Objective Comparison: Covered Storage vs. Uncovered Storage

[MillerTime]

Originally Posted by charisfly

Thank you all for the helpful insights. From a purely fiscal and objective standpoint, it seems that for a $25K wholesale purchased price travel trailer, uncovered storage is the more likely winner at the end of the day (perhaps different for a six figure $$ unit). Carrying the current example forward, let's say one saves $1K per year by going with the uncovered route. I'm no expert, but I'm getting the impression that one would never come close to spending $1K extra in exterior maintenance costs each year due to the cons of uncovered storage. Rather, it seems there would be some increased maintenance costs and some minor inconveniences such as:

- Faster decay of roof and associated components requiring more frequent inspections, perhaps totaling $200-$300 in expense on average each year (extra time, sealant, cleaning, etc.)
- More frequent waxing/washing needed, perhaps totaling $100-$200 in expense on average each year
- Potentially lower resale value at 7-10 years (versus covered resale value), perhaps 10-20% lower, equating to around $1-1.5K less (ex. $11K sale price as covered versus $10K sale as uncovered at 7-10 years)

...all experts, do you concur with the above figures? If not, what would you adjust? And, am I missing any major costs associated exclusively with uncovered storage maintenance? (not general maintenance that is due regardless of storage)

Thats pretty much what i was getting at.

In all honesty i think the roof rubber should be ok for 10 years unless something out of the norm happens. Really need to watch seams and vents. My father-in-law has a 17 year old Itasca and it's rubber roof is getting pretty dried feeling. It's still good for the most part, one soft spot from a leak in a skylight. This is in Oklahoma so we have all kinds of weather from -20°s to 113° with lots of sun

[A32Deuce]

I am always on my roof to check it out and do any fixes that need to be done. Preventive Maint. is cheaper in the long run! It doesn't matter if it is covered or not, some point during the year it is in the elements and needs to be checked.

[itat]

If you're comfortable doing the preventative maintenance yourself and don't have to account for time off work to do it (or pay someone else), I'd suggest your costs for that maintenance will be substantially less. No matter who does the maintenance work there will be costs for materials like sealant. Regular maintenance of the brakes and bearings would be similar in terms of materials only vs. having someone else do it. Either way you need to budget for those costs but doing it yourself will obviously always be less expensive and may actually mean a better job and at the least give you the satisfaction that you can do it yourself.

The roof may deteriorate faster with more exposure to hot southern sun (as compared to here in Canada and northern US states) but you can apply Aerospace 303 Protectant to the roof to lessen that potential.
http://www.amazon.com/303-30306-Prot.../dp/B000XBCURW

[Loraura]

You've left some things out of the equasion, like:

1)How much is it worth to lose time able to camp when your unit is in the shop for repairs that would be unnecessary if stored in covered storage?

2)How much is peace of mind worth that you know you will not go get your camper for a trip only to find water has leaked in and ruined the bed, couch, dinette, etc?

I will never NOT have covered storage for my TT, mostly for these reasons!

[itat]

Originally Posted by Loraura

You've left some things out of the equasion, like:

1)How much is it worth to lose time able to camp when your unit is in the shop for repairs that would be unnecessary if stored in covered storage?

2)How much is peace of mind worth that you know you will not go get your camper for a trip only to find water has leaked in and ruined the bed, couch, dinette, etc?

I will never NOT have covered storage for my TT, mostly for these reasons!

Loraura, sounds like you've had a bad experience. What happened to your TT that would not have happened if it had been kept in covered storage?

All I can say is that the VAST MAJORITY of RV owners do not have covered storage. No doubt it's a better way to go but you have to justify the cost if it will be leased storage.

[rockfordroo]

A cover is a good compromise.

[charisfly]

Thank you all; very helpful insights!

[Gleaner]

I realize a building was not part of your question, but I just checked yesterday on a Hay Barn type pole building to park my TT under. Metal outer, enclosed gables, 6x6 poles, came to $8k erected.
I will probably go this route as I can still use the same structure even if I upgrade to a longer 5'er someday.
The cover debate has good points on both sides.
Good luck

[6inthefamily]

Originally Posted by hbillsmith

Now on my second trailer, I am of the DO COVERED persuasion. For me the economics were monthly $50 uncovered, $95 covered. I find no fault with most of the previous comments, for me it just stayed cleaner and safe from hail damage. My advice is to shop around for your storage. Within 3 miles of my home, Covered Storage ranged from $150 to $250 per month. I went just a little north of the city (near a close by lake) and found very clean and nice covered for $95 a month. Also, many of the places offered a free month if you paid a year at a time (I do).

X2 Definitely worth shopping around. I am getting secure indoor storage for $60 a month and that is well worth it to me. (that is with the pay a year up front discount I negotiated)

The main consideration for me was that I will go a weeks without using my camper (months over the winter), and what storage would I be most comfortable with.

• I went with locked indoor storage (with cats to address any potential mice issues).
• If my camper develops a roof leak, it will be when I am in the camper. Not when its in outdoor storage where I won't be there to notice and be able to address the issue quickly.

