Duck
Miami Lakes, Fl
Senior Member
Joined: 03/04/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club
 Offline
|
My Hitchhiker has a Lipert frame and comes with holes to add a 2" receiver that can be purchased from HH. There is a weight limit label attached to the receiver.
Don
08-FORD F350 PSD
08-Hitchhiker II 34.5 UKSBG
|
richfaa
Ohio
Senior Member
Joined: 04/24/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
We all seem to be experts..after the fact. It would seem that all this information that we apparently all now know was available to us before we purchased. I have no idea what kind of engineering goes into the design of any RV so I can't make any kind of knowledgeable comment. Same with quality control . I just don't know. Don't understand how there are so many experts on the subject on this and other forums..when we just don't know. It seems that most if not all of us purchased defective, poor quality, poorly engineered rv's.. and.... the information to that effect was always out there since we admit that we know it... How can that be the fault of the manufacturer?? I purchased a RV on a Lippert frame and the warranty says...any modification to the frame voids the warranty. Did I not understand that statement...Did I not read the warranty contract?? I just had my OEM suspension system cut off and replaced with the Mor Ryde Independent suspension system because I do not believe the OEM system is adequate for this RV.. I have no idea what the design spec's of the OEM system were... Why did I not find out that information before I purchased.. I agree with most of what we suspect about our RV's..but I bought it..why did I not know better..and why is that the fault of the manufacturer.
06 Montana 3400. 08 Ford F-350 6.4L
|
SuperdutyII
AZ
Full Member
Joined: 09/30/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Richfaa,
It comes down to this. The RV manufacturers sell us RV's that we expect to use an an RV. They set the level of expectation. We buyers expect to use them as RV's but don't always read the fine print. After we use them, as any reasonable person could expect, we find out they were not designed for normal RV usage. We later find out the RV manufacturers have a different defintion of normal than what real RV owners expect to use them for. That IMHO, is the fault of the manufacturers. I'm not referring here to outright owner abuse, I'm referring to normal RV owner community accepted use. Where in your manual does it say you cannot put 30,000 miles on your 5th wheel and you have to stay on smooth roads. It is the responsibility of the RV manufacturer to build units for that occurance or clearly communicate very visible exceptions. The RV manufacturers and their dealers make representations and set the expectations. I think it is only reasonable for the maybe less trained and less informed buying public to take the level of expectations set by the manufacturers and dealers as something they can rely on. But as long as we buyers except current conditions it won't change. Supplying generic operators manuals that cover multiple different models is a travesty when one model may be much more sensitive to overloading and rough roads than another model covered under the same generic manual. Yes, we as buyers need to be beter informed but presently the RV makers are taking advantage of that buyer deficiency and are not being held accountable for their misrepresentation. I sometimes think RV's are designed to be used two weeks a year and never pulled down the road. And if that is true the operators manual better damned well state it or it is misrepresentation.
|
cwit
new york
Senior Member
Joined: 07/20/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
I agree with Superduty11
|
Mile High
Lone Tree, CO
Senior Member
Joined: 02/05/2008
View Profile
|
Rich,
You can hide behind your fact seeking arguments all you want, but the fact is I don't recall anyone here saying they are experts, rather they are just having a discussion based on the best collection of truths we have available.
I believe the word "reasonable" has to fall under some expectations. It is reasonable to expect my house to not cave in, even though I didn't do a federal investigation on the builder, and I suspect the law would be on my side. Its also reasonable to expect some duration out of a vehicle including an RV, without frame collapse. I believe the law saw it that way on the lightweight frames collapsing under all the FEMA trailers placed on uneven ground in St. Louis. Its reasonable to expect your tires not to blow apart and kill your family in your SUV - which I also believe the law sided with the victims of Firestone tires. I really doubt anybody in the courtroom stood there and blamed the family survivors for not thoroughly investigating Firestone before they bought the tires any more than they would expect me to visit China to see where and how my Mission tires were manufactured.
Of course the manufacture has a responsibility and is to blame.
Brad & Dory
2006 Ford F350 4X4 SB CC SRW Powerstroke 6.0
2007 Montana 3400RL 5th Wheel Our Rig - Our Mods
Visit Us, Our previous rig - 2003 2955RL
|
|
|
I am still wayne_tw
everywhere
Senior Member
Joined: 06/18/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Vulcaneer wrote:Did the Lippert welder offer any advice for getting the problem fixed? Might be cheaper to find a good welder to fix it up, rather than go thru the frustrations, disappointment, expense of any legal action. Of which, seems could be a weak argument from the plaintiff side.
