Open Roads Forum

Print  |  Close

Topic: Lance 1172 vs Chalet TS160

Posted By: tmphoto on 12/02/12 11:35am

I have been toying with upgrading to a larger truck Camper. Will eventually go to a medium duty truck and cargo bed so I am not as concerned with the weight.

Any long term Chalet owners who can give feedback on the quality of the Chalet units?

Thanks!

Todd


Dodge 3500 DRW Crew Cab LB 4X4, 2013 Voltage 3905, Stable Loads, Air Lift Bags, Big Wig Sway Bar, LED Lights, Yamaha SX240 Boat, KTM 500 EXC, Polaris RZR 800, Mini Big Green Egg Maiden Voyage



Posted By: RoyB on 12/02/12 12:07pm

Lance 1172 Floorplan




Chalet TS116 Floorplan

sample photos from google images
These both seem to be pretty much the same layout. I think I would like the side door entrance models...

Roy Ken


Posted By: SkipJ on 12/02/12 09:14pm

Medium duty truck?
SkipJ


1992 Airstream B-190 van
1989 Airstream 25' Excella Trailer
Outfitter Apex 9.5 Truck Camper Ford F-350 Diesel 4x4



Posted By: tmphoto on 12/02/12 09:57pm

Dodge 5500. Chevy Kodiak 4x4 etc...


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/02/12 05:10pm

Thanks Roy! Yes, we haul a trailer almost 100% of the time and the side door entry is a big deal for us on the next camper. It seems the Chalet has a lot more storage but is taller and heavier. There is also a bit more room and counter space in the kitchen with the 3rd slide. Black and Gray tanks are a bit larger on the Chalet at 38gal each vs 35gal on the Lance but that is not a big difference. There are nice touches on the Lance like the new front cap and full LED lights on the interior.


Posted By: 12V Cummins on 12/02/12 05:13pm

lance=floor is above the wheel wells
chalet=floor is above the bed rails which give more floor space and a huge full basement.

Chalet also has their battery box all the way forward under the cabover which can hold a lot of batteries which gives chalet a further forward center of gravity.


Posted By: Artum Snowbird on 12/03/12 01:49am

We just couldn't get used to the bed in the Chalet. Like having windows on both sides, both for circulation and for security.

The Chalet bed seems to need just a bit more "climb over" to get in an out for the inside passenger. So there are a few things to think about too.


Mike and Carole
2007 Snowbird 9'6" Super Slide
2005 16.6 Double Eagle
2000 F350 7.3 SC 4X4
previously 8'10" Snowbird Camper
2006 Triple E Regency 27 foot SXL SOLD!


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/03/12 09:21am

tmphoto wrote:

I have been toying with upgrading to a larger truck Camper. Will eventually go to a medium duty truck and cargo bed so I am not as concerned with the weight.

Any long term Chalet owners who can give feedback on the quality of the Chalet units?

Thanks!

Todd


Already?! you got your setup just before I did There is a reason my wife does not let me go to the RV shows, I'd be upgrading every year......


2011 Dodge Ram 3500 4*4 Black dually Laramie 4.10 gears
2011 Arctic Fox 1150 Drybath
2009 Polaris RZR w/fun parts
2011 Polaris Sportsman 550 XP EPS w/stuff
2006 Polaris Sportsman 500 w/stuff
1977 K5 Blazer 1 ton modified
2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid (her car)


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/03/12 11:16am

I understand, we tow most of the time too. If I was to do it all again and the $$$$ was available. I'd start with a Ram 5500 chassis cab, get a Douglass Truck body on it with lots of storage and a Lance 1172, or Chalet, or other side door TC would be a pretty strong pull for us to do it. I did promise my wife who thinks I swap things to quickly I'd keep the truck and camper combo for at least five summers, two down, three more to go


Posted By: kerry4951 on 12/03/12 10:19am

12V Cummins wrote:

You can get a window on the Chalet on both sides you just lose part of the wardrobe. There is also the large Hiki sky light over the bed which opens everything up.

We ordered the full wall wardrobe in our AF 1140. You do loose a window, but you also gain a alot more storage. Im very claustrophobic but sleeping on that side doesnt bother me. Its sometimes nice since it really makes the cabover area very quiet at night. Very nice if there happens to be a noisy truck idling outside.


2009 Silverado 3500 dually D/A, Supersprings, Stable Loads, Bilsteins, Hellwig Sway Bar.
2010 Arctic Fox 1140 DB, 220 watts solar, custom 4 in 1 "U" shaped dinette/couch, baseboard and Cat 3 heat, 2nd dinette TV, cabover headboard storage, 65 TC mods


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/03/12 11:06am

Todd

Already?! you got your setup just before I did There is a reason my wife does not let me go to the RV shows, I'd be upgrading every year......

Ha Ha, I guess you are right about the RV shows. Actually, we considered a Chalet when we bought the AF but being our first TC we did not want to go all in until we had some miles under us to determine if we were really cut out for the TC lifestyle. We have really enjoyed the AF and not had a single problem with our unit. The issue is that working out of the TC is a bit cramped and we would really like some more space. Also, we have learned that we now almost always tow a trailer and really would prefer the safety and convenience of a side entry unit. We actually have seriously considered going to a 43' 5th wheel toy hauler with a 14' garage for the toys but just can't come to terms with the limited options for parking at stops along the way and limited CG sites for such a large rig. So, we have backed up and are looking in the direction of a TC with more space. The Lance 1172 release really got the whole thing started and then I took another look at the Chalet. Now, not sure of anything other than we need a bit more living space ;-)


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/03/12 11:34am

You read my mind! Maybe Douglas can give us a volume discount on multiple truck bodies! LOL


Posted By: WoodGlue on 12/03/12 02:49am

I don't think that I could get used to the Chalets "confining" bedroom space. I do like that Lance has the windows there in the bedroom area.

