If you have "dual wheels" in the back... does it make you feel safer and more stable?

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by markopolo

I suspect that he's trying to make the reader think...... He's likely also suggesting that the reader not offload responsibility for human safety to technology. (Edit: I see he has indicated as such while I was typing this)

I'd suggest that there is evidence of that offloading in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year

You could argue that safety has not improved since around 2009. Think about that for a moment.

Exactly. Thank you.

[avanti]

[OK, I said I was out, but I need to address this].

Originally Posted by markopolo

hepcat is taking a pretty good pounding here............

I suspect that he's trying to make the reader think...... He's likely also suggesting that the reader not offload responsibility for human safety to technology. (Edit: I see he has indicated as such while I was typing this)

I'd suggest that there is evidence of that offloading in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year

You could argue that safety has not improved since around 2009. Think about that for a moment.

How could you possibly argue that from the referenced statistics? The only number that is really meaningful for present purposes is "fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles travelled". This statistic reached an all time low of 1.08 in 2014. This is an astonishingly low number by historical standards. It is true that the numbers have blipped up in the last two years, but I don't need to look at the standard deviation of this dataset to know that this will happen from time to time. You are NEVER going to get an absolutely monotonic trend. And, even if the blip is real, there is very good reason to suspect distracted driving as the cause. Yes, this is a technical issue too, but it will be sorted, just as all other technically-based problems eventually are. In any event, the blip is evidence for nothing.

I don't mean to give this poster a "pounding". As always, I have tried to focus on his or her ideas, not the person. But I have big problems with those ideas. Basically, they are a long series of "just so" claims interspersed with non-sequitur logic and luddite opinions. (Yes, I read the denial of ludditeism, but I stand by the claim).

Examples:
--The poster argues against allowing humans yield personal control to technologies, and yet argues in favor of mass-transit. Mass transit is a technology in which the user has ZERO control of safety.

--The poster claims "digital technology tends to fail when you need it most" and the tit is "inherently unreliable". This claim is patent nonsense and would not stand up to the most trivial quantitative analysis. EVERYTHING is "inherently unreliable", right down to the laws of nature. But, most unreliable of all is the "DRIVER" whom the Poster says should be our #1 safety feature. From a reliability viewpoint, drivers are the LEAST reliable part of the system. They need all the technical help they can get.

--The poster repeats the chant "risk compensation" over and over again. This is, of course, a real phenomenon. But saying that is very far from demonstrating that technology considered broadly cannot or should not be relied upon.

--The fundamental claim that Poster doesn't "depend on [technology] to stay alive" is also nonsense. The Poster depends on digital technology every time he or she chooses to sail through a green light after glancing for cross-traffic, rather than coming to a complete stop and taking personal responsibility for ensuring that the intersection is clear. We could follow a continuous path from this trivial example all the way to the fact that modern airliners would fall out of the sky without digital technology.

--These posts are full of vacuous platitudes with which no one would disagree. Ex: "If I had to crash, would I prefer to crash in the newer car? Absolutely. But, I prefer not to crash at all." And the point is?

--Confronted with data, Poster first disparages statistics and statisticians, and then makes the misleading statement that "the fatality RATE has dropped since 1963 to about half. The total number of fatalities have remained about constant." First of all, the statement is false: absolute number of traffic deaths have dropped from almost 55,000 in 1970 to around 35,000 today. (This is a wholly remarkable statistic, given the vast increase in the number of miles driven.) Secondly, as i have said, the RATE which Poster disparages is the only really meaningful number if vehicle safety is the question. It isn't "damn statistics" that are the problem, it is arguments that misuse them.

I can go on, but enough of a rant. I really don't want to dump on this Poster as an individual. But this really is ludditeism, and it needs to be called out. I have encountered one other person taking this kind of anti-automation argument (to the point that I am wondering if it is the same person). It was in the context of the emerging self-driving technologies. Automotive safety technologies have saved countless lives. These kind of specious arguments threaten the continuation of this progress. They do Ned Ludd honor.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I appreciate the technology, particularly the passive safety improvements. I don't rely on digital technology for my "safety" though, as it's inherently unreliable, and the DRIVER remains the #1 "safety" component in any moving vehicle. If the driver's judgement lapses, then the vehicle becomes unsafe.

