Are molded FG trailers 'green'? - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV
RV News RVBusiness 2021 Top 10 RVs of the Year, plus 56 additional debuts and must-see units → ×


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 09-12-2018, 04:55 AM   #21
Senior Member
 
Kai in Seattle's Avatar
 
Name: Kathleen (Kai: ai as in wait)
Trailer: Amerigo FG-16 1973 "Peanut"
Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area, Washington
Posts: 2,567
Registry
Weren't Trilliums always green?

"K"
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Kai in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 06:55 AM   #22
Senior Member
 
trainman's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: 2019 Oliver Elite II
Texas
Posts: 367
Quote:
Originally Posted by widgetwizard View Post
We all love our molded FG trailers- but are we being selfish?

I have no agenda here - just curious.
There are a lot of clever folks on here that may be able to contribute to this.

My question is - Are Molded FG trailers greener than Stick-built trailers?

What I mean by this is which one has the better carbon footprint?
Both trailer styles basically use the same appliances/running gear/systems.
Most seem to have some "wood" in the floor
The only significant build difference is the "shell"

So, does spraying gelcoat and laying up fiberglass put more Volatiles into the air than powder coating aluminum?

Since they end up "heavy" does the extra fuel burn to pull them around matter?

I really dont know.
Do you?

We know that FG lasts a lot longer so we can allow them to be less green based on their durability, but which style wins overall?

Jim
I'm only Green to a limit, a quality built product seems to me to be much more Greener then one that is not, maybe because it last for so much longer and only has to be built once. Ever noticed all the "Stickies" in backyards rotting away vs. fiberglass trailers.

trainman
trainman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 07:18 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Kai in Seattle's Avatar
 
Name: Kathleen (Kai: ai as in wait)
Trailer: Amerigo FG-16 1973 "Peanut"
Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area, Washington
Posts: 2,567
Registry
Asking on FGRV if we're being selfish for owning all-molded fiberglass trailers is a bit like going to a cat show and asking if, really, aren't the cat owners being selfish because aren't cats maybe worse than dogs? And then listing a few things that include at least one that is mostly the opposite of cat characteristics, like, "Since cats eat so much more than dogs, don't they cost more and take more out of the world to feed?"

Kai
"K"
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Kai in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 08:17 AM   #24
member
 
Name: J
Isle of Wight
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai in Seattle View Post
Asking on FGRV if we're being selfish for owning all-molded fiberglass trailers is a bit like going to a cat show and asking if, really, aren't the cat owners being selfish because aren't cats maybe worse than dogs? And then listing a few things that include at least one that is mostly the opposite of cat characteristics, like, "Since cats eat so much more than dogs, don't they cost more and take more out of the world to feed?"

Kai
"K"

Not understanding.
What is the "mostly opposite" characteristic that I listed when posing the question.
WizWid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 08:46 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
trainman's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: 2019 Oliver Elite II
Texas
Posts: 367
I've been known to mow my grass twice a week with my John Deere riding mower, I thought that's what Green is all about.

trainman
trainman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 10:30 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Kai in Seattle's Avatar
 
Name: Kathleen (Kai: ai as in wait)
Trailer: Amerigo FG-16 1973 "Peanut"
Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area, Washington
Posts: 2,567
Registry
widgetwizard, Jim, Hi!

You wrote:

"Since they end up "heavy" does the extra fuel burn to pull them around matter?"


When in fact, they are generally lighter than stick-built trailers of the same sizes.
So there's one opposite characteristic. As I wrote about the cats--"since they eat more than dogs"...when in fact most domestic housecats don't eat more than many pet dogs, which can be a lot larger.

With trailers, sure, a 27' Casita is a lot bigger, heavier, etc. than a teardrop stick-built...


A cat hardly eats less than a 10-oz Yorkie...but on average, cats are smaller than dogs, and our fiberglass eggs are, on average, lighter than stickies.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I had used your statement as an example, but decided to go with the "theme" --I see that wasn't clear. Don't mean to argue, either, but considering the entirety of what you wrote and the issue itself.

Your post got me to wondering where one really could look that up and get some empirical, unbiased facts and statistics about the actuality of the greenness of different kinds of trailers and their carbon footprints.

Most of the replies here are not only "they're okay," but the replies are likely to be so. We chose these trailers because to us, they seem like the best choices overall, with everything we could consider taken into account. That's why I said what I did about a cat show. You may be asking in the wrong place...but where's the right place?

And it's not just the trailer manufacturing and towing that count for reckoning greenness, it's how we camp, as well. I often wonder how bad bonfires are for the earth. How bad are plastic forks and spoons? But how bad is doing dishes in a trailer? We do hear about how bad water use can be--showering outside in a desert area, or leaving crumbs of food where they don't want the local creatures to get at it...there are so many things to consider about and camping and lifestyle choices...waste disposal including public restrooms, porta-potties, outside waste, animal waste, trash...

A huge topic, and in the years I've been on FGRV, each person/family has to make these decisions as well as adhere to campground and local and state regulations for them all. Are we being selfish? Well, we're alive--that's selfish, too!

Opportunity cost...everything done means something else cannot be done. If we take up space and resources for one activity, that means less for other activities, or evedn for someone else somewhere--or does it?

Every activity has some cost, hidden or obvious. Are we selfish? A. not deliberately, I expect, and B. isn't that the nature of being alive? We have to get what we need, we want to get what we want...we need to put the oxygen mask on ourselves first, before we help anyone else including our own children. Kind of the nature of life and us?

You posted a great philosophical and practical question with what I see as huge ramifications.

And a prize to you for my being able to use "ramifications," which isn't the most common word I ever write.


