Beefy, Austrian-Made Camper Van Aims to Drive America’s Glampers off the Beaten Path

People do like to sit high in their rides, but this high? A ladder would have been helpful to mount the extra-tall Krug Expedition Bedrock XT2, a US$690,000 go-anywhere camper from an Austrian company that wants to conquer the American off-road RV market. This is off-the-beaten-path glamping at its finest.

The example tested is, so far, the only one, but Krug has high hopes for the American market, which has a growing appetite for “expedition” off-road vehicles ranging from trucks to beefed-up RVs. The company describes the XT2 as a “6×4 off-road machine converting a luxury variant of the Ford Super Duty F-550 and bringing it to the next level with suspension and chassis frame reliability.” In other words, it’s a rugged three-axle truck with a double bed attached. The camper is a joint production with Iceland-based Arctic Trucks, which specialises in polar expeditions to the Arctic and Antarctic.

One of Arctic’s vehicles set a speed record of 108 hours from the Russian Novolazarevskaya Antarctic research station to the South Pole in 2010. The XT2 might be ideal, then, for a trip through the spectacular scenery of Alaska or for hitting the highway in Canada and driving north. The truck is ready to go off the grid, supported by electric power from a 1,450-watt-peak solar panel array and a 23-kilowatt-hour battery bank.

The founder of Krug, Viktor Ermolov, tried a competitor’s expedition vehicle around 2010 and thought he could do better with a vehicle filling an unmet need for a light (relatively speaking) expedition camper that could drive well in extreme terrain. The first truck came out in 2011.

The Expedition Bedrock XT2 doesn’t mind a dusty trail.
Krug

“Our clients are adventure-seeking individuals with a passion for nature and conservation. They prioritise quality, reliability, and sustainability in their purchasing decisions and are motivated by the desire for unique and meaningful experiences,” Krug Expedition CEO Slawa Knorr said in a statement to Penta .

Asked about the typical client, he said that young couples and families with children are being seen more and more.

On the road, the 9,000 to 10,000-pound XT2, which looks like a normal truck-mounted camper on steroids, was surprisingly easy to drive. Under the hood was a Ford Powerstroke 6.7-litre diesel with direct injection and 330 horsepower, with the weight of the camper yielding something like nine miles per gallon. The assisted steering was fairly light. The brakes felt like they were hauling down considerable weight, which they were. The biggest consideration while driving was considering the width and avoiding contact with cars lining the road. The cab was relatively comfortable, and the visibility good except toward the back, where the big mirrors became extra important.

The third axle decreases ground pressure up to 25%, and the big Continental multi-purpose tires provide a lot of grip. The rear air suspension is adjustable from the cab to accommodate heavy loads and rough terrain.

The exterior camper panels are made from a high-grade, glass-reinforced plastic (GRP) laminate that is 70% fibreglass. Inside, the XT2 offers functional luxury. There was a comfortable-looking king bed in its own nook, a kitchenette, a bathroom with walk-in shower supported by a 118-gallon filtered water tank, and a dining area and lounge with a 32-inch TV (with Starlink connectivity) and a table that converted to a second sleeping area. For a week away, it was more than fine, and the buyer can make it as luxurious as they want.

The dining area converts to a second bedroom.
Krug

The kitchen’s fresh water uses the General Ecology Seagull IV-X2 system to banish chemicals, bacteria, and viruses. It may be cold where you’re going, so the quiet Truma Combi diesel-powered air heating system is on board, providing cabin heat and hot water. A hydronic system for underfloor heating is also available for colder climates, with automatic frost protection and radiators in the bathroom and dining area radiators. And for hotter weather, there’s the highly energy-efficient Nomadic Cooling air-conditioning system.

If cooking al fresco is desired, a portable outdoor kitchen can be built into the underfloor storage boxes.

For weekend getaways, any number of less-expensive camper solutions are available. The XT2 is aimed at rugged adventurers, who want to be virtually self-sufficient for excursions off the beaten path. It’s not the only vehicle in this expedition category. There’s also the evocatively named Storyteller GXV Epic, priced at a similar US$696,377. This is a big, tough all-wheel drive truck with up to 1,800 miles of range, 18 kilowatt-hours of available power, a built-in washer and dryer, and more.

Or how about the Ford F-250-based US$350,000 27 North Ascender RexRover truck, which sleeps four? Need more room? The cabover Loki Steyr 1491 accommodates six.

A wave of corporate warnings and technical disclosures has flooded the media, with headlines worrying over “swarms” of rogue artificial-intelligence agents launching “unprecedented” cyberattacks, outsmarting their makers, and inching toward a terrifying autonomy. The most revealing part of this narrative isn’t what the software did. It’s who is telling the story—and why. When corporate leaders publicly insist that the systems they financed, engineered and deployed are suddenly beyond their power to contain, skepticism isn’t only healthy; it is essential.

