Decided to order the Oliver

[Steve Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Cathi

Ron, I put in "Oliver four-season" and "Oliver winter" and anything but such info comes up. I had asked if anyone had experience using an Oliver in winter and no one has answered.

I'm sorry Cathi, I thought I had responded to your post last night with a rather lengthy answer. Turns out I answered that exact same question over on the Oliver forum. Maybe this will help.

Since ALL of the 23 footers have hit the road since about March of this year no one has had a winter during which to use them. That's why you won't find any hard data about wintertime use to help you. But, I believe I can extrapolate using my experience with it in the hot and humid weather of the deep South. I always found that the interior of the trailer was some 10 degrees cooler than the outside temperature this past summer. I can only attribute that to a combination of the insulation used, the air space between the twin hulls and the tightness of the entire unit.

On a side note, we camped for a week in Arkansas earlier this month. It was cold and it rained every day. There were mornings that it was downright chilly. We would turn the basement furnace on for a few minutes while showering and getting dressed and I can attest to just how quiet the furnace is and to how warm it got. That vent in the bathroom sure is nice. I know that's not like it might be if the temps had been in the teens instead of the forties and fifties but I have no doubt that the Oliver's heating system could have handled it. In addition, we had little to no condensation on the walls, there was some on the windows but not enough to run off, puddle and cause a problem.

Originally Posted by Cathi

I take it there is a big space between the bottom hull and the top hull and floor. <snip> The Oliver tanks being between hulls certainly seems very good especially with the heaters in there also.

It takes four fiberglass shells to build the Oliver, two inner shells and two outer shells. The lower outer shell is first bolted to the aluminum frame. Some of the electrical wiring, all the plumbing lines, and the holding tanks are placed inside and the connections are made. Next the” inner bubble” is created by the bonding of the upper and lower inside shells. Inside the “bubble” created by these two shell are molded the seats, counters, cabinets and the recess for the floor tiles. At this time, all appropriate holes are cut into the “bubble”, the cabinets are finished off with their lighted interiors and doors, more electrical wiring is added and connected and the “inner bubble” is lowered inside the waiting lower outer shell. Plumbing connections are made in the kitchen and bath areas, wiring is connected to the lower areas and the upper outer shell is affixed to cap it all off.

Once again, I apologize. I really thought I had answered and it had disappeared into the Ozone. Darn senior moment.

[Cathi]

Jim, I thought that "more or less" would get you. I wasn't sure exactly what you are doing or if you still are or what. Okay, builder extraordinaire.

You are saying the Oliver is much better for winter use.
I take it you mean as built vs. the standard Escape build. With the foam and especially the tank heaters, I don't know what would be any different as far as use in winter.

Off the grid would be a difference, I guess, but do not know how many amps or if impossible to use tank heaters off of solar. I know one person who did not think that is possible.

It is difficult to tell without anyone actually relating any such experiences. There must be some folks who have done it. Thanks for your input.

[Cathi]

Steve, thank you for the info on the shells and all. It is difficult to visualize. On the frame, would winter salt be a problem?

Do Olivers have a low-point drain?

I realize it would only be 17's answering on winter use. Wonder who has been out then.

Thanks for the info.

[Steve Outlaw]

Originally Posted by Cathi

Steve, thank you for the info on the shells and all. It is difficult to visualize. On the frame, would winter salt be a problem?

Do Olivers have a low-point drain?

I realize it would only be 17's answering on winter use. Wonder who has been out then.

Thanks for the info.

We had one of the original 17's. It did not have the same level or kind of insulation they are using now. The worst night we ever spent in it was a snowy, sleety (is that even a word?) night on the Colorado-Kansas border. We had power that night so we used the heat strips in the A/C. The temp was at or just below freezing and we stayed very comfortable, we did not run the furnace. I realize that's an apples to oranges comparison but it's all there is right now.

I have a drain in both the cold lines and the hot lines.

I read a really good thread concerning salt and frames. I don't remember whether it was here or maybe over on the Escape forum.

I have tons of pictures that I took during the construction of our trailer from the ground up. I'll try to post some of them over the next few days

[Ken C]

Originally Posted by Ron Merritt

.....I'm open to ideas on an actual measure for the insulation value......

