 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / RVs / August 2005rv.org's RV Ratings Guide CD
Hi all, I recently purchased the Ratings Guide CD for travel trailers and 5th wheels and am very disappointed in it. I campared Airstream, Sunnybrook and Nash in person and compared what I saw with the ratings on the CD and cannot reconcile what I saw to what I found in the guide. You may know that the CD uses a 5 star rating system with 1 star bad and 5 stars great which is a combination and/or average of 3 categories: Value, Reliability and Highway Control. I have a '92 29' Airstream Excella and decided that I'd like to sell it in order to get something with a slideout. Buying the ratings guide made instinctive sense to go along with all the recommendations here and in RORT. I went shopping before the CD arrived and looked, in particular, at Sunnybrook and Nash. I wanted to see Artic Fox but couldn't find any near me. The Sunnybrook dealer had many trailers on the lot and all appeared to be very nice trailers. The slideout mechanisms looked to be durable, the interior was nicely finish and they had the general appearance of a trailer that would last. The Nash was poorly finished, the divider between the front bedroom and the living room was nothing more than a curtain, the exterior storage compartments weren't box in and would allow mosquitos in if a door were left open. When I got home I was pleased to find the Ratings CD in my mailbox and I promptly ran the guide and started looking around. I found that all Airstreams got between 1 and 3 stars, all Sunnybrooks got 4 stars and all Nashs got 4 stars. I can't figure out how this is of any use. One could argure the whether an Airstream is worth the addtional price they command, but I can attest to their durability and towablility. Perhaps the Nash's price is low enough to warrant some of the deficiency's in the build. And finally perhaps I was disappointed that my Airstream ranked so low, but the Sunnybrook was a far nicer trailer than Nash yet it got the same 4 stars as the Nash did. What use is that? I know the license agreement for the CD says that I can't sell it. Perhaps I can give it away.  SignatureWayne > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I know the license agreement for the CD says that I can't sell it. > Perhaps I can give it away. Ditto for me. While I did glean some information, I scratched my head at some parts of it. It was a 90% disappointment. The only upshot is that I pulled it out to look at diesel pusher ratings, as we were considering moving up to a pusher. But then, we bought a mountain cabin last week, so the pusher may or may not happen. Can't sell it, huh? Watch me. I bet I can get $5 for it on ebay. Steve Can I keep it here for you here in sunny Southern California? I will even pay you for the benefit of doing so (wink..if you know what I mean..wink). SignatureQuickSilver - Visit my world http://AustinMini.OsiTech.Net >> Hi all, >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Steve > Can I keep it here for you here in sunny Southern California? > > I will even pay you for the benefit of doing so (wink..if you know what I > mean..wink). Yes, you may. Send me an email and we'll work out the details. Email sent. SignatureQuickSilver - Visit my world Searching for a Class A Coach in SoCal http://AustinMini.OsiTech.Net >> Can I keep it here for you here in sunny Southern California? >> >> I will even pay you for the benefit of doing so (wink..if you know what I >> mean..wink). > > Yes, you may. Send me an email and we'll work out the details. > Ditto for me. While I did glean some information, I scratched my head at > some parts of it. It was a 90% disappointment. The only upshot is that I [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Steve Their hitch weight, gross weight, empty weight might be useful if accurate. But the measurements are probably reproduced from the manufactures published figures. SignatureWayne > Their hitch weight, gross weight, empty weight might be useful if > accurate. But the measurements are probably reproduced from the > manufactures published figures. My bet is, 99% of what's in that guide is gleamed from manufacturer's published material. They don't tell you anymore how they get their material, but when they use to, it was clear that they did almost no inspections of their own unless they were paid for the trip to do so. I never have thought they are an unbiased source of information, any more than these newsgroups are unbiased. Tom J This, from a 'die-hard fan' of the organization: When we had a problem with our brand new Avion product (we had NOT asked advice before buying), they were unbelievably helpful. When we went to look for a new fiver, they gave us endless advice on the phone, told us what to look for -- when we were just about to purchase a unit, we called, and were told the questions to ask -- luckily -- and we did not make the purchase. Anyone who wants more information, please feel free to email me. Gwen in S.E. PA they must be related to Consumer Reports.....suitable for emergency toilet paper......but what can you do with a cd???? Frisbee????? > Hi all, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > I know the license agreement for the CD says that I can't sell it. > Perhaps I can give it away. I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> contributed: >I recently purchased the Ratings Guide CD for travel trailers and 5th >wheels and am very disappointed in it. .... >I know the license agreement for the CD says that I can't sell it. >Perhaps I can give it away. Did you buy it to see if the compilers agreed with you - or to get the perspective of a relatively unbiased group who pretty clearly sets forth their criteria? Forgive me if I think you expected agreement with your POV and therefore would have been disappointed with ANY guide. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> wrote: I recently purchased the Ratings Guide CD for travel trailers and 5th wheels and am very disappointed in it. ....>> Hi Wayne, That's why I don't recommend people buy that expensive CD. I have an Airstream that I live in and it got 0 stars in that stupid book of theirs. I'm not sure what their criteria is, unless they rejected it because the retail on it is 55,000.00. To me, better to just ask here. You will get real experiences from owners of different brands. For example, if you ask about Sunnybrook you will get lots of thumbs up here. Why pay for info that's free for the asking? Hunter http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!" > Hi Wayne, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Hunter I can certainly understand a high price having an affect on their "value" rating. But there is something going on at in their rating systen that just doesn't hold water. Airstreams are no more a 1 star product than the Nash is a 4 star product. I wonder how Prevost motorhomes are judged. SignatureWayne > Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Hunter That's a good suggestion. Hopefully the poor novice won't get jumped on for asking a "dumb" question. Anyway, I have a dumb question. We love our Forest River Sunseeker... but, we should have gone for one with slides. Is it possible to retrofit slides on a finished unit? MoM <snip> > Anyway, I have a dumb question. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > MoM Yes, IF the frame is capable of handling the load on it. Slides do add a considerable amount of weight. SignatureRam KE7BRE www.rvsafety.com (Remove first 2 dots to reply) > <snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Yes, IF the frame is capable of handling the load on it. Slides do add > a considerable amount of weight. Any suggestion on how I would look in to doing this or where I should begin? MoM >>> We love our Forest River Sunseeker... but, we should have >>> gone for one with slides. >>> >>> Is it possible to retrofit slides on a finished unit? >> Yes, IF the frame is capable of handling the load on it. >> Slides do add a considerable amount of weight. > Any suggestion on how I would look in to > doing this or where I should begin? Your first, and MOST important task, is to take several bushel baskets to your money tree and fill them. Bring along a couple laundry baskets, too, and fill them while you're at it. Oh, to heck with that. Just chop down the money tree and bring it to the retrofitter. <big grin> Seriously, that's almost not a joke. *IF* you could find someone or some company willing to do the job, it would surely cost WAAAAAY more than the value of your Sunseeker. Retrofitting a slide-out room to a finished trailer, even if the trailer's frame can handle it, boggles the mind. I wonder if its ever been done. You would be MANY dollars "ahead" by selling your trailer to someone that DOESN'T want slides, and then buy one that already has them. Good luck! :) JR >>>> We love our Forest River Sunseeker... but, we should have >>>> gone for one with slides. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > :) > JR yeah. what he said. Steve > Retrofitting a slide-out room to a finished trailer, even if the trailer's > frame can handle it, boggles the mind. I wonder if its ever been done. Don't know about trailers but a friend had a slide out installed in his Bounder motorhome by some company in, I believe, Gilbert, Arizona. He had quite a bit of additional work renovating the inside as well which was very well done. His cost was around $15,000. Don in Tracy, Calif. >> Retrofitting a slide-out room to a finished trailer, even if the >> trailer's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Don in Tracy, Calif. Thanks! >>>> We love our Forest River Sunseeker... but, we should have >>>> gone for one with slides. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > :) > JR Ah. Ok, that answers a LOT of questions! MoM >Your first, and MOST important task, is to take several bushel baskets to your >money tree and fill them. Bring along a couple laundry baskets, too, and fill [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > :) >JR There is a place in Gilbert, AZ that advertises retrofits. Look in Motor Home Life of Trailer Life of Hiways for their ad. <snip> >>You would be MANY dollars "ahead" by selling your trailer to someone that >>DOESN'T want slides, and then buy one that already has them. