jimc99999

6 minutes ago, rpasetto said:

However, before one compares 'carbon footprint' of todays fossil fuel engines with electric motors, recall that about 2/3 of the electricity generated today is based on natural gas, coal and other fossil fuel products.

True. However, natural gas power plants can hit 60% thermal efficiency. Car engines run at 20-30% thermal efficiency, lower during cold start, stop and go traffic, etc. This is largely why Teslas run around 100mpg-equavalent; a similar gas-powered car would be getting 25mpg at 25% efficiency. 

Coal plants run at 35-40% thermal efficiency. So a Tesla utilizing power generated only by coal plants could still run cleaner than a car with internal combustion engine. But coal power plants are rapidly closing and as the power generation is cleaned up electric vehicles will also run cleaner, while the ICE car can only continue burning gasoline at 20-30% efficiency. 

As for the camless ICE motor, it is interesting technology but will likely be no more than a stop-gap measure. Claims are 30% improved efficiency and 50% reduced emissions, which still leaves it far behind the 100mpg-equivalent of BEVs like Tesla. 

I'd like to think that motors like this would always have a place in performance-oriented applications like sports cars and motorcycles, similar to how the horse has transitioned from a working tool to a symbol of leisure and wealth. But the horse just needs some grass;  readily available gasoline requires refineries producing specific blends, and significant storage, pumping and transportation infrastructure. You can buy high-octane race fuels at racetracks, so in theory some refinery could still keep pumping out the racing-oriented fuels and transporting to racetracks, but who knows what the future holds.

17 hours ago, Chuck B said:

I am not a IRv2 fan because they make money off what you post.

In general, if you're not a paying customer for any given service, you're the product. If you don't want to be the product...put up the cash!

For reference, since there are 40 online users at 10am PST, I'd guess this site probably requires the 100-user plan at $70/month. So just because you aren't putting up the cash to be a customer doesn't mean someone else isn't. The alternative is for the community to be ad-supported, where "they make money off your content".

To make significantly more off "your content" than it costs to host your content requires a fair amount of work to build and maintain a community. And after all that work, if you're not diligent about maintaining that community, trolls can destroy a community in a pretty short time. A site like IRV2 also has to compete with "free" options like Facebook groups to retain their communities. It's not easy to build and keep a large enough community to make enough to even pay for hosting.

Side note: I don't know the history of IRV2 so I don't know if some media company bought out other better communities and migrated them to IRV2 until they were the only viable option, or if someone built that community through diligent community maintenance.

2 minutes ago, waterskier_1 said:

Jim, that green box with a green light is the device that is supposed to allow charging of the chassis battery(s) while on shore (generator) power.  The light being lit should show the device is working.  On my 97 Dynasty, it was lit, but NOT working.  When it is lit, you should see the same voltage on either of the end terminals to ground.  That should be above 13.5 volts (depending on the charge stage you are in).  If you have over 13.5 volts on the chassis battery(s), then they are being charged.

Thanks, I'll check that out. My suspicion is that device may have failed or be failing, and the Heliotrope solar charging device is flaky. 

I've figured out that the other device is a battery isolator, which *also* allows charging current to push to both batteries, while isolating draw. Does the isolator only allow charging current to push to both batteries at bulk charge, I.e. over 14V? So float charge voltage doesn't go through the battery isolator? Otherwise it seems like the Trik-L-Start would be redundant.

I have a 1997 Windsor that seems like it may no longer be keeping the chassis batteries charged.

It has a Heliotrope RV-30 solar controller and dual battery charger, but it seems flaky. It often shows battery voltage between 17-38V, and the chassis and house batteries are connected backward (I.e. chassis voltage is from house batteries). 

I think it has a chassis battery trickle charger but it isn't labeled so who maybe it's not (pictured).

A couple months ago, the chassis batteries were too low to start the coach. We were in Crescent City, CA, it had been cloudy for a couple months and the infrequent sunshine was at a very low angle. The batteries were around 12.8V, so I hooked up a battery charger and got them charged up to 13.6V, and they started the coach. I checked a few days before we were leaving there, batteries were still good but we had plenty of sunshine the last couple weeks. 

