There are a myriad of posts on here concerning living in an RV.
Pros and cons alike. For the most part, the RV's most people can afford to buy are pretty cheaply made. I have a 2005 Coachmen 25' QB (meaning front queen bed). I bought this travel trailer in 2005 for around 16K. Yes, I stupidly bought it new, but the used ones I looked at smelled of former occupants, so that was a bummer. I have had the TT for five years, and although we have taken care of it to almost like new condition, it would probably bring in about 5K on a sale or less on a trade in (which would be stupid to the max to try and trade it.)
These are cheaply made and lightweight so they can be pulled by lesser vehicles, and priced where someone might buy them.
Unless you go high dollar as in Airstream, you will have something like everyone else can afford.
There are always exceptions to what I am saying, and buying an older one in good shape and setting it up permanently can be ok in some cases. But dealing with all the maintenance and so on gets to a cost negative point. If it is your primary home, then that also can be different. The purchase price, depreciation, insurance, vehicle pulling costs, maintenance, and if need be storage is just not worth the whole affair. You will have maintenance going on all the time. We have discussed on another thread they are not safe in storms, not warm in winter, and hard or expensive to cool in summer. I am not all that sorry I have bought three(3) of them in my life, but I have not gotten near all the money I have had in them back or out of them. The weather is quite hard on them. I would really think carefully before I placed very much of my money in a standard consumer affordable off the lot RV again.
When mine wears out, I will probably just salvage it out, or maybe sell it to the RV resort as a permanent on site unit.
As always, yes there are exceptions, and we have discussed those as well on the threads.
I can tell you I would never buy another one. Maybe a used Airstream set up for permanent, but not an off the lot type!!
RV's are not worth the trouble
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17124
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
Never ever buy an RV (or a boat) new. The depreciation is spectacular. Compared to the savings in rent (or real estate crash), we're netting $1000+/month living here. The outlay for our RV was fully recovered in savings in about one and half years. Buying it new would have made it into a $60-80k+ vehicle and that was the retail price 20 years ago, so it's probably more like a $100k vehicle when accounting for inflation. In that case it would have been comparable to simply renting a house.
Actually living in one means spending as much time on maintenance as living in a house. Appliances tend to be 4x more expensive. On the other hand, if you can do the work yourself, cheap replacement parts are available for most things. Having previously rented, we often complain about having to fix things all the time, but comparing to the old house we used to live in, this one is fairly easy. We just have to do the work instead of calling the landlord.
Actually living in one means spending as much time on maintenance as living in a house. Appliances tend to be 4x more expensive. On the other hand, if you can do the work yourself, cheap replacement parts are available for most things. Having previously rented, we often complain about having to fix things all the time, but comparing to the old house we used to live in, this one is fairly easy. We just have to do the work instead of calling the landlord.
@Jacob
Yeah, and I was a guy who also had three boats (2 ski and one bass). I learned that lesson finally. Who wants to hook up a boat and trailer, pull it out of the way, and mow under it, then put it back? That's mainly what most of us do/did. A little cost ineffective for the less than 2 weeks a year we used them.
On the Trailers, well, I am saying these are non assets for a purely "recreational" purpose. Way too cost ineffective again. As you point out, depreciation is horrific, almost criminal.
Today is March 6, 2011, and I haven't seen my stored travel trailer since October 14, 2010. In the meantime, I have been paying a monthly fee to store it. Not smart in any frame of reason. I would be better off to ditch the trailer, and go rent somewhere in the woods to "get away". In the future, I will be buying nothing unless I can use it everyday in some way, and it returns my investment in it at least partially.
I will most likely be able to next use my trailer in a couple of weeks. First time up there will involve half a day of outside cleaning, and repairs of some nature. The average bear at my age is NOT free of obligations. We really can't go due to responsible for wife's elderly mother.
I hear the violin music your playing!! Anyway, that's the way it goes!!