Three parts of your post that are salient: first I don't have a dim view of the improvements. I appreciate them greatly, especially the comfort and convenience items and the new crash-safety engineering features designed into the structure of vehicles; but digital technology tends to fail when you need it most. I don't depend on it to stay alive (to the extent possible recognizing that many cars are now "digital drive by wire.") I'm saying that the DRIVER is still the most important piece of safety, and that's regardless of level of technology in the car. The level of technology does NOT relieve the driver of his/her responsibilities; yet that's exactly what seems to be argued here... and what we're seeing on the roadways because of "risk compensation."

Neither of those cars sitting parked side by side are "safer." One just allows for the driver to engage in higher-risk behavior knowing he'll like suffer fewer consequences when things go badly. If I had to crash, would I prefer to crash in the newer car? Absolutely. But, I prefer not to crash at all.

And last, there are few if any of the safety features we value so highly in our Class B and C mohos in a Class A. There are no energy absorbing crumple zones, air bags, side intrusion bars, roll bars (in my Super-C,) or engine-transmission collapse zones. There's some light weather structure barrier and a little framing, a windshield and dashboard between you and that semi tractor-trailer you're tailgating at 70mph.

The BEST way to improve highway traffic safety in the US is to make drivers test every three years... and not just a parking test, a DRIVING competency test where you need to drive the vehicle(s) you own on a skidpan where you prove you can successfully navigate a decision gate, stop in an assured distance from speed under reduced-traction conditions, and that you can control a side-slide in your motorhome. And yes, your van CAN be controlled in a side-slide, provided that the center of gravity isn't raised too high by the conversion company and your tires don't hit a curb or rut.

Impaired drivers should have their vehicles seized upon conviction, and a license would be allowed three violations in a licensing period before the license is revoked and the driver's vehicles seized. Nationwide mass transit needs to be built for daily commuter traffic and to accommodate those who don't want the hassle of a driver's license or car ownership, or who can't obtain or maintain licensing.

Our roads would become the safest roads in the world, almost over-night. Of course, the public doesn't REALLY want that... they want to continue to be able to be negligent with low competency standards, and be able crash vehicles that are built to allow them to not be seriously injured. So, we just accept nearly 40,000 citizens dying on our highways annually as the cost of doing business.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the DRIVER remains the #1 "safety" component in any moving vehicle. If the driver's judgement lapses, then the vehicle becomes unsafe.



This is an obvious remark, and of course "no one" is going to disagree.... I wouldn't want a mentally unstable person behind the wheel either. Remember the tragic air crashes where the pilot decided to commit suicide and take the whole plane down with him...


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Neither of those cars sitting parked side by side are "safer." One just allows for the driver to engage in higher-risk behavior knowing he'll like suffer fewer consequences when things go badly. If I had to crash, would I prefer to crash in the newer car? Absolutely. But, I prefer not to crash at all.




Absolutely, there's plenty of cars in the museum at the Henry Ford in Detroit, they all look perfectly safe stationary. Even though a 1920's Dusenberg is cool, that doesn't mean I'd want to drive it on daily basis.

Again.. "NO crash at all is absolutely the way to go".... this is obvious.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And last, there are few if any of the safety features we value so highly in our Class B and C mohos in a Class A. There are no energy absorbing crumple zones, air bags, side intrusion bars, roll bars (in my Super-C,) or engine-transmission collapse zones. There's some light weather structure barrier and a little framing, a windshield and dashboard between you and that semi tractor-trailer you're tailgating at 70mph.



I looked at your "top kick" Chevy Kodiak.. they are like "mini Mac" trucks, very cool and beautiful inside. I also noticed that you were pulling a MPG Teardrop or "TAB" like trailer.

The "top kick" with the 8.1 V8 must be drinking a lot of fuel??? What 6 to 8 MPG...

There's a LOT OF OVERHANG on the back of this 32 foot rig..