We've now been in Medford a few days with lots of sun, no shade. I turned on the ignition to adjust the leveling jacks and noticed battery voltage was on the low side; enough to activate the gauges and run the leveling jacks but too low to start the motor. The Heliotrope had the "charged" light lit, so it wasn't charging. I turned on the ignition for about 30 seconds, and the Heliotrope decided to start charging. After 30 minutes of clearing out the cabinet to get a picture of the back of the Heliotrope, and looking again at the electrical items by the motor, the battery voltage at the dash gauge is now where it should be for a charged battery that will start the coach easily.

I'm thinking of replacing the Heliotrope with the Blue Sky Sun Charger 30, and adding a Trik-L-Start charger. But if I already have an apparently non-functioning trickle charger, I guess that should be removed. Anyone know what exactly is this unit?

Also, what is the purpose of this device? The power wires come up from both sides of the auxiliary boost relay. The right side power goes to the chassis battery cutoff switch, and the left-side power leads to the house battery cutoff switch.

A

5 minutes ago, rpasetto said:

I'm not saying that the restrictions are "random" at all.  However one may question whether they are reasonable or "government overreach".  I won't get into that, however I have driven my 40' Dynasty on roads rated as 40' max and observed vehicles a lot longer running in front of me.   

That's like questioning if bridge weight limits are reasonable or government overreach. Can you safely drive your 20-ton coach across a bridge rated at 15 tons? Sure, most of the time it won't collapse. 

How much of the oncoming lane did those "vehicles a lot longer than 40'" need in the tightest corners? Keep in mind if they were truck/trailer combos, their lengths are rated by kingpin to axle, not overall length. I've read multiple accounts of people with 40'+ RVs taking CA1 south of Leggett requiring both lanes in some hairpins. US199 is on that list and having traveled that way multiple times in my 38' motorhome, there are a couple places where a 45' would need to run over the yellow lines. Trucks are limited to 65' overall and 30' KPRA, I've seen trucks over that and they also require a significant amount of the oncoming lane in the tight spots.

1 hour ago, rpasetto said:

Perhaps a decade or 2 ago, CA was actively restricting MH's and other private vehicles over 40 ft from certain of their roads.  I was never challenged but heard that some out-of-staters had been caught back then.  As far as I know, CA never rescinded their law; don't recall seeing it go to court.  Perhaps they just stopped strictly enforcing it ... haven't seen any posts about it on RV forums for a while.  It's apparently still on the books:  https://dot.ca.gov/programs/traffic-operations/45-buses-motorhomes/bus-map

That map restricts buses and large motorhomes from roads that are too tight for them to safely navigate. The commercial truck maps are similar, with notes about kingpin to axle length requirements. I review that map myself when I'm planning to travel off major highways in CA even though my motorhome is only 38'.

I can't seriously believe someone would think that's just random restrictions for no other purpose than to raise some revenue from fines...

14 hours ago, Romeo84 said:

Wow. I just got mine. Thats a bummer. I guess I have to do the whole state in the next 2 years.

But like how do even test pressure emission diesels? Do they just start it up and go " yup its smokey".

A 2-minute read of the article indicated it will be an ODB scan, optionally a visual inspection. No tailpipe emissions testing mentioned, but they do say the RV industry groups are pushing for RV exemptions. Considering that few states have weight limit or air brake drivers license endorsements an RV exemption is likely. RVs account for relatively few road miles compared to commercial trucks. 

It may end up like the agricultural inspections stations. I've never been boarded to look for houseplants when I go through the agricultural inspection stations, and the last time the agent mentioned she liked the empty macrame plant holder hanging in the window. The first time I went through I started explaining all the houseplants and groceries and the agent cut me off with "Are you selling anything? We don't need to know about your personal stuff". 

8 hours ago, Dennis H said:

Tell me their roads rate even a "fair" rating.

Compared to PA, SC, WV, anywhere near almost any city in the eastern US, CA roads are at least decent. 

2 hours ago, Bob Nodine said:

Unless I had an exact to and from route that was half the distance of the current battery charge on a full electric vehicle I would be nervous. To me that makes an electric only vehicle useful for local travel only. When we travel we often leave the motorhome at a campground and drive the toad for as much as 200 miles. That makes even the Nissan Leaf a non starter in my thinking.

