Objective Comparison: Covered Storage vs. Uncovered Storage

[charisfly]

I'm relatively new to the RV world. I plan to purchase a 30' travel trailer in the $25-30K range and I'm in the process of deciding between covered storage and uncovered storage. I've seen a lot of discussions on this forum and other online forums concerning pros and cons of each. I've seen a lot of posts recommending covered storage for its protective benefits, but I'm interested in quantifying the pros and cons of each from an objective standpoint. For example, uncovered storage may save $1,000 per year, but is there a trade-off in increased maintenance concerning the roof and other components, equaling or exceeding the $1,000 per year savings of uncovered storage? I'd like to guide the discussion by establishing the parameters below:

Uncovered Storage Option
---------------------------------
- Trailer uncovered, but has full shade for about 1/2 of the day
- On average, exposed to direct sun about 1/3 to 1/2 of the day
- Some trees nearby resulting in potential for sap, leaves, debris, etc.
- No additional RV cover present
- Tires covered with protective cover
- $50/mo ($600/yr)


Covered Storage Option
---------------------------------
- Trailer parked under metal roof with overhang
- Trailer surrounded by other trailers on sides and back, so only minimal exposure to sun and elements on front nose/tongue part of day
- Tires covered with protective cover
- $150/mo (1,800/yr)


In both options let's establish the climate as southeastern USA, hot summers with a lot of sun and mild to moderate winters with a few days of transient snow. Now that the options are established, I'd like to get feedback on the differences of annual maintenance costs and 7-10 year resale value anticipated based on the two options described above.

So, experienced RV'rs, what major differences in maintenance costs should I expect to keep the RV in very good condition (not necessarily mint condition, just very good condition). And, what about the impact on resale value in 7-10 years? I'd like to quantify the differences to determine if the increased cost of covered storage is quantitatively more effective over a 7-10 year period compared to the apparent cost savings of uncovered storage.

[Papa GLS]

Wow! I can't give you all of the data you're asking for. I just know that living in NE Fla., & having had 3 RV'2 that were kept under the shade of oak trees, there is a great amount of damage still done by the sun & by the leaves & limbs of the trees, not to mention the need to continually clean the camper. Now have my 4th TT & had a shelter erected to park it under. Protection from the elements is the life of your camper & given the cost of the units these days, I would never park one out from under a shelter. JMO

[nomad297]

I would store it outside and take my first year savings of $1,200.00 and put it towards a high-quality custom cover. For the sake of resale, keeping it under a custom cover will get you the same price as keeping it under a building.

Bruce

[B and B]

The resale on a $25k trailer after a year will be worth $15 -18k. Is it worth the investment for a cover even? The storage lot I am at in Canada only 1 unit out 75 has a cover, We let the snow blow over an rain come down.
After 10 years you will never recoup the storage costs on sale value. The cost of the trailer dictates what you get in the end. If this was a new Riverdale that costs $130 k it would be worth covered storage.

[lbrjet]

Trailers are made to be outside. That being said I would store mine inside if money was no object.


2010 F250 5.4L 3.73
2011 Flagstaff 831FKBSS
Equal-i-zer 4pt 12K

[mud yapster]

I would take into account that a covered RV won't need half the cleaning/waxing as one that isn't covered.
Solar panels on roof of RV won't work under the cover to maintain the batteries. Mount a panel on covered roof.
If the covered RV isn't completely covered on nose, sides, and back I'd say wasted money unless you just want the roof protected.
If you have a place for one on your land it's a lot cheaper to build your own on your land than paying for rental storage.
If you park it under trees then be prepared for roof leaks from falling limbs and very high maintenance/cleaning time from tree debris and sap and bird poo.

[Timex]

Maybe I'm not understanding the OP's question.

If you CAN park your rv under any roof structure is of benefit. I have my TT in an enclosed building when not using. We can only use the TT about 4 times a year(3-1 week trips and a long weekend). So most of the time it is in "storage". It is going on 6 years old and I have never had to redo the caulk on the roof. (Knock on wood) never had a roof leak. I don't have to winterize, and only wax the exterior every other year(mainly to make it shine). Yeah, I spent more for the building than I did for the TT but it will be here years and years longer than me and should be a bonus when trying to sell my home in the future.

In my opinion, if you have the assets to have a building, roof or some kind of structure over and around your rv, it is a no brainer. Buying an rv is an investment, protect it.

[MillerTime]

Op- i would stay with the outside storage for the $1200 a year in savings. Even if you have a roof over it, it will still get dust and dirty.....sometimes more than without a roof since the rain wont wash it off. Yes a roof may help with tree sap or branches, but look at how close the trees are and what kind to see how big of a problem that really is going to be. Of course a completely enclosed shop will be best.