WoodGlue


Posted By: 12V Cummins on 12/03/12 07:03am

You can get a window on the Chalet on both sides you just lose part of the wardrobe. There is also the large Hiki sky light over the bed which opens everything up.


Posted By: Glacier D on 12/03/12 04:46pm

Another one I would look at is the Eagle Cap 1165, a bit heavy but so are the Lance and Chalet. They are all good campers, but the EC has a full front fiberglass cap and a 3 year warranty on the rig.


2011 Dodge Ram 3500 4X4 Crew Cab/LB, Rancho RS9000XL, Stable Loads, Superhitch and FastGuns. 2009 Eagle Cap 1050, Hickory interior with on-board generator, A/C and Honda EU2000


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/04/12 10:47am

All 3 of our new Lance TC's came with a COG bullseye clear tape sticker on each side but you must remember that the front/rear COG location is only for the totally dry as built and shipped unloaded TC. The actual COG location can move way more than a foot either way when "wet" and where things are loaded/stored onboard. This affects side to side weights also. COG location as built is only a reference to start with and the consumer can improve or make the MFG COG location drastically different. Smart TC'ers load heavy items low and as far forward as possible or may carry them on the floor in the rear areas of the truck cab. That's what that twisted noodle in your skull is for!


A superb CC LB 4X4, GM HD Diesel, airbags, Rancho's, lots more
Lance Legend TC 11' 4", loaded including 3400 PP generator and my deluxe 2' X 7' rear porch
29 ft Carriage Carri-lite 5'er - a specially built gem
A like new '07 Sunline Solaris 26' TT


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/03/12 11:12pm

For crying out loud! Don't tell me it's wrong as I have scale weighed our truck both with and without the camper on and with the camper on, the front axle weighs 186# more. Wouldn't happen if the COG was behind the rear axle. Got it? OR is the scale wrong too!


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/04/12 12:05am

I know what you are saying and the dry weight COG of any RV, be it a TC, TT, or 5th wheel means so little as that's NOT how the unit is used at all. It's really RV's layout, the liquid tank locations, storage locations, how loaded, etc and what you take with you that determines the actual on the road traveling COG of the TC, TT, or 5th wheel and the stability due to how high the load is over the road's surface. Any TC. no matter the manufacturer, that has it's main floor above the truck's rails has a much higher balance point to begin with. NO thank you!

The newer pickups, last 5 years or so, are much higher from the ground to the box bed floor and have very high box sides 21.5" to 22.5" on top of that higher off the ground truck bed instead of the 19" box sides they used to be. This requires most existing TC's to have a 1" to 3" riser under them just to clear the cab and box sides of these pickups without having the TC floor over the bed rails. Only makes the over the bed rails floor that much worse and almost require a step ladder just to get into some of the TC's! Weight high does very weird things to a vehicle's handling and even worse when in a panic situation. Compromised safety is not a wise game to play. A high TC such as has been mentioned in this thread belongs on a 5500 min size truck (1-1/2 ton) which almost makes an elevator wanted just to get in or out of the TC. Makes a Class "C" make more sense!

Hey, we've only owned a min of one TC at any time from 8' to 11'-11" on SRW or DRW trucks constantly since 1965 as it's perfect for many of our trips where most of the time is spent on the road like our trips to Alaska etc. Only took one of our 5th wheels on a 12,680 mile trip once and never again. Nor, will we ever drive a very large Allegro basement MH on a 10,420 mile trip again. Both of those RV's types work best when going to a destination and staying there for a long time. At 71, we still think and do young and have no desire to act old! That's for old people at least 90 years old or more.

* This post was edited 12/04/12 12:20am by travelnutz *


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/03/12 09:23pm

12V Cummins,

Quote:

"Lance doesn't show this important point and I can guarantee that it is way behind your rear axle."

The Lance 1172 specs and all Lance Truck Camper COG etc specs on their web site clearly state the COG (center of gravity) of the 1172 model is 60". This is ahead of the contact point of the truck's rear tail light and in black and white in their brochures. This 60" distance is well ahead of the rear axle (towards the front of the truck) on the long box truck the 1172 goes on. Lance COG has always been given as this measurement point for over 40 years now as a TC can go NO farther forward than contact with the tail lights allow it to go whether in contact or with spacers used at the front of the drop down portion of a camper. Some manufacturers give the COG from the front of the truck bed contact point whether or not the TC can even get to it or not. Was a major issue with some truck models over the years as the COG number was bogus. It's stated in every Lance brochure I have seen since before purchasing our first new Lance in 1988 and it's real COG distance that counts.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/03/12 10:40pm

Read the printed brochure!


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/03/12 10:50pm

It's also in black and white in my instruction manual thet came with our new Lance TC. Has an arrow from the truck's tailight camper surface to the arrow at the camper's COG. Are you arguing with the manufacturer? Might they know or have a hint as to what they had made?

Any changes made would have to be for TC's built this year!

On the side of a Lance is a circle with crosshairs in it that tells where the COG is. Ours is also well ahead of the truck's rear axle on our 11' 4" Lance and matches where the manual says it is in measuring.

Do you realize where the big slide, bathroom, liquid tanks, fridge nearly all appliances, and the long cabover/wardrobe/mattress etc are in the 1172 model? Nothing much but the rear steps area and the couch in the rear and the couch slides in towards the front of the truck for traveling.

* This post was edited 12/03/12 11:05pm by travelnutz *


Posted By: d&dmovingon on 12/03/12 03:56pm

We have had our Chalet Ts116 for about a year now. Let me tell that we have had them all. This is our 12th RV over 40 years. The construction on this camper seems to be a notch above a lot of RV's that are made today. We thought that we could not do the camper thing again, but the above the rails construction idea has changed our minds. More than enough room inside and storage outside. They are heavy. I have made some mods to it that has made it much more convenient for us. We have not had any problems outside of the few things that all manufacturers do. Quality control !!!! But I am handy enough to fix all glitches that are common with them all. I don't know much about Lance other than what I have heard. They seem to be a quality unit also.


