HMFunk

A bit of a late response, but here it is -- with the hope that this post may help someone......... We have been residents of Indiana for many years, but becoming full-time RV'ers last year gave us options to consider. We first took the beginning steps toward establishing TX domicile. But along the way, we have found that for us, our auto insurance, (large) motorhome insurance, Medicare Supplement Insurance, sales tax, driver's license situation (no special license for our large motorhome), all were better in Indiana. Since we still own a physical address (plot of land) in Indiana, we have delayed establishing TX domicile until the "no state Personal Income Tax" situation and other factors would actually favor TX domicile FOR US. The bottom line: examine your entire and unique situation, then make the best decision FOR YOU AND YOURS regarding where to establish domicile, given all YOUR relevant factors. Travel Free! HMFunk 2008 NRC Custom Class Mega-C 45' Motorhome w Freightliner Columbia Chassis & 515 HP Pre-Emissions Detroit Diesel plus Meritor Freedomline Automated Manual Transmission

Since Mr. Musk operates in scenarios having more "zero's" behind the max-value numbers than almost all of us, maybe the more interesting number would be to rate peoples' loss-of-net-worth experiences as a percentage of their peak wealth value rather than the absolute dollar value of their loss........ It would be interesting whose loss percentage would be the closest to 100%......... Who would be the "biggest loser?" Travel Free!

I need to apologize for not doing my research by reading the Website that you linked to, Kirk....... So it seems that the teardrop trailer will simply haul batteries that will supplement the capacity of the batteries in the towing vehicle. Carrying that additional weight (batteries are HEAVY) in the trailer will then demand increased energy from the towing vehicle to pull it down the road. Again, nothing in the energy world is free. The teardrop trailer will not be a “self-powered trailer” like the proposed Airstream model at the head of this thread….. Two side questions: Will the proposed Airstream trailer self-park while still hitched to the tow vehicle? If so, that type of technology already exists on pickup trucks, and having it on the trailer will not be necessary (if it is already on the truck……). Am I missing something here? RE: Regenerative braking (RB) – Contrary to what you may find in some online posts having limited historical perspective, RB is not unique to Electric Autos, and it isn’t even a new idea. In fact, railroads have been using RB for over 90 years. A quick online search will show you this. I’ve spent hundreds of hours riding on electric-powered trains utilizing RB, and many of you have as well. While it is not a 100% efficient process, RB’s conversion of momentum into electrical energy is preferable to the “normal” process of slowing a moving vehicle by converting its momentum into heat (a virtual “pure-loss” scenario). RB can indeed help extend the range of an EV or Hybrid Vehicle by battery replenishment IF the travel pattern involves substantial downhill grades or frequent stops. However, as Rickeieio states, RB cannot ever provide actual 100% free travel over any given two-way route due to inherent process inefficiencies of varying sizes. So having RB is better than no RB. Absolutely! Can RB help decrease operating costs or increase the range of an EV or Hybrid. Certainly! Will it provide totally-free transport? No. Travel Free!

Energy creation and transfer is never 100% efficient. There's always loss. So converting the energy produced by the rotating motion of the wheels of the teardrop trailer, to energy inside its batteries will never be a 100% efficient process. Also, energy isn't free. See the First Law Of Thermodynamics. The energy in the rotating motion of the wheels came from the force that caused the wheels to rotate (the towing vehicle). (And lessened by the inefficiencies of the rolling tire, the hub assembly, aerodynamic loss and the generation mechanism.) And the energy transfer process that the towing vehicle used to cause the wheels to rotate was not 100% efficient either. Therefore, the energy of the rotating wheels that was converted into battery energy inside the teardrop trailer was a process using at least 3 conversion processes. Three opportunities for inefficient energy conversion/transfer. So what this means is: There needs to be yet another trailer behind the teardrop trailer, to generate even more power from its rotating wheels to inject into the teardrop trailer, to make up for the inefficient production and transfer of energy by/from the towing vehicle to the teardrop trailer. Oh, wait, that energy production and transfer process will also be less than 100% efficient......... The moral of this exercise is that the teardrop trailer will never generate even the same amount of energy to the tow vehicle batteries or to its house batteries, as it took to produce that energy. The amount of process energy required to create and deposit electrical energy into any battery will always exceed the energy deposited. Energy conversion and transfer will never be 100% efficient. Period. The illusion of equivalent energy creation by means such as the teardrop trailer is just that -- an illusion! There will never be a perpetual motion machine. :-( As my DW occasionally says: "Let that silly notion bring you cheer.....!" The First Law of Thermodynamics always wins........ Travel Free!

