Back East Don

68 cents? That kind of windfall can change your life.

Like a number of members who have out grown their Toyota, I had thought to continue to contribute here once we sell ours this spring. I've watched the forums silently of late and am far less encouraged.

He's seen the light!

I replaced all three vents on my 87 Itasca (same as the Winnebago) with the Fantastic vents. I'd upgrade rather than spend $70+ for a cover. Cutting out the radius was pretty simple. I used snips to cut the aluminum and a utility knife to cut the rest. Took all of 5 minutes each. The hard part was running power to the front vent. You already have power there. Easy as pie.

I get it, some guys just won't ask for directions, read an instruction manual or admit they might actually learn anything.

Did you find this one as well?

Seems to be the $64 question of this post. There is the max pressure the tire can be safely inflated to. That is the max rating that is on the tire. The larger discussion being had here is proper inflation for proper handling and safety. This is calculated by the load the tire carries and that is what some here are discussing. jjrbus probably had the most succinct explanation of the discussion as to why. I suggest re-reading it carefully if it still is not clear. Perhaps if you view over inflation of a tire as having two separate definitions it might make more sense to you. There is pressure the tire itself can handle. Then what the tire should be inflated to to provide proper traction and handling to maximize safety. Totem indicated in part that none of this made any difference for a number of reasons, one being that a Toyota RV isn't being driven fast. In my first comment on this, I indicated there was a lot he was missing. He was totally focused on one characteristic of the tire, fuel economy. There is only one condition where I inflate my tires for such a limited reason. That is to travel over sand ocean side. Beach sand here is really loose. So in order to travel without getting stuck, it is required as a condition of my permit to reduce the tire pressure to as little as 9 psi. This is an extreme example of maximizing the contact area of a tire. The mantra in this case is low and slow. You'll run into plenty of people who thought they knew better and end up burying themselves in the sand because they didn't reduce the pressure of their tires. I don't know too many people who would choose fuel savings over self preservation.

Only if the single parameter of proper inflation is MPG. The tire inflation recommendations however are made as a balance of ride quality, load and safety. The increased MPG is the result of less tire friction from a reduced contact patch and sidewall flex. That little detail affects traction and stopping distance along with handling. All important components of safely driving down the road. Still that number on the side of the tire must be there for a reason. Why not just inflate it to that? Everyone good with that to make Totem happy? Back to beer. My favorite places for drinking are The Belgian Pub on Amsterdam in Manhattan and Shelly's Back Room in Washington DC. The added feature of Shelly's it is also an excellent cigar bar. Both have excellent food. What is everyone's favorite drinking spots?

Thanks, you beat me to it.. Max pressure simply does not mean proper pressure. There is a lot to this Totem is missing or ignoring.

Consider rather than thinking weight, look at it as pressure relating to friction. Also the tire has a variable contact surface due to to this pressure from the load (which is how weight is related to this calculation). Pressure (a function of weight) is an inescapable part of rolling resistance (While really what you are talking about is friction). I've no interest in delving into the fray but it seems to me you are looking at a complicated calculus with an overly simplistic perspective that misses a good deal of the physics. Otherwise I am glad you have found true tire nirvana.

I've had the Nexen's on mine for two years now. I spent a bit more money over getting the cheaper Chinese tires but these were still a pretty good deal. I've no issue with the Hankook. Both companies have been making tires in Korea since the 1940's. Nexen arguably has more experience with truck tires but both have been around for a long time. The Nexen name has not been around for that long as they changed it in 2000 from Woosung. I've a lot of respect for Korea and Korean's. Hard working people. Wife is Korean so that might have something to do with it.

I have 3 of the Fantastic vent fans and no AC. They move a lot of air. If it is 85 outside, I can at least do 85 inside. We don't spend much time inside during the day but we have to occasionally, like to grab lunch. The 3 fans do a good job of at least making it tolerable. After 90 degrees, we'll mostly stay out of the camper. I'm talking about full sun with beachside camping with no shade. Problem with the fans is primarily cost. The 3 cost about what AC would have but many of the places we camp at, don't have power hook up and some not even water. I too won't run a generator. I would prefer to stay home than listen to one run. Battery hasn't been a problem with 2-3 day trips running the fans along with lights and water pump.

To add to the discussion. To calculate the approximate BTU from the resistance heater element, multiply the wattage by 3.12142 So the 175 watt heater at 12 volts produces 546 BTU. The heating element is simply a strand of nickel chromium wire that runs an electrical current through it to produce heat. Not exactly the most efficient way to produce heat but it is simple and cheap. Another thing to note is that with heat, the wire element resistance increases throwing the calculation off a bit for the higher voltage vs temperature. You'll get a bit more heat out of the element at the slightly higher running voltage but the calculation is not linear.

The text part would be probably the easiest part of the graphics package if the font matches. That leaves the logo and then the stripes. The cost is going to be based on the material width and so those long stripes that start at the back top and drops down and then forward would result in a lot of waste material unless you lay out other stripes in that space. The drawing shows all sorts of dimensions but not the lengths. These would be pretty easy to lay out in cad if the rest of the dimensions were added. The remaining question I would have is how many colors for these stripes or are they all one color. One color makes it easier to mitigate the waste. Still not thinking it would be cheap for exterior 3M materials.

Unless the JPG's are line art graphics, it will be difficult to convert them to usable vectors. I've used conversion software to convert line art to vector and still have to spend time cleaning the graphic up. It is time consuming and not automatic. To cut the vinyl, you'll need vector files. It is basically an X-Y cutter with no Z plane controlled by the dimensional vector coordinates. Think 3D printer or CNC milling except on a 2D plane. As I said, the biggest cost in this is going to be the graphic work involved to get a file they can use to cut it for you. I'm a bit rusty in CAD but even when I was at my best, I'd envision doing these files would take me a good part of a day to complete.