And, I see that you had a trac bar installed ... good for you. On a rig this size I'm surprised that you didn't opt for air suspension?

It's certainly nice inside the 32 foot Born Free and looks like your old Born Free has seen a lot of miles and use.

From the looks of things you like the "Born Free" models and quality. Did you purchase the 32 foot rig "new".

Where's you Class B... little van in all those pictures, didn't see that.

SO.... which one do you like driving the most? I imagine it's the 32 foot model??

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The BEST way to improve highway traffic safety in the US is to make drivers test every three years... and not just a parking test, a DRIVING competency test where you need to drive the vehicle(s) you own on a skidpan where you prove you can successfully navigate a decision gate, stop in an assured distance from speed under reduced-traction conditions, and that you can control a side-slide in your motorhome. And yes, your van CAN be controlled in a side-slide, provided that the center of gravity isn't raised too high by the conversion company and your tires don't hit a curb or rut.




Actually.... I agree with you 100 percent on this... that would make a really big difference especially with motor homes... Probably won't happen though.

I've been driving since I was 16 and now 66 ... so, that's 50 years... I'm a pretty good driver.. and did a lot of commuting during my working years.
Things happen over time and I would say that my judgement has improved over the years with age.. I'm more careful... lots of guys in their 20s driving BMW cars love to race... we were all young once... invincible ...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Impaired drivers should have their vehicles seized upon conviction, and a license would be allowed three violations in a licensing period before the license is revoked and the driver's vehicles seized. Nationwide mass transit needs to be built for daily commuter traffic and to accommodate those who don't want the hassle of a driver's license or car ownership, or who can't obtain or maintain licensing.



Due to extreme traffic congestion in LA and sitting for literally hours on the freeway... I actually took a commuter train to the office for the last 10 years I was working.... loved it. Very relaxing.

Trouble is.. especially in a car town like LA... people "love" their cars.

You're ABSOLUTELY correct... there's people out there who should have their license revoked and should re-qualify and prove they are responsible.

All those miles I didn't put on my regular daily driver saved me a lot of money and aggravation.... plus made me calm... didn't need any extra stress before I got to the office... probably saved me from buying "two cars" within a 10 year period. the savings of the miles on the vehicle and my sanity meant that "one car" lasted longer....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our roads would become the safest roads in the world, almost over-night. Of course, the public doesn't REALLY want that... they want to continue to be able to be negligent with low competency standards, and be able crash vehicles that are built to allow them to not be seriously injured. So, we just accept nearly 40,000 citizens dying on our highways annually as the cost of doing business.[/QUOTE]




There's lot of things that could certainly be done... potholes, better signage ( although LA has some of the best street signage in the USA... if you haven't driven here you really can't appreciate it unless you go to other cities)....

AND.... again low competency standards.. you're so correct, there's people driving out there who should not be, people with anger management issues, poor social skills, mentally ill, asperger syndrome , lots of stuff.


HOWEVER, despite all of these setbacks, vehicle safety has still gotten better... this statistic is not "fake".... see below, I'm going to re-post this...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year


There's lots of factors in vehicular safety and it's good to have a discussion about ALL of it. It's NEVER just one factor but a set of factors.

Wait until self driving cars and computers are here in about 35 years... I won't live long enough to see the full implementation of this.... BUT, having a computer make decisions will definitely change the "culture" of driving..

And, you'll always need a person to "take over" control if necessary.
You don't think this will happen.....?

Airplanes all talk to each other in the air... the pilots take off and land the planes... but, the rest of the time they're all on "auto pilot" and usually remain that way unless the pilot disengages it.

Keep driving and remain vigilant on the road... your personal safety is always up to you. I have the tire pressure monitoring system but also walk around and check my tire and the rest of the vehicle ensuring the doors are closed and secure. It only takes a few minutes to do that.

And, good maintenance and common sense tells you that you should replace your tires every 5 or 6 years.. rubber deteriorates... it's the only thing between you and the road.

Finally, if you're going to be out on the road... make sure that your vehicle is serviced before you go.... it's a good idea as well. The AAA is great for an unplanned emergency, I've had it almost 39 years... would not be without it. Or whatever emergency roadside service you choose.