Yes, jblo. In relation to Quality Control, that is generally correct. RVIA inspections are not directed toward Quality Control issues UNLESS those issues directly relate to systems safety in performance or proper operation of that component. In relation to systems operation, the RVIA inspector WILL indeed want to see that the safe OPERATION of the system(s) is/are being maintained or ensured by adequate adherence to installation guidelines. For example, sloppy sealant application in the (gas) refrigerator compartment (behind the refer) is not an RVIA concern UNLESS that compartment is not properly sealed. Allowing interchange of air from that compartment and the interior of the coach (instead of ensuring that compartment air is being vented solely to the roof vent) IS an RVIA concern because it relates to occupant safety and proper systems venting. But if there is a large "glob" of sealant that has dripped from an area where it was applied, and onto some 12V electrical wiring (but that area is still sealed properly), that is not an RVIA concern, only a cosmetic issue. Manufacturers are concerned that installation parameters given to them by component suppliers are observed, maintaining the component's Certification at the end of the manufacturing process. For gas, electric, vehicular or safety-related components, that is how they ensure compliance to RVIA (inspection) standards. But, beyond that, each manufacturer sets their own Quality standards. Hope this helps! Travel Free!

jblo: You're very welcome. And you're absolutely correct on 2 points: 1. RVIA standards compliance does not impact product quality directly, since RVIA standards relate to systems safety, systems performance and product design, not to the care/lack of care taken in the actual production of the RVs. An RV built with poor quality ("fit and finish") and questionable longevity (anticipated useful lifetime) can still be totally compliant with RVIA standards. 2. Overall RV product quality will absolutely not improve until manufacturers decide that the cost of warranty activities is too much of a "drag" on their profit margins. Another reality not described in this thread is that RV product quality will not improve until consumers actually refuse to buy RVs of poor quality, and choose instead to buy units of better quality. Admittedly, this statement assumes that RV buyers are capable judges of product quality. However, this scenario is more-or-less a "pipe dream" that has not happened to any impactful extent in the past, and is unlikely to ever be a significant factor in the future. Looking in the rear view mirror, it is clear that RV buyers have judged past and present RV product quality as "acceptable" by voting clearly with their money. RE: RVIA Inspections (announced VS unannounced). 1. The thoroughness or nature of an unannounced RVIA inspection during my time as Corporate Director of Codes and Standards at &%$#@ was virtually equal to an announced inspection. All inspections involved (at a minimum) tours of production lines as requested by the inspector, and inspections of designated finished products in inventory. 2. The qualifications (and competence) of the RVIA Inspectors was never an issue for me. They all seemed professional and fully knowledgeable of the Standards to which they were inspecting the products. The same can be said of the third-party inspectors for CSA compliance whom I contracted as needed. I cannot comment on the current number of RVIA inspectors. However, they always seemed to show up on time and rarely re-scheduled their announced visits. Hope this helps! Travel Free!

I agree 100% with Linda H. and Bill Joyce. On a recent trip to Texas, we found that the INSEEGO MiFi 5G M2000 hotspot from The Calyx Institute performed in almost every case with download speeds exceeding 20 mbps, which is totally adequate for our streaming needs. We will unquestionably continue our membership when it comes up for renewal. So, jmw, here’s my reply to you: If you indeed were a Calyx Institute member of record, you were sent numerous E-mails indicating the need to update your equipment in order to have continued service, given the changes of ownership of the Internet provider associated with the original contract for Internet service. I suggest you contact the folks at The Calyx Institute, if you so choose, to see what you can do payment-wise and equipment-wise to re-initiate your membership and the Internet service benefit that goes with it. Then you can make your decision on actual factors, not assumptions, emotions or old information. Travel Free!

