EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The best transportation solution for the car?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The best transportation solution for the car? - Page 2

post #31 of 55

 

 

 

 

 

Cargo box is primary.  For big trips...  then the ski rack is used and the box holds other stuff that takes up space.

 

my car is also lowered (and on winter tires)....

 

I have also seen ski racks that attach to the side door/windows...

 

and the weirdest is a trunk mount, so that it looks like you have a spoiler that belong in a Fast & Furious movie.  So that randomly on a BMW Z4 convertible


Edited by tanscrazydaisy - 2/15/13 at 8:16am
post #32 of 55
If you want a suction cup rack, SeaSucker already has that for bikes. Probably not a good idea with cold though.

J.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
post #33 of 55

Mileage is a bigger and bigger concern.  Even the current crop of rack mounted ski boxes don't seem very aerodynamic.  Watching them on cars next to you on the morning ski commute you see them jumping around, a lot of resistance and movement.

 

I'd like to see a line of roof top boxes that had "skirts" to make them aerodynamically part of the car.

 

Trick would be basic aerodynamic box that fits standard roof rack with the  "kit" to make it one with the car being customized for different vehicles.

post #34 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

Mileage is a bigger and bigger concern.  Even the current crop of rack mounted ski boxes don't seem very aerodynamic.  Watching them on cars next to you on the morning ski commute you see them jumping around, a lot of resistance and movement.

I'd like to see a line of roof top boxes that had "skirts" to make them aerodynamically part of the car.

Trick would be basic aerodynamic box that fits standard roof rack with the  "kit" to make it one with the car being customized for different vehicles.

The boxes are a lot more aerodynamic than the vehicles. Both of my vehicles are larger due to family size, and therefore perhaps less susceptible to cargo impacts as they are already heavy, but there has been zero effect on mpg and I have a 16 cubic foot Yakima.

The only impact I see or feel is in heavy crosswinds, but that is not a mpg issue.
post #35 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

The boxes are a lot more aerodynamic than the vehicles. Both of my vehicles are larger due to family size, and therefore perhaps less susceptible to cargo impacts as they are already heavy, but there has been zero effect on mpg and I have a 16 cubic foot Yakima.

The only impact I see or feel is in heavy crosswinds, but that is not a mpg issue.

 

Depends on the vehicle.  The current boxes might be aerodynamic by themselves but on a car on the roof racks, they appear to be more like highly wind resistant wings.  You can see them creating substantial turbulence driving next to them at 60 mph.  Jumping around, pulling on the vehicle.

 

High mileage cars spend a lot engineering dollars getting the air resistance down.  Someone noted 2-3 mpg hit, that's 10% for most vehicles and likely higher for more aerodynamic vehicles.

post #36 of 55
I use a cargo box and don't see much of a change. The car computer tracks it, so it might not be that accurate.
post #37 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

Depends on the vehicle.  The current boxes might be aerodynamic by themselves but on a car on the roof racks, they appear to be more like highly wind resistant wings.  You can see them creating substantial turbulence driving next to them at 60 mph.  Jumping around, pulling on the vehicle.

High mileage cars spend a lot engineering dollars getting the air resistance down.  Someone noted 2-3 mpg hit, that's 10% for most vehicles and likely higher for more aerodynamic vehicles.

They don't create turbulence, the plastic just isn't that rigid to keep weight down. It kind of bugged me (just visually through the moonroof) when I first got mine, but I haven't paid any attention in forever and I have had it in 60 mph winds. If anybody is losing 2-3 mpg, they likely have a small high mpg vehicle and the box is enough to require more throttle due to a low displacement engine.

And of course that would be a price paid for having a small and efficient car and needing more space. I paid that price forever ago with kids (there are no high mpg vehicles for six people, two large dogs, and gear) and a cargo box makes zero difference. It is generally best to test things rather than speculating.
post #38 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by vontress View Post

I use a cargo box and don't see much of a change. The car computer tracks it, so it might not be that accurate.

The trip computer works off of the OBD II system. It estimates economy based on throttle position, not actual fuel consumption. However, if a cargo box was creating enough drag to require more throttle, the computer would report lower mpg. If you don't see any difference in reported mpg, then you aren't needing more throttle to compensate for weight or loss of aerodynamics, and everything else is purely theoretical.
post #39 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

 If anybody is losing 2-3 mpg, they likely have a small high mpg vehicle and the box is enough to require more throttle due to a low displacement engine.

No doubt the more aerodynamic, fuel efficient cars would see more of a mpg hit from the increased air resistance of the ski carriers. 

 

The person in this thread who noted a 2-3 mpg loss pictured a Suburban.

post #40 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

No doubt the more aerodynamic, fuel efficient cars would see more of a mpg hit from the increased air resistance of the ski carriers. 

The person in this thread who noted a 2-3 mpg loss pictured a Suburban.

A 'burb is already a 3+ ton brick with a big V8...something is seriously wrong if an aerodynamic box weighing 45 lbs plus skis and poles is dropping fuel economy by 15-20%.

I understand people report what they experience, but I wouldn't avoid a box over economy concerns.
post #41 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post

I understand people report what they experience, but I wouldn't avoid a box over economy concerns.

 

I would and do. Gas prices are high and I'd rather spend money on skiing. Ski's go inside.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


A 'burb is already a 3+ ton brick with a big V8...something is seriously wrong if an aerodynamic box weighing 45 lbs plus skis and poles is dropping fuel economy by 15-20%.

 

You'd be surprised on wind resistance and effect on mileage. As fuel prices went up, the tractor trailer mfg.s went to great lengths adding aerodynamics to the ultimate highway "brick" the 80,000 semis.

 

Hybrids, electric vehicles are fastest growing car segment.  We are in an outdoor sport that is the most threatened by industrial emissions and resulting climate change.   For frequent skiers, nice to do everything we can to cut fuel costs.  A ski carrier that was truly aerodynamic and had as little effect as possible on the cars co-efficient of drag would be a great product.

post #42 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

You'd be surprised on wind resistance and effect on mileage.

Actually, I wouldn't. My truck is lifted 4" and I know that underbelly drag is a much greater issue than roof items (hence the semis and their undercarriage blades). I know that one can compensate for this with lower differential gearing and keep or even improve on factory economy when using typical automatic transmission ( at the expense of top end speed capability ).

I also use a well calibrated Scangauge II that plugs into the OBDII diagnostics port and I know that the cargo box has no effect on fuel economy in my application. I have carried a 100 lb 37" spare tire on my roof on a roof rack, and that had no effect either, and it also doesn't cause you to roll your vehicle like many people think because they start assuming COG is materially affected by percent of percent total weight up high. Adding 600 lbs of passengers and gear on the inside, however, has an impact because my engine is older technology and doesn't breathe well at high RPM.

If you are concerned about emissions impact, don't buy a new car. The impact of a roof box on my 18 year old truck will never be drop in the bucket of what it took to extract the minerals and manufacture your hybrid.
post #43 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I also use a well calibrated Scangauge II that plugs into the OBDII diagnostics port and I know that the cargo box has no effect on fuel economy in my application.

Interesting that wind resistance has big effect on 80,000 lb semis and 3,000 lb hybrids, both of whom spend large engineering and application dollars reducing wind resistance, but none on yours. Very unique vehicle there.   Smithsonian will be calling.

post #44 of 55
Yakima FatCat has a low profile oval shaped design. should be more aerodynamic than the Powderhound or Thule ski carrier
post #45 of 55
According to my trip info display, I I lose a few mpg's when I use the box, 2 or 3. That's in a Land Cruiser. Consumer Reports says: 

At highway speeds, 50 percent of your engine's power is used for overcoming aerodynamic drag. Don't add to it by carrying things on top of your car. Our Camry's fuel mileage dropped 5 mpg at 65 mph when we installed a car-top carrier. Even empty ski or bike racks reduce fuel economy.

 
 
It would be nice if it didn't happen, and I'm sure it depends on the type of carrier, too. Ours is just a basic Yakima somethingorother. 
post #46 of 55
Quote:

 

 

You might want to revisit the double box set up.  IIRC, the yak rack weight limit is 160-250 lbs depending on the rack.  Boxes go about 40 lbs each (80 lbls total) leaving about 170 lbs available.  Each pair of skis goes about 15 lbs so 8 pairs is 120 lbs leaving you less than 50 lbs for your other box's cargo if you have one that will handle 250 lbs.

 

I was doing this too until I wound up talking to Yak and was surprised when I found out I was way over the weight capacity of the base rack.

 

J.

post #47 of 55

When we need to, we use a Packasport cargo box. Hard fiberglass shell, low profile, carpet lined, good lock system. Pricey, but our first one is now 15 years old, has been driven across the country at least eight times, and looks almost new. That one has been on our son's truck all winter for the past six-seven years. We buy the model that's about 3 feet wide. Holds about a dozen pairs of skis. Years ago, when we had a daily weekend drive from our ski house to the mountain {5 miles, maybe?}, with kid drop-offs in different places, I built a rack that fit into the trailer hitch on our Suburban, and had 10 vertical PVC tubes which held skis upright. The thing was great. Quick and easy. Not too fancy though, and probably speed rated for about 35 mph! 

post #48 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muleski View Post

When we need to, we use a Packasport cargo box. Hard fiberglass shell, low profile, carpet lined, good lock system. Pricey, but our first one is now 15 years old, has been driven across the country at least eight times, and looks almost new. That one has been on our son's truck all winter for the past six-seven years. We buy the model that's about 3 feet wide. Holds about a dozen pairs of skis. Years ago, when we had a daily weekend drive from our ski house to the mountain {5 miles, maybe?}, with kid drop-offs in different places, I built a rack that fit into the trailer hitch on our Suburban, and had 10 vertical PVC tubes which held skis upright. The thing was great. Quick and easy. Not too fancy though, and probably speed rated for about 35 mph! 

Do you have a photo? 

post #49 of 55
The problem with trailer mount hitches is the road sand will get into the bindings.

Even using a binding gator it will still get in.

Sand is never good for binding release
Edited by near nyquist - 2/18/13 at 4:37pm
post #50 of 55

Sorry, no pics, or at least none that I can find. This was 15 years ago, but I took a trailer hitch mounted bike rack, and cut off the top, then took it to a welder, had him add a frame to hold two rows of five PVC tubes, with a bit of spring between each tube. Had the whole frame powder coated. I bolted the tubes to the frame. Can't remember the exact ID dimension of the PVC, but little kids skis fit in bindings and all, with room to spare. I glued and riveted on end caps for the PVC, with holes drilled to drain. I had some bungee cords for security. I would back the Suburban up to the tuning room, throw the skis in the rack, drive to the hill, drop off kids, pull out their skis, then pull our skis, etc, then do the reverse and put them all in the tuning room to dry, etc when we got home. Easy. Also made for clean ski clothes even when the car was filthy. No reaching, rubbing, etc. I'd pop the rack in the hitch on Saturday AM, and take it out Sunday PM. It stayed in out tuning room midweek....200 miles from home. 

 

I gave the thing to a friend with a bunch of kids when we moved on the hill, and didn't need it. He moved across the country, and I haven't seen it since! 

 

NN, I used this setup for a drive of at maximum 5 miles, from ski house to the hill, and in a location where there was very little road salt, and sand used. Also at slow speeds. So, not the usual ski rack use. I also had a soapstone sink in that tuning room, mounted low to wash off any debris if needed before drying skis. Probably had to do that often in the spring, but it was a quick deal. Road debris, sand and stuff like Magnesium Chloride is not good for skis......agree on that!! 

post #51 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eagles Pdx View Post

Interesting that wind resistance has big effect on 80,000 lb semis and 3,000 lb hybrids, both of whom spend large engineering and application dollars reducing wind resistance, but none on yours. Very unique vehicle there.   Smithsonian will be calling.

Hey, the Smithsonian finally called. They told me it takes 113,000,000 BTU to manufacture a Prius. I thought that was pretty cool since it equals a thousand gallons of gas at full BTU per gallon, and gas isn't burned very efficently in a combustion engine.

Since I had learned something new, I figured I owed something in return so I told them I got 16 mpg last week on a 230 mile round trip from 7,400 feet to 5,800 feet to 9,400 feet including an 11,300 ft pass. With a large 16 cu/ft cargo box on a windy day. On really soft 37" tires. Plus a 4" suspension lift. For a truck that was rated 14mpg highway from the factory.

They were kind of skeptical with having called to talk about the Prius and whatnot, but then I explained it and we were good. They don't want the truck, though, because they figured it still had the life of a couple Pri'i (that's plural) at 18 years young. One of the advantages, I suppose, of a design life of 30 years instead of 8 (that pesky point of needing a new battery...kind of like needing a new engine).

Plus, we kind of connected on having a vehicle that really enables field research...you know, the observable data kind...rather than one that inspires abstractification. So thanks for that.
Edited by NayBreak - 3/22/13 at 6:44pm
post #52 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnJ80 View Post

 

You might want to revisit the double box set up.  IIRC, the yak rack weight limit is 160-250 lbs depending on the rack.  Boxes go about 40 lbs each (80 lbls total) leaving about 170 lbs available.  Each pair of skis goes about 15 lbs so 8 pairs is 120 lbs leaving you less than 50 lbs for your other box's cargo if you have one that will handle 250 lbs.

 

 

Don't forget to leave ~20% weight margin for (highly variable) apparent wind loading.   

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


I also use a well calibrated Scangauge II that plugs into the OBDII diagnostics port and I know that the cargo box has no effect on fuel economy in my application. 

 

I find this quite easy to believe;  putting an 18' kayak on my rack improves my fuel economy over bare rack + deflector by almost a full mile per gallon at highway speeds.     


Edited by cantunamunch - 3/23/13 at 9:01am
post #53 of 55
I lose about 1-2mpg with my box on top of my BMW 530 wagon.

J.
post #54 of 55
Quote:
Originally Posted by NayBreak View Post


Hey, the Smithsonian finally called. They told me it takes 113,000,000 BTU to manufacture a Prius.

That was Fox News calling with one of its totally wrong pseduo stats that's get eaten up by the Fox News faithful because they wish it was true like 6,000 year old Earth or evolution being "just a theory".

 

Smithsonian knows the Prius carbon footprint from mfg to operation is 40% less similar conventional car.

 

Now back on topic, the cargo holders need to be made aerodynamically part of the vehicle, the skirts and wiind dams that the over the road tractor trailer mfgs  give an idea of the cowling that the roof top storate units need to reducee the gasoline used.

post #55 of 55
The Smithsonian watches Fox News??? Oh, maybe that is due to the new Koch Brothers wing.

I do better with the cargo box than a full size cargo roof rack with fairing, and weight is about the same using the same mounting system. I would agree, though, that vehicle specific designs could improve cargo box performance. Just the fact that many vehicle's aftermarket crossbars sit up so high is problematic and possibly the biggest issue with one size fits all designs.

But ROI is likely not good when you need vehicle specific tooling and cargo boxes are already silly expensive.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Gear Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › Ski Gear Discussion › The best transportation solution for the car?