For years, Silicon Valley has drawn scrutiny from civil society and global regulators over tangible harms such as youth mental health deterioration and systematic privacy violations. Today, industry figures seem to be trying to change that public image. Loudly blowing the whistle on their own systems—just as two of the leading companies were preparing for massive initial public offerings—lets AI executives position themselves as a new generation of leaders who have come to terms with their societal responsibilities. They seem to want us to believe that they no longer want to “move fast and break things” but will instead stand as vigilant guardians between humanity and a technological apocalypse.

There is one glaring problem: Software doesn’t rebel. A mathematical model possesses neither intent, malice nor the will to defy its creators, let alone extinguish our species. AI is a human artifact, engineered for profit.

When an agentic model in an evaluation sandbox connects to an unauthorized server or executes an exploit, it hasn’t staged a coup. It has tried to meet the human-defined objectives set out before it through a path its designers failed to constrain. It’s the digital equivalent of the King Midas myth, in which the king’s ill-defined wish turns even his food and drink into gold.

That powerful experimental models were able to discover novel vulnerabilities and breach external systems isn’t a sign of a dangerous superintelligence but of human error or negligence. There is no sentient actor lurking in the weights to be reasoned with, feared or pacified. There are only human software engineers, product managers and corporate boards deciding which guardrails are worth the latency cost and which permissions can be skipped in the race to market.

Policymakers and voters need to resist AI exceptionalism. In any other discipline—from civil engineering to pharmaceuticals—courts and regulators treat a system failure as evidence of bad product design and inadequate safety testing. If an aircraft crashes, we focus on finding the engineering defect, correcting it, and enforcing established liability standards for the damage created.

By leaning on an anthropomorphic narrative, Silicon Valley attempts to repackage its specific human choices that led to experimental, powerful models behaving unexpectedly during tests as an existential peril. Elevating the issue to a cosmic scale leaves the public paralyzed and takes ordinary product accountability off the table.

In the cutthroat race for venture capital and market dominance, building guardrails slows down deployment. Grandstanding about uncontrollable power costs nothing and generates billions of dollars in free publicity, justifying stock prices, all while cultivating an aura of technological capability not only to build the frontier but also ultimately to rein it in.

Governments need to recognize regulatory capture when it stares them in the face. Tech leaders’ strategy looks transparent: Alarm Washington and Brussels into creating a regime in which only trillion-dollar incumbents with fully staffed compliance and safety departments can legally operate. By sitting at the policymakers’ tables before anyone else, these companies can help draft rules digging an impassable moat protecting them from open-source developers and upstart competitors, domestic or international. The real danger is in further concentrating the tech industry into the hands of only a few companies with deep pockets.

Beijing and Washington have brushed off those tech leaders’ calls, albeit for very different reasons. Chinese state media dismissed them as part of the “Cold War playbook” and intended to preserve U.S. dominance. Xi Jinping argued for exactly the opposite at the Brics Summit on Sept. 12, calling on Brics countries to “strengthen cooperation in the field of AI, encourage open source, openness, collaboration and sharing, and break new grounds and scale new heights.” President Trump, steeped in a doctrine of unfettered capitalism and technological supremacy, called fears that AI could destroy humanity a “hoax.” Vice President JD Vance warned that AI companies “begging the government to regulate them” looked like a “Trojan Horse.”

Striving to pursue its “European way” on AI and assert regulatory leadership, Europe, by contrast, welcomed the call. European Union President Ursula von der Leyen made this clear at the State of the EU speech last Wednesday and announced that the EU will invite “the main frontier labs for a discussion on how we can support ongoing industry efforts to pace the frontier.”

Europe has been here before. In an effort to lead global regulation and react to fears borne from ChatGPT, Europe rushed its landmark AI Act into law in 2024. Already the world’s most restrictive rulebook, the framework quickly proved too broad and complex to enforce. Stalled by implementation delays and concerns about European competitiveness, the EU postponed the law’s full rollout, leaving regulations uncertain.

AI should be regulated—risks exist and should be taken seriously. But governments need to act based on available evidence and verified facts, not corporate PR panic, the views of industry insiders, or the desire for quick political wins. The greatest danger facing society isn’t that software will awaken and overthrow its human masters. It is that we will allow the creators of the software to abdicate human responsibility for the systems they choose to build and help them pull up the ladder to market access behind them.

Beefy, Austrian-Made Camper Van Aims to Drive America’s Glampers off the Beaten Path

AI doesn’t rebel—people design, deploy and profit from it. The real danger lies in allowing tech companies to escape accountability while shaping regulations that protect their dominance.