National Park - 35' Length Limit?

[CleanLivin]

Greetings,

Wife and I are planning to full time for 3 years or more. We did this back in 1994 in a 40' American Eagle and had a great time. At that time we generally stayed in a park for several months moving from the north to the south following the weather patterns.

This time the obsession is landscape photography. I want to travel extensively in the SW and Pacific NW, then up to Vancouver, BC. Also cover Maine after we covered the west.

Now, I've noted that all of the national parks have a 35' length limit posted in the Trailer Life Directory. We certainly enjoyed the life style and room of a 40' Eagle in the past BUT I would really like to be able to get into the National Parks to be as close as possible to the photography sites.

In theory, IF we decided to go with a 35' rig, say a Winnebago Journey Express (which is exactly 35') or possibly the Monaco Vesta 32 PBS (33' 9"), we should be able to get into the National Parks.

My question/s:

1. Will we find that the Natl. Parks have very few 35' spaces, or that they are impossible to get in to, or that you can't put the slides out, and thus we will be in private campgrounds where we could have enjoyed the added space of a 40' rig anyway?

2. Is the ride of a 40' rig dramatically better on the interstate (we expect to cover a lot of miles over the 3 years) than a 35' rig?

3. We plan to tow 4 down a midsize 4x4 rig for scouting down gravel roads for photo scenes - thus coach must be able to easily tow a car at highway speeds. Is this asking too much of the 35' rigs - I was particularily concerned about the Vesta and its only having 660 ft. lb. of torque?

4. Any other feedback is appreciate as we want to do this right and really enjoy our life of the road capturing landscape images.

[CleanLivin]

3:20PM Thursday, 2/16/2012

Just got back from test driving a 2012 34QFA Allegro Red at North Trails RV in Fort Myers.

The 2 American Eagles we had in the past were equipped with Independent Front Axles - apparently nothing under 35' has this.

I did NOT like the handling characteristics of the solid axle front end - several times during an extended test drive like the rig was going where it wanted to go and not where I expected it to. Also if one wheel hits a pot hole on the interstate the entire coach direction/handling is substantially effected compared to what I've been used to.

We found the interior and layout very nice! Salesmen said there is nothing in the 35/less class A diesel that is IFS equipped.

If it had IFS and ideally alum. wheels for looks, they'd have a buyer.

As it is, I'm going to pass on the solid axle rigs. I guess the Eagle spoiled me and I don't want anything less - just didn't feel as safe/in control.

[hermanmullins]

If you had that kind of problems with a brand new coaches front end, it has to be out of alignment. If the coach wanted to wander it most likly needed the toe end checked. My last 2 coaches have had solid front axles and I have head no problems. Our first coach had IFS and it was OK but as I moved up in length the driving got better and better.

[Koliver]

Before I bought my present coach, I put a deposit on one that had IFS. That deal failed, and I test drove the one I now own. It doesn't have IFS. I could tell the difference on sidewalk crossings, but otherwise, the only significant difference (to me) is turning radius.

[wolfe10]

CleanLivin,

As Herman suggests, solid vs IFS is certainly not the only variable that determines how a coach will handle. There are many fine handling solid front axle coaches out there.

An analogy that may make this clearer is automobile suspensions. A Ford Escort has 4 wheel McPherson strut suspension. So does a BMW. But, if one were to drive the Escort, it would be wrong to draw the conclusion that "all vehicles built on 4 wheel McPherson strut suspensions handle poorly.

There are some very simple explanations for what you experienced: Was tire pressure correct, or could it have been off by 20 or more PSI? Had the chassis been aligned after the coach was built on it-- often this is delayed until after loading so it could be way off.

Brett

[desertdeals69]

We have run across some national parks with a 30 ft max limit. Need to check with each park.

In re-engineering my 32 ft Spartan chassis, I changed the solid front axle for an Tuthill independent. Better ride and tighter turning radius.

[Guest BillAdams]

You might want to check the number of days you actually drive your RV compared to the number of days you live in your RV before you make a rash decision on how important your perceived ride difference actually makes. We are full-timers and we travel on business so the business determines our travels and not our desires. We likely move more than most RVers because of this and we are rarely ever able to stay in one location for more than 7-10 days. With all of that knowledge under you belt, I went back over our travel schedules for the last few years and we averaged just shy of 60 days per year of driving comparted to 365 days of living. Most RVers will not change locations this often so you need to consider what your travel goals are, what level of comfort you want in your RV when parked and finally ride and handling. I doubt you are going to run into any reasonably sized RV that would handle badly on the road. Some might be better than others in a few unique situations but 99% of your driving day will not involve running over rumble strips, catching a highway edge or dropping off a low shoulder. Just remember your goal. That's a comfortable RV that will go where you want to go. What good is a 40' MH that will not go where you need/want going to do for you?

[CleanLivin]

Problem of getting into National Parks solved - we just bought a Great West Van EX, 2012. LOA is 24' 6".

Expect this rig will serve us well and for the difference in purchase price, depreciation cost and fuel consumption of the GWV verse a 40' rig + tow'd we can stay in motels/resorts for many nights!