The source of this guidance is facing objections from folks who disagree with his stance and the political views of his boss (the FL Governor), not because they can articulate cogent responses to his decisions and the cited studies upon which his policies are based. Travel Free!

Thanks for the article, RV_ Very interesting development in making nuclear energy more manageable and safer as well! Come to think about it, current nuclear "powerplant" technology is over 75 years old, and its time to move to an improved method. This would take nuclear power for submarines and ships to the next level!

Thanks to all for your kind sentiments and for tolerating a "non-HDT" owner on this forum until a more suitable Forum is created. DW and I were actually thinking about an "HDT + Fiver" combo, but she decided that the on-the-road access to her full kitchen facilities (provided by our coach) was a necessity........ Travel Free!

Hello to all! My first post on this forum……. DW and I have purchased an unusual type of RV, and I’ve been looking for a Forum to monitor for information-gathering purposes, and also for sharing our experiences and posting questions. As I describe the unit below, you will see that it doesn’t really fit into the “Class C Owners” forum. And although it is not an HDT unit, it seems to fit best here. Over at IRV2.com, they have a “Truck Conversion Owner’s” forum, but here on RVNetwork.com, there is nothing with that focus. Is it time for a “Truck Conversion” forum here on RVNetwork.com? Maybe, I don’t know…… Our unit has been called a “Super-Duper C” RV in several posts elsewhere. I will also post a photo so you can see its appearance. There are not a lot of these type of units out there, but it makes sense for us as Full-timers, and meets all our needs. Here’s a description and photo of our unit: 2008 NRC 45-Foot ”Super-Duper C” Motorhome on 2007 Freightliner Columbia Chassis RV Section is 34’ and the BBC measurement is 10’, so roughly a total of 45’ overall Drivetrain and Chassis Specs: Engine-- 2006 (Pre-Emissions) Detroit 14L Series 60 Engine, 515HP & 1650 Ft/Lbs Torque Transmisison-- ZF Meritor Freedomline 12-speed Dual-Mode Automated Manual Rear Axles-- 40,000 Lb rated Tandem Detroit DA-RT w Airliner Air-Ride Rear Axle Ratio-- 3.42 (yielding 1400 RPM @ 64MPH) Wheelbase: 340” GVWR-- 54,000 Lbs. WABCO 4S-4M ABS Brake System Twin 100-gallon fuel tanks Hitch Rating-- 40,000 Lbs MPG so far-- around 10.0 (we also run the 12KW generator off the fuel tanks, so it is approximate...) Total Miles on Unit (so far) per Odometer-- 109,800 RV Section Specs: 102" OW w Complete Body Skeleton of 1.5” x 1.0” welded steel tubing One road-side "Super Slide" w recliners and Dinette Queen bed in rear BR Heated Ceramic Tile floor 30-Gallon LPG, mounted inboard Other options As you can see, it is basically a long-wheelbase Class-8 chassis with an unusual box on top. This type of unit is typically owned by racing teams who usually tow a large trailer with cars or animals, to racing events or shows. We will purchase and tow a 24’ to 28’ enclosed trailer, in which we will haul our local transportation..... I am a former truck driver (in my younger years), and find this unit a pleasure to drive! I will monitor this Forum and contribute if the situation arises. I hope you HDT folks don’t mind too much. Travel Free!

Also a former DTV and AT&T customer. Found cell phone service at half the price of AT&T, and will never go back to them. When we terminated our DTV service at our S&B, they sent packaging for all their stuff. So I packed it and took a photo of the tracking number for reference. Sent it off by USPS, and received delivery confirmation of its receipt to their PA address. They never acknowledged receiving it even though I showed them the photo of the package and tracking number and the receipt of delivery to them from the USPS. They threatened to send me to collection for the approx. $85 value (their number) of the stuff I sent back to them. I just ignored their threats and will never be their customer again! When they send me mailings to get me to sign up again, I just use it to light campfires. Does that job well! I don't believe that I'm the only one with that kind of story........ Travel Free!