You create your own luck.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

[OK, I said I was out, but I need to address this].


I don't mean to give this poster a "pounding".

I can go on, but enough of a rant. I really don't want to dump on this Poster as an individual. But this really is ludditeism, and it needs to be called out. I have encountered one other person taking this kind of anti-automation argument (to the point that I am wondering if it is the same person). It was in the context of the emerging self-driving technologies.

Actually, what you're defending is the desire to turn control of transit to automation. I am not whoever was posting in whatever other thread you're referencing. The recent fatalities with self-driving technology despite the manufacturer's claims of safety do illustrate my points though.

Mass transit, while not infallible, IS significantly more "safe" per passenger-mile than driving or riding in a passenger car, BTW.

You're arguing that digital technology is infallible and that I should rely on it in all instances for my personal safety while driving. I'm calling B.S. specifically BECAUSE of my experience with digital. Your view is specious, and built on over-reliance on a slanted view of the interpretation of statistics and frankly, an over-reliance on manufacturers' claims and advertising, NONE of which apply to any given lapse of judgement by a driver. Statistics apply to a population, not individual events. Humans are injured in individual events, and it's OUR responsibility to do what we can to limit the frequency and severity of those events in our lives. We can use technology to help with that. It is foolish to relinquish control of that solely to technology; especially digital technology.

I've said repeatedly that I enjoy the perks offered by technology. I appreciate the strides made by manufacturing engineering to try to ameliorate the effects of driver error when a vehicle crashes. I have also said I am NOT an 'early adopter' of digital technology because of my experience with the failure rate of technology. How that makes me a "Luddite" in your mind is puzzling.

All of the "safety" technology built into cars is intended to improve survivability in the event of a crash, and I appreciate that. In the past two model years some vehicles are being built with automation that senses and activates some functions when the driver doesn't... such as collision avoidance systems. I believe that, when perfected, those systems will offer some additional measure of active safety. I still don't believe that those systems will allow me to take a nap while I'm at the wheel... but the public has begun to believe that those systems DO relieve them of some of the responsibility for their own safety that comes with operating a motor vehicle. Returning to the topic of this thread... they believe that TPMS has relieves them from physically checking tire pressures and condition because it will alarm if there's a problem. And they're right, it does... for tire pressure. NOT, however for physical tire failure signs and/or treadwear. The technology won't do those things. As was said above, they're offloading their responsibility for those activities to technology, and THAT, my friend is where the problem lies in all of this.

The problem is the fallibility of technology... and the the off-loading of human responsibility TO that fallible technology despite your claims to the contrary. Digital technology can and is an invaluable resource that can make our lives easier, more convenient, and yes... even more safe... when it works. However, when it fails, which is frequently enough to give pause, you have to be able to rely on 'plan B,' and if you have no 'plan B'... well... that's a problem, and apparently a problem you're not willing to acknowledge.

I wish you well. Please just don't drive on the same road I am when you decide that it's perfectly acceptable to text and drive because statistically you're not as likely to be killed because you're driving a "safer" car, and your collision avoidance and passive safety systems will keep you "safe" if you do happen to crash.

[buzzard28]

As a trucker I love dual wheels. My 2017 PW Plateau weighs 5001kg dry. My FIRST consideration when I was looking for a class B was dual wheels. I have no stability problems, and if a blow a tire I can drive to a garage. If I blow a front tire I can swap it to the back.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by buzzard28

As a trucker I love dual wheels. My 2017 PW Plateau weighs 5001kg dry. My FIRST consideration when I was looking for a class B was dual wheels. I have no stability problems, and if a blow a tire I can drive to a garage. If I blow a front tire I can swap it to the back.

I'm NOT a trucker... but my first priority in getting my Sprinter was dual wheels......all other considerations were secondary....

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I looked at your "top kick" Chevy Kodiak.. they are like "mini Mac" trucks, very cool and beautiful inside. I also noticed that you were pulling a MPG Teardrop or "TAB" like trailer.