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > There is a place in Gilbert, AZ that advertises retrofits. Look in > Motor Home Life of Trailer Life of Hiways for their ad. I believe the name of that place is "RV Interiors". That's the outfit that did some work for us on our fiver and they did an excellent job. Price was ~reasonable~. SignatureRam KE7BRE www.rvsafety.com (Remove first 2 dots to reply) > I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> contributed: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > perspective of a relatively unbiased group who pretty clearly sets > forth their criteria? I bought it because "Buying the ratings guide made instinctive sense to go along with all the recommendations here and in RORT." I'm not at all interested in having my point of view validated. I'm a lot like you in that I don't really care much what others think about my opinion. I now KNOW that the Nash is no where near the quality of my Airstream, yet gets significantly better ratings. I now am SURE the Sunnybrook is a better trailer than the Nash yet gets the same rating as the Nash. I DON'T actually know that their perspective is unbiased. I DON'T actually know how they define "value." I now KNOW that the Rating CD is of no use to me. > Forgive me if I think you expected agreement with your POV and > therefore would have been disappointed with ANY guide. You're forgiven. It's a reasonable assumption. However, you need not make the assumpition because I chose the words that I posted fairly carefully, "And finally perhaps I was disappointed that my Airstream ranked so low, but the Sunnybrook was a far nicer trailer than Nash yet it got the same 4 stars as the Nash did. What use is that?" SignatureWayne I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> contributed: >. . . . I now >KNOW that the Nash is no where near the quality of my Airstream, yet >gets significantly better ratings. I now am SURE the Sunnybrook is a >better trailer than the Nash yet gets the same rating as the Nash. I >DON'T actually know that their perspective is unbiased. It's not and won't ever be. See below. >I DON'T actually know how they define "value." If you read enough of their stuff, they'd tell you. The rub is, you disagree with their definition. >I now KNOW that the Rating CD is of no use to me. Will: >> Forgive me if I think you expected agreement with your POV and >> therefore would have been disappointed with ANY guide. >You're forgiven. It's a reasonable assumption. However, you need not >make the assumpition because I chose the words that I posted fairly >carefully, "And finally perhaps I was disappointed that my Airstream >ranked so low, but the Sunnybrook was a far nicer trailer than Nash yet >it got the same 4 stars as the Nash did. What use is that?" ::sigh:: I'm choosing to ignore Hunter's irrational POV on the subject, but will try to help you at least understand why (IMO) the "ratings" game is often disappointing: This may be painfully obvious, but ratings ASSUME and depend on _criteria_. Those criteria can be definable (measurable) or subjective, but each person/entity rating has and acts on those criteria. Criteria well stated or not, it is improbable than any two of us will agree without dissent on any rating of an rv. Let's talk Airstreams for an example. Hunter (and you) are very fond of Airstream. (I too once owned one and hold them in high esteem vs SOME of the criteria.) But only a star-struck Airstreamer could fail to see certain negative aspects, such as storage, weight, and obscene pricing. Once a lean, efficient TT with outstanding handling, they are today much too gadget-laden and porky to get a high rating by MY criteria. Bottom line: you are missing the real value of RVCG's material if you only look at their "ratings". The patter about what features are important for what uses - vacationers, fulltimers, etc - is FAR more important than how many stars a given model gets. Details about suspension design and load capacity trump appearance issues every time for me. IOW, I still think you were disappointed mainly because their rating numbers didn't match your own perceptions - and THAT is an unrealistic expectation IMO. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> contributed: > > >I DON'T actually know how they define "value." > > If you read enough of their stuff, they'd tell you. The rub is, you > disagree with their definition. Is this "stuff" on the CD? The best I could find is "...Length and Depreciation are, however, only two of many factors that our database uses to determine a Value Rating." That doesn't tell me if they consider depreciation as a percentage of purchase price or in absolute dollars. If they are measuring absolute dollars then any relatively expensive trailer is going to lose regardless of relative construction quality. Their definition of Value implies absolute dollars when they say "A depreciation factor is figured by calculating data of each brand from appraisal guides commonly used in the RV industry." The implication being that if there is a large depreciation dollar amount then the products rating is lowered. I expect to pay more for a 5 star product than a 1 star product. I expect to experience a larger depreciation dollar amount with an expensive product. If you can show me data that shows that Airstream, Sunnybrook or Nash experiences significantly higher depreciation, as a percentage of purchase price, than other brands I'd really like to see it. To have a rating system that takes a 3-5 star product based on build and design quality and turns it into a 0-1 star product because it's expensive is of no use to me. > >I now KNOW that the Rating CD is of no use to me. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > rating numbers didn't match your own perceptions - and THAT is an > unrealistic expectation IMO. I'll be darned. The patented, patronizing ::sigh:: The Airstream is still an efficient design if less lean than you'd like. The monocoque, stressed member skin is an inherently stronger design than a box design, they don't weigh significantly more than box style trailers and arguing about the weight of 6,000-10,000lb. trailers when 250+HP pickup trucks with 165" wheelbases are the norm is ridiculous. Pontificating about how you value superior design over other matters while bad mouthing Airstream because they no longer weigh 3K lbs. makes you sound stupid. And I know you're not. You've chosen to ignore what I said about comparing a Nash to a Sunnybrook. They use very different construction methods and materials, have significant fit & finish differences, use different brand appliances and the slide mechanisms are similar in design, but are different. These two trailers are not equals, one is better than the other in many ways and yet they get the same rating in the same use category. They do however have very similar leaf spring suspensions with shock absorbers. The patter about what features are important can be obtained here or in RORT weekly, if not daily. You may even have some of your "boiler plate" covering the topic. I don't imagine we're going to convince one another. I looked at the trailers carefully, read the CD carefully and the CD doesn't match what I know and can see. You think I'm a star-struck Airstreamer. You're wrong. SignatureWayne I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> is SURE he's done the right thing by buying a RVCG Ratings CD and then finding it useless. For the benefit of other readers (Wayne is clearly not impressed by my POV), I call attention to these parts of the discussion: Wayne: >> >I DON'T actually know how they define "value." Will: >> If you read enough of their stuff, they'd tell you. The rub is, you >> disagree with their definition. Wayne: >Is this "stuff" on the CD? The best I could find is "...Length and >Depreciation are, however, only two of many factors that our database >uses to determine a Value Rating." <much snipping> If you didn't read anything but their ratings CD, I can see why you'd be in the dark. AFAIK the CD would be the electronic version of the Ratings Book, the source of near-continuous panning in alt.rv and RORT. Will: >> Bottom line: you are missing the real value of RVCG's material if you >> only look at their "ratings". The patter about what features are [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> rating numbers didn't match your own perceptions - and THAT is an >> unrealistic expectation IMO. Wayne: >I'll be darned. The patented, patronizing ::sigh:: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >while bad mouthing Airstream because they no longer weigh 3K lbs. makes >you sound stupid. And I know you're not. Excuse me for interrupting, but if you can't disuss the SUBJECT without potshots at anyone who disagrees with your POV, maybe I am wasting my time! Wayne: >You've chosen to ignore what I said about comparing a Nash to a >Sunnybrook. I ignored them because they are irrelevant to my point. Wayne: >The patter about what features are important can be obtained here or in >RORT weekly, if not daily. You may even have some of your "boiler >plate" covering the topic. Obviously you don't understand. It's RVCG's "patter about features" that would, had you studied their other materials, reveal the basis for _their ratings_. Which is what you claim to be annoyed about. Frankly, I've recommended RVCG materials (the package, not just the ratings) only to rank newbies. Those of us who already know (or think we know) what to buy need not waste time and money to read J D Gallant's opinions. In view of your apparent prior knowledge, I'm surprised you expected to be happy. Every few years we subscribe to Consumer Reports, and _usually_ find ourselves snickering over their ratings and test methods, and grumbling at their misguided consumerism/liberalism. But they are a reasonably valid source in some respects, as is RVCG. I still think your problem is that you hoped to have your perceptions validated - and they weren't. My advice: get over it. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill >Frankly, I've recommended RVCG materials (the package, not just the >ratings) only to rank newbies. Will, Have you ever bought the CD or the book yourself? Hunter http://members.aol.com/hhamp5246/roadtrip2005.htm Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely in a well-preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, totally worn out, shouting "...holy sh.t...what a ride!" I see where Hunter <HHamp5246@aol.com> contributed: >Have you ever bought the CD or the book yourself? As I have repeatedly said, the answer is NO -- never joined or bought his materials. I have nearly 50 years of rv experience, engineering training, and an ego big enough to imagine that I know what I need to know about buying rv's. I could write my own books but JD has an even bigger ego and more willingness to endure the rants of his detractors. OTOH I have read enough of JD Gallant's materials to recommend them to newbies. He is the least-biased commercial source of buying information, and has proven himself helpful to hundreds. He is NOT likely to be very helpful to experienced rv'ers, IMO. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> is SURE he's done the > right thing by buying a RVCG Ratings CD and then finding it useless. [snip] > Obviously you don't understand. It's RVCG's "patter about features" > that would, had you studied their other materials, reveal the basis [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Will Sill > The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill Good enough. I believe we've both had ample opportunity to express, in detail, our points of view. My appologies for appearing to have taken a pot shot. I didn't mean it that way, but it sure looks like I did. SignatureWayne I see where Wayne <waynelindberg@goldengate.net> contributed: >Good enough. I believe we've both had ample opportunity to express, in >detail, our points of view. My appologies for appearing to have taken a >pot shot. I didn't mean it that way, but it sure looks like I did. Apology unnecessary but accepted. A pleasure to discuss a topic with someone who doesn't go into orbit because I disagree! Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill .. > The Nash was poorly finished, the divider between the front bedroom and > the living room was nothing more than a curtain, the exterior storage > compartments weren't box in and would allow mosquitos in if a door were > left open. Interesting, the divider in my Nash is a bifold door, as to the storage, it depends. Every trailer/5er I've seen has some storage that is open to both inside and out. I know the small areas under the bench on my Nash are, however, the two large main area's are not. Question, did you read the materials that came with the CD, did you read the "how to evaluate" book? (assuming you got it). These can tell you how they came up with (in general terms) the evaluations and how to apply them to your needs. That's the real value of this material, learning to look for what is important to you. Signature-------------------------------------------------------- Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read RV and Camping FAQ can be found at http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv I see where Ralph E Lindberg <n7bsn@callsign.net> contributed, re Wayne's complaint: > Question, did you read the materials that came with the CD, did you >read the "how to evaluate" book? (assuming you got it). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That's the real value of this material, learning to look for what is >important to you. I got the impression Wayne was dissatisfied with the ratings because they didn't mesh well with his own perceptions - and that he did NOT read anything but the ratings. Will Sill The Curmudgeon of Sill Hill > .. > > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > That's the real value of this material, learning to look for what is > important to you. I didn't get any material other than the Ratings CD. I read all of the definitions that are on the CD and as you point out those definitions are in general terms. As I pointed out in another post I don't know how they determine their Value Rating nor the depreciation factor nor how they apply the depreciation factor to the final star rating. I also would be skeptical of paying more money to purchase a list of definitions in order to interpret their ratings. If you have an example from the "how to evaluate" book that is compelling I'd very much like to hear it. I didn't mean to beat up on Nash. I meant to point out that there is a noticable difference between Nash and Sunnybrook, but it goes unnoted on the ratings CD. I would expect the differences in the trailers to be reflected in both the price of the trailers and on the ratings CD. Will Sill thinks I'm a star struck Airstreamer. He's wrong. I do have a 1992 Airstream that is still in very good structural condition despite my pulling it with a Peterbilt, often quite fast. All of the Nashs and all of the Sunnybrooks get 4 stars. Airstreams get between 0 and 3 stars. These ratings don't match my intuitive sense nor the actual inspections that I've done. Will Sill also pointed out that the value of the CD is in learning what to look for, but the title I bought is "RV Ratings Guide CD." I paid $80 for a CD with ratings that don't pass the reality test. I had hoped to get information that would help me determine what other brands would be worth looking at in replacing my Airstream, but I now know that this CD will have me chasing wild geese. All of the above sounds more negative and/or antagonistic than I really am. FWIW. SignatureWayne > All of the above sounds more negative and/or antagonistic than I really > am. FWIW. Welcome to the RVing newsgroups. You have survived your baptism, and are hereby recognized as a properly initiated member. Steve |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.