OK, here is my short answer to the question about states’ adoption of RVIA standards for commerce regulation purposes: States that have no requirements of standards compliance for new RV’s sold: more than 10 States that utilize the RVIA standards (and the RVIA seal) as acceptable evidence of standards compliance: fewer than 30 States that have established their own approval system and dedicated state certificate of standards compliance, model-by-model: Fewer than 15 These are my estimates only, based upon past experience. Getting up-to-date and more detailed information would only be possible directly from an RV manufacturer’s Manager of Codes and Standards Compliance. Now I have a question for everyone (quoting an infamous retired politician): “What difference, at this point, does it make?” Every dealer selling new RV’s can give information about their own state’s requirements. And, unless one really digs into reading (and thoroughly understanding) the text of the applicable NFPA, ANSI, NSF, NHTSA, EPA, NEC or other standards, even knowing which standards have been adopted by which state will have only marginal value…….. Frankly, I’m glad to no longer be responsible for being kept current on these matters! Travel Free!

I’ve been reading this thread, and thought I should perhaps post some comments. Now, I may not know a lot about this topic, however in times past I was the Corporate Director of Codes & Standards at &%$#@ (name omitted, but a top-5, multi-facility, full-range RV manufacturer).......... Please excuse the long post, but this is a complex topic. Based upon my experience, I make the following comments: 1. RVIA is indeed an Industry-specific organization, composed of Industry-specific people who are knowledgeable in Industry-specific construction, performance and safety issues. They are not an unbiased organization, because they are aiming to ensure that certain levels of design, build and performance parameters are consistently met by RV manufacturers as reflected in their products. 2. Respectfully, Kirk W, RVIA standards compliance DOES PROTECT the RV consumer, not just the manufacturers. This is accomplished by requiring the manufacturers to ensure that their products (RV’s) meet certain established minimum Industry-relevant standards. This provides a level of protection to the RV consumer. Of course, the manufacturers are also protecting themselves, and limiting their legal liability at the same time in that same process. 3. Many states have adopted the RVIA standards as adequate representation that the RVIA-sealed RV’s have been designed and manufactured in an industry-acceptable manner. Some states require that any RV sold in their state demonstrate this by bearing the RVIA seal. “Non-sealed” units cannot be sold to dealers in those states. This is a factor to be considered by the individual manufacturer, because if they want to sell units to dealers in those states, those units must be RVIA – sealed. 4. Some states have no regulations regarding the standards that RV’s sold to dealers in their state must meet. 5. Certain states have their own requirements that the manufacturers must meet. For instance, in addition to the RVIA seal, these states may require a manufacturer to submit floor plans and system plans (structural, mechanical, electrical, safety, etc.) for each model of RV to be sold in their state. Upon approval of those plans, that model RV may then be sold in that state. Those states usually require that a state-specific sticker be affixed to each RV to be sold in that state. Examples of this during my time at &%$#@ were Arizona, Nebraska, Oregon, Washington, West Virginia and others. Some states require a monthly report of approved RV’s (by model designation) sold to dealers in their state. That list of states will change from time-to-time, based upon their current legislation. The Codes and Standards Director of each manufacturer must ensure that compliance with those state requirements is maintained, if that manufacturer’s RV’s are to be sold there. 6. Canadian Standards Association (CSA) requires a physical inspection, and the use of a seal certifying that inspection, for each unit sold in Canada. 7. The RVIA inspections are both announced and un-announced. The RVIA inspector always has the right to choose which facility, production lines and on-hand inventory will be observed and/or inspected during those visits. RVIA inspectors have the authority to halt a production line if a serious defect/non-compliance is found during their visit. 8. The RVIA is available for consultation by member manufacturers during their design processes, to ensure compliance to RVIA Standards. 9. RVIA oversight IS REAL OVERSIGHT! I respectfully disagree with Kirk W’s comment that the RVIA exists to protect RV manufacturers from folks like NHTSA (National Highway & Traffic Safety Administration), because, just like the EPA, the NHTSA can enforce their standards anytime and anyplace they desire. Each manufacturer should aim to meet all NHTSA requirements, or know that they risk legal exposure if the requirements are not met. As it happens, compliance to RVIA standards helps the manufacturer cover most of the NHTSA requirements. However, the fine print in the RVIA contract specifically states that compliance to RVIA standards SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED as a guarantee of NHTSA compliance…… 10. Certainly, the RVIA seal is an aid to sales, because it is a sign that certain design and manufacturing efforts have been utilized so as to provide a certain measure of compliance with relevant standards. It is not a sales gimmick or promise of quality, but it does give the consumer a bit of confidence when making a purchase. 11. Not all manufacturers are RVIA members or participants in RVIA seal procurement and usage on their products. For example, my Class-8 Chassis motorhome was manufactured by a very-low-volume manufacturer, and it does not wear the RVIA seal. No matter though, as the mode of design and manufacture they use is totally different from a high-volume manufacturer. That low-volume manufacturer, however, cannot sell coaches to dealers in states requiring the RVIA seal or having their own certification standards. DISCLAIMER: The Codes and Standards scene constantly changes. During my years at &%$#@, I had a current list of states and their individual requirements, but that list was the property of &%$#@, and I left it there when I left that company. Due to the “laps around the sun” since my time at &%$#@, I’m sure there have been changes of which I am not aware. However, I am confident that a great bulk of what I have written here is still correct. My apologies for any inaccuracies written above. Hope this helps clarify a few things! Travel Free! H&M Funk 2008 NRC 45-Foot ”Super-Duper C” Motorhome on 2007 Freightliner Columbia Chassis 2006 Pre-Emissions Detroit 14L Series 60 Engine w/ 12-speed Meritor Freedomline