Would be fun to use the new "Seek" 200 dollar iphone thermal camera if a friend, co-worker, or relative has one. An escape forum member played with another brand, it sure was interesting. An Escape/Oliver thermal shootout would be interesting, footprints below

[minke]

Sometimes using a correct name helps people to visualize better and then understand better. If I understand correctly Oliver uses sandwich construction (see: Sandwich-structured composite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ). Perhaps that Wiki entry will help.

When contrasting two construction approaches, 1) a sandwich of two fiberglass skins with foam in between and 2) a single fiberglass skin of equal strength there is no surprise that each has it's advantages. Some of the advantages of 2), the single thick skin, are better resistance to puncture (think of backing into a pipe or limb, ugh!), and cheaper to make (one vs. two molds, no assembly,,,).

Since we like to attach things to the structure we sometimes make holes in it for bolts. With the single thick skin if we have a water leak it is annoying. With a sandwich construction any water ingress that gets between the outer skin and the foam can freeze and cause delamination.

I focused on the downside of sandwich construction because I think the advantages of sandwich construction have already been discussed. Sailboats have used sandwich construction for decks since I guess the '60s very successfully. Done right (design and manufacturing) sandwich construction can be very effective.

[Ron Merritt]

You do not understand it correctly. It is NOT a sandwich construction technique.

[Ron Merritt]

Originally Posted by Ken C

Would be fun to use the new "Seek" 200 dollar iphone thermal camera if a friend, co-worker, or relative has one. An escape forum member played with another brand, it sure was interesting. An Escape/Oliver thermal shootout would be interesting, footprints below

I'm certainly open to this idea if I could better understand what it's telling me. I'm supposing it would show me hot and cold spots, but can I determine relative temperatures?

[minke]

Originally Posted by Ron Merritt

You do not understand it correctly. It is NOT a sandwich construction technique.

Perhaps you can see how I got it wrong: two skins, stuff in the middle, all joined together. Sounds like sandwich to me. Tastes like sandwich to me. Please then, instead of just announcing that I'm wrong and dismissing me, tell us 1) what is right and b) perhaps also why I'm wrong.

thanx,,, Alan

[Ron Merritt]

There is no "stuff in the middle", which you'd know if you read a bit.

This is two distinct pieces of fiberglass, each with a thin layer of insulation applied to them and an air gap in the middle. The layers are in contact with each other at anchoring points only.

If foam insulation was blown into that gap, thus joining the pieces together, then it would act as one "sandwich" panel. Since it doesn't, then it's not.

[hellsbay]

Originally Posted by minke

Perhaps you can see how I got it wrong: two skins, stuff in the middle, all joined together. Sounds like sandwich to me. Tastes like sandwich to me. Please then, instead of just announcing that I'm wrong and dismissing me, tell us 1) what is right and b) perhaps also why I'm wrong.

thanx,,, Alan

I'm just going to jump in here. The sandwich construction, as you call it, for the Olivers is far superior to a single wall construction. It's lighter, stronger, heat and cold resistant and I have not had any problems attaching to the outside or inside with my 2008 Oliver. Fortunately, I have never run into anything but branches overhead, which caused no damage. It is more expensive to do it the Oliver way, but you get what you pay for.

I think the single hull of the escape is great, but the Oliver's approach is just better. With all the furniture built into the hull, it helps to make it even stronger, not to mention, that there are no heavy fiberboard or wood products to get wet, warped, come undone, etc. Not that you would, but you could take the cushions and all your stuff out of an Oliver and hose it down. I have not owned an Escape, but I did have an AS Bambi deluxe, and a U-Haul. The Oliver blows away these two trailers in every respect. From everything I can research on the internet, the Escape is an excellent product. If there were no Olivers, I would consider it as one of my first choices in a small RV trailer.

[minke]

Originally Posted by Ron Merritt

There is no "stuff in the middle", which you'd know if you read a bit.

This is two distinct pieces of fiberglass, each with a thin layer of insulation applied to them and an air gap in the middle. The layers are in contact with each other at anchoring points only.

If foam insulation was blown into that gap, thus joining the pieces together, then it would act as one "sandwich" panel. Since it doesn't, then it's not.

Thanks for the explanation. When I saw the Nida-Core I visualized based on my experience and was wrong. I've got a sailboat with a honey comb material in the deck with both skins attached.

thanx,,, Alan

[Ron Merritt]

I can only imagine how awesome an RV would be built like some of those sailboat hulls (or decks). People are surprised how expensive an Oliver is, but it would seem cheap by comparison!