Yeah, and I was a guy who also had three boats (2 ski and one bass). I learned that lesson finally. Who wants to hook up a boat and trailer, pull it out of the way, and mow under it, then put it back? That's mainly what most of us do/did. A little cost ineffective for the less than 2 weeks a year we used them.
On the Trailers, well, I am saying these are non assets for a purely "recreational" purpose. Way too cost ineffective again. As you point out, depreciation is horrific, almost criminal.
Today is March 6, 2011, and I haven't seen my stored travel trailer since October 14, 2010. In the meantime, I have been paying a monthly fee to store it. Not smart in any frame of reason. I would be better off to ditch the trailer, and go rent somewhere in the woods to "get away". In the future, I will be buying nothing unless I can use it everyday in some way, and it returns my investment in it at least partially.
I will most likely be able to next use my trailer in a couple of weeks. First time up there will involve half a day of outside cleaning, and repairs of some nature. The average bear at my age is NOT free of obligations. We really can't go due to responsible for wife's elderly mother.
I hear the violin music your playing!! Anyway, that's the way it goes!!
@HSpencer:
I think the economics of it really depend on where you live. If you live in California, where the weather is decent year around and housing prices are extremely high, it makes sense. Most other places,imo, don't make sense. For example, where I live an RV would spell disaster. In the winter time it routinely gets down into the single digits or negatives, we routinely have storms with winds in excess of 40-50 mph, and - oh yes. Tornadoes. Throw in the fact that you can buy a nice house around here for $10,000 dollars, and the choice becomes pretty obvious. Unless you really need the mobility, a cheap house is the better choice.
But - I think it really just depends on where you live.
And yes - those depreciations costs. That is downright scary.
I think the economics of it really depend on where you live. If you live in California, where the weather is decent year around and housing prices are extremely high, it makes sense. Most other places,imo, don't make sense. For example, where I live an RV would spell disaster. In the winter time it routinely gets down into the single digits or negatives, we routinely have storms with winds in excess of 40-50 mph, and - oh yes. Tornadoes. Throw in the fact that you can buy a nice house around here for $10,000 dollars, and the choice becomes pretty obvious. Unless you really need the mobility, a cheap house is the better choice.
But - I think it really just depends on where you live.
And yes - those depreciations costs. That is downright scary.
I need to do a lot more research, but I am very interested in the topic. When you casually start looking into RV's, the stark price difference between the Airstreams and everything else really stands out. Too bad to hear that a $15k trailer is a headache already at just over 5 years old. Was that full timing?
It does seem that the only used ones you see that are really old (>20yrs) seem to be Airstreams... I wonder how much that is driven by fashion and their retro-chic status though.
@jacob, it sounds like you're doing OK on a <$20 setup. I assume that's full timing?
It does seem that the only used ones you see that are really old (>20yrs) seem to be Airstreams... I wonder how much that is driven by fashion and their retro-chic status though.
@jacob, it sounds like you're doing OK on a <$20 setup. I assume that's full timing?
-
jacob
- Site Admin
- Posts: 17124
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 8:38 pm
- Location: USA, Zone 5b, Koppen Dfa, Elev. 620ft, Walkscore 77
- Contact:
@chilly - Yes, but we don't drive around. Ours is from 1991 but it only has about 50k miles on it---it the original carpets still covered the floor and they barely looked touched. It's also custom built. We have red oak cabinetry for instance. On the other hand the external design looks like a high speed train---pretty ugly.
It absolutely depends on how you use it. As recreational toys which gets used a handful of times per year, RVs and boats are holes in the ground/water you pour money into---but probably still cheaper than an empty second home. Full-timing either as a replacement for all the expenses of a stick house is much cheaper. Obviously it doesn't work in all climates.
It absolutely depends on how you use it. As recreational toys which gets used a handful of times per year, RVs and boats are holes in the ground/water you pour money into---but probably still cheaper than an empty second home. Full-timing either as a replacement for all the expenses of a stick house is much cheaper. Obviously it doesn't work in all climates.
@chilly
Yes the lesser priced RV's are vastly differently built from the Airstreams. The older Airstreams are untouchable to buy, as there is almost a cult like following for them. These days your lucky to find an Airstream sitting around, even in terrible shape.
