|
|
Post by universalexports on Jun 13, 2011 20:26:31 GMT -5
well I am not a traditionalist, I know I know next to nothing, I am picking up my 1st shasta the day after tomorrow, but I was wondering, if anyone had just went with smooth sides? I've noticed the newer retro style campers have smooth sides, and I think it looks good? is there a down side to this? here is couple of examples   |
|
Gone Kayaking
1K Post Member
long live the Vintage Shasta Trailer Forum....we're gone but you are not forgotten!
Posts: 1,600 
|
Post by Gone Kayaking on Jun 14, 2011 0:36:14 GMT -5
My 1956 1500 has smooth roof and back. The sides and front have the 6"brake, so at least sometimes they didn't have a brake pattern. I think it may have been in part to mask the seams. If you are starting from scratch and know that you are going to do a total rebuild, and you want smooth, I don't see any reason not to do that.
|
|
vikx
3K Post Member
Posts: 3,556
|
Post by vikx on Jun 14, 2011 0:42:42 GMT -5
I like to keep mine looking vintage/original. It's certainly up to you if you like that look...
The two trailers in the picture have fiberglass sides rather than metal. There are several different types of siding, so do your research. Find out costs, insulation, ease of installation and things like that. Smooth metal doesn't always present such a smooth looking result. There are always ripples in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atomic Addiction on Jun 14, 2011 2:03:14 GMT -5
I think they went with the brake pattern because it creates strength. Just like the way they make guard rails. Those are also "rippled". The ripples create strength in the piece. It stops the aluminum panel from rippling, bowing, and doing the oil can thing.
There are vintage aluminum trailers that have smooth sides. Yellowstone did it for a few years.
Brian
|
|
|
|
Post by LittleVintageTrailer on Jun 14, 2011 7:10:16 GMT -5
Interesting question. I think if you were to go with smooth, a different material would need to be used such as fiberglass.
|
|
|
|
Post by universalexports on Jun 14, 2011 21:03:52 GMT -5
been doing some research, it seems the newer campers use Filon skins "Filon is a durable, semi-rigid material of fiberglass reinforced plastic. It will not dent like aluminum siding. Features a protective film that must be removed after installation". it is very flexable, (can be bent into a 7 inch circle) and is .060 inch thick I may have to first line the sides of the camper with thin plywood or something. I am thinking 1/8 inch hardwood plywood,,, still researching it. I have found a place that sells it .200 thick for free hung applications and it is jel coated. this might be an option. it says it is for campers. here is a small camper covered with it, it can be ordered in 20 foot lengths or more and is 102 inches wide. so you can do a whole side with one solid sheet. cost about $500.00 for a 20 foot sheet.   |
|
Gone Kayaking
1K Post Member
long live the Vintage Shasta Trailer Forum....we're gone but you are not forgotten!
Posts: 1,600
|
Post by Gone Kayaking on Jun 15, 2011 0:03:59 GMT -5
interesting....we'll be watching.
|
|
|
|
Post by Atomic Addiction on Jun 15, 2011 1:27:52 GMT -5
I guess my question is why? Or more specifically why do this to a vintage trailer? The whole charm to vintage trailers is their construction. Aluminum skin, birch interior, aluminum framed windows. If they weren't that way they would be just another white box on wheels. There are plenty of those out there. If you want fiberglass I would just build a trailer from the ground up. There are a bunch of people that build their own "standy" teardrop trailers. There is that sort of information on the Teardrops site... www.mikenchell.com/forums/I had actually drawn up a few different plans to do a ground up build myself. A vintage inspired build. Finally I just said screw it. Why am I trying to replicate the look when I can just have the real thing. I would leave the vintage trailer just that...vintage. New built trailers just aren't my thing. I bet they work like a charm but they have no charm. It is your trailer. You are free to do with it what you want but I am putting my vote in to restore the Deluxe with all of that cash that you would otherwise be putting into a skin job. All of that money would go along way in a proper restoration. That is my opinion anyway. Brian |
|
|
|
Post by universalexports on Jun 15, 2011 7:11:17 GMT -5
yeah, I get what you are saying, the only reason with not doing a ground up build, is this way the frame, walls ceiling are all ready there, that a lot of the hard work that I think might be above my level already done,
I can handle a remodel. and I just love the shape of the old canned hams.
one of the reasons for doing smooth sides is, I have been reading on here, and it sounds like finding the original 6 inch break stuff is next to impossible.
I havent decided on anything yet, still researching my options.
I am leaving to go get the Camper in one hour and five minutes (i'm excited!)
