Hello to all,
I?m a newbie to the forum, but have been lurking and learning. Lots of info from experienced minds. We have been giving serious thought to an RV for retirement cruising and I have come across 2 conundrums in the RV community which I would like to belabor. These gaps exist because of my incorrigible need to reject the norm and embrace the different so bear with me as I cackle until my next scheduled medication. ;D
The first is the lack of use of tow trailers on ?cars?. Why is that? I think that with today?s technology, cars would be excellent candidates if you stay in the guzzler range. To elaborate a bit, I have a 2007 Chrysler 300C which I consider an engineering marvel of power and efficiency. It boasts on the fly automatic and manual transmission combination; all wheel drive; abs, 4 of 8 cylinders shut down when in cruise mode or the load is low with immediate 8 cylinder response when demanded; 340HP and 390 ft/lb of torque, 3.5:1 gear ratio, etc etc. The tow capacity is only 2000# and it seems like the designer was very conservative in his calculations for a vehicle weighing in at a tad over 2 tons. Shoot...with self leveling shocks, a good trailer tow package, trailer brakes and authoritative use of manual transmission and brakes I bet that figure can be doubled without any problems at all on any grade. A larger transmission cooler would definitely seal the package.
The second is that trailers that do exist are minimalist trailers with very little privacy for owner and guests and not enough quality of life systems capacity for comfortable cruising outside of society?s prying eyes for an extended period unless there is in fact a sizable home being trailed. The weight appears to be the main issue which eliminates tow by cars. The collapsible and foldable trailers are incredible wonders of cloth walls and open plans with the only privacy between guests and your throne being a piece of cloth which is thinner than the paper used to wipe oneself. The non collapsible trailers which are capable of walls and doors double the gas consumption from poor aerodynamic design and suffer from a high center of gravity. In the smaller sizes, the living room and or the dining room seating is set up as ?dedicated? sleeping quarters. That means you can?t go to bed until guests are gone and forget about sleeping in late on a rainy day if the navigator wants breakfast.
I am in no way being critical. They are excellent as purpose designed. The problem that I see is that they are not ?mission? specific. For example, it appears that industry restricts accommodations to length because of width restrictions and greater accommodations can only be had with greater length, but I don?t agree because I can fit 4 single bunks in the same volume for 1 queen size bed.
Much along the same, it appears that weight is driven by the manufacturer?s profit margin, thereby the use of steel with little if any thought given to our current engineering knowledge of existing technologically superior construction materials and I disagree with that as well because a design can be mirrored in alternate materials with the same safety factors at 60 percent the weight and, engineered correctly, corrosion is eliminated or at the very least reduced to just the axle. This of course is classified as ?custom? and a custom price is added to the bottom line, but even those may be cost effective if they are one off because the savings come in sweat equity and fill the required need, but those builders are far and few in between as well since they are overwhelmed by the economy of scale from production line manufacturers.
Being a sailor with more than 20,000 nautical offshore miles under the keel, I can understand and indeed appreciate the minimalist and compact approach because maintenance costs increase by the cube for every additional foot of length overall, but even the smallest cruisers have dedicated sleeping quarters and a solid bulkhead for the head. Indeed, it is my observation that utilized volume based on floor area is usually 50/50 for comfortable living with approximately 70 to 80 square feet per person on board as all the area one could ever need and anything above that has a significant reason for existing or the owners are overcompensating. In all reality, you can only occupy so much space at any given time so why incorporate more?
Wanna talk tight? I put myself through school by driving a conventional tractor-trailer combination (doubles, triples, haz-mats, tankers) for more than 2 million road miles so we can definitely discuss a tight cabin with the top of the engine as my hot plate.
Does anyone feel the same or see the same limitations to the current trailers for cars? It seems that you just can?t get into a comfortable trailer above 15 feet because of weight if you want to tow with a car and you must either settle for the smaller camper, purchase a new vehicle to match the trailer or get the motorhome and tow the toad. Any thoughts and observations would be most welcome and I hope this doesn?t create more heat than light as a discussion.