The "top kick" with the 8.1 V8 must be drinking a lot of fuel??? What 6 to 8 MPG...

There's a LOT OF OVERHANG on the back of this 32 foot rig..

And, I see that you had a trac bar installed ... good for you. On a rig this size I'm surprised that you didn't opt for air suspension?

It's certainly nice inside the 32 foot Born Free and looks like your old Born Free has seen a lot of miles and use.

From the looks of things you like the "Born Free" models and quality. Did you purchase the 32 foot rig "new".

Where's you Class B... little van in all those pictures, didn't see that.

SO.... which one do you like driving the most? I imagine it's the 32 foot model??

My signature has a link to photos of the B-van. The Coachmen gets the most miles as I use the motorhomes for very different tasks. When we do "vacation travel" we take the Born Free. When I do solo runs (which is fairly frequently) I take the B-van. I've put about 12k on the Born Free in four years and over 30k on the B-van in three. The photos of towing the mpg trailer were after I sold the trailer, and was delivering it to a woman near Portland, OR. I normally tow my Jeep behind the Born Free. And yes, I appreciate both the Kodiak chassis and the quality built into the Born Free.

I bought the 2006 Born Free in 2015. It had 32k miles on it, and had depreciated about $110,000 from new. I looked at them new in the showroom in 2007 at about $155k. It averages 8-10mpg depending on where and how fast I drive it. But as I only drive it 2,000-3,000 miles a year, gas mileage isn't terribly relevant. The Coachmen will get me from 11 to 15mpg, again depending on where and how fast I drive.

The Kodiak motorhome cutaway chassis was a pig as delivered for handling. It was frightening to drive. They put two-leaf, "half" springs on the rear axle for ride quality which allowed the axle to wander under the coach and have rear-axle steering input. The anti-sway bars work wonders to stabilize that, and I installed a Davis Tru-Track bar on the front axle as well. High quality shocks, plus those mods have made the truck quite mild-mannered on the road. It came equipped with Link-Air air-ride suspension from the factory. The overhang has never been a problem, and is pretty much about the same distance as you'd find on most Class A motorhomes.

I suspect that the Born Free may be the last motorhome I ever buy. The next closest would be something on a Freightliner M2 chassis... but I'm not particularly excited about diesels, and they're all way out of the range of what I'd care to spend on a motorhome anyway.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by hepcat

You're arguing that digital technology is infallible

What I actually said:

'EVERYTHING is "inherently unreliable"'

Please just don't drive on the same road I am when you decide that it's perfectly acceptable to text and drive

This is a gross misrepresentation to the point of being insulting.


All the rest is simply repetition of gibberish.

NOW I really am out.

[Deano]

Wow, what a discussion.
I have a comment only about duel rear wheels. A quick response fire vehicle with duel rear wheels picked up a rock wedged between the tires. Required dropping all the water from the tank and deflating the outside tire before the rock could be pried out.
My take is if you don't need duels for the weight, if you have a choice, use singles.
Early in this thread someone mentioned the military prefers singles and this is why.

[booster]

Back to dual wheels for me, also. Especially since we have new eyes on things here, with experience, in Motovan.


As Motovan mentioned, duals by nature increase understeer, which certainly can be considered a safety increase if you are trying to prevent rear end spin outs. The wider stance and more sidewalls to flex can also reduce the chance of a rollover. OEMs really try to stay away from those kinds of hazards so build in a lot of understeer, often at the expence of the understeer causing less than stellar handling. Vans are particularly prone to this because the lack of rear weight of an empty van will reduce understeer so they build in more in other ways like no rear swaybar. Load the van to max like class b's are all the time, which increases understeer even more and you can have a lot of handling issues show up with the van handling totally different than how it was when empty. If it is a dually that piles on even more understeer.


Many of us have worked long and hard to reduce the understeer in our class b's, often with success, by doing the changes that are normal for understeer reduction. Nearly all have been single wheel units. The fact that some drivers would consider our van to be too fast responding (twitchy) would say we have the full range of mostly covered.