Of course pricing a new Airstream will change your mind quickly.
The standard travel trailers made in the USA (Indiana) are cheaply built with production lines, and are made that way in order to sell them. Depending on your price points, you can get nicer ones of course with fiberglass skins and upgraded appliances and decor. Irregardless, an RV is sort of self-consuming as it sits around waiting to be used. The sun is very hard on it, and the weather can quickly destroy the plastics and other finishes. Getting a water leak into one if your not quickly aware of can be a kiss of death. Some of the problem is most people use them so infrequently. They have awnings on the side that are good for about 4 or 5 years before the wetness and weather begin to ruin them.
To answer your question, I have never done full timing in an RV, but I can see it would be much easier to keep up with your maintenance as you would be aware of it on a daily basis.
So I will close with an example on the cost of a travel trailer only, no insurance, depreciation, or maintenance:
New Travel Trailer: $16,000.00
divided by 60 months $267.00 per month
avg # times used/yr 18
X 5 yr 90 total uses
16K divided by 90 equates $178.00 per use over 60 months
The above considers only the cost of purchase, and not the depreciation, insurance, repairs or storage costs or taxes on the unit. When you add those factors you see the "cost per use" skyrocket. If you full timed, and jacked the uses to daily or maybe 1800 uses/60 months, then you wind up with something like $8.00 or $9.00 per day instead of the $178.00 cost per use.
Bottom line, live in it, or it ain't worth it!! For grins and giggles, figure out the rich dude who has one of those $300,000 motor home type busses, which he bought new and uses about two weekends a year!!
Yes the lesser priced RV's are vastly differently built from the Airstreams. The older Airstreams are untouchable to buy, as there is almost a cult like following for them. These days your lucky to find an Airstream sitting around, even in terrible shape.
Of course pricing a new Airstream will change your mind quickly.
The standard travel trailers made in the USA (Indiana) are cheaply built with production lines, and are made that way in order to sell them. Depending on your price points, you can get nicer ones of course with fiberglass skins and upgraded appliances and decor. Irregardless, an RV is sort of self-consuming as it sits around waiting to be used. The sun is very hard on it, and the weather can quickly destroy the plastics and other finishes. Getting a water leak into one if your not quickly aware of can be a kiss of death. Some of the problem is most people use them so infrequently. They have awnings on the side that are good for about 4 or 5 years before the wetness and weather begin to ruin them.
To answer your question, I have never done full timing in an RV, but I can see it would be much easier to keep up with your maintenance as you would be aware of it on a daily basis.
So I will close with an example on the cost of a travel trailer only, no insurance, depreciation, or maintenance:
New Travel Trailer: $16,000.00
divided by 60 months $267.00 per month
avg # times used/yr 18
X 5 yr 90 total uses
16K divided by 90 equates $178.00 per use over 60 months
The above considers only the cost of purchase, and not the depreciation, insurance, repairs or storage costs or taxes on the unit. When you add those factors you see the "cost per use" skyrocket. If you full timed, and jacked the uses to daily or maybe 1800 uses/60 months, then you wind up with something like $8.00 or $9.00 per day instead of the $178.00 cost per use.
Bottom line, live in it, or it ain't worth it!! For grins and giggles, figure out the rich dude who has one of those $300,000 motor home type busses, which he bought new and uses about two weekends a year!!
I think in your figure of $178/use you have effectivly depreciated the entire purchase price over the last 5 years. So any further uses are "free" after repair/storage/insurance costs 
. If its a pull behind and you go so long between uses might it not be worth it to not insure it while stored? Assuming of course that the insurance pay out would be significantly below the initial purchase price/current value it might not be worth insuring above liability. Thats where I'm at on my Jeep, book value is only $500 so if it gets totaled I won't get enough to buy comprable replacement so why bother carring more than PIP/Liability?
