# Whats With These Puny 28" Bunks?



## Garfield (Jan 8, 2005)

Hello Outback lovers!

I have a bone to pick with Keystone regarding the size of their bunk beds.

We're in the process of upgrading from our popup to some kind of TT and so far the Outbacks are our favourites. In fact, the 25RSS would be at the top of the list if it wasn't for the puny 28" bunks in the front.

We have two kids who will be 15 and 12 next month, and I just can't see them sleeping in one of those "coffins". On paper, they didn't look too bad - after all they're almost half as big as the queen bed that DW and I sleep on every night. But then I tried one myself and there is NO way I would expect any teenager or adult to use one of those! (Younger kids excepted.)

They are always placed against one wall and often partially blocked on the other (depending on the trailer layout). Then there's the fact that I can't sit up in them. And then theres the fact that I kept bashing against the horizontal blind over the window (in the model I tried anyway). Who invented these monstrosities anyway?!

Of course Outback isn't alone in using bunk beds in their trailers, but why do they have to be so small? Even 42" bunks would be far more practical.

Suffice it to say, the small bunks forced us to stroke nearly every Outback trailer off our list of possibles with the exception of the 23RS or the gorgeous 27RSDS, which is likely too heavy for us to tow. Rats.

Frustrated in Ontario...
Garfield


----------



## RVCarolina (Jul 31, 2004)

I agree the bunks seem narrow, But for us have turned out to be quite useable and comfortable, (tho certainly not luxurious!) We have all slept on them at different times, and have no complaints. We did of course, swap the awful metal
mini blinds for custom curtains. (Much quieter!)
And please note, we are not tiny people - I am 6'-2"+ and 180 lbs. Barbara is
5'-10" and slender.







And "Tater" is 6'-3" and 235 lbs. at 15 years,
and Growing!







one of our camping buddies is 6' and built like an ape. -
Still, no one has had any problems getting a great nights sleep.








So, unless you are a really acrobatic sleeper, or really big, keep an open mind
concerning the bunks - you may well find them quite nice. We have.
Also, we like to use the bunk room to watch movies - Just prop up on a couple
of pillows, add some popcorn, and let it rain!
Fred.


----------



## rdowns (Oct 20, 2004)

I too was concerned somewhat about the narrow bunks though my children are small ( 3 & 1). I had my husband (6ft) lay in it and he said it would be fine. Actually I felt the design of the bunkhouse was better than many where they are separtaed only by a curtain. However, I have the fiver, which I realze is quite different anyway. We found that some things were traded to get others. Good luck in your decision.


----------



## NWcamper2 (Mar 28, 2004)

We too had concerns that they looked small...

But the bunks have proven themselves to be quite comfortable, they hold 6' adults just fine


----------



## Y-Guy (Jan 30, 2004)

We've had our two exchange students sleep in the bunks and they seemed just fine. Sleeping bag fits just fine on the bunk top or bottom. It wouldn't be my first choice as an adult, but our kids and our exchange students haven't found any problem with sleeping in them.


----------



## Garfield (Jan 8, 2005)

Thanks for the replys.

Hmmm. Interesting responses, but not quite what I was expecting. I'm not trying to start a classaction suit against Keystone or anyone - at least not in this crowd! But I thought I might get at least some sympathic replys. I guess not!

Ok, I will admit that we are biased, likely from being spoiled by the two king beds in the old popup - a feature thats none-existant in any TT we've looked at.

But really, I just can't envision getting used to those tiny bunks. And its not just me - its my DW, DD and DS! Has the popup ruined our sleeping expectations for life?


----------



## camping479 (Aug 27, 2003)

Doesn't seem to be an issue after a hard day of camping









Mike


----------



## Y-Guy (Jan 30, 2004)

Garfield said:


> Ok, I will admit that we are biased, likely from being spoiled by the two king beds in the old popup - a feature thats none-existant in any TT we've looked at.


Garfield, I hear ya, we went from a Coleman Niagara with those great King Beds to a "queen' Hybrid, the Outback was way better but still not the huge beds I came to love on the Niagara!


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

The bunks are sized to hold a standard sleeping bag. If you can sleep in a bag the bunks work perfect. They are also longer then most trailers and rated at 300 pounds, which is also more then most trailers.

We moved up from a Coleman Mesa with the 2 King beds and it was nice but the king bed space was really eaten up by the boys having their duffel bags on the bed with them. So the effective space was about the same.

The only draw back that we see with the Outbacks bunks is the metal mini blinds they used. Making noise every time you move (this goes for the Queen Slide also) and the fact that they get damaged far too easy. They will be replaced this coming spring as one of our upgrade mods.

The 27rsds is good but I (my kids) would have a problem with it (even if I just had two boys) there is an age (not too far off for you) where they will not be able to share sleeping space without a fight.

Good luck with what ever you pick, welcome to Outbackers and Happy Camping.


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

It is ironic...the bunks are the main reason we choose the this TT. The bunks were the best from all the other TT we looked at. They can actually support an adult. Most TT we looked at had a bunk weight of 150lbs or less.

So far the bunks have proven themselves good. (Kids love them and when we had a full house ...another family joined us..the bunks were comfortable).

Good luck with your choice.

Thor


----------



## Garfield (Jan 8, 2005)

Hey, I don't have anything against bunks! After all they provide a very efficient sleeping arrangement, and are perhaps the only choice for a large families.

But in our search for a TT, the 28" bunks in the Outbacks are *the smallest * compared to competing units with rear slides. The Surveyors, Rockwood Roos, Kodiak's and K-Z's all offer bigger bunks or even doubles in some cases.

Looks to me like Keystone is getting left behind.


----------



## NDJollyMon (Aug 22, 2003)

Garfield...

I think manufacturers of light trailers scale down things to save space/weight. These are considered LIGHTWEIGHT trailers, so maybe that's why they scaled back the bunk size. Maybe it's because they think the bunks will only be used by children. Who knows.

I haven't slept in the front bunks of my trailer, so I really never paid any attention to width. (however, I think they should have added a couple inches in length to the queen slide!)

The selling point to me, was the fold up lower bunk, bike door, and bunk max. weight.

We use the bunks more for storage space than anything. My son occasionally uses the bottom bunk, but you have to be a magician to get in the top bunk anyway! (see ladder mods on other posts)

You either love 'em or hate 'em. It's always good to say your opinion on the matter. Heck, maybe KEYSTONE reads the forum. Maybe an email/letter to them may change future designs.

The addage: ONE SIZE FITS ALL doesn't always work for everyone.


----------