BEST

Kai

"K"

Sorry that I tend to write in a kind of shorthand thought process...this post is closer to what went through my mind when I first read your post. I whittled it down to the cat post and it was apparently so whittled it was really unclear. I hope this helps.
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Kai in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:01 AM   #27
member
 
Name: J
Isle of Wight
Posts: 536
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kai in Seattle View Post
widgetwizard, Jim, Hi!

You wrote:

"Since they end up "heavy" does the extra fuel burn to pull them around matter?"


When in fact, they are generally lighter than stick-built trailers of the same sizes.
So there's one opposite characteristic. As I wrote about the cats--"since they eat more than dogs"...when in fact most domestic housecats don't eat more than many pet dogs, which can be a lot larger.

With trailers, sure, a 27' Casita is a lot bigger, heavier, etc. than a teardrop stick-built...


A cat hardly eats less than a 10-oz Yorkie...but on average, cats are smaller than dogs, and our fiberglass eggs are, on average, lighter than stickies.

Sorry I wasn't more clear. I had used your statement as an example, but decided to go with the "theme" --I see that wasn't clear. Don't mean to argue, either, but considering the entirety of what you wrote and the issue itself.

Your post got me to wondering where one really could look that up and get some empirical, unbiased facts and statistics about the actuality of the greenness of different kinds of trailers and their carbon footprints.

Most of the replies here are not only "they're okay," but the replies are likely to be so. We chose these trailers because to us, they seem like the best choices overall, with everything we could consider taken into account. That's why I said what I did about a cat show. You may be asking in the wrong place...but where's the right place?

And it's not just the trailer manufacturing and towing that count for reckoning greenness, it's how we camp, as well. I often wonder how bad bonfires are for the earth. How bad are plastic forks and spoons? But how bad is doing dishes in a trailer? We do hear about how bad water use can be--showering outside in a desert area, or leaving crumbs of food where they don't want the local creatures to get at it...there are so many things to consider about and camping and lifestyle choices...waste disposal including public restrooms, porta-potties, outside waste, animal waste, trash...

A huge topic, and in the years I've been on FGRV, each person/family has to make these decisions as well as adhere to campground and local and state regulations for them all. Are we being selfish? Well, we're alive--that's selfish, too!

Opportunity cost...everything done means something else cannot be done. If we take up space and resources for one activity, that means less for other activities, or evedn for someone else somewhere--or does it?

Every activity has some cost, hidden or obvious. Are we selfish? A. not deliberately, I expect, and B. isn't that the nature of being alive? We have to get what we need, we want to get what we want...we need to put the oxygen mask on ourselves first, before we help anyone else including our own children. Kind of the nature of life and us?

You posted a great philosophical and practical question with what I see as huge ramifications.

And a prize to you for my being able to use "ramifications," which isn't the most common word I ever write.


BEST

Kai

"K"

Sorry that I tend to write in a kind of shorthand thought process...this post is closer to what went through my mind when I first read your post. I whittled it down to the cat post and it was apparently so whittled it was really unclear. I hope this helps.
It was completely clear - now that I see that you think FG trailers are lighter (per foot obviously) than stickies.
Is that really true? - I always thought the reverse.

Cheers!
WizWid is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:28 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Escape 21, behind an '02 F250 7.3 diesel tug
Mid Left Coast
Posts: 2,106
there simply aren't many 16-17-19 foot (bumper-to-hitch) stickies. most stickies, the number embedded in the model name/number is the FLOOR length, not the overall trailer length. by those standards, a 21' escape would be more like 17'.
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:32 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Glenn Baglo's Avatar
 
Name: Glenn ( second 'n' is silent )
Trailer: 2009 Escape 17B 2020 Toyota Highlander XLE
British Columbia
Posts: 7,240
Anybody buy a trailer by the pound?
__________________
What happens to the hole when the cheese is gone?
- Bertolt Brecht
Glenn Baglo is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 11:35 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
Name: Kelly
Trailer: Trails West
Oregon
Posts: 2,959
Quote:
Originally Posted by widgetwizard View Post
It was completely clear - now that I see that you think FG trailers are lighter (per foot obviously) than stickies.
Is that really true? - I always thought the reverse.

Cheers!
Yes it is true that they are lighter in weight. The fiberglass shells are not thick the way a boat hull might be made. They are so thin you can see daylight through them. The shape of the trailer and the strength of the material is what makes gives them the ability to be free standing without framing against the walls.

So what you have is a Trailer with the lightweight (siding) skin and no need for all those sticks of structural framing materials.
k corbin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 01:08 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Name: John
Trailer: Escape 21, behind an '02 F250 7.3 diesel tug
Mid Left Coast
Posts: 2,106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo View Post
Anybody buy a trailer by the pound?
everyone here trying to get a trailer they can tow with their cute-Ute, crossover car toy...
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 06:08 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Kai in Seattle's Avatar
 
Name: Kathleen (Kai: ai as in wait)
Trailer: Amerigo FG-16 1973 "Peanut"
Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area, Washington
Posts: 2,567
Registry
Glenn Baglo, didn't buy Peanut by the pound, but we licensed it 'by the pound." Had to be under 2K to get a permanent license in WA state.We made it at 1997. Woohoo!


Paid $200 or so but no more annual fees or worrying about it lapsing.
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Kai in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 06:16 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Kai in Seattle's Avatar
 
Name: Kathleen (Kai: ai as in wait)
Trailer: Amerigo FG-16 1973 "Peanut"
Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area, Washington
Posts: 2,567
Registry
Hi, Jim, as you can see by many replies (and at least one reply