to have some basic recovery, mechanical and survival skills in case of emergency. Maybe good radio skills and a ham license and an InReach or Spot. Hopefully, my wife and I will be doing some of this and ideally we'd be doing it full time if we didn't have jobs. We have a couple of trips in mind that we'd like to do - El Camino del Diablo, Baja, Mojave, Dalton, TAT, etc. To those classifications, I guess I'd add Glamping to the list, which in my mind is catered camping. It's like going on a cruise or a packaged tour. I guess that's what some of your group expected. I don't see anything at all wrong with Glamping, but obviously it has to be clear what to expect. Me, I'd expect that if I'm not paying someone a ton of money, there will be no Glamping involved. Common sense, you know.

See, the problem with being me is that I'm now looking at photos and seeing that the door is 1/100th of a shade different to the fiberglass and it bothers me. I need help. Definitely asking Oliver about a black A/C though, if we keep it. Oh, and a black awning! I hope all the blacks match.

Could that eventually be a problem with the other accessories on the roof? I think they all have options for black covers so I wonder what it would look like if everything up top were black. I can't stand the look of yellowed plastic, especially in direct contrast to pure white, which is why I don't like the stock window shades.

If you're getting an Elite II, then most likely you'll be over 5,000 lbs which is the usual limit that will be listed on your receiver. So I'm sure that Ford, Oliver and your insurance company would tell you to use a WD hitch. That said, that's surely a very conservative number. Personally, I'd like to keep my trailer below 5,000 lbs regardless, but that's going to be difficult. I don't doubt that the trailer will handle better with a WD hitch under normal circumstances. My concern with these things has always been that they will mask the signs of an imbalance until it's too late to correct; i.e., they reduce the gap between the trailer feeling a bit iffy and being on its roof. Most people whose trailers go wonky always say that it felt perfectly fine up til then. So to me it's sort of like setting up your car so that it corners a bit better but instead of lightly under steering it now has snap oversteer. A reasonable person would never do that. I just feel that if you have a trailer that *requires* a WD hitch, then that trailer probably shouldn't be on the road.

Spoil sport. Actually, I'm curious if you ever encountered any swaying and if so under what conditions/speed/etc. Like you, I'm not crazy about these hitches and I'm curious what the limits are without one.

Anyone else seeing this... I really hate it when that happens. I've run across this on a couple of threads now - not sure what's causing it. Same on the iPad as on my mac.

Airstreams need the armor because otherwise, rocks would dent the aluminum. For FG, it's about chips and scratches in the gelcoat. I think a lower body wrap, or some paint protection film on the lower front would be sufficient. We'll probably do one of those, plus an aussie-style net between the trailer and vehicle. Personally, I think Oliver should start offering wraps from the factory. It can't be that difficult to do, and would be something really nice to offer. I noticed just yesterday that Kimberley in Australia has started offering wraps. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before everyone joins the bandwagon.

For enough money, I'm sure Oliver could make a trailer that's light enough to pull behind your McLaren. It's not just the material, but the trailer-sized autoclave needed to set the resin, the hours needed to cure and the energy needed to do so. Then you have to train the staff, reengineer the tubs, make new forms, etc. Maybe one day. BTW, the Ollie is chopped fiberglass with reinforcing mats - it isn't entirely laid up with cloth.

The number of young Ollies on the market this year does seem high for Olivers, but I don't know how that stacks up to the trailer market overall. I've kept an eye on the used market, and by my count there have been seven 2015's come up for sale. At least three of those have been for health reasons, which is unfortunate but happens. Who knows about the other four. I suspect that some people buy a trailer or RV and after their first outing realize that the life isn't of them, and then they question that big investment sitting in the driveway. Some people might not realize the ongoing cost of insurance, storage, etc. Some decide that they really needed a bigger trailer. Lots of potential reasons I guess, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone voice any real discontent about their trailer or the company.

Welcome to the forum, Ray. You'll find quite a few of us here who became interested in the Ollies primarily because they seem like they can take some offroad abuse. The double fiberglass shell means that all the cabinetry and such is moulded into the structure and so there's very little inside that can be rattled apart on a rough road. It also makes the interior incredibly easy to keep clean. If you have a chance to tour the factory, you'll see how solidly the shells are constructed compared to other fiberglass trailers. Oliver doesn't advertise that the tubs themselves are structural but it's clear that they provide a ton of torsional support to the frame. From appearance, it feels like you could just bolt an axle to the fiberglass and head out - they seem that solid. The frame itself is very beefy, the welds are nice and clean and all the connections are gusseted. One of the things you will notice on the Ollies is that the suspension is a fairly simple setup that can be easily removed/repaired/modified/replaced. There are three or four of us who are looking at suspension options to help soak up the bumps and maybe give a bit more clearance. Almost anything seems possible, from simply flipping the axles under the springs to gain a bit more travel and clearance to swapping springs or mounts, to building your own suspension and bolting it on. That's not to say that the stock suspension is insufficient (in fact the trailer has a good deal of clearance), but it's naturally designed primarily for highway travel. If you want to see some photos of the frame and suspension, you might take a look at this thread I started over on Expedition Portal... http://www.expeditionportal.com/forum/threads/151791-Oliver-Factory-Tour-Photos

Not fixed for me. As of 10:10, your post doesn't show up under recent topics. And for some reason, it shows the most recent topic as having been posted in 17 minutes ago, but the last post in that topic is actually from August 16. Certainly faster than the last few days, but seems about the same as it was before that.

Thanks - good to know that I'm not the only one!

This is probably three problems in one. First, though I always choose "keep me signed in" when I log in, that only seems to work for a while until the site decides that I'm not logged in anymore. Secondly, when I do log in and then navigate back to where I was going to post, that page will still show me as not logged in. But then I'll navigate somewhere else and it shows me logged in again. This happens both on my mac and on my iPad. I suspect that it's a cache problem since the pattern seems to be that it's only pages that I've recently visited that show me not logged in after having done so. Probably on the server side, since disabling caches in safari doesn't help. The only solution I've found is to wait a while, sometimes an hour, for the forum to sort of catch up and show me logged in everywhere. Probably related to that is a third problem I've had with caches, which is that the 'recent topics' seems to only update sporadically and even when up to date with the latest posts will still show incorrect times for those posts. In fact, the main forum page will also show incorrect times for "last posted". Again, disabling caches locally doesn't seem to help. Hope that makes sense. I'm curious if anyone else has this problem.

Robert, your compressor fridge will consume much less electricity than the 3-way would when set to DC. We had a similar discussion in another thread not too long ago and I was really surprised how poorly the 3-ways do on DC power. On the other hand, they are apparently extremely efficient when running off propane. I've read complaints elsewhere that the 3-ways don't cool as reliably in hot weather, but people here seem to be satisfied with them. Your problem was likely the shade. Even a small amount of shade on a panel can knock it down to just a trickle. Some people carry a set of portable panels for this reason, so that they can have flexibility in finding some sun. Here's a good video that shows the effect of even a small amount of shade on the panels -