Now the bad part.....Rvs are terrible investments at the consumer level, with a terrible ROI. The best thing to do is limit your $ loss. On a $25-30k rv (msrp im assuming) where one can actually buy it for about $20k, after about 7-10 years coverd or not, you will do good to get $8-10k out of it, trade will be less. You might have a $1-2k difference in value if there is a very noticeable difference of how "new" it looks compared to others. But obviously not enough to justify the extra $8400-$12,000 more that covered storage will cost in your case. This will limit your $ loss more than anything else.

[mcnabbwr]

I wish I could find covered storage in my area. Local ordinances prevent me from building anything tall enough for my unit. The only saving grace is the fiberglass roof helps keeping it a little cleaner.

[itat]

Here's my two cents...

You'll never save enough in maintenance costs to justify the extra $1200/yr for rental covered storage. The roof is the most likely part to be subject to any damage and most people are capable of inspecting and working on the roof themselves so the cost of good, regular roof maintenance is not significant. If you can build a shelter on your property it still wouldn't be a financial advantage but would be some piece of mind. Having the outdoor shelter on your property is only valuable to a buyer that needs it so it's not a guarantee of increased equity.

I'd suggest you go for the outdoor storage option and if there is potential for trees to drop anything on your unit you could consider a good quality RV cover.

I personally store mine outside with no cover in an area no where near any trees. I just cover the tires and the AC on the roof.

[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).

[A32Deuce]

Living in an area that gets hail would win hands down for covered storage. If not than uncovered, just ac and wheels!

[Papa GLS]

If you enjoy working on your roof, replacing cracked & peeling decals, trying to restore faded walls & caps, constantly cleaning off bird droppings & stains from leaves & limbs, replacing hardened & cracked caulking, trying to clean chalky windows, waxing unit several times a year, & I could go on, by all means leave it uncovered. Remember, the sun is your enemy! Again, just my opinion from experience.

[A32Deuce]

Don't have that choice where I live. Plus it doesn't sit long enough to cover. 15000 miles a year.

[rockfordroo]

Originally Posted by MillerTime

Now the bad part.....Rvs are terrible investments at the consumer level, with a terrible ROI. The best thing to do is limit your $ loss. On a $25-30k rv (msrp im assuming) where one can actually buy it for about $20k, after about 7-10 years coverd or not, you will do good to get $8-10k out of it, trade will be less. You might have a $1-2k difference in value if there is a very noticeable difference of how "new" it looks compared to others. But obviously not enough to justify the extra $8400-$12,000 more that covered storage will cost in your case. This will limit your $ loss more than anything else.

One should never use the words "RV" and "investment" in the same sentence. I don't know of any RV that's an investment.

It's simply comes down to a matter of how much money you want to spend for whatever improvement in your situation you think it will give you.

Any everyone's idea of this is different.

[MillerTime]

Originally Posted by rockfordroo

One should never use the words "RV" and "investment" in the same sentence. I don't know of any RV that's an investment.

It's simply comes down to a matter of how much money you want to spend for whatever improvement in your situation you think it will give you.

Any everyone's idea of this is different.

I was referring to timex's post before mine about an rv being an investment.
My personal one isnt an investment, (thats why i said "at the consumer level" ) but any others that i would buy probably are. (I try to buy damaged or in need of work, vehicles, equipment,....pretty much anything, and fix and resale)

Anyway, i was just trying to show OP that the cost effectiveness of renting a covered spot was not going to offset the diminished value of a camper at this price point over said time periods

[Timex]

Originally Posted by MillerTime

I was referring to timex's post before mine about an rv being an investment.

I'm sorry, I should have said a money pit.

[itat]

Originally Posted by Papa GLS

If you enjoy working on your roof, replacing cracked & peeling decals, trying to restore faded walls & caps, constantly cleaning off bird droppings & stains from leaves & limbs, replacing hardened & cracked caulking, trying to clean chalky windows, waxing unit several times a year, & I could go on, by all means leave it uncovered. Remember, the sun is your enemy! Again, just my opinion from experience.

Papa, apparently you don't want to get intimate with your RV!

For you and the OP, I can appreciate that the sun is going to be a lot more harsh than up here. Then again, you guys don't get hail and ice very often!

[Papa GLS]

Originally Posted by itat

Papa, apparently you don't want to get intimate with your RV!

For you and the OP, I can appreciate that the sun is going to be a lot more harsh than up here. Then again, you guys don't get hail and ice very often!

itat
Just growing older & lazier, thats all. If I had to clean & maintain it because it wasn't under cover, I would be to tired & worn out to enjoy it. I feel for you folks up there, we can camp year round here. Occasional hail & we make our own ice. Take care.

[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)