[Papa GLS]

May want to check prices on a 'Carolina Carports' shelter.

[BendOrLarry]

Cover it however you can. For me it's not about the math. If you are worried about the math, this is the wrong hobby for you. RV's never pencil out no matter what you do.
I tend to keep my stuff quite a while and I don't like my stuff to look like crap. Cover it and enjoy it looking good and performing longer with fewer problems. UV is a bitch!

[Papa GLS]

Do you keep your car in a garage????????

[BendOrLarry]

Originally Posted by Papa GLS

Do you keep your car in a garage????????

Yes like most people??

[Papa GLS]

Question answered.
Not really directed at you BendOrLarry. Just those that think there is no need to cover RV.

[MillerTime]

Originally Posted by Papa GLS

Question answered.
Not really directed at you BendOrLarry. Just those that think there is no need to cover RV.

The thing is, the OP was asking about the math of covering or not, and the effect one way or another.
Obviously some have more means than others, and covering would be the ideal situation. But even in your post (post #2) , you stated that you have had 3 campers that you didn't cover......maybe op is in the situation you were in for your first 3?

I don't care one way or the other, im just a numbers person, and my camper is on a seasonal site all year, no cover, and very little dirt or nastyness that a quick rinse wont fix. And yes i could bring it home and shed it if i wanted. But honestly it doesn't make any difference to me, cause it's going to depreciate regardless and for my situation the camper shouldn't wear much for the time period that i will have it.

I think bashing people for not covering is unproductive.

Ps. And i have had a camper totaled from storm damage. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". Not every situation is in our control no matter how hard we try.

[Papa GLS]

MillerTime
Not 'bashing' anyone, just making a point. To each his own. You are correct, some things are out of our control, but some things are in our control. I have found from experience that an RV under cover survives much better than one not under cover. I've done both & the results are obvious. I was just trying to help. Didn't mean to ruffle any feathers.

[MillerTime]

It's all good

[BendOrLarry]

Originally Posted by MillerTime

The thing is, the OP was asking about the math of covering or not, and the effect one way or another.
Obviously some have more means than others, and covering would be the ideal situation. But even in your post (post #2) , you stated that you have had 3 campers that you didn't cover......maybe op is in the situation you were in for your first 3?

I don't care one way or the other, im just a numbers person, and my camper is on a seasonal site all year, no cover, and very little dirt or nastyness that a quick rinse wont fix. And yes i could bring it home and shed it if i wanted. But honestly it doesn't make any difference to me, cause it's going to depreciate regardless and for my situation the camper shouldn't wear much for the time period that i will have it.

I think bashing people for not covering is unproductive.

Ps. And i have had a camper totaled from storm damage. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away". Not every situation is in our control no matter how hard we try.

It's all about perspective. If you want to focus on the math associated with anything RV related, then how about divide the cost of an average RV by the cost of a nice hotel and rental car. You would be able to go to some very nice out of the way places and stay in a hotel with a rental car for years... many years! ( using the same number of days camping per year as a guide). This issue is about... does it make sense from a return on investment perspective or any other.
If you like to watch your stuff deteriorate from water and UV exposure then, leave it uncovered. For a cheap cover that has to be replaced every 2 years or so, you can have a rig that lasts and gives you less problems. Screw the math!
It's amazing how people get so lost on the reality of the RV lifestyle. RVing costs money, period, and it's worth every dime.

[MillerTime]

Originally Posted by BendOrLarry

It's all about perspective. If you want to focus on the math associated with anything RV related, then how about divide the cost of an average RV by the cost of a nice hotel and rental car. You would be able to go to some very nice out of the way places and stay in a hotel with a rental car for years... many years! ( using the same number of days camping per year as a guide). This issue is about... does it make sense from a return on investment perspective or any other.
If you like to watch your stuff deteriorate from water and UV exposure then, leave it uncovered. For a cheap cover that has to be replaced every 2 years or so, you can have a rig that lasts and gives you less problems. Screw the math!
It's amazing how people get so lost on the reality of the RV lifestyle. RVing costs money, period, and it's worth every dime.

We are reading the same thread, right?
None of us on here are rolling Prevost, so obviously money, cost and math have to be considered. Besides the fact that the OP specifically asked about it.

In my situation there is no hotel available close to were we would stay. We have stayed in our camper over 52 nights this year, so for a family of 5+ like us, our hotel bill would easily be $10k a year, and that wouldnt be nice, 5 stars either. Plus the added benefit of being right by the water instead of 15 miles away from the lake in a hotel.....you get the picture. So my break even is very quick and compared to a hotel, i actually will have a small ROI in 4 years or less if i do sell.

What really gets me is how it seems that some of you are basically implying that those who dont cover are neglectful. I bet there are many, many "uncovered" campers that are extremely well maintained, and many of us would be delighted to own.

Im done, just try to respect the fact that not everyone can throw away money like others of us do. And not everyones camper is their prize possession.

[Timex]

I make the motion....

Any 2nd's?