Couldn't agree more! The free market should decide - not "the gubbment" trying to steer things the way some faceless bureaucrats, tech-worshippers or "greenie true believers" think they should go...... For me, EV's don't make sense. Many main ingredients, such as battery technology and supporting infrastructure are just not there yet for most of us. So until I find one that is available and sensible for my situation, I won't make that choice. For those that find that find EV's match their needs, more power (or maybe just power for a limited time) to them.....!

To RV_/Derek Earlier in this thread, you asked me this: --- RV Replies: I don't remember saying someone was behind the power curve, although many companies are and are playing catch up transitioning to EVs. Please show where I said that. To jog your memory, here is your answer: In your very first post, at the very top of this thread, dated Aug 28, in the very first paragraph, you will find that exact wording that someone using your login posted therein. Maybe it wasn't you....... As a Subaru Forester owner like yourself, and as someone who 40 years ago engineered and built my former residence/S&B to be more than 50% heated directly by solar energy, I believe strongly in embracing practical solutions, technologies, and innovative improvements in response to life situations. For instance, electric trains are great, and I have used them for intra-urban travel with great satisfaction. But I actually believe that Hydrogen as a vehicular fuel holds more promise than Canned Electricity, due to this one factor alone, which is the “Achilles Heel” of EV’s: Energy Density. Calculate the amount of energy in a tankful of gasoline or diesel fuel, then compare it to the energy in an EV battery bank. Calculate the weight of the battery bank required, that would be capable of storing the energy of a tank of fuel for an ICE vehicle, that will provide the equivalent range. Hint: the answer is a battery bank weighing thousands of pounds. However, as I stated previously, until there exist EV's meeting the following criteria for my wife and I: -- adequate range (850 miles in 14 hours) -- affordability ($50,000 is way out of the question for us!) -- contain "earth-friendly" batteries (not the “filthy batteries” currently available) -- will not require us as full-timers to evict the folks in the adjacent site so we can use their electric pedestal to re-energize our vehicle we will consider our criteria “UNMET” and we will not be buying an EV. One final thought: In your first post, you cite an article postulating an Energy-themed Ponzi scheme wherein EV owners could utilize bi-directional charging (which is possible for only a portion of current EV's) to help “shave the peaks” of demand that threaten the health of electrical grids. Do you actually believe this is a practical suggestion? The number (probably in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions) of EV’s required to shave these peaks in an impactful manner shows the absurdity of this concept. Now, I will conclude with a quote you use at the end of every one of your posts in these forums: “Those who can make you believe in absurdities can make you commit atrocities.’ -- Voltaire Travel Free! HFUNK 2008 44' NRC on Freightliner Columbia chassis Pre-Emissions 14L 515HP Detroit Diesel w ZFMeritor Freedomline trans

