For somebody who has experienced both sides of it, the short answer to the title question is 'yes'. But it's in the interest of some RVers to trick it into a 'no'. That is my current project.
By 'camping' I mean short-term sleeping/hauling/sitting in a sub-RV, as opposed to 365 days per year of living/walking in a big RV. I might want to camp for as long as one month, a few hours drive from where I live permanently in an RV park in my no-longer-roadworthy travel trailer.
In part, this is motivated by cost. Time will tell if the RV racket adjusts to smaller RVs (or sub-RVs) over the next decade because of gasoline inflation. Since gasoline will take many hard-to-predict ups and downs, it might seem foolish to worry about it now, especially if you're a 65-year-old retiree. Many of them have plenty of money, although not so much time, so gasoline can only get so bad for them.
The early retiree's tradeoffs are just the opposite. Guarding his nest egg requires him to be a "commodity speculator," or the world and Chance will do it for him. It seems like a no-lose choice to opt for the small RV or the sub-RV.
I am heartily sick of feeding and maintaining a V8 engine that gets single digit fuel economy in stop-and-go traffic in town, or on mountainous or washboarded roads in the back country, where most of the gasoline gets consumed. (I don't care about highway fuel economy.) The short answer is that this requires a single vehicle with no towing; I need a mini-van or small pickup truck with a shell/cap. (Not a slide-in pickup camper.)
But let's not get too bogged down on costs without first asking, Why would sub-RV camping be a better experience than big RV "camping"? The latter is certainly comfortable, but there is little sense of adventure in camping in RV parks or established campgrounds. Of course you could be happy with non-adventurous camping and get your excitement-fix from what you do during the day, as Wandrin does with his hiking.
I had over a decade of camping with a 40 foot long RV, and enjoyed almost all of it. One of my co-conspirators, Box Canyon Blog, thinks I got tired of it, but acknowledging the Point of Diminishing Returns is different from "getting tired" of it. So is refusing to buy a second full RV setup. I want a new style, a different kind of challenge, and easier camping on public lands. (I don't care for city streets and parking lots.)
What is it about a rawer and less-comfortable camping experience that is worth aiming at? What would make it a more memorable and intense experience? That's the real issue. Next time.
By 'camping' I mean short-term sleeping/hauling/sitting in a sub-RV, as opposed to 365 days per year of living/walking in a big RV. I might want to camp for as long as one month, a few hours drive from where I live permanently in an RV park in my no-longer-roadworthy travel trailer.
In part, this is motivated by cost. Time will tell if the RV racket adjusts to smaller RVs (or sub-RVs) over the next decade because of gasoline inflation. Since gasoline will take many hard-to-predict ups and downs, it might seem foolish to worry about it now, especially if you're a 65-year-old retiree. Many of them have plenty of money, although not so much time, so gasoline can only get so bad for them.
The early retiree's tradeoffs are just the opposite. Guarding his nest egg requires him to be a "commodity speculator," or the world and Chance will do it for him. It seems like a no-lose choice to opt for the small RV or the sub-RV.
I am heartily sick of feeding and maintaining a V8 engine that gets single digit fuel economy in stop-and-go traffic in town, or on mountainous or washboarded roads in the back country, where most of the gasoline gets consumed. (I don't care about highway fuel economy.) The short answer is that this requires a single vehicle with no towing; I need a mini-van or small pickup truck with a shell/cap. (Not a slide-in pickup camper.)
But let's not get too bogged down on costs without first asking, Why would sub-RV camping be a better experience than big RV "camping"? The latter is certainly comfortable, but there is little sense of adventure in camping in RV parks or established campgrounds. Of course you could be happy with non-adventurous camping and get your excitement-fix from what you do during the day, as Wandrin does with his hiking.
I had over a decade of camping with a 40 foot long RV, and enjoyed almost all of it. One of my co-conspirators, Box Canyon Blog, thinks I got tired of it, but acknowledging the Point of Diminishing Returns is different from "getting tired" of it. So is refusing to buy a second full RV setup. I want a new style, a different kind of challenge, and easier camping on public lands. (I don't care for city streets and parking lots.)
What is it about a rawer and less-comfortable camping experience that is worth aiming at? What would make it a more memorable and intense experience? That's the real issue. Next time.
Comments
get out the calculator.
You're right again: pickup trucks have such high cargo bed floors that the headroom (with a standard shell)is unlivable. A shell that is higher than the roof of the cab would be required.
Sigh. If only the Ford Transit Connect van didn't have tires the size of a child's bicycle; the ground clearance is no better than a passenger car.
But if you're not enjoying yourself you must ask yourself if your rig is causing the problem, or is it the lifestyle itself.
My guess is that mere discomfort and lack of space in a rig won't detract from your enjoyment of the lifestyle until you've been doing it for a year or two.
bethers
http://www.wanderthewest.com/
Carl
I think I'm interested in a light-duty, 4 cylinder pickup truck that couldn't even support the XP Camper. I'll probably go with just a shell/cap, rather than a slide-in (heavier) camper.
Carl