You might also look into different storage arangements, even cheaply renting it to friends you can trust to take care of it. RV's are expensive to rent, if you give your friends a deal you might never have to pay storage again. But that may raise the issue of how much do you really trust your friends?
. If its a pull behind and you go so long between uses might it not be worth it to not insure it while stored? Assuming of course that the insurance pay out would be significantly below the initial purchase price/current value it might not be worth insuring above liability. Thats where I'm at on my Jeep, book value is only $500 so if it gets totaled I won't get enough to buy comprable replacement so why bother carring more than PIP/Liability?You might also look into different storage arangements, even cheaply renting it to friends you can trust to take care of it. RV's are expensive to rent, if you give your friends a deal you might never have to pay storage again. But that may raise the issue of how much do you really trust your friends?
As it stands now, the RV was in fact a poor financial investment on my part. I am certainly not alone in making such errors. While I am what you would call a "moderately" frugal person overall, I did not use clear thinking when I bought the RV. I did not divide it out into "cost of overall ownership" nor "cost of use". My biggest failure would be that ten years ago, I was just as aware of the poor investment it would make as I am today. So what then is new?
Today, having had time to evaluate many things, I am more keenly aware of financial errors we all make, and the negative outcomes of such errors. Maybe I am a little mad at myself for not doing "better" on this during the scope of my lifetime. Life is not so much about the mistakes we make, but the lessons we learn from them. Now I could burn the trailer and absorb the loss and move on. Or sell it. Or simply continue using it as I have the time to do so. Or follow some of Melissa's advice and let others use it or rent it out. At this point I am not trying to recover anything, as much as I am trying to use this as a lesson for myself, and anyone who may care to read this.
Today, having had time to evaluate many things, I am more keenly aware of financial errors we all make, and the negative outcomes of such errors. Maybe I am a little mad at myself for not doing "better" on this during the scope of my lifetime. Life is not so much about the mistakes we make, but the lessons we learn from them. Now I could burn the trailer and absorb the loss and move on. Or sell it. Or simply continue using it as I have the time to do so. Or follow some of Melissa's advice and let others use it or rent it out. At this point I am not trying to recover anything, as much as I am trying to use this as a lesson for myself, and anyone who may care to read this.
So, in summary the biggest downside to RVs are rapid depreciation in new models and poor quality for most models?
The advantages are inexpensive and immediate? So in the Good-Fast-Cheap triangle, it is in the Fast-Cheap corner.
Do mobile homes fall into the same category? I ask because I looked at one I could rent to save 25% from our current rent.
The advantages are inexpensive and immediate? So in the Good-Fast-Cheap triangle, it is in the Fast-Cheap corner.
Do mobile homes fall into the same category? I ask because I looked at one I could rent to save 25% from our current rent.
I would only be considering it as a primary residence 8+ months out of the year, so I think I'd be on the financially practical end of the scale. The depreciation really is staggering though... they seem to be essentially disposable after 20 years.
I'm leaning towards a 2005-2007 nicer 5th or travel trailer (25'-28' range) for sub $15k. A thumbsuck scan of rvtrader says this would lose about $1k/year. Call it $100/month.
The thing that gets me is the price for the parks. I guess I'm wondering what people are paying in general. In my area, I could get a safe "student quality" 1bd apartment for about $900. It looks like RV parks are charging at least $500... WAY more in the nicer vacation type locations. A few do have seasonal rates (7-8 months) which might bring it under $400. So it's not insignificant, but it doesn't look like a slam dunk either. I'm not willing to live in Nebraska (no offense), but the comparable rents would be much lower there too.
@jacob, without prying too much, are you finding much bigger savings in your area?
I'm leaning towards a 2005-2007 nicer 5th or travel trailer (25'-28' range) for sub $15k. A thumbsuck scan of rvtrader says this would lose about $1k/year. Call it $100/month.
The thing that gets me is the price for the parks. I guess I'm wondering what people are paying in general. In my area, I could get a safe "student quality" 1bd apartment for about $900. It looks like RV parks are charging at least $500... WAY more in the nicer vacation type locations. A few do have seasonal rates (7-8 months) which might bring it under $400. So it's not insignificant, but it doesn't look like a slam dunk either. I'm not willing to live in Nebraska (no offense), but the comparable rents would be much lower there too.