@RV_ So you found an EV that meets your enough of your criteria, and you are buying it (the Rivian). Good for you! However, there are many Americans whose criteria are not met by any model of EV available at present. That does not mean that they are necessarily the ones “behind the power curve” regarding converting to an EV, about whom you referred so clearly in an earlier post……. They may simply have different criteria. But maybe, just maybe I’m one of those “behind the power curve” people, because current EV options fail to meet my needs in the following specific ways: – I cannot justify their limited range. – I cannot justify the inconvenience of routinely driving to a charging site for recharging, then waiting for an extended time until recharging is sufficiently completed (I’m a full-timer and have no S&B for plugging in). – I cannot justify the use of EV’s with batteries that are ecologically so very dirty, because they require the use of exotic metals mined in corrupt, underdeveloped countries with inefficient, polluting and questionable methods using underpaid workers who live in consistent poverty. – I cannot justify their initial cost. – I cannot justify their total cost and nature of ownership. You see, I am one of those people who does all my own routine vehicle maintenance, and almost all the as-needed repairs on my vehicles. With an EV, the requirement for specialized diagnostic and repair equipment would prevent me from doing that. – I cannot justify owning technology/vehicles with unknown and unproven reliability and longevity. So you judged current EV options as meeting your criteria. Good for you! But my criteria are not met by current offerings, and I know those of many others are not met either. Like I said, until adequate and practical technologies exist that allow people to smoothly “make the move” from ICE vehicles to EV’s, I and most others will not be purchasing one. Good for you that you’re converting to an EV. But until my criteria are met, count me out! And forcing people like me to make that move by governmental fiat, misguided "feel-good" corporate policies or restrictive legislation will not be pretty....... You might even say that EV’s are “behind my power curve…..!!” Travel Free! HFunk 2008 44' NRC on Freightliner Columbia chassis Pre-Emissions 14L 515HP Detroit Diesel w ZFMeritor Freedomline trans

Absolutely agreed, TXiceman! The whole world is not "moving toward EV's," as the OP stated. As of now, there does not exist a plan, or any comprehensive, effective related group of technologies that enable us to dump ICE vehicles and jump directly to EV'S. Sure, for some people, they may have the 7-figure bank account and a membership card showing their allegiance to the "Climate-Change Alarmist religion." They may tout their decisions as "only proper" and feel pretty darn good about themselves. And they certainly may elect to spend a lot of their own money pursuing their virtue-signaling "green dreams." They just might have the kind of situation that allows them to throw their money around in that manner. That may be their choice, so I say "go for it." However, let's be crystal-clear: To those who are pushing their EV-centric philosophies and "Climate-Change Alarmist views"--- Don't make the mistake to think you can force me (or anyone who chooses to act against your wishes) to get in line behind y'all. Perhaps in the future, adequate and practical alternatives to serve our present transportation methods and life needs may be developed. But no one, no matter how devout, can have their own truths. The straight, cold fact is that at present, no such comprehensive options exist. I will never choose to jump out of a perfectly-good airplane without an effective, function-proven and well-fitted parachute. The Energy-Themed Ponzi scheme of EV's receiving energy from the grid, and then depositing some of it back into said grid outlined in the OP's cited article will simply not work as a genuine solution. No Perpetual-Motion machine ever has..... Travel Free! HFunk 2008 44' NRC on Freightliner Columbia chassis Pre-Emissions 14L 515HP Detroit Diesel w ZFMeritor Freedomline trans