rfryer wrote:
2gypsies, I think posts like ours confuse OP’s and that’s unfortunate. One says no way and the other says I do it all the time. And that’s not all that uncommon on the posts that I see. Since neither one of us is trying to mislead the OP its clear there’s something important missing in the posts or we wouldn’t have that much difference of opinion.
When someone says “neat places”, that to me means undeveloped, minimal or no services, and away from the mass of campers. And I can say unequivocally that you won’t find anything remotely approaching 40’ within miles of me, even a 25’er would be a rare sight. So obviously we’re not going to the same places, but that’s not coming through on the posts. Your extensive list of forest cg’s threw me a little, too, as offhand I can’t think of any of those FS cg’s I normally use that someone could get a 40’ anything into. Except for a few of the more developed ones right along the highway mentioned earlier.
I’m not taking issue with your post, I’m quite sure you’re doing what you say you are. I’m more interested in figuring out how to word my own so that the OP doesn’t get seemingly opposite answers to his questions.
A longer rig will always have less site selection vs. a shorter rig. That does not mean there are no sites for big rigs. However if you want to get into the more remote off the grid places a smaller rig is a better option vs. a 40'.
I have a 40' rig and have no problem finding neat places, however I am not finding the same neat places as someone with a 25 footer. Furthermore as others have mentioned I have crossed a few neat places off my list because my rig is just too big.
Nevertheless I have no problem finding sites and I enjoy the spaciousness of my rig. Compromise is a must when selecting a RV.