Posted By: wnjj on 12/03/12 10:32pm

travelnutz wrote:

Lance COG has always been given as this measurement point for over 40 years now as a TC can go NO farther forward than contact with the tail lights allow it to go whether in contact or with spacers used at the front of the drop down portion of a camper. Some manufacturers give the COG from the front of the truck bed contact point whether or not the TC can even get to it or not. Was a major issue with some truck models over the years as the COG number was bogus.


Huh? Measuring from an easily described point on the camper (the front of the tub) makes perfect sense to me. The COG of the camper is a constant regardless of where you load it. If a truck won't allow loading all the way forward where it should be it's simple to subtract the gap. Plus, the camper can go no further forward than when the front hits the front of the box too.

What sense does measuring from "contact with the tail lights?" Who in their right mind would load their camper touching the taillights. It seems to me that is the more bogus way to measure it since you can't actually reach it. How would you use this method on a smaller camper without skirts? There is no contact with the tail lights but there is a front.

Besides, don't all manufacturers (including Lance now) measure the "right" way?

I just checked and Lance's 850 COG is 34". That is from the front.

60" from the front of the box makes sense for an 1172. The Eagle Cap 1165 is 61".


Posted By: wnjj on 12/03/12 10:54pm

travelnutz wrote:

It's also in black and white in my instruction manual thet came with our new Lance TC. Has an arrow from the truck's tailight camper surface to the arrow at the camper's COG. Are you arguing with the manufacturer? Might they know or have a hint as to what they had made?


I'm talking about new Lance campers, like the brochure you said was on their website with 60". If you have a manual for a new model claiming that's measured from the rear of the bed, then YES, IT'S WRONG. Considering they just changed measurement methods within the past couple of years and the literature may not be updated.

I thought you were an engineer so can you explain why an 8.5' camper would have a smaller COG dimension than an 11.5' one unless it's measured from the front? Do you always believe everything you read?


Posted By: wnjj on 12/03/12 10:43pm

travelnutz wrote:

Read the printed brochure!


Yes, it says 60". When you use common sense and look across the line, you'll see that the shorter models have a smaller number. How is that possible unless the numbers are measured from the front?


Posted By: wnjj on 12/03/12 10:45pm

This was already discussed before. Lance confirmed they changed the measurement method:

http://www.rv.net/Forum/index.cfm/fuseac........d/26389792/gotomsg/26396142.cfm#26396142


Posted By: wnjj on 12/03/12 11:28pm

travelnutz wrote:

For crying out loud! Don't tell me it's wrong as I have scale weighed our truck both with and without the camper on and with the camper on, the front axle weighs 186# more. Wouldn't happen if the COG was behind the rear axle. Got it? OR is the scale wrong too!


Do you have an 1172? That one is 60" from the front and may well be behind the axle. I don't know what yours is spec'd at and it doesn't matter. This thread is about the 1172 and I was only replying to correct your wrong information about that current model's COG of 60". A 990 probably is in front of the axle. The 992 is listed as 44".


Posted By: wintersun on 12/03/12 02:40pm

I may be more utilitarian than most but in selecting a camper I would start by having one with a fiberglass or aluminum roof and no seams to continually re-caulk and seal - i.e. not a TPO roof like the Lance. I would also want a camper that came stock with provision for two batteries, two LPG tanks, a large water and waste tanks, and space for an onboard generator if I wanted to have one.

I would also look for access to key components including the charger/inverter, internal ducting, wiring, instrumentation, and batteries. Adding to or modifying or repairing a Lance camper is a bit of a nightmare and I would hesitate to consider one of their campers in the future even with the TPO roof.

Pre wiring for solar would be nice but not if it is a joke as with the Lance that only provides for recharging one on-board battery while the camper is not in use. I would expect to have to do my own installation of the wiring and charge controller and panels which is what I would be considering in advance in deciding on whether to buy a particular camper.


Posted By: 12V Cummins on 12/04/12 06:58am

They could easily find the point and slap a sticker on the camper to save us from all this confusion!


Posted By: 12V Cummins on 12/03/12 05:37pm

All three of these campers are heavy, but with the right truck and proper equipment they haul fine. One Very important point is where the center of gravity is on these campers. Eagle cap and Chalet mark their COG for the camper dry. Chalets COG will be over if not in front of your axle, EC is slightly behind the axle, Lance doesn't show this important point and I can guarantee that it is way behind your rear axle.
More weight forward on your truck=a lot better it will handle and ride.


Posted By: Mooney on 12/20/12 10:12pm

Glacier D wrote:

Another one I would look at is the Eagle Cap 1165, a bit heavy but so are the Lance and Chalet. They are all good campers, but the EC has a full front fiberglass cap and a 3 year warranty on the rig.


Or even the Host Everest, enjoy ours!


'08 Ford F550, Lariat, Link Air Suspension, Roll-A-Long Conversion, Twin Turbo 6.4, TorkLifts, SuperHitch, "Monster Duty Truckasaurus"
'09 Host Everest, Dual Pane, AM Solar, Link 1000,Prosine2.0,Tank Htrs,Honda EV4010,HD Motosat,Wave 6.



Posted By: av8rds on 12/26/12 01:27pm

gitpicker2009 wrote:

Man, I hate to say it, but for me, one of the most important things is the bathroom space.


I get a lot of strange looks sitting on the cammode at camper shows but it IS important.

Some of the unit out there dont even fit the width of my shoulders and you have to sit angled. There are just some places you shouldnt have to compromise comfort!


