Host Ind. BS

hbski wrote:

thejustin wrote:

hbski wrote:

Actually Chalet, makes and advertises that camper as a dual slide and a triple slide DS116FB & TS116FB which is a more ethical approach. (Made actually as I understand their Truck camper factory roof collapsed last year and they haven't gotten it going again as of yet).

They also offer a triple slide version of the DS116RB floor plan with an optional rear wardrobe slide that isn't advertised on thier TC page. By your logic, do you consider this "unethical"?

No because they don't show you ONLY the 3 slide floor plan and require the 3rd slide to be able to use the bathroom all while pricing and weighing you in for a 2 slide unit. If Host showed the (probably non-existant) base floor plan and then indicated you could add another slide, that would be an entirely different thing

thejustin wrote:

hbski wrote:


Oh, I have inquired. Mostly here I am just complaining about what I feel is an unethical practice. The 2 Aspens, Everest, and Mammoth all require more than one slide to function.

Those along with the Chinook, Shasta and Cascade are all marketed as multi-slide campers, yet all only include one slide in both the weight and cost. Something that is unique to Host from what I can tell by visiting the websites of Lance, Arctic Fox, Chalet, and Eagle Cap for instance.

If you are dissatisfied with the requirements of more than one slide, seriously, you need to be looking at another camper. The entire point of having a big Chalet/Host/EC is for the ample space. If you desire only a single slide, buy a Lance,AF, etc...

As far as the weights go, the extra slides are OPTIONS. Camper dry weights are listed without OPTIONAL equipment. This is not some nefarious evil plan Host is using in an attempt for world domination.

Not at all dissatisfied with more than one slide. I now have two slides and would like 3 slides. However, I also want to buy one from a manufacturer and a dealer who is up front about cost and weight (I know hard to find).

I don't THINK this is an attempt to misrepresent their product, it is ENTIRELY OBVIOUS that it is and always has been for them (with very little effect on their ability to dominate even the average consumer, much less the world).

This isn't some new revelation for me either. I've known about it since I first looked at Host before I bought my Okanagan 9 years ago. I have been watching the Host offerings all these years as well, because they do develop some interesting stuff.

And Finally, pardon me for wanting to discuss a topic relevant to truck campers on the truck camper forum. I mean really is it THAT important to YOU to defend Host so vehemently for some reason?

I don't have my build sheet handy in front of me but IIRC, the base price was somewhere in the 30K range but with every option and slide added it ballooned up to 50K. I wasn't foolish enough to believe a triple slide camper would weigh in at 3K lbs or cost 30 grand, it just isn't going to happen. As such I wasn't surprised when I saw the final MSRP (Host Everest)

I'm not particularly defending Host, I'm just saying that *ALL* TC camper manufacturers disguise the true weight and cost of the unit by manipulating the optional equipment. A practice which you deem "unethical." It's not unique to truck campers either. It's like when you see a commercial for a new truck for 19,999 but then you go into the dealership and that price is for a barebones XL model with zero options. Step up to a King Ranch and you are looking at 50-60k. As far as "forcing" the options on you, that is not unique to Host either. Again I reference Arctic Fox. They have a package of options that is REQUIRED on each camper, you have no choice but to accept it and these options are not factored in when calculating the dry weight. You are going to find little things like this not just with TC's, but with pretty much everything you buy in the economy. It is the buyer's responsibility to make a well informed decision and not get taken by the dealer, and that certainly includes knowing how much you are paying and how much the camper weighs.

I think you need to readjust your expectations. You seem disgusted by the price of the Everest given which options are "required" on that particular floor plan. If that's the case, LOOK FOR A CHEAPER CAMPER. Simple solution.

Given your comments, I would suggest Eagle Cap. I will be upgrading to an EC1165 next season and I can tell you on the actual build sheet it will show you a dry weight pre-options and an (estimated) wet weight post option selection so you know what the thing weighs and exactly what options you are paying for. However, similar with the Everest/Mammoth, this has a split floor plan design and REQUIRES the dinette and kitchen slides so not sure if you would have an issue with that.