I, personally, have never been directly involved with tweaking a duallie class b to improve handling by reducing understeer. I have driven quite a number of dual wheel trucks of various types, and they always did have a different "feel" than the the single wheel vehicles. It seemed I could always feel the rear end resisting changing direction causing less directional reaction to the steering input.


My question, that Motovan may be able to answer, is if a dual wheel vehicle can be gotten as close to neutral handling as a single wheel version of the same vehicle? There just appears to be so much directional push and rear tire scuffing going on it seems like it may not be able to be as completely counteracted as single wheel versions can be. The duals add a different kind of cause of understeer that isn't present in single wheel units, the fact that 4 wheels on an axle want to roll straight ahead much more than two wheels do, so that force has to be counteracted by the steering. The skidmarks that duals leave on tight radius turns show pretty plainly how much scuff and directional force is there. So can a duallie be made to have as low of understeer as the single wheel version do?


I don't think we have ever heard anyone say that a class b with duals was to responsive, or twitchy, so maybe that can't be acheived.



MB has determined that the big vans need wind assist to overcome what seem to be understeer influenced movements, so perhaps they have hit the limits of what can be done with mechanical changes.


As Motovan described earlier, as you get closer to neutral handling the wind will push the front and rear of the vehicle the same amount, so you just move over a little bit in your lane. There is no rotation of the vehicle around either end so it is still pointed in the same direction as it was. If there is understeer, the front end moves more than the rear from the wind, so you not only move over in the lane, but the vehicle is also pointing in a different direction than it was, so you have to correct for position in the lane, and direction of travel. A lot of the time you can feel the front move over compared to the rear, but if there is also a lot of rear rocking (not enough rear roll rate) it might be perceived as "tail wagging" which is not what is really happening as the rear wheels stay put more than the fronts.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

My signature has a link to photos of the B-van. The Coachmen gets the most miles as I use the motorhomes for very different tasks. When we do "vacation travel" we take the Born Free. When I do solo runs (which is fairly frequently) I take the B-van. I've put about 12k on the Born Free in four years and over 30k on the B-van in three. The photos of towing the mpg trailer were after I sold the trailer, and was delivering it to a woman near Portland, OR. I normally tow my Jeep behind the Born Free. And yes, I appreciate both the Kodiak chassis and the quality built into the Born Free.

I bought the 2006 Born Free in 2015. It had 32k miles on it, and had depreciated about $110,000 from new. I looked at them new in the showroom in 2007 at about $155k. It averages 8-10mpg depending on where and how fast I drive it. But as I only drive it 2,000-3,000 miles a year, gas mileage isn't terribly relevant. The Coachmen will get me from 11 to 15mpg, again depending on where and how fast I drive.

The Kodiak motorhome cutaway chassis was a pig as delivered for handling. It was frightening to drive. They put two-leaf, "half" springs on the rear axle for ride quality which allowed the axle to wander under the coach and have rear-axle steering input. The anti-sway bars work wonders to stabilize that, and I installed a Davis Tru-Track bar on the front axle as well. High quality shocks, plus those mods have made the truck quite mild-mannered on the road. It came equipped with Link-Air air-ride suspension from the factory. The overhang has never been a problem, and is pretty much about the same distance as you'd find on most Class A motorhomes.

I suspect that the Born Free may be the last motorhome I ever buy. The next closest would be something on a Freightliner M2 chassis... but I'm not particularly excited about diesels, and they're all way out of the range of what I'd care to spend on a motorhome anyway.

SO, you paid about $35,000 or so for Born Free back in 2006???

I just did a "quick calculation" estimating that you have around 50,000 miles on the 2006 Born Free coach now?? And, the value of the vehicle presuming you paid that number is pretty much holding its value, see the NADA profile below.

http://www.nadaguides.com/RVs/2006/B...3043754/Values

For comparison, I am also listing below a similarly aged 2006 Roadtrek RS Adventurous,

2006 Roadtrek RS-Adventurous Prices and Used Values | NADAguides

Again, it's all about what you want to drive.

I upgraded my RS Adventurous suspension with KONI FSD shocks, anti sway and trac bar, made a huge difference.