[Ice-breaker]

Originally Posted by hellsbay

...I think the single hull of the escape is great, but the Oliver's approach is just better. ....

I like the Oliver and think it is a nice trailer. The double hull of the Oliver is also a nice feature in terms of strength, but has some distinct pitfalls that would make your usage of the term "better" quite subjective. Many people do not want to have to haul around the large weight that is associated with the double hull Oliver. The look of the fiberglass interior of the Oliver appeals to some but not all. The strength of the single hull fiberglass rv's appears to be more than adequate for the majority of owner's having single hull trailers.

[Ron Merritt]

There have been alot of posts where people say Olivers are "heavy". Well, yes, a 23' long trailer is heavy in gross terms. No small SUV is going to pull such a trailer. You'll need a 1/2 ton truck at least. But if you have a 1/2 ton truck, then you have alot of choices:

Oliver Legacy Elite II - 4600 lbs dry/7000 lbs GVWR = 2400 lbs carry capacity

Bigfoot 2521FB - 4450 lbs dry/7500 lbs GVWR = 3050 lbs carry capacity

Airstream 23D (starts at $66,019!) - 4761 lbs dry/ 6000 lbs GVWR = 1239 lbs carry capacity

My last fiberglass trailer was a Keystone Vantage 19UL - 4900 lbs dry/6000 lbs GVWR = 1100 lbs carry capacity. Curious this was the rating even though it had 4000 lb axles. But it was a 23' long plastic Airstream, essentially.

Just for fun, the other competitors are smaller, but here's some specs:

Casita 17 - 2480 lbs dry/3500 lbs GVWR= 1020 lbs carry
Scamp 16 - 2200-2600 lbs dry/3500 lbs GVWR = 1300-900 lbs carry
EggCamper 17' - 1900 lbs dry/2500 lbs GVWR = 600 lbs carry

Now of course on all these, the weight numbers change base on optional equipment, etc. But you get the idea. Roughly 1/2 the money, 1/2 the size, 1/2 the carrying capacity.

If you are going to a 22-23' trailer, the weights are around the same and the carrying capacities are similar (except the AS). If you go smaller, you are in the same ballpark. You are definitely in a different class of tow vehicle. But if you move up on your tug, then your choices widen up considerably.

Surprisingly, if I spend 50% more money on an Airstream, I only get half of the load carrying capacity. Not a very good value, eh?

There is nothing about the double hull design that is inherently more heavy than a single wall trailer of a similar size. The interior "wood" furnishings must be quite heavy and looks to be a wash in total compared to the weight of the interior hull. Probably exacerbating this is the heavy steel frame on the single hull trailer - it has to be part of this weight trade-off and must be key to getting the similar load carrying capacity.

[Timber Wolf]

Originally Posted by Ron Merritt

There have been a lot of posts where people say Olivers are "heavy". Well, yes, a 23' long trailer is heavy in gross terms.

Oliver Legacy Elite II - 4600 lbs dry/7000 lbs GVWR = 2400 lbs carry capacity
Just for fun, the other competitors are smaller, but here's some specs:

Casita 17 - 2480 lbs dry/3500 lbs GVWR= 1020 lbs carry
Scamp 16 - 2200-2600 lbs dry/3500 lbs GVWR = 1300-900 lbs carry
EggCamper 17' - 1900 lbs dry/2500 lbs GVWR = 600 lbs carry

Judging from the fact this thread has gone on for seven pages it looks like people like talking about a nice FGRV, even if there are things they have questions about. For example, and just using the numbers you posted, I think the term "heavy" is applicable to the Oliver in "net" terms. Here's the quickee math: Oliver at 4600 pounds and 23 feet, is 200 pounds a foot. The Scamp and Casita come in around 150 pounds to the foot, the Eggcamper much less. Just for grins I also looked at the specs on an Escape 21 and it came in right under the 150 pound a foot figure also. Of course we really should use real world weights of all the trailers but this gives us a basis for debate. So just where does the extra 50 pounds a foot (a 33% increase) of weight go in an Oliver? The second shell?

