Editor's essay, Sept 6 issue (#343)

[Chuck]

What do you think about my comments in RVtravel.com Issue 343 -- http://rvtravel.com/publish/newsletter/issue343.shtml -- (weekend of Sept. 6) that the future of RVing in North America will be with smaller, more fuel efficient motorhomes and light weight travel trailers?
_________________
Get the latest RV news headlines on Twitter.
http://twitter.com/rvtravel

Sign up for the RV Travel.com weekly newsletter, now in its eighth year:
http://rvtravel.com/RVnewsletter.shtml

Chuck Woodbury is the editor of RVtravel.com

[porscheracer]

I feel that you are spot on. I am confident enough that high fuel prices are here to stay that we bought a Winnebago View as a supplement (not replacement) for our Vectra.

I have wondered for years why this trend has not been initiated before now. It's no surprise about exorbitant price increases - and we've had over two years of hard warnings and previews.

Ironically, we were in a campground the other night next to a very well maintained 20 year-old Country Coach "Cross Country." I looked at my wife and asked "Why did they quit making that style of motorhome? If it were on the market today, they'd be mopping up!"
_________________
Norm & Janet
'08 Winnebago View 24H / '09 Escape XLT AWD toad
'05 Winnebago Vectra 36RD / '03 Dakota QC 4x4 toad, or a 24' trailer with another car;
Probably somewhere in NA - or maybe on another continent.

[moneyISgreen]

If a manufacturer wants to go beyond creative use of aluminum and tubular frames to reduce weight, they can now use carbon fiber much more cheaply than before.

FiberForge is a for-profit spinoff from the non-profit Rocky Mountain Institute that promotes financially intelligent solutions for energy and material problems.

FiberForge has developed a way to make carbon fiber cheap enough that an automaker can dump all of its steel stamping equipment and maintenance, and retool for carbon fiber and make a car with a smaller battery for plug-in hybrid powertrains for less money while still achieving the same mileage/distance and power and safety and durability of a steel structure with larger, more expensive battery for the plug-in hybrid powertrain.

Here's a video about it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imfHBcqzLfI

Eventually everything will be plug-in hybrid. Recharge for $1 a gallon for trips on just electricity under 40 miles round trip, or let the gas engine come on automatically for long trips at about 50 miles per gallon.

In a motorhome, a comparably-sized battery would only get maybe 20 miles, but as batteries get smaller/cheaper and hold more power, they will go 100+ miles on a charge for the same price as today's 40-mile battery and not take up more space. Computers came down in price, so will plug-in hybrids as we buy more of them and inject capital into research.

Combining carbon fiber with plug-in hybrids will revolutionize motorhomes and trailers for use with fuel savers like the Toyota Prius, Camry Hybrid, Escape Hybrid, etc. (Yukon and Escalade hybrids benefit too)

When I camp in the Prius, I fold the seats flat and sleep from end to end on a flat floor. I shower at truck stops or campsites. But some Prius owners pull one of those egg-shaped trailers that's basically a bed on wheels.

Other hybrid owners are waiting for ultra-light carbon fiber trailers that are big enough to stand in and hold a family. It can happen if somebody gets the money together and decides to corner the market on fuel efficient camping and RVing.

The issue here isn't "being able to afford" gas, it's the soldiers who die for us to import it, it's the avoidance of pollution by using less gas, and avoiding the need for political and environmental destruction all over the world to get oil. And it's the idea of simply being efficient and not consuming blindly and wastefully. It's called financially positive environmentalism.

Otherwise, gas goes down a bit and people think it's ok to waste for a while. It's not consistent. Personally, I support gas taxes increased gently and in stages so products are continuously forced to become more efficient and so people don't think they can go back to their old ways.

Efficiency ends up making the total price of fueling the same if gas taxes are increased according with efficiency increases. If we don't hit the wall softly and proactively now, we will hit the wall harder and reactively later when oil peaks and then declines. Desperate people do desperate things.

The taxes would be used not for more roads, but for oil alternatives, battery research, renewable energy and public transportation which lowers demand and prices of oil while allowing the remaining oil to be used wisely for applications not yet attacked by efficiency and alternatives. We still make plastics from oil and we don't recycle them. Pesticides and fertilizers are made from oil too and organic farming, which doesn't use those chemicals, isn't done by most farmers. As one thing gets done, there will be remaining needs for oil that will require alternatives.

Nuke-n-drill is a fallacy because solar power now costs less than nuclear power. Period. And fuel efficiency costs less than drilling new oil, which won't replace the huge, easy to access deposits we've become accustomed to. From here on out, prices are going up and smart energy and material use is the only way to deal with it correctly.

Mike Cohn

[schipperhaven]

Chuck's point is well taken but not always the case. We owned a 30-foot "ultralight" travel trailer for 3 years and towed it with a Nissan Titan. Average gas mileage was between 7 and 8. Now we tow a 38-foot fifth wheel with a Dodge 3500 dually diesel and get a little better than 10 mpg. With diesel a bit more expensive, we just about break even. But for nearly full-timing, we'll take the four slides and our king size bed any day!