'08 Lance 992
'06 X-cab Powerstroke Dually 4x4
'75 Ford Bronco Rockcrawler



Posted By: Mike Tassinari on 12/20/12 08:03pm

Hello Everyone.

Hi Tmphoto

You briefly mention "Medium Duty truck. I am not sure what you meant by that - but running Jamboree's here in the North-East, I can attest to the fact that the Double or Triple side - Chalet or Eagle Cap all have a wet weight of over 14K.

There is only a single truck that is close to carring that kind of weight,and please people I do not want to turn this into a truck bashing forum BUT,,,

The new 2013 Ford F350 duelly has a 14,000 GVW rating. Ford has again raised the bar.

Mikeeeee


2002 Ford-4x4-Extended Cab-Dually-Lariet-Powerstroke Diesel--4.10 gears--Ranchero Adjustable Shocks-55 Gallon Extended Fuel Tank--4 Extra Main Leaf Springs-1 Extra Helper Spring..Independant Second Altinator(100AMP)to Charge MY Twin 275 AH. Deep Cycle Battery Bank tucked under the truck bed....

2001 Lance-11&1/2 Ft.-Model 1121/slide/out with all the Toys&2000 Watt Inverter


Posted By: Less Stuff on 12/27/12 10:18am

For what it's worth we toured Chalet campers at a Portland, Or. RV show and liked this one best. The open feeling of the cabover bed area was great.


However a truck and camper that large is not in the picture for us.


DG
Former user name: "Lots of Stuff"
2014 Jeep Patriot
Future folding trailer or ?


Posted By: billtex on 12/20/12 06:08am

I would not be worried about neutral weight on front axle.
I would be concerned about unloading the front.

Lance has made a couple of campers in the past...it's a pretty good bet they have this figured out.

Good luck, B


2006 Chevy D/A CC
Eagle Cap 850
25'Airstream Excella
"Good People Drink Good Beer"-Hunter S Thompson


Posted By: btggraphix on 12/26/12 05:04pm

elkhornsun wrote:


Mentally I cannot look at a huge long camper on a long and wide DRW truck and see any travel advantages over a class C MH.


Are you and wintersun one and the same poster? I'm assuming so. In any case, understood...it easy to kind of see them as the same WRT a much smaller TC combo. In fact, the Class C has it in terms of "travel" if the travel is on good highways....you can move around while in motion, not have to go outside to get from camper to truck etc. I'd argue that wandering around in a camper of any sort is most likely much more dangerous than protected in the cab of a pickup...but convenience-wise, the C's have it for "travel" comfort until you are towing a big trailer, in a blizzard, off exploring dirt roads etc.

But when you get down to it, they are quite different. I can't see ever having a motorhome of any sort at this point in my life....but a giant TC on a giant 4x4 T is the cat's meow.


Posted By: btggraphix on 12/26/12 10:27am

wintersun wrote:

Curious with the need for a huge truck like a Kodiak to haul the camper you do not go with a class C motorhome instead and have all the additional basement storage space available and probably better fuel economy as well.


We kind of go round and round with this one I always feel obligated to comment. List up the pros and cons of a TC versus a Class C and which ones are any different with a large TC/Truck combo like mine? basically none. We are still shorter, have a seperate truck when needed, have stock 4x4, can turn around much easier than a C, can tow anything we want, better ground clearance, no registration etc. etc. So, what is the basis for saying "why not go to a class C?" Yes, the larger the TC and the smaller the C, the closer they appear to be the same, but only if you don't know what a TC gives you. What we have is perfect for us (though fuel mileage and overall height could be better) and a Class C would hardly fit our needs/wants at all. I have way more storage than any small Class C in existence.

Just say NO to a Class C....though I will say that if I were to pass away suddenly, my wife would likely move straight to a Tiger if she could find one; loading and unloading the TC is more of a chore than she would probably want and without me wouldn't likely need/want to ability to haul or tow what we can and do with the Kodiak.


2006 LanceMax 1191 - loaded and well-used
2005 C4500/Kodiak 4x4, GVWR 17,500



Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/26/12 10:36am

For me class C or a TC is easy. I already have a 4*4 dually pickup, so TC was ''just'' another $20K purchase. The class C's we looked at would never tow what we wanted without being overweight and needing lot's of mods done. Also the Class C do not have 4*4. And because we dry camp and ride ATV's 4*4 can be needed sometimes during the snow season. Many of the class C with just some water and people are ''overweight'' very quickly let alone before hooking up an enclosed trailer to it....And to get a Class C big enough to handle a 7K pound trailer you're needing a large one, usually a Kodiak type cab and then you're talking some real money too. Friend of mine went Kodiak class C and it was $90K very quickly.


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/26/12 01:55pm

av8rds wrote:

gitpicker2009 wrote:

Man, I hate to say it, but for me, one of the most important things is the bathroom space.


I get a lot of strange looks sitting on the cammode at camper shows but it IS important.

Some of the unit out there dont even fit the width of my shoulders and you have to sit angled. There are just some places you shouldnt have to compromise comfort!


Agree, while she is opening drawers, pantry and cabinets I'm standing in the shower and testing it by closing the curtain and then sitting on the toilet with the door shut trying it all out....


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/27/12 10:31am

I like that one too the DS 116RB I think our next camper will be a side door model since we are towing so much...a few more years


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/27/12 11:14am

The last post reminds me of what one person finds awesome, another finds horrible. We each have differnt tastes and demands. Luckily we all have lots of options in dealers, manufacturers, sizes, and slideouts, etc.....


Posted By: larryhutto on 12/21/12 06:24am

It would help a lot if lance had simply answered my questions which they never did. I finally got an email from a dealer offering a particular unit for sale.

I own a business. This is not a goidxwsy to start a relationship and I am a guy who wants to buy something from them!