@jacob, without prying too much, are you finding much bigger savings in your area?
A final note on RV's. I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but I did have enough sense to pay cash for my travel trailer. What brings me to the pinnacle of absolute stupidity on this concerns financing. At that time, and maybe still, one could finance a new RV for up to 15 years. Can you imagine the interest on such a loan? When you visited the lot and toured the trailers there would be a financing application inside each trailer on the dining table. They were advertising 15 year terms!
This may or may not still be the case. I believe it was something to do with the trailer being considered as housing, therefore the long loan term.
This may or may not still be the case. I believe it was something to do with the trailer being considered as housing, therefore the long loan term.
I looked at an RV before buying my condo. In my neighborhood a 2/1 goes for an average $550/month (w/o utilities). RV lot space (which was farther from work) was $400/month (w/utilities). I had a hard time justifying the upfront RV cost & depreciation when I could purchase the condo (25k) with plans to rent it out when I'm ready to move on. I'm still keeping my eyes open for an RV that falls into the good/cheap bracket, might take years for it to turn up.
*And for now I get the added bonus of a washer hookup & private yard with garden space
*And for now I get the added bonus of a washer hookup & private yard with garden space
@HSpencer, Thanks for sharing all of the details here. My wife and I have thought fondly about buying something ourselves. Your experience reinforces my requirements of 1) Not new 2) Must be stored in the garage. That's pretty limiting really, but perhaps a good thing.
I rented an RV to go to a race with some friends a few years back. I was around 31 at the time. My arrogance is such that I rarely find myself surprised by the intelligence of folks renting RVs, a fault of mine, no doubt. I went to look at a place that had a super website and a fantastic inventory of nicer rigs-- newer class As and Cs, and some really high dollar Class As. I was really surprised to meet the owner of the company, he was 24-25.
He really impressed me. He told me that when he was in his early teens he desperately wanted to own an RV. He just didn't have any money-- he was 13. So he spent a very long time researching the prices of used RVs and the amount that people paid to rent them. Ultimately he decided that buying a used RV and renting it out could be quite profitable, if done properly. When he was 16 he bought his first rig and went into business. By 22 he had 4 locations renting RVs. A good portion of his business was essentially brokering deals-- renting out other people's RVs for them.
We had some common interests, so I spoke with him for a few hours. I did't get the feeling that he was making windfall type profits, but he had barely finished college and still he had been running a profitable business for nearly 10 years. That was pretty impressive, particularly as I was 31, sitting on a mound of student debt, and renting an RV from him.
I rented an RV to go to a race with some friends a few years back. I was around 31 at the time. My arrogance is such that I rarely find myself surprised by the intelligence of folks renting RVs, a fault of mine, no doubt. I went to look at a place that had a super website and a fantastic inventory of nicer rigs-- newer class As and Cs, and some really high dollar Class As. I was really surprised to meet the owner of the company, he was 24-25.
He really impressed me. He told me that when he was in his early teens he desperately wanted to own an RV. He just didn't have any money-- he was 13. So he spent a very long time researching the prices of used RVs and the amount that people paid to rent them. Ultimately he decided that buying a used RV and renting it out could be quite profitable, if done properly. When he was 16 he bought his first rig and went into business. By 22 he had 4 locations renting RVs. A good portion of his business was essentially brokering deals-- renting out other people's RVs for them.
We had some common interests, so I spoke with him for a few hours. I did't get the feeling that he was making windfall type profits, but he had barely finished college and still he had been running a profitable business for nearly 10 years. That was pretty impressive, particularly as I was 31, sitting on a mound of student debt, and renting an RV from him.
One other concern I have with RV'ing is the apparent impediments to some opportunities for self-sufficiency.
I wonder about tool storage, freezer capacity, storing a bicycle. I would think gardening would be out - except maybe some minimal container stuff. I was thinking maybe going the travel trailer route, so I could have a van or capped truck to offer some of that type of storage.