[Maxwelltie]

I had sought smaller (class A) units for years, but either they were cheap and poorly made or just not available. I had wanted something about 25'.
Apparently there was just no market or I'm sure someone would have made one.
Now I am a full- timer. Gas isn't such a big deal to me since we move only occasionally. I need a larger coach just to live in.
I think with gas as expensive as it is, we'll see smaller units become more popular again, just as we saw in the mid to latter 70s.
Remember when the Dolphin came out on the Toyota chassis? Suddenly there was a plethora of small campers and motorhomes.
Now with chassis like the Sprinter and smaller more powerful diesel engines on light truck chassis, I think we'll see more small units come out.
I had several Isuzu delivery trucks before I retired that had GVWR of 16,000 that got better than 20 mpg. They didn't go fast, but they got the job done. These would make good MH chassis.
Economics will dictate we go smaller and more fuel efficient. Give us a little more time to adjust to the fuel prices, then we'll accept smaller units just as we are doing with cars.
It will be interesting to see what comes out at the show in February from the manufacturers.

[Motor31]

There are already and have been may small RVs in the US. They range from a small tent camper to the smaller box-style travel trailer. Even the resurrection of an old design, the teardrop, has become obvious on the RV lots.

If the US had the unwelcome incentives of the European situation, massive taxes on fuel coupled with the narrow roads from well before the self-powered vehicle was invented, we would have the same limitations on RVing they do. I for one am glad we don't, so far.
_________________
Mike, Nancy and the Fuzzies
2005 MS 38 RL3
2001 Volvo MH (HDT)
2004 R1150RT (piggyback)
1996 Jeep Cherokee (toad)

[gcgctx]

Perhaps there's room for some flexibility in terms of what's considered "ideal?" We're full-timers and have a diesel pusher with a "toad," and wouldn't trade our coach. We are thinking of trading the tow vehicle, though. Rather than the SUV, we'd like a small Class B (RoadTrek, PleasureWay) on a Sprinter chassis. This would allow us to use the Class A for a "home base" but also make side trips of varying durations in a smaller, more maneuverable, and more fuel efficient rig. Does it really have to be "all big RVs should be replaced with smaller ones?"

GC & GC

[arlin.guess]

Yes, you are right that travel trailers are being pulled by much smaller cars in Europe than in the US. I live in Germany and see it all the time (my travel trailer currently is in storage in Fairbanks, AK). However, although the cars are generally smaller here in Europe than in the US, they are much more powerful. I was amazed the first time I say a VW Golf pulling a 24-foot trailer. Then I drove one. Low gears are lower and high gears are higher. Trailers are limited to 100 KPH (about 60 MPH), but the cars are very powerful and capable of much higher speeds (usually if you rent a car here it is requested that you not exceed 240 KPH or about 133 MPH). The cars are geared so they can easily pull the trailers and at about 9 to 11 dollars a gallon for gas depending on the exchange rate, they have to be economical. Until the US is allowed to let our smaller cars have that kind of power and economy, I'll stick with my Ford Expedition when I return to the states.
_________________
Arlin98

[ckirk39]

I have been to Europe and would say the high cost of fuel would be a deterrent from using large low fuel mileage vehicles, but what I saw as the main reason was very narrow roads and streets. You would have to stay mainly out of most of the towns and would be very limited as to where you could go, so bring a bicycle.
_________________
CJ Kirk

[dlmaybee]

The main situation with an engine is the lack of efficiency they have. Basically a pound of gasoline has the BTU energy (22,000) to produce up to 4 horsepower of energy, but a gasoline engine at the most (such as in a small car) has a fuel efficiency of 34%. A large engine, such as in a motorhome, is down to about 25%. For every pound of gas a motorhome engine burns, it only produces 1 horsepower of energy. A diesel engine is close to 50 percent efficiency even though a pound of diesel has less BTU energy per pound than gasoline (18,000). Gasoline engines can and should be manufactured to be more fuel efficient. Yes it would cost more, but the mileage and emissions would be lower without having to submit to smaller RV's sizes.

[porscheracer]

Your BTU value on gasoline is incorrect, as far as all the tables I have. Gasoline contains 18,300 per pound (115,000 net per gallon) - not 22,000. Diesel does contain approximately 17,500 per pound (128,000 net per gallon).
_________________
Norm & Janet
'08 Winnebago View 24H / '09 Escape XLT AWD toad
'05 Winnebago Vectra 36RD / '03 Dakota QC 4x4 toad, or a 24' trailer with another car;
Probably somewhere in NA - or maybe on another continent.

[Bill 720]

I think you are correct. I bought a teardrop four years ago for the very reasons you state. Bill

[Doryman]

I love the concept of the Damon but would not buy one because I would not be be able to drive it in Mexico. Late model diesel engines require ultra low sulphur diesel fuel, which is unavailable in Mexico.

Warren