Posted By: TwoMaineiacs on 12/21/12 05:04pm

Bed access in Chalet vs. Lane. Chalet has the bed entry at knee height. Lance is more mid thigh. For those of us shorter folk, the Chalet is easy, the Lance needs a step stool.

Check outside storage. Watching the recent web video of the Lance there is a VERY small amount of exterior storage. Chalet has the large rear barn door area plus compartments on the sides.

If you want, you can have six batteries in the Chalet. I think Lance has two.

Yes the Chalet is higher but doubt it is heavier than the Lance. We use our Chalet DS extensively and frequently camp with two others having Chalet triples. Lots of Lances in our group also but we'll stay with the Chalet. Our F350 DRW diesel handles it well.


2011 Chalet Double Slide on a 2013 F-450 Diesel DRW
On the Road Again from Rural Maine
Our travel blog with photos



Posted By: TwoMaineiacs on 12/23/12 09:15am

All our Chalets are on DRW diesels. No issue with being top heavy though there are times I wish we were six inches shorter. We are overweight on our F350 but we keep an eye on the brakes and the tires and get the truck serviced religiously.

The first year we had the Chalet we made a big trip out on the west coast. We stopped into Chalet to have a few minor issues tweaked. Our model was an early one and the dinette seat towards the rear slide sideways for another person. It rested up on pegs and those were digging into the floor. They changed the pegs to rollers and no more digs. We gave Chalet a list of items we felt should be addressed such as the thermostat being on the wall under the coat hooks. Hang a coat and the thermostat was quite warm (smile). We showed them the use modifications we had made such as adding 2 12 volt outlets, a rail under the TV so items didn't slide off a shelf, a better latch to keep the center TV/wardrobe turntable from moving, book rack, etc. All those mods were made in the next model. The only big issue for us was the back exterior storage compartment was getting wet in heavy rains. Chalet shipped TC Warehouse replacement doors from two that opened sidways to one that opened up. That took care of the leak. As insurance we have since added a rubber flap over the top door hinge. We also gave Chalet some ideas on how to cut back on the camper weight on inside finishes -heavy light covers, that extra dinnete seat. We use the camper a lot and enjoy it.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/20/12 11:11pm

wnjj,

Thanks, according to the pdf brochure they have changed where the COG is measured from since 2010. I can accept that but there still is no COG spec for the basic Lance 1172 model that I've seen. Options added at the factory will have an effect on the COG also. I know for a fact that our 11'4" Lance that weighed 3872 lbs when shipped as it's written on the Lance paperwork that's in the owners packet and puts a little over 100 lbs on the front axle of our Chevy CC D/A 4X4 LB truck as I had the truck weighed both without the camper on and with the camper on. That was before loading in all our personal stuff, food, the 2 laptops, canned goods, etc.

With my 2' X 7' rear porch on needed for my disabled wife, the black and gray tanks empty, water tank and W/H full, all our stuff and food loaded and ready to leave including the canned goods, the front axle weighed 240 lbs more than the bare truck front axle did. It costs me nothing to weigh any vehicle, RV, boat, etc because our family owns half of the gravel pit operation and the truck scale etc. How and where you pack the weighty stuff makes a great deal of difference in the actual COG of a camper. How high above the camper floor makes a difference in handling also. ALL heavy items forward and low and if possible, in the cab of the truck on the floor behind the front seat. Sure, it makes a difference as to what model truck you have and how many kids ride in the back seat if any. It's called think ahead and plan accordingly and then help yourself.

One thing very obvious in the Lance 1172 is that about all the heavy stuff in the floorplan shown is forward of the rear axle and the rear couch also moves toward the cab quite a ways, maybe 2 feet, for travel. The frig, bathroom and black tank below, water tank, under the dinette forward seat storage, wardrobe, and the heavy quueen bed/cabover is way forward, etc. Loaded properly, I can see the ready to travel COG ahead of the truck's rear axle, not behind. However, I'm sure some won't or don't think twice or even once about the COG they are creating when loading their TC.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/20/12 09:19pm

COG???

Just got out my 2010 Lance Camper Brochure (latest I have in print) and here's exactly what it says about "Center of gravity" under the "basic tech specs" column on page 2 not including the cover. The 4th spec down says:

Quoted word for word and the exact punctuation!

Center of gravity is the balance point of a base weight-camper (with propane and all fluids except black and grey holding tanks) loaded onto a truck - and is measured from the point of contact (the truck's tail lights) forward towards the truck's cab.

Word for word!

If Lance has changed where they measure the COG from since 2010, I'm not aware of it and won't believe it until I see it in Lance's Brochure or in their camper specs.

I've requested a 2013 Lance Camper Brochure and a 2013 Lance Travel Trailer Brochure tonight and will post what it says when I receive it. Hopefully it will get here before we leave for our annual family visiting trip to Florida the day after New Years. Anyone with a Lance brochure can look at it and see that I've printed the wording precisely and accurately.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/20/12 09:41pm

One thing I've learned in my nearly 7 years on this forum alone and moderating on a couple other forums under different nicks since 1999 is that so many of the posts are constantly filled with mis-information or blatantly wrong specifications or cherry-picked wording taken out of context to make them sound favorable to the poster's cause or crusade. Most times it takes only a couple minutes to check and expose the poster's wrongful information that had been written.

As the long known adage states: If a person tells one lie, they'll likely lie about many things and are not to be trusted on anything!


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/27/12 11:09am

tmphoto,

Haven't actually been in the Chalet TS116 yet but have been in the Eagle Cap 1160 and 1165 with the same offset cabover entry as the Chalet and it was ridiculous at the very best. You CAN'T put a 5' bathroom on one side inside an 8' exterior width camper like the Chalet TS116 and have even 3' left as the cabover entry area can only be on the one far side.