[Cathi]

Originally Posted by Timber Wolf

Judging from the fact this thread has gone on for seven pages it looks like people like talking baout a nice FGRV, even if their are things they have questions about. For example, and just using the numbers you posted, I think the term "heavy" is applicable to the Oliver in "net" terms. Here's the quickee math: Oliver at 4600 pounds and 23 feet, is 200 pounds a foot. The Scamp and Casita come in around 150 pounds to the foot, the Eggcamper much less. Just for grins I also looked at the specs on an Escape 21 and it came in right under the 150 pound a foot figure also. Of course we really should use real world weights of all the trailers but this gives us a basis for debate. So just where does the extra 50 pounds a foot (a 33% increase) of weight go in an Oliver? The second shell?

The GVWR for the 21' Escape is 4500 lbs. vs. 7000 lbs. for the 23' Oliver as I recall. We can tow the 21' with a mid-sized TV rated for 5,000 lbs. (we would likely be at a little over 4,000 lbs.) Must take a leap in TV for the 23' Oliver.

I, too, am still wondering where all of that Oliver weight is coming from. The explanation of four shells would explain much of it, I would think. And the rest would be heavier components of all kinds, I guess. Of course, Escapes are meant to be as light as possible and they do that well. The Oliver apparently has many high-quality (read heavy) components.

The question is weather you have or want a suitable TV and the gas cost, and is it worth it to get what I assume are better components.

[Ron Merritt]

Originally Posted by Timber Wolf

Judging from the fact this thread has gone on for seven pages it looks like people like talking baout a nice FGRV, even if their are things they have questions about. For example, and just using the numbers you posted, I think the term "heavy" is applicable to the Oliver in "net" terms. Here's the quickee math: Oliver at 4600 pounds and 23 feet, is 200 pounds a foot. The Scamp and Casita come in around 150 pounds to the foot, the Eggcamper much less. Just for grins I also looked at the specs on an Escape 21 and it came in right under the 150 pound a foot figure also. Of course we really should use real world weights of all the trailers but this gives us a basis for debate. So just where does the extra 50 pounds a foot (a 33% increase) of weight go in an Oliver? The second shell?

I'm not so sure that the Escape is such a good comparison - it's body length is 17', so that puts the weight around 180 lbs a foot. The Oliver has about 20' of body length - it is a bigger trailer after all - so that works out around 230 lbs/ft. Clearly with the difference in carrying capacity, that weight goes into strength. Strength to carry more load. The Escape has a fairly modest carrying capacity at 1450 lbs. 1000 lbs less than the Oliver. Question is, do you need that load? Or does it turn into durability because you are traveling mostly lightly loaded? Are you wearing out an Escape because it's traveling most certainly near it's maximum load most of the time?

So yes, if you choose Escape 21, you could get by with a smaller and cheaper tug, maybe something with a V6. But with the squarish body, there may be aerodynamic considerations, so you might still be better off with a 1/2 ton. The question then becomes, how much excess capacity, or margin, do you want in your tow vehicle?

To the question of heavier components, the answer is most certainly yes. Those 16' wheels and tires, heavier rated axles and shock absorber setup adds weight - probably a few hundred pounds. The bigger tanks are certainly heavier. The appliances are about the same I'd guess. The propane tank locker cover and the spare tire cover - made of fiberglass - most certainly add weight.

The thickness of the hulls most certainly plays a part. This may be due to the size of the trailer, needing a thicker hull, or it may just be a design choice for durability. I'd surmise that the smallest Casita has a thinner hull than the largest Escape as well. It would be interesting if anyone has any data on that - if the smaller trailers have thinner fiberglass.

[Borrego Dave]

Would be kind of nice if Oliver weighed one of their compleated shells before adding anything inside to have a shell weight, like they did for the Nest....just thinking

[hellsbay]

GVWR has to do with the strength of the frame and rating of the axel or axels. Because of these the Oliver has way more carying capacity than most RV trailers. simply put, it is overbuilt. If you choose to load it up with 2400 pounds of stuff then you will need a larger rated TV. Most of us have travel with 200-400 pounds of stuff.

I would have no problem towing the new Oliver 23 with my 6cyl Toyota Tacoma, which is rated to tow 6,500 pounds. Cathy, I don't think you understand the weights completely. I know that they are confusing and can be different for different manufacturers and countries.
Not sure if that applies here between Canada and US. The carrying capacity is the difference between the GVW and the GVWR.