This is a followup to a post a couple days back about getting a group of RVers to design the perfect rig.
Like baseball, real RV-camping (boondocking) is a 'game of inches.' Too bad I didn't photograph the inch or two of clearance yesterday when I almost pinned my travel trailer between two ponderosa pines.
It could have been worse: I could have bought my travel trailer a few years later, after the RV industry had "progressed" from the old 7-foot-wide standard (mine) to 8 foot. (For comparison, a Ford Econoline van is 6.5 feet wide.)
Once again I have benefited from traveling with a group and getting a chance to weigh the pro-s and con-s of a group of rigs. One of our party has the standard 8 foot width in his travel trailer. Bad news! The greater width will make life more comfortable when winter-camping in the desert, or on a casino or Walmart parking lot, but 8-foot is terrible in canyons, mountains, or forests.
'Nothing exceeds like excess,' should be the official slogan of the RV industry and mainstream RV culture. Of course you can still boondock in forests with an 8 foot width. But you will have to accept fewer choices, especially amongst the quieter, higher, cooler campsites. And remember, if the campsite holds your big-ass rig, it holds everybody elses too, which means that the site will already be occupied by a large party of noisy campers with toy haulers, 8 kiloWatt construction site generators, boomboxes, and motorcycles.
Meanwhile the van camper (Class B motorhome) in our group can pull in anywhere she wants. Backing out or getting turned around is so easy for her. Disgusting!
The RV industry still makes 7-foot-wide travel trailers, but you will need to look harder for them, and it might be harder for you to sell it someday. Isn't it amazing that even though James Howard Kunstler assures us that the Cheap Oil Era is over, it's almost impossible to imagine the RV industry turning the clock back to 7-foot-wide travel trailers.
Like baseball, real RV-camping (boondocking) is a 'game of inches.' Too bad I didn't photograph the inch or two of clearance yesterday when I almost pinned my travel trailer between two ponderosa pines.
It could have been worse: I could have bought my travel trailer a few years later, after the RV industry had "progressed" from the old 7-foot-wide standard (mine) to 8 foot. (For comparison, a Ford Econoline van is 6.5 feet wide.)
Once again I have benefited from traveling with a group and getting a chance to weigh the pro-s and con-s of a group of rigs. One of our party has the standard 8 foot width in his travel trailer. Bad news! The greater width will make life more comfortable when winter-camping in the desert, or on a casino or Walmart parking lot, but 8-foot is terrible in canyons, mountains, or forests.
'Nothing exceeds like excess,' should be the official slogan of the RV industry and mainstream RV culture. Of course you can still boondock in forests with an 8 foot width. But you will have to accept fewer choices, especially amongst the quieter, higher, cooler campsites. And remember, if the campsite holds your big-ass rig, it holds everybody elses too, which means that the site will already be occupied by a large party of noisy campers with toy haulers, 8 kiloWatt construction site generators, boomboxes, and motorcycles.
Meanwhile the van camper (Class B motorhome) in our group can pull in anywhere she wants. Backing out or getting turned around is so easy for her. Disgusting!
The RV industry still makes 7-foot-wide travel trailers, but you will need to look harder for them, and it might be harder for you to sell it someday. Isn't it amazing that even though James Howard Kunstler assures us that the Cheap Oil Era is over, it's almost impossible to imagine the RV industry turning the clock back to 7-foot-wide travel trailers.
Comments
Casita and Scamp are both 6'-8" wide and relatively lightweight. How well do the fiberglass eggs hold up under long term boon-docking conditions...? It would seem that the lack of insulation and difficulty attaching things like solar panels to the exterior could be problems.
Otherwise, what about a "modular" interior design that could be installed, removed, and reinstalled in relatively inexpensive cargo trailers like Randy's previous rig? An open source interior that you'd only need to build once.
-RB
I too am amazed that the RV industry hasn't downsized its dinosaurs considering the price of fuel. I guess that they prefer to downsize the number of units that they sell.
I am not an expert on the Casita/Scamp type of RV, but like you, it seems disadvantageous to have uninsulated and rounded walls. Their weight and size are good. Their standing room inside makes them unsuitable for anyone over 5'10".
A 7 foot wide cargo trailer would be an appealing choice for a camper. Then you would finish off the interior on your own. In fact, I disposed of most of the RV-industry crap that was inside my standard 21 foot travel trailer.
You can find a place too narrow to pass an 8 foot wide trailer. You can also find a place too narrow for a 7 foot trailer. But it's rare to find one on an actual road. Parking lots are more likely to give you a width problem.
It was much more common to run into height problems. Limbs grow where they will.
I get that you are talking about the "ideal boondocker RV", and width is one factor. I just found it not to be a serious problem. Length and height are much more limiting factors. Not to mention cost, fuel consumption, and weight.
There will be compromises. After all, you are not building this thing from scratch. If you limit yourself to under 8 feet in width, your available feeder stock is severely limited.
Here's a version of the 17 foot trailer I bought recently 5 years old for $5500. The youtube narration is by a typical salesman, but the visual part of the tour is fairly informative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wm9HkxRHRyg
It is the same length as a Casita, but the 8 foot width and square corners make it much more livable for a person nearly 6 and a half feet tall. Like me.
I think the difference between 7 and 8 feet in width is a minor thing that will not inconvenience you unduly. At least compared to other factors.
Just my two cents.
Bob G.
Bob G.
I'm ambivalent on the 7' vs 8' arguement though.
I'm not against a 7 foot wide trailer, if you can find one that is not deficient in more important ways. When I was looking, they were mostly all too low to the ground, and most had torsion axles, so you couldn't do a spring over. And for me, interior height is also a biggy. When you are looking at small trailers, you will find the manufacturers short them in many ways. Some are overloaded before you put a towel and a washrag in them. They are not designing them for a market of boondockers. Mine, for instance, is called a "Weekender".
So you add and subtract to get close to what you want. Width is just the last of a long list of things I'd worry about.
I'm pretty sure that Boonie is leaning towards a van sans trailer. Nothing wrong with that, as a general thing. But I have tried all sorts of RVs, and I keep coming back to a small trailer and a smallish 4wd truck. That's the sweet spot for me, because I like to go where there ain't much for roads. I'd prefer a really small fifth wheel, say 19 foot, but they quit making those several years back. And yeah, I know about the Scamp and Escape. They were eliminated for other reasons.
Bob G.