We went into our camper and put a spring loaded curtain rod from cabover floor to the ceiling to see what it would be like and it is so obvious and a joke as we couldn't reach anything. NO thank you! Momma was emphatic!!! Also, the much higher price for gaining the poor usability layout etc was not even remotely common sense. We are on our 8th TC since 1965 as we have always had at least one at any given time and have learned so much as to usable comfort. You or others may have different opinions and hopefully make the right choice for your needs and wants. It can be a very expensive lesson if you make a bad choice with a purchase and then learned your lesson and make a change.

Look closely at the two plans in the thread (Chalet and Lance) and what do you really gain in floor space when in either TC in this thread. With the Chalet kitchen slide out deployed over the Lance in real usable floor space? The usable floor area in the rear by the couch in the Chalet is nearly the same as the Lance and so is the width to enter the cabover past the bathroom. The only gain in interior floor room is between the kitchen sink and the bathroom to the forward dinette seat. The two bathrooms are about the same size in actual sq footage but one is placed long side to side and angled across the door the other is turned 90 degrees so it's fore aft and allows a much closer to center passage/access to the cabover area. The Eagle Cap 1165 island sink is beyond dumb to us as it robs the floor space gained by having a kitchen slide out in the first place and has to be opened to do anything like the other two slides also. Open all 3 even for making lunch or stay out! We were not impressed in the least! 6 lbs of sh_t in a 3 lb bag comes to mind!


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/27/12 09:42am

No way would I or my wife put up with the nearly useless cabover wardrobe access in the Chalet and funnel like narrow access to the cabover bed. Like whoever is sleeping on the driver's side of the bed, please roll off the mattress so the other person can get out to use the toilet! How dumb! The bathroom wall covers way more than half the bed width making access to the wardrobe an adventure at best and an body shuttle obstacle course to get to the forward area for anything in there. It's 8-10 feet from where you enter the cabover! Try squirming across the floor of a 8-10 foot room in your home so you can see what it's like! No window on the wardrobe side makes the bed area look like a morgue. Having a window put in the wardrobe side and splitting the wardrobe in two still means body surfing to get to anything in the forward area. What were they thinking anyway with that crazy type design?

The Lance's wardrobe is fully accessible (even for my 5'6" disabled wife) while standing with both feet on the step and we know it's a fact as we have the same wardrobe location in ours. Also have the same toilet location in our Lance's bathroom and there's plenty of room to sit very comfortably and I'm very big boned and 25-1/2" wide at the shoulders, 5'-11", 220 lbs, and only about 10 lbs overweight and I hit nothing but the seat. If you or your spouse weigh 300 lbs and only 6' tall it probably would be a different scenario though. One size does NOT fit all!

Some floor plans look great until you actually have to use items, features, layouts, and accesses when camping and that's when that bright light finally comes on.


Posted By: Grodyman on 12/21/12 04:47am

I would probably just move to a class C. Good luck though.

Gman


2011 F250 4x4 CC/SWB 6.2/3.73



Posted By: Jaxom on 12/21/12 06:53am

"goidxwsy"

I googled that term and came up empty. Please clarify.
I tried to decipher it... "goidxwsy" = "good way"???
I'm not being a smart arse, sometimes acronyms are tough.


Jerry
2010 Dodge 3500 Diesel Dually
2014 SureTrac 16' + 4' deck over pop up beavertail
2011 R & R 20' Aluminum Enclosed Car Hauler
2007 Montrose 16' Aluminum Flatbed ATV Trailer
2013 CampLite (Livin'Lite) 10.0 Aluminum Truck Camper



Posted By: wnjj on 12/20/12 10:06pm

travelnutz wrote:

If Lance has changed where they measure the COG from since 2010, I'm not aware of it and won't believe it until I see it in Lance's Brochure or in their camper specs.


Did you not believe the poster who already asked Lance in the thread I linked previously or not read the thread?

wnjj wrote:

This was already discussed before. Lance confirmed they changed the measurement method:

http://www.rv.net/Forum/index.cfm/fuseac........d/26389792/gotomsg/26396142.cfm#26396142


Or rather than waiting for snail mail, just check out their 2012 brochure here. It clearly says, "contact with the front of the truck bed" in the left margin of page 2.

* This post was last edited 12/20/12 10:22pm by wnjj *


Posted By: wnjj on 12/20/12 12:48am

Those very large campers likely do have a COG behind the rear axle on many brands. Contrary to TC forum mythology, it isn't a kiss of death. GM's camper loading guide only requires a certain ratio of front and rear axle weight which even allows for removing front axle weight. Their acceptable COG range extends all the way to the rear of the bed so long as the ratio calculates out within specs. I'll bet Ford has a similar recommendation.

Plus, as travelnutz pointed out, empty COG is only part of the story.

When you pull a trailer, all of the tongue weight is well behind the rear axle.


Posted By: gitpicker2009 on 12/24/12 09:47am

Man, I hate to say it, but for me, one of the most important things is the bathroom space. I think the Chalet wins that one. I actually sold my first RV, a class C motorhome because you simply could not sit on the toilet, and I'm an average sized guy. When I bought my AF1150 I chose the wetbath over the dry, because much to my surprise, there was a lot more legroom and shower space.
If that lance is like the others I checked out, then make sure you have enough legroom. I like the way the Chalet angles the toilet, much like the AF.


Posted By: kerry4951 on 12/23/12 10:56am

tmphoto
Take your stuff out of your AF 1150 and put it in the next TC choice before you buy it. I suspect you will be leaving quite a bunch of stuff back at the house. The large AF TCs are tough to beat for overall storage.


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/21/12 05:55pm

TwoMaineiacs wrote:

Bed access in Chalet vs. Lane. Chalet has the bed entry at knee height. Lance is more mid thigh. For those of us shorter folk, the Chalet is easy, the Lance needs a step stool.

Check outside storage. Watching the recent web video of the Lance there is a VERY small amount of exterior storage. Chalet has the large rear barn door area plus compartments on the sides.