Thanks
J
I?m a newbie to the forum, but have been lurking and learning. Lots of info from experienced minds. We have been giving serious thought to an RV for retirement cruising and I have come across 2 conundrums in the RV community which I would like to belabor. These gaps exist because of my incorrigible need to reject the norm and embrace the different so bear with me as I cackle until my next scheduled medication. ;D
The first is the lack of use of tow trailers on ?cars?. Why is that? I think that with today?s technology, cars would be excellent candidates if you stay in the guzzler range. To elaborate a bit, I have a 2007 Chrysler 300C which I consider an engineering marvel of power and efficiency. It boasts on the fly automatic and manual transmission combination; all wheel drive; abs, 4 of 8 cylinders shut down when in cruise mode or the load is low with immediate 8 cylinder response when demanded; 340HP and 390 ft/lb of torque, 3.5:1 gear ratio, etc etc. The tow capacity is only 2000# and it seems like the designer was very conservative in his calculations for a vehicle weighing in at a tad over 2 tons. Shoot...with self leveling shocks, a good trailer tow package, trailer brakes and authoritative use of manual transmission and brakes I bet that figure can be doubled without any problems at all on any grade. A larger transmission cooler would definitely seal the package.
The second is that trailers that do exist are minimalist trailers with very little privacy for owner and guests and not enough quality of life systems capacity for comfortable cruising outside of society?s prying eyes for an extended period unless there is in fact a sizable home being trailed. The weight appears to be the main issue which eliminates tow by cars. The collapsible and foldable trailers are incredible wonders of cloth walls and open plans with the only privacy between guests and your throne being a piece of cloth which is thinner than the paper used to wipe oneself. The non collapsible trailers which are capable of walls and doors double the gas consumption from poor aerodynamic design and suffer from a high center of gravity. In the smaller sizes, the living room and or the dining room seating is set up as ?dedicated? sleeping quarters. That means you can?t go to bed until guests are gone and forget about sleeping in late on a rainy day if the navigator wants breakfast.
I am in no way being critical. They are excellent as purpose designed. The problem that I see is that they are not ?mission? specific. For example, it appears that industry restricts accommodations to length because of width restrictions and greater accommodations can only be had with greater length, but I don?t agree because I can fit 4 single bunks in the same volume for 1 queen size bed.
Much along the same, it appears that weight is driven by the manufacturer?s profit margin, thereby the use of steel with little if any thought given to our current engineering knowledge of existing technologically superior construction materials and I disagree with that as well because a design can be mirrored in alternate materials with the same safety factors at 60 percent the weight and, engineered correctly, corrosion is eliminated or at the very least reduced to just the axle. This of course is classified as ?custom? and a custom price is added to the bottom line, but even those may be cost effective if they are one off because the savings come in sweat equity and fill the required need, but those builders are far and few in between as well since they are overwhelmed by the economy of scale from production line manufacturers.
Being a sailor with more than 20,000 nautical offshore miles under the keel, I can understand and indeed appreciate the minimalist and compact approach because maintenance costs increase by the cube for every additional foot of length overall, but even the smallest cruisers have dedicated sleeping quarters and a solid bulkhead for the head. Indeed, it is my observation that utilized volume based on floor area is usually 50/50 for comfortable living with approximately 70 to 80 square feet per person on board as all the area one could ever need and anything above that has a significant reason for existing or the owners are overcompensating. In all reality, you can only occupy so much space at any given time so why incorporate more?
Wanna talk tight? I put myself through school by driving a conventional tractor-trailer combination (doubles, triples, haz-mats, tankers) for more than 2 million road miles so we can definitely discuss a tight cabin with the top of the engine as my hot plate.
Does anyone feel the same or see the same limitations to the current trailers for cars? It seems that you just can?t get into a comfortable trailer above 15 feet because of weight if you want to tow with a car and you must either settle for the smaller camper, purchase a new vehicle to match the trailer or get the motorhome and tow the toad. Any thoughts and observations would be most welcome and I hope this doesn?t create more heat than light as a discussion.
Thanks
J