I'll have lots of pics posted this evening. if I get back before dark, it's a 6 hour round trip.
|
|
|
|
Post by sodashoponwheels on Jun 15, 2011 8:23:52 GMT -5
If you are still considering the metal, I went to a local sheet metal shop to fabricate our roof, front and back panels. I will pick them up later this week or early next week and I'll post pics. They seemed to think that making the 6" corrugation was no big deal. On our Shasta, the roof has 4" corrugated. One section on the roof was replaced with flat metal and it was sagging. The sheet metal shop said this was because the corrugation provided strength (like Brian said above). But, I have to say, having it fabricated wasn't cheap!
|
|
|
|
Post by universalexports on Jun 15, 2011 19:24:23 GMT -5
yeah, i'd love to see pics
|
|
|
|
Post by northamerican on Jun 15, 2011 23:30:08 GMT -5
my bud did a small RV with smooth sides, it was an unbelievably huge amount of work and cost over 2k all said and done, looks amazing but hard to justify spending the same amount of money on an old camper that will get you a way newer, possibly evan one with already smooth sides, but i guess if you are hardcore about keeping the shasta than I can vouch that smooth sides looks great once intalled
|
|
|
|
Post by diamondrelics on Jun 16, 2011 10:02:32 GMT -5
Any fabricator with a large break can put the breaks in for you. Call interstate metal fabricators in Ore. The sell alot of the trailer siding.
|
|
mcaf10
100 Post Member
Gizmo - 1961 Nomad
Posts: 127
|
Post by mcaf10 on Jun 16, 2011 11:11:55 GMT -5
Any fabricator with a large break can put the breaks in for you. Call interstate metal fabricators in Ore. The sell alot of the trailer siding. Do they ship out of state by chance? |
|
safetybruce
2K Post Member
Miss Alabama 1961
Posts: 2,547
|
Post by safetybruce on Jun 16, 2011 22:45:49 GMT -5
I want to throw my 5 cents worth in...I agree with Brian that if you are a traditionalist there is not going to be a satisfactory result in changing the skin on the Shasta to a smooth one. On the other hand, a lot of what came out post WW II had smooth skin originally, and i believe that the gauge of the aluminum was thicker and probably surplus airplane material...as manufacturers looked for cost reduction they realized that the breaks could lend strength to thinner gauge aluminum and or they were looking for a different look...thus the ridged design was born (only a wag on my part). If you have skin as thick as good quality gauged smooth aluminum, I think it is something to consider...expect to be beat up a bit by those who are traditionalists of course, but if you can buy it locally and get the seaming crimps put on it, and it is cost feasible if you can't buy a 8X20 foot sheet, and you don't have a local fabricator with the proper brake, you might find the shipping and handling costs saved make that option viable. I certainly wouldn't paint the smooth aluminum though...you'd almost have to consider going the polished route. But I do believe if you are going for a newer composite siding, you will pay a lot more for siding that will turn out to have it's own set of problems down the road dealing with dings and evental clear coat issues along with cost that will not justify such a drastic change in the composition of the skin on a much beloved vintage Shasta. Going smooth might give your classic vintage camper quite an identity conflict resulting in her developing low self-esteem...lol...
|
|
|
|
Post by universalexports on Jun 16, 2011 22:55:18 GMT -5
Going smooth might give your classic vintage camper quite an identity conflict resulting in her developing low self-esteem...lol... now thats funny! and that is some good knowledgeable food for thought, I really dont care about the traditionalist opinions, I want to make this my camper. the way I want it. however I believe am being pulled back from the dark side, and leaning more toward going back with a more stock style aluminum finish. for cost and simplicity, I've been doing a lot of on line reading about different methods, and you hit the nail on the head, they have their own issues, and repairs are expensive. (and often it seems) everyone is trying to make their stuff out of the cheapest stuff available) = Low quality. |
|
|
|
Post by 68beezer on Jun 17, 2011 0:36:43 GMT -5
I was thinking of going with smooth sides as well. I am thinking of either quilted stainless or mirrored stainless. Both are available in 4x12 goods. The mirrored being the cheaper at 260.00 per sheet. A local fab shop can put a Pittsburgh on it for me. My concern is if I go with the mirrored it may be too reflective in the Arizona sun. In my opinion the structure itself should work fine for a smooth side. The skin should only provide more support. No different than a stick frame house before the before it is sheathed.
|
|
Gone Kayaking
1K Post Member
long live the Vintage Shasta Trailer Forum....we're gone but you are not forgotten!
Posts: 1,600
|
Post by Gone Kayaking on Jun 17, 2011 8:30:06 GMT -5
The original aluminum on my 1956 Shasta is smooth on the top and the back (but not front or sides they have 6" brake). And it is also thicker gauge aluminum than the sides at .040 instead of 0.23
I can vouch that the thicker stuff is harder to make the bend. And I'm hoping it's not easier to mess up once it's on.
But Bruce, why can't it be painted?
|
|
