FYI _ Good Points!

4X4Dodger wrote:

2012Coleman wrote:
What a load of horse stuff...

The writer is railing against the RV manufacturers because they are making products that are not compatible with his campground? He can't afford cable hookups and has narrow sites, so somehow this is a "chasm" between him and the manufacturers?

I guess he hasn't noticed that manufacturers make a wide spectrum of RV's that are compatible with his park - but for some reason he can't attract them.

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning of competition - that since a TT has a cable hookup, and watching cable TV is a necessity for the owner, that his CG will be passed by for one that has the hookups.

I didn't see any suggestions offered - most likely because its a non issue.

In my view you have missed the entire meaning of the article.

The author is rightly pointing out that Some RV manufacturers are going down a road of development without regard for the rest of the industry or what they can accomodate/need or what the customer may really want.

This is a "Lead and they will follow" attitude on the part of those huge motorcoach builders. But that does not always work in business.

The rush to build ever larger more powerhungry RV's flies in the face of common sense and the market. It is also fairly irresponsible from a power conservation standpoint.

The point of the article to me is that buidlers need to be sync with the infrastructure in place, the market desires and the other parts of the industry, like aftermarket parts before they just drive off a cliff with some new design.

X2.

The author isn't saying manufacturers shouldn't make improvements, etc., but simply that manufacturers should make sure there is a viable source to make those improvements useful.

Considering that 50amp service has barely become a reasonable expectation at RV Parks, pushing out a bunch of 100amp rigs (and filling them with equipment that requires 100amps) is just setting everyone up for failure. The parks can't provide the service, the owners can't use all the stuff they paid for, and the manufacturer goes to the bank and says "you bought it".

Seems to me it's just more of the manufacturers' disinterest in producing quality products.

2012Coleman wrote:
What a load of horse stuff...

The writer is railing against the RV manufacturers because they are making products that are not compatible with his campground? He can't afford cable hookups and has narrow sites, so somehow this is a "chasm" between him and the manufacturers?

I guess he hasn't noticed that manufacturers make a wide spectrum of RV's that are compatible with his park - but for some reason he can't attract them.

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning of competition - that since a TT has a cable hookup, and watching cable TV is a necessity for the owner, that his CG will be passed by for one that has the hookups.

I didn't see any suggestions offered - most likely because its a non issue.

In my view you have missed the entire meaning of the article.

The author is rightly pointing out that Some RV manufacturers are going down a road of development without regard for the rest of the industry or what they can accomodate/need or what the customer may really want.

This is a "Lead and they will follow" attitude on the part of those huge motorcoach builders. But that does not always work in business.

The rush to build ever larger more powerhungry RV's flies in the face of common sense and the market. It is also fairly irresponsible from a power conservation standpoint.

The point of the article to me is that buidlers need to be sync with the infrastructure in place, the market desires and the other parts of the industry, like aftermarket parts before they just drive off a cliff with some new design.

As a boater entertainment is provided by those who have no clue on how to dock a boat or how to anchor it.

As a RVer the entertainment is similar. The author of the article is correct. There are people who, if they can't get a FHU pullthru site, they have to go back home. Putting that monster into reverse is beyond the realms of possibility.

There is something & somewhere for everyone I guess but some of these casinos on wheels are severely limited on where they can go.

2012Coleman wrote:
What a load of horse stuff...

The writer is railing against the RV manufacturers because they are making products that are not compatible with his campground? He can't afford cable hookups and has narrow sites, so somehow this is a "chasm" between him and the manufacturers?

I guess he hasn't noticed that manufacturers make a wide spectrum of RV's that are compatible with his park - but for some reason he can't attract them.

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning of competition - that since a TT has a cable hookup, and watching cable TV is a necessity for the owner, that his CG will be passed by for one that has the hookups.

I didn't see any suggestions offered - most likely because its a non issue.

^^^^ This

What a load of horse stuff...

The writer is railing against the RV manufacturers because they are making products that are not compatible with his campground? He can't afford cable hookups and has narrow sites, so somehow this is a "chasm" between him and the manufacturers?

I guess he hasn't noticed that manufacturers make a wide spectrum of RV's that are compatible with his park - but for some reason he can't attract them.

Or maybe he doesn't know the meaning of competition - that since a TT has a cable hookup, and watching cable TV is a necessity for the owner, that his CG will be passed by for one that has the hookups.

I didn't see any suggestions offered - most likely because its a non issue.

"I for one always want the biggest camper I can afford. Remember, you only have to get it parked one time per vacation. "

Sorry but not true for those of us who TRAVEL and don't sit in one spot for our whole vacation!! Try it - you might like it!

rhagfo wrote:
100 Amp service? :h

Shore cord better be on a reel, and hope you don't need to pull out too much, the cable would need to 1 gauge or maybe even single 0.

As I understand it, usually 100A rigs have dual 50A shore power cords.

100A would require 3 or possibly 2 gauge, I think, as per the NEC. This isn't the same situation as DC wiring where the primary concern is often the voltage drop rather than resistive heating of the wire.

100 Amp service? :h

Shore cord better be on a reel, and hope you don't need to pull out too much, the cable would need to 1 gauge or maybe even single 0.

mockturtle wrote:
Yes, he makes some good points. I was recently in a small, older RV park where a large group of 40-footers moved in for the night. The sites were not really adequate in size or facilities but no doubt the owner had assured the club otherwise. I would guess there were a few unhappy campers.

But, while the industry may be making bigger and more complex rigs, much of the population is going for smaller, more energy-efficient rigs. Like mine! :)

I see that trend alot out here on the road full time. The industry is behind the curve on this one...which is not that unusual.

One thing is for sure there are way too many people out here driving huge vehicles that have NO BUSINESS doing so. I watch so many of them cant turn, cant back, cant park. Some cant even get into the fuel pumps successfully.

In my book if you cant back it up into a tight spot you've got no business driving it at all. I can tell immediately by the way a driver "sets up" his/her approach to a parking space just how competent they are at backing.

The sad part is I see so many very angry and contentious arguments between the parties involved in backing up a huge rig that it makes you wonder if you are not witnessing a divorce in action.

People with rigs over 26k and over a certain length need training and licensing. Air brakes require a separate test for a class b or class a license and any rig with airbrakes should require the same of an RV owner. If you cant pass the test you shouldn't own the vehicle. Period.

Dutch_12078 wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
My gosh, the big motorhomes we saw at the RV show a week back were overwhelmingly gaudy. They looked like a Las Vegas casino inside, what with all the lights everywhere: strip lights, neon lights, undercabinet lights, LED cord lights. Way too much for my tastes for sure. And the outside wasn't much better, with lots of outdoor lighting too. Ick. I can see that you'd need a lot of power to run all the stuff there was besides the lights. Over the top a bit I thought.

We call those interior designs "retro brothel"... ;)

LOL