The Teslas have ranges up to 300 miles, 250+ in real-world use, enough to make a 200-mile trip if you're starting at 80%+. That's 4+ hours of driving in most places unless you're doing all those miles on a highway.  If you're doing 200+ miles, you'll probably be on a highway long enough to pass a supercharger to add some range to your day. If you're at a campground with 50-amp service, most also have a 30amp service on the pedestal you could use to charge the car (about 70-80 miles overnight).  

Obviously if you spend all your time boondocking, the charging can be an issue. But it could work for full-timers like my wife and I, with our driving (mostly running around locally or driving to work, longer trips every week or two would require a supercharger visit).

But, the Tesla can't be flat towed, so if you don't want to deal with a trailer it's just not an option.

13 hours ago, dl_racing427 said:

That guy has about 2kW of panels there, and that's probably about all that would fit on a 24' trailer.
Even if you figure only a 15% loss in the charger, and another 10% in the inverter, that gives you 1530 watts, IF you have full sunlight from directly above.
That means you'd need 54.24 hours of DIRECT SUNLIGHT to charge an 83kW Tesla car battery.
In real world practice with panels mounted flat instead of tracking the sun, you could probably multiply that time by 8 or 10 to get the actual time required to charge.

A Tesla goes around 4 miles per KW/hr, so if you drive a 30 miles for sightseeing, you've used 7.5 KW, which can be refilled in 5 hours at 1.5KW/hr.  The problem is if you spend much of the day doing that sight-seeing, you don't have much solar time left for charging. 

You can get around 1500 watts from a 15-amp plug as well, so if you're in a campground, overnight charging on the 15-amp socket on the pedestal will cover 60-80 miles that you might have driven during the day, and the 30-amp plug would cover a lot more.

It would be nice if Teslas had a flat tow mode, which could automatically sense downhill and engage the regen. If it wasn't for the trailer requirement I'd have gotten a Tesla instead of a Jeep Cherokee. Even when in a 30-amp spot, the 15-amp plug could provide enough power to cover for most daily running around, and superchargers are plentiful for the occasional longer trip. Having to go to a gas station once a month instead of weekly would be nice.

To be fair, the quote of $40K from the OP is pretty ridiculous. 

And an extended warranty that doesn't pay out when something does happen doesn't function as insurance either, and there probably does need to be a lot more regulation of extended warranties to make sure they function more as insurance and less as a money grab.

I've run quite a few Falken tires over the years, and they've worked well for me in a variety of styles. My 1997 Windsor had them on it when I bought it 2 years ago, and they've run well enough that I'd use them again. They roll smooth and hold air, no cupping or abnormal wear in 15K miles so far.

1 hour ago, Scotty Hutto said:

Said differently, an extended warranty is essentially *gambling* that you will be the exception and receive more benefits than you actually pay in premiums.  Like a casino, there are winners and losers, but the house *always* wins (except when they go bankrupt 🤣 - then everyone loses.)  

It's more like insurance. I've paid way more auto insurance premiums over the years than I've "collected" on repairs or medical bills. I would consider myself fortunate that I've not needed it, not a loser because the house collected more than I did. When we bought our 1997 Windsor, it was a big unknown, so we bought the "insurance". Sure, I only needed a few small things covered, so technically I lost money. But I can also consider myself fortunate that I only needed a few small things covered and didn't have to spend weeks at a repair shop for a motor repair, even though that would let me "win" in your example.

Once you're in Maine, stay on I-95. Taking I-295 through Portland is 5 miles shorter, but more traffic, lower speed limits, and much rougher road. 

I had a 4-button thermostat that was going flaky and 2 original Dometic Penguins on my 97 Windsor. This spring I replaced the 4-button thermostat and control boards with 5-button tstat and control boards.

I talked to Dometic support when deciding whether to go with a 5 or 10 button thermostat. According to Dometic, there are no control boards that can allow an AC unit originally using a 4-button thermostat to use the 10-button thermostat.  The 5-button thermostat can run a 4-button, 5-button or 10-button AC unit with the proper control board.

I like how that ladder collapses, but it's 40 lbs, and the comparable Little Giant Velocity 17 is 30 lbs. 