Keep driving and enjoying your RV's... we have a friend dying of cancer...
She kept saying ... I have to keep working.... going to run out of money... it's so SAD... now she's running out of time.

Enjoy life... this ain't no dress rehearsal.

Finally, don't worry about depreciation too much... first, there's nothing you can do about it and it is ONLY important when it's time to SELL...

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

SO, you paid about $35,000 or so for Born Free back in 2006???

I just did a "quick calculation" estimating that you have around 50,000 miles on the 2006 Born Free coach now?? And, the value of the vehicle presuming you paid that number is pretty much holding its value, see the NADA profile below.

2006 Born Free Rear Queen Widebody Prices and Used Values | NADAguides

For comparison, I am also listing below a similarly aged 2006 Roadtrek RS Adventurous,

2006 Roadtrek RS-Adventurous Prices and Used Values | NADAguides

Again, it's all about what you want to drive.

I upgraded my RS Adventurous suspension with KONI FSD shocks, anti sway and trac bar, made a huge difference.


Keep driving and enjoying your RV's... we have a friend dying of cancer...
She kept saying ... I have to keep working.... going to run out of money... it's so SAD... now she's running out of time.

Enjoy life... this ain't no dress rehearsal.

Finally, don't worry about depreciation too much... first, there's nothing you can do about it and it is ONLY important when it's time to SELL...

No, re-read my post. I bought the Born Free in 2015 with 32k on it for under $40k. I have 54k miles on it now. I don't worry about depreciation... I find good, well-cared for, low mileage older RVs that are worth maintaining. I let other people worry about how they're going to support the hit they took on the depreciation of the coach.

Being retired, though, I'm ALWAYS concerned about having enough liquidity to be able to do what I want when i want to do it; hence my mantra about buying the highest quality coach I can for the least amount possible that is already at least 75% depreciated.

And frankly I don't much care what my Born Free is worth as it won't continue to depreciate much over the next ten years. And I'll always be able to get out of my Coachmen what I have in it, regardless of it's age or mileage. I bought it THAT cheap.

I've never heard someone on their deathbed lament that they didn't get to wash dishes or mow the lawn one last time. They lament not going to Paris, or taking that trip to visit their friend before they died. I absolutely am NOT one of those people who intends to go to MY grave with regrets.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

No, re-read my post. I bought the Born Free in 2015 with 32k on it for under $40k. I have 54k miles on it now. I don't worry about depreciation... I find good, well-cared for, low mileage older RVs that are worth maintaining. I let other people worry about how they're going to support the hit they took on the depreciation of the coach.

Being retired, though, I'm ALWAYS concerned about having enough liquidity to be able to do what I want when i want to do it; hence my mantra about buying the highest quality coach I can for the least amount possible that is already at least 75% depreciated.

And frankly I don't much care what my Born Free is worth as it won't continue to depreciate much over the next ten years. And I'll always be able to get out of my Coachmen what I have in it, regardless of it's age or mileage. I bought it THAT cheap.

I've never heard someone on their deathbed lament that they didn't get to wash dishes or mow the lawn one last time. They lament not going to Paris, or taking that trip to visit their friend before they died. I absolutely am NOT one of those people who intends to go to MY grave with regrets.

YES... I did say...
SO, you paid about $35,000 or so for Born Free back in 2006???
What was the actual price you paid... less than $30,000..

I completely agree with you.. don't buy a new RV

I'm retired as well... I understand exactly.

We feel very bad about our friend.. even though she has traveled internationally, she was so looking forward to NOT working and she's out suddenly.. can't work and is hospitalized. Really terrible situation.

I get it.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

YES... I did say...
SO, you paid about $35,000 or so for Born Free back in 2006???
What was the actual price you paid... less than $30,000..

I completely agree with you.. don't buy a new RV

I'm retired as well... I understand exactly.

We feel very bad about our friend.. even though she has traveled internationally, she was so looking forward to NOT working and she's out suddenly.. can't work and is hospitalized. Really terrible situation.

I get it.

No, I bought the Born Free in 2015 with 32k on it for under $40k.