[slowmover]

What we call low power cars just don't exist any more. Today's four cylinder cars have unreal power. Their limiting factors are primarily chassis strength and cooling capacity. That said, the smallest brand new Airstream trailers are in reach of some (as you've seen me note, the problem isn't trailer weight, per se), and older lighter ones even more so.

The "problem" with the Bowles is simply price versus utility. The shape doesn't open up towing to a new class of vehicles. Shorn of price and fit/finish, it's quite low on storage. Limited.

For those in California where mountains, desert forest and seashore are all less than a day away, it may not matter. One can pack for a specific 2-3 day trip (not replenishing supplies, especially water).

Where a variety of seasons are to be encountered, and/or extended dry camping is contemplated, the Bowles is simply not in the running.

If utility means something, then an Oliver or Bigfoot makes as much of more sense than even an Airstream. Both need to be converted to independent suspension. Antilock disc brakes on every single brand. The O and B brands are where a removable fabric nosecone and some sort of tail treatment would Make sense (at least as I think it's the direction you want).

It's a thing of beauty, granted. The reviews I've read suggest that the buyers really do know what they're talking about (high end cars, airplanes, sailing yachts).

But best use of fuel still goes to doing the most with the least. And that's with 28-35' AS-style TTs behind a turbodiesel pickup. Or, 23-25' TT behind a Euro TD SUV. And 16-19' TT behind TD sedans.

See capacities. Propane, fresh water, and battery amp hours. Storage for food and clothing. Extrapolate use based on number of persons against nights aboard at a quite comfortable level of use. This really is what matters making comparisons across a class of design.

Then decide.

Folks say things like, "well, I'll never use AC". But that 100-lb roof unit won't change other capacities, and won't be measured against FE. And there are plenty of instances where AC is justified in any climate.

A change of 3-5/mph CAN make an FE difference. Obliterate EVERY attempt at added aero. It's almost universally ignored.

The Clippers of 1948-53 or so disappeared because they were space inefficient and labor intensive. . Not simply because high compression engines became available. The key to understanding the change is the Interstate Highway System. A Clipper is no longer justified.

Since then it is a given that fuel and ground rental are the major daily costs. Reducing the latter is by "dry camping" (be it a truck stop, Walmart or BLM land or other). The former by TV spec and TT design. Fiddling with details of the latter is only beneficial where capacities and occupancy is already settled. X people versus Y days. That's the important calculation in this subset. It has precedence over further aero refinement. Whatever cuts short dry camping is a penalty in fuel. Far greater than a few MPG otherwise.

I really don't disagree with any points you make. I almost always learn something. And I know you know more than me. But TT capacity is central
to discussion of them.