The collapsible one will fit in the car pretty easy though, or I might be able to fit it in one of my sliding storage bays.

I like the idea, thanks for the pointer!

4 minutes ago, Paul A. said:

Google; brackets Little Giant articulating ladders

Paul A

I have googled that, as well as mounts, vertical mounts, etc. Searching for brackets little giant articulating ladders returns mostly results for trestle brackets, which allows you to  turn an articulating ladder into two scaffolding trestles. 

Little Giant offers this ladder mount which I could probably make usable with some customization (mounting plates to space them off the surface, holes for bungees/locks.

I've also found these from E-Trailer, but they are pretty expensive.

I just wanted to see if others had done something better.

I would like to remove the ladder on the rear of the coach and install some brackets to secure a ladder such as the the Little Giant articulating ladders. Does anyone know of good vertical-mount brackets to hold a ladder? It would be great if they lock too.

I recently switched control boards in my air conditioners when installing a new thermostat, and took the time to blow the dust out of the coils. The front AC unit had very dirty coils, both external condenser and evap coils. Previously I had thought that AC unit was must be running low on freon, since it didn't cool very well compared to the rear unit, but now it works pretty well.

I also installed new foam strips that press against the cover. The old ones were stuck to the cover, I just stuck the new ones to the top of the coils and they stayed in place. You can find the 1" high expanding foam weatherstrip in the weatherstrip section at Lowes, it installs easily. It curves well enough to follow the curve of the condenser coils with no problem. 

For cooling when it's hot, we have a curtain behind the driver/passenger seats that keeps a lot of hot air up by the windshield. We also have a screen we put up on the windshield that dramatically reduces the solar heating. Shade also helps a lot.

I recently switched control boards in my air conditioners when installing a new thermostat, and took the time to blow the dust out of the coils. The front AC unit had very dirty coils, both external condenser and evap coils. Previously I had thought that AC unit was must be running low on freon, since it didn't cool very well compared to the rear unit, but now it works pretty well.

I also installed new foam strips that press against the cover. The old ones were stuck to the cover, I just stuck the new ones to the top of the coils and they stayed in place. You can find the 1" high expanding foam weatherstrip in the weatherstrip section at Lowes, it installs easily. It curves well enough to follow the curve of the condenser coils with no problem. 

Our 1997 Monaco Windsor has the 87-91 Ford F150 headlights. I used a headlight restoration kit to remove the yellowing and replaced the bulbs with Silverstars last year, light was better but still very poor. I finally switched out for LEDs, I used these from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07QNNH28X  The light pattern is great, good cutoff and the road is lit at least triple the distance the Silverstars could manage. Glare is not bad.

I also replaced the plastic retainer rings which were missing almost all the retaining tabs with these: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000COB65M but I had to file the 3 locking tabs a bit for them to work.

I replaced the driving lights with https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B081DTRC46 which make a lot of light, but a lot of glare. I would turn them off for oncoming drivers on a 2-lane road. They light up overhead road signs perfectly, which is great when you get close to the sign and your headlights are no longer illuminating it due to the cutoff pattern. They are a bright fill for the areas the headlights don't cover but you just have to be careful about oncoming drivers on 2-lane roads.

Actually never mind, I took another look and to move the generator forward I'd have to lift it up and over the aluminum bay door seal area. So I guess I'm off to find a 1" hole saw.

On my 97 Windsor, the Onan 7500 generator is not on a slide. One of the motor mount bolts (through the rubber vibration dampers) has loosened, but is covered by a support beam that the generator rests on. I could get a hole saw and drill an access hole in that support beam. If I did that I would not be able to remove that bolt and put threadlock on the threads, but at least I'd have access to tighten it when necessary.

Alternatively, I could remove the generator mounting bolts and attempt to slide the generator out a couple inches, which would let me remove that bolt and reinstall it with threadlocker. However, I don't have a jack to lift/roll the generator, and it's likely to be stuck to the supports with the undercoating, 20 years of underbody cruft, etc. Are there any tricks that can make it easier to get started?

Also, if I only need to move the generator a couple inches, will I have to disconnect the exhaust or is there probably enough flex? I haven't checked yet to see how much slack is in the fuel line.