Re: The Cheap and Clever RV Contest

Bob Giddings <bobg@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I guess I could load all that stuff in the back of my pickup too.
Wouldn't make me want to live in there.

It wouldn't fit very well in the back of a pickup. And of course you
wouldn't want to live in there. Who would?

All that "stuff" is built in and fits together surprisingly well.

But I cheerfully admit I have never seen your rig, and in fact
have never seen the inside of but one Class B except in pictures
on the Internet.

I think you'd be surprised at how "livable" they can be. They aren't
intended for fulltiming, of course -- but for a couple of friendly
people (and a dog or two), they're surprisingly comfortable. And while
they're not what you could call "spacious," of course, we find ours more
than adequate for its purpose.

The only reason for us to want a slightly bigger one is for an inside
shower. That, in a 22' Sprinter-type, would be my next van, if there is
another one in my life. That's as big as we'd want or need to go, for
the kind of RVing we do.

As I've said before, we're "RV travelers," not "RV campers." Some folks'
purpose in owning a MH of any size RV is to camp; ours is to travel. The
length and duration of any trip are not really relevant to us. A trip is
a trip, regardless, and ours are almost always a pleasure even when
they're undertaken for some other primary purpose.

That one was 4 wheel drive, and cost more than $100K. And still
looked like it was intended only for day trips.

Wow. I believe ours would have *listed* for about $60k new (in '95); we
bought it in 12/98 for under half that. It had about 25k miles on it and
was utterly immaculate, inside and out. (And we saw it before the dealer
"cleaned it up.") The previous owner hadn't even taken the protective
plastic off the carpet, and the appliances appeared not to have been
used at all.

It's not a high-end model, but it's attractive and nicely appointed, and
everything has held up very well for its 12+ years, so far. We've
already gotten way more than our money's worth. It turned out to be a
great choice.

GB in NC
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... >>> provided were not fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ... I said I could render it 200 times faster than a high-end PC back in 1995 on a modern high-end PC. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... implies that they met with your approval and *were* fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ... The purpose was to see if you could render in real-time as you'd ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... implies that they met with your approval and *were* fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: When the Hell.......................
    ... >>> provided were not fit for purpose. ... CRAP and not fit for purpose. ... By supplying models and software not fit for purpose you fail ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: Bug Tracking integration with MS Project Server
    ... It's fit for your purpose. ... > my task to one of my team members and I need to add/update a deliverable, ... > My experience with Bugzilla (and other Bug Tracking apps) is that this type ...
    (microsoft.public.project)