I wonder about tool storage, freezer capacity, storing a bicycle. I would think gardening would be out - except maybe some minimal container stuff. I was thinking maybe going the travel trailer route, so I could have a van or capped truck to offer some of that type of storage.
@M a nice house for $10,000!!!! Where do you live?
My stubborn determination to live where I am from (CA) is maybe not the best idea...
@Chilly if you fulltime in a park, you almost always are allowed a storage shed. I have a 3x6x6 shed that fits all my tools, bikes, camping gear, and misc other junk. I live in an RV, and still have way too much stuff! I'm planning to put a deep freezer next to the front door (though depending on the park aesthetic, many wouldn't let you do that). I have a fairly large planter box garden, ( http://www.instructables.com/id/Large-S ... ycled-mat/ ) plus a barrel of blueberries, a dwarf citrus tree, and a few natives in pots. A lot less than I would like, but more than I thought possible.
@Everyone
I don't really understand why depreciation is even a consideration.
When I buy anything, I plan to keep it and use it until either a) I die or b)it disintegrates, and is completely worthless.
Depreciation seems to be relevant only if you are planning to try and sell what you buy later.
In that case, you would consider the value lost to depreciation instead of purchase price (since you recover the difference), not both.
Is the assumption that you will want to eventually sell or trade up?
Or is there some other relevance to depreciation besides resell value?
My stubborn determination to live where I am from (CA) is maybe not the best idea...
@Chilly if you fulltime in a park, you almost always are allowed a storage shed. I have a 3x6x6 shed that fits all my tools, bikes, camping gear, and misc other junk. I live in an RV, and still have way too much stuff! I'm planning to put a deep freezer next to the front door (though depending on the park aesthetic, many wouldn't let you do that). I have a fairly large planter box garden, ( http://www.instructables.com/id/Large-S ... ycled-mat/ ) plus a barrel of blueberries, a dwarf citrus tree, and a few natives in pots. A lot less than I would like, but more than I thought possible.
@Everyone
I don't really understand why depreciation is even a consideration.
When I buy anything, I plan to keep it and use it until either a) I die or b)it disintegrates, and is completely worthless.
Depreciation seems to be relevant only if you are planning to try and sell what you buy later.
In that case, you would consider the value lost to depreciation instead of purchase price (since you recover the difference), not both.
Is the assumption that you will want to eventually sell or trade up?
Or is there some other relevance to depreciation besides resell value?
-
George the original one
- Posts: 5406
- Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 3:28 am
- Location: Wettest corner of Orygun
Resale value is important because we may be making a mistake in choosing an RV (or house). A good resale value allows one to gracefully undo those mistakes.
The mistake might not be due to one's own actions, either. We might no longer be physically capable of living in that particular situation (e.g. need for a wheelchair) or, in the case of a house, the new neighbor is getting on your nerves.
It's not that we plan on selling, but we plan on selling if there's a reason to undo that which we did.
The mistake might not be due to one's own actions, either. We might no longer be physically capable of living in that particular situation (e.g. need for a wheelchair) or, in the case of a house, the new neighbor is getting on your nerves.
It's not that we plan on selling, but we plan on selling if there's a reason to undo that which we did.
OK, both of those answers make sense.
However, it is still seeming to me that one should take either original purchase price OR depreciation into account when comparing (for example) renting with buying, since depreciation represents that portion of the purchase price you can't get back.
Several posts above suggest that one would add depreciation on top of the purchase price to determine "true" cost, when in fact depreciation in itself is not a cost at all (there is no negative cash flow after the initial purchase due to depreciation)
However, it is still seeming to me that one should take either original purchase price OR depreciation into account when comparing (for example) renting with buying, since depreciation represents that portion of the purchase price you can't get back.
Several posts above suggest that one would add depreciation on top of the purchase price to determine "true" cost, when in fact depreciation in itself is not a cost at all (there is no negative cash flow after the initial purchase due to depreciation)