If you want, you can have six batteries in the Chalet. I think Lance has two.

Yes the Chalet is higher but doubt it is heavier than the Lance. We use our Chalet DS extensively and frequently camp with two others having Chalet triples. Lots of Lances in our group also but we'll stay with the Chalet. Our F350 DRW diesel handles it well.


I agree, I really like the storage and layout of the Chalet. Have you ever weighed your DS? Your friends that are carrying the Triple Slides, are they on Duallys? Any trouble with the weight or issues from being top heavy?

Any other quality or design issues you have seen on the Chalet campers?

Thanks for the input, it is great to get real world feedback from experienced owners.


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/24/12 01:49pm

Room in the bath is a big deal. I sat in the 1172 and it is tighter side to side than my 1150 dry bath. Looks like the Chalet is much roomier in this area.


Posted By: tmphoto on 12/27/12 10:05am

travelnutz wrote:

No way would I or my wife put up with the nearly useless cabover wardrobe access in the Chalet and funnel like narrow access to the cabover bed. Like whoever is sleeping on the driver's side of the bed, please roll off the mattress so the other person can get out to use the toilet! How dumb! The bathroom wall covers way more than half the bed width making access to the wardrobe an adventure at best and an body shuttle obstacle course to get to the forward area for anything in there. It's 8-10 feet from where you enter the cabover! Try squirming across the floor of a 8-10 foot room in your home so you can see what it's like! No window on the wardrobe side makes the bed area look like a morgue. Having a window put in the wardrobe side and splitting the wardrobe in two still means body surfing to get to anything in the forward area. What were they thinking anyway with that crazy type design?

The Lance's wardrobe is fully accessible (even for my 5'6" disabled wife) while standing with both feet on the step and we know it's a fact as we have the same wardrobe location in ours. Also have the same toilet location in our Lance's bathroom and there's plenty of room to sit very comfortably and I'm very big boned and 25-1/2" wide at the shoulders, 5'-11", 220 lbs, and only about 10 lbs overweight and I hit nothing but the seat. If you or your spouse weigh 300 lbs and only 6' tall it probably would be a different scenario though. One size does NOT fit all!

Some floor plans look great until you actually have to use items, features, layouts, and accesses when camping and that's when that bright light finally comes on.


That is a concern of mine, this is one deal breaker for me on an Eagle Cap, The opening to the cab over in their design is even narrower than the Chalet. Have you actually been in a Chalet or are you going on the pics? From looking at the pics, the Chalet 116TS seems to have at least 50% of the cab over area open. I have pretty broad shoulders and sitting in the Lance 1172 bath was tight for me.


Posted By: elkhornsun on 12/26/12 03:13pm

If you have already paid the price for a DRW truck and are stuck with it I can see the logic in taking the easier path and simply buying a very large used camper. The decision on which model I bought would depend to a large part on what was available within an acceptable driving distance and the condition of the used campers on the market.

When we were looking for a Lance 845, 820, or 861 camper the decision became one of what was available closer than 240 miles driving distance from our house, the equipment options added, and the care of the camper taken by the prior owner(s). By far the biggest selection of used campers were various Lance models in California and Nevada and the model that was most widely available and in the best condition was the 845 which we ended up buying.

Having made a number of major and minor modifications to the 845 I doubt very much I would buy another Lance camper. Access to key components and wiring is just too limited for repairing, replacing, or upgrading.

Mentally I cannot look at a huge long camper on a long and wide DRW truck and see any travel advantages over a class C MH.


Posted By: wintersun on 12/21/12 04:39pm

Curious with the need for a huge truck like a Kodiak to haul the camper you do not go with a class C motorhome instead and have all the additional basement storage space available and probably better fuel economy as well.


Posted By: clarryhutto on 12/19/12 09:32pm

I am confused by the descriptions given of measuement of center of gravity on the lance camper.

It actually clearly states in the current brochure that center of gravity is measured from the "front of the bed" not from the point of contact of the rear of the camper with the truck taillights unless I am misreading. This 60 inches in indeed about 7 to 8 inches "behind" the center line of the rear axle on my 2008 F450. In fact, I cannot find any pickup that will work with this COG. Perhaps a chasis truck would.

I have sent two emails to Lance requesting an explanation about this. several months when I enthusiasticall requested information my email was responded to immediately. This time i am getting total silence from the manufacturer. it is as if they don't want to even discuss the issue.....

I hope I am getting this wrong, but it doesn't appear so. They talk aboiut matching the truck to the camper, but this appears to be lip service and they have designed something that is unacceptable from the very start.

i am hoping I have this all wrong, that is why i have posted this as clearly as possible how I am reading it. Can anyone explain where my thinking is wrong or is this really a bad deal this 1172?

thanks for responses.


Posted By: clarryhutto on 12/19/12 09:50pm

I want everyone to understand I just downloaded the Lance latest current brochure on their truck campers. It says absolutely that the measurement of COG is from the front of the bed....Are you saying that is a misprint. Why won't they even bother to answer my emails. Let's all get it right. It is a big deal for anyone looking to buy. I have a used Bigfoot. and was mislead on a number of issues, including actual weight and COG importance. Turns out it is about 3 to four inches behind the center line of my rear axle. There is not additional weight on the front axle. It is all on the back. I am loaded to the hilt about 120 lbs over gross rear axle weight. Front axle is same weight as before the camper went on.

I don't want anyone else using this forum to make the "wrong" decision.


Posted By: av8rds on 12/27/12 01:25pm

2BLAZERS wrote:

The last post reminds me of what one person finds awesome, another finds horrible. We each have differnt tastes and demands. Luckily we all have lots of options in dealers, manufacturers, sizes, and slideouts, etc.....


I agree. And totally disagree with travelnutz! I think the Chalets et al with similar floor plans bring an openness you cant beat(even with the center island).