Best advice so far!
|
richfaa
Ohio
Senior Member
Joined: 04/24/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
A truth needs to be verified. We are stating opinions based on maybe our own experiences and that is a small fraction of RV owners eperiences. I do not know what is reasonable use of a RV.. We live in this one @ 9 months of the year. We are now in Florida for 6 months. We did about 7K miles this year on the road. I think that is reasonable...or is it. From RVIA
"An RV is a vehicle designed as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel or season use. RVs may be motorized (motorhomes) or towable (travel trailers, folding camping trailers and truck campers). Off-road vehicles are not included in the RV definition" My expectations would be that nothing will go wrong with this thing. Is that reasonable.??? Now for me it was reasonable to expect that most any OEM tire on a RV would not be of high quailty
Mine were Missions..I had no problem with them but they were gone and replaced with better quality tires within the first year. It was reasonabe to expect that my frame would not collapse under the use we put it to... and it did not. So what does it all mean...
|
SuperdutyII
AZ
Full Member
Joined: 09/30/2009
View Profile
Offline
|
Rich,
Does RVIA define the the word "temporary"? 1 day, 2 weeks, 1 month, 6 months, 9 months? Two years while waiting for a new stick house to be built? I think what we read here on this Forum is a prerry good cross section of all RV owners experiences. The failures discussed herein may be a small % or a large % of all RV owners. We cannot prove otherwise. But the failures we have experienced are on 100% of the units we own. And that is the most important.
I beleive I have read you were employed at one time with the FAA. It is reasonable to expect that any licensed commercial plane we get on is reasonbly safe to fly on. The same is true with RV's. It is reasonable that when we buy an RV we should be able to use it as an RV and is reasonably safe. And IMHO that means we can pull it down the Interstate, Federal or State roads whether they might be rough or not. If the RV manufacturer hasn't designed for that then they need to tell prospective owners that before they buy. There is no excuse for inadequate design when a product is being sold to the public. It is a total mystery to me why the subset of lawyers who look for these kinds of things haven't attacked the RV industry. And in the case of your manufacturer Thor/Keystone/Montana the pockets are deep enough to make it worthwhile.
What does it all mean? Some problems will occur on anything man made. What we are discussing here is the type, frequency and severity of too many problems occurring on one unit, one particular model or in the industry in general. Until the Manufacturers are held accountable nothing will change.
|
richfaa
Ohio
Senior Member
Joined: 04/24/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
The RVIA's definition is weak. It defines nothing.There is no comparison between the FAA and the RV industry. That a Aircraft is reasonably safe to fly on is a understatement. You would not believe the rigorous inspections, codes, rules, regulations that a aircraft has to go through..yet there are still incidents. There are too few of us reporting Rv incidents with no reporting guidelines to reflect all Rv'ers experiences. We may reasonably expect our Rv to take what ever use we put it to but the fact is there are few guidelines, rules , regulations on the RV industry to insure that. As for me..My opinion is that these RV's are inadequately designed for the use that many of us put them to. BUT.... I have no documentation to back that up.. IF post on these forums were documantaton those lawyers you speak of would be over the RV idustry like flies on fly paper. That they are inadequately designed is my opinion and so stated..I have no proof and I am not a expert. To post that a Lippert frame is junk is a statement, undocumented and unproven.. Since Lippert makes 70/80 % of all frames, so post on this forum say. There are hundreds of thousands of frames out there and my guess is that the vast majority of them have not had a problem. The the majority of folks reporting here have had problems is normal since that is what we do here. That we continue to be uninfomed and uneducated and contine to purchase poorly designed Rv's, so we say, without complaint is a large part of the problem.
|
Vulcaneer
Northern New England
Senior Member
Joined: 10/17/2007
View Profile
|
The design is at fault? I don't think so. There may be some quality control problems. But generally the design is adequate. Lets not confuse design issues with quality control issues.
Most of what I hear of frame problems are from a quality stand point. And most of those are related to weld issues. Other quality issues, might relate to the tires that are provided. Regardless that the design might call for E-rated tires. You get inferior tires, that are E-rated. So would that be a design problem or a quality problem?
A company could engineer an RV frame so strong it would not flex. But it would not last long. Your LDT could not pull the weight safely. Many could not afford it. The abuse it would take in normal use would shake or twist it apart. That would be a design problem.
The design has been proven over the years. But in some cases the quality may be questionable. Two different things.
And the frame manufacturer does not design the frame to allow the user to modify it. What do you expect them to say in their warranty? "It's OK to modify the frame to install a welded trailer hitch or have a friend add holes anywhere you want them." Or "We warranty our product for 1 year...or maybe some more if you want, as long as you promise to use it no more than four weeks in the first year."
2006 F350 V10 4X4 SC SB SRW 4.30 22,500 GCWR
Keystone Sprinter 33'9" 12,500 GVWR
Pullrite Super Glide 18K
Super Duty, Super Cab, SuperGlide
|
|
|
