Hacker News Reader

Comment by jokoon | Hacker News Reader

Living in a van is either a necessity if you're very poor, or it's a luxury if you're rich.

If you really understand what living in a RV or a van really involves, you quickly realize several things:

* If you plan a long journey, it's still a lot of time spent on the road, and gas money. So it's not about just living in the wild, it's just driving and sleeping, which is not that great, and it's not what people mean when they mean to live in a van. It's a home that can move, but it's not meant to travel.

* It's better to keep a real home, use a station wagon to sleep in it or carry stuff, a bicycle, a tent etc, and not go too far from your home and still enjoy the wilderness, and do this for several months and still enjoy being in the wild without using a RV or van. A station wagon is not the full luxury, but it's still pretty nice.

The trend is on vans which are smaller RVs, but I really thing using a station wagon is largely enough.

View on HN

> and gas money

I cannot stress enough how absurdly expensive it is to keep an RV moving on the road. They are built in by far the least weight efficient manner imaginable and consume gas or diesel as if prices hadn’t changed since 1986. It is wild how little manufacturers have spent on R&D to come up with more weight efficient solutions.

It’s wild how little manufacturers have invested in anything, like basic quality.

It’s a garbage industry full of garbage vendors selling unremarkable trash, YoY.

"Tiny houses" take that inefficiency up a notch. Using materials and designs with no regard for road weight.

tiny houses are not typically expected to move around often. the wheels are generally a formality to get round certain zoning rules. that you can move them is a side benefit.

I believe that's OP's point.

RV's are even less-efficient / less effective tiny houses.

Put another way: the constraints imposed by adding mobility to an otherwise static design are significant, and the inherent compromises large.

That's just because old rich buyers don't want campers with space efficient ergonomics and energy efficient materials, they want movable bungalows.

In Europe it's a completely different story:

a) the majority of RVs are designed to be driven with a standard car license, so fully loaded must weigh less than 3500kg

b) The vans that are used as base of RVs all run on diesel, and have a fuel consumption of around 8l/100km or 30mpg. Add around 20% for a Class B RV.

Don't forget the Saab 900 Toppola camper!

TIL!

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toppola>

Aren’t all van based RVs considered Class B? I thought that was the definition. And wouldn’t they be lighter and get better fuel economy versus the Class C’s that are based on a van chassis?

There are class C's built on van chassis.

The definition is that class C is constructed on a cutaway chassis, constructing new "RV walls" at the RV factory, and class B uses the original "vehicle walls".

A class B will get generally better fuel economy than a class C, because it's more aerodynamic, narrower and not as tall. Of course, a class B will have less interior room.

https://rv.org/pages/class-c https://rv.org/pages/class-b

My neighbors recently bought a $200k+ _tiny_ Mercedes RV and they mainly drive it for day trips. Basically it’s a really, really expensive porta-potty you drive anywhere you think you may need to use the bathroom.

It’s absurd but no less absurd than a similarly priced boat that might get 20-30 hours if use a season. Plenty of other neighbors have those.

I'm pretty sure I was considering the same one lol. Used, but still. Tiny is a feature (for me at least) because I wanted it to fit where most cars would fit and not have to take into consideration what sorts of bridges and roads I would be able to fit into. My goal is eventually to do 1-2 months per year on the road in total, with the possibility to work from the road some of the time. Still looking around, but I really liked that one haha.

And no less absurd than a 200k Mercedes sedan

My long journey experience (perhaps not fully typical) was at odds with both of your "realizations".

* I spent most of a year on the road, circled the U.S., about 18k miles in all (and averaging almost 17mpg). Sure, it's a lot of miles, but some people do that commuting. The experience was in no way "just driving and sleeping" in fact the driving part was not particularly unpleasant (amazing views, music, books on tape, conversation, photo stops) but was a very minor part of the overall experience.

* With a compact (25') class C, I had a comfortable queen sized bed, 2 TVs couch, heat, A/C, 2 sinks, stove, microwave, fridge, flush toilet, closet, large dinette (seats 6), and a great hot shower every morning. A slide out made it very roomy when parked. A huge awning made for comfortable outdoor living on sunny days. I've done the station wagon thing, and it can be great for a while - but for a year on the road? NFW.

Minivans with seats removed ftw!

I like to describe my Toyota Sienna as a "metal tent on wheels". It's got a full mattress, but it's no house.

Please accept that these are just your opinions.

There's no bathroom, kitchen, or shower in your station wagon.

So long as the station wagon or other non-van vehicle is used for occasional on-the-road camping ...

... it's quite possible to carry bathing (not necessarily shower), cooking, and at least modest toilet facilities (a bottle and/or bucket in a pinch). In many places these aren't entirely necessary. Even many van-lifers forego full facilities as these impinge highly on available space, weight budgets, and flexibility.

The designs that seem most appropriate to me tend to make flexible use of space. E.g., a countertop which may conceal a composting or cassette toilet, which itself can be pulled out and a curtain up to provide a shower or sponge-bathing space.

Similarly, cooktops which can be used either inside or outside the vehicle. I can only imaging that cooking smells, grease, and the like can easily permeate everything if used extensively. In most cases ventilation requirements would mean that you'd want to have doors / windows open anyway, and an outside kitchen gives far more working and maneuvering space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com