I dont own a Chalet so I cant say I have ever spent a night in one but I have spent hour upon hour researching(from inside and outside) them for a possible future purchase and find them to be perfect for my needs.


Posted By: 2BLAZERS on 12/27/12 11:42am

My biggest complaint now is about the ''truthfullness'' of the manufactures on weight when loaded up. I still see pics of campers listed at dry weight of 4k+ on SRW trucks. Real world wet weight loaded up they end up close to 6K pounds. My next truck will likely need to be a Ram 4500/5500 with flatbed and boxes to properly do one of these large triple or double slides. We usually run with full water and pretty loaded up with a trailer too..


Posted By: TwoMaineiacs on 01/04/13 07:41am

Travelnutz - Not going to respond to your ramblings about the Chalet DS116 since you haven't actually been in one or camped in it. We've put 22,000 miles on ours since April, 2011 and find it comfortable, easy to get in and out of and very user friendly. Each camper finds what works for them. The Chalet DS116 works for us. Yes I'd like it to be lighter and shorter but the trade off is a roomy interior and outside storage space. Until a camper comes along like the Chalet (lighter and shorter) we'll keep putting the miles on this one.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/27/12 02:13pm

12V Cummins,

"Like many other Lance models they are a dollar late and a day short."

What a uninformed statement to make as Lance Campers sells many times the number of TC's every year as it's closest competitor and has for decades constantly and they sell over a hundred times as many as the likes of Chalet and Eagle Cap. Are you saying the overwhelming number of owners who purchased Lance Campers are dumb or behind the times? I so doubt that!

Maybe one TC manufacturer can do with 2 slides that another manufacturer needs 3 slides for! Guess who's really behind the times?

Some minorities sure seem they can be the leader of the product world's various offerings by occupying the rear (far behind) it's competitor's in so many mis-informed purchasing choices and it shows in yearly sales year after year after year. I think I can - I think I can - I think I can.....

However, it's never happens and the vast majority are flash in the pan and out of business in a few years or struggling just to keep the doors open. Can't begin to be an important player in the marketplace unless lots of customers buy your product, are happy with it, and then buy it again and again. DUH! it's what makes up the majority of successful sales numbers. Simple economics!

I'll stick with the winners as there's a reason they are "The Winners"

I just love the "Wannabees" as sooner or later they usually learn too.... Just give them lots of time!


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/27/12 11:45am

Well, in CG's and listening to the people for years who bought what they thought was "awesome" and how unhappy they have become after using that awesome design for traveling, the message was clear. WOW! looks great and different but we wish that _______________________ & ________________ & __________________ & _______________ etc were different and the next one we buy WILL be!

Traveling day to day or a couple times a week is very different than just parking it in a CG for a week or a month etc. With a TC, your mode of transprotation to about anything away from the CG is the truck that sits under the TC and most CG's don't allow or TC owners do NOT remove their camper even when in a CG. A TC is NOT a 5th wheel, a TT, or an MH. It's the best of all RV's made that's modified to make it be that way.


Posted By: travelnutz on 12/27/12 11:29am

At least with the Chalet DS116RB you can enter and use the bathroom without deploying a slide or slides. You do give up the couch if that's desired, wanted, or needed. A better floorplan for sure, however, it still has that insane fixted kitchen island always in the way and in the middle that makes the TC useless without opening the slides for about any usages other than the bathroom. The floorplan doesn't even have a place to hang or get at any clothes etc should the weather change quickly other than a coat rack. Without the kitchen island, the dinette slide wouldn't even be needed and modifying the pointy end of the kitchen counter would make the TC much more usable even with the kitchen slide in.

GEE, I wish some of these RV designers and their wives/girlfriends and maybe a kid or tow were required to live in the RV's they design for a month or two and they would get so much smarter and quickly!


Posted By: 12V Cummins on 12/27/12 11:37am

I personally feel that the Chalet is higher quality and better built than the lance. Especially when it comes to weight distribution. I bet if you put a ts116 and a 1172 on the same 350 DRW truck the chalet would out ride the lance. They both have their advantages and disadvantages like any camper. Thats why there are many brands and different models. To the right person its the right camper.
Chalet has larger kitchen area which leads to wider bathroom and narrower cabover access.
Lance has smaller kitchen area with a longer bathroom and wider cabover access.
Double and triple slide side entry campers have been around for a while now and Lance finally stepped up to compete with others. Like many other Lance models they are a dollar late and a day short.
Just give it time and they will have a triple slide out which will probably be the same layout as the ts116


Posted By: clarryhutto on 12/27/12 06:25pm

I think it may be worth pointing out that we are all here to share with one another and grow in our knowledge of this passtime we all love so much. In pursuing that I would suggest that a sense of humility from each of us would go a long way in fostering that atmosphere.

There are obviously many different perspectives in the way each of us is pursuing various pathways in our RV lives. What makes perfect sense for one may be absolutely crazy to another. This does not mean necessarily that one is right and the other wrong. It depends on the perspective.

I, for example, go between carrying a TC around to get into all the places I have been unable to go with my 39 foot 21000 lb Movile Suites fifth wheel. To have two vehicles which powerplants is not in the cards for me and I feel fortunate to be able to switch them out depending on my next outing.

One person may just think the easy access to the overhead area and placement of the wardrobe is essential, while another person doesn't really care about that but wants another aspect, like a COG that actually works with their truck, or storage space, or whatever.

That is why there are options...some options will be attractive to a large number of aspiring TCers" While just a few might really like something quite different. Fortunately, a market can be there to serve all those prospective customers.

I really don't see the argument....or right or wrong...just what appeals to different customers. Certain items become universal however. I am excited to read these threads because I learn something everyday I can apply to my RV life. I am grateful for the opportunity and hope others are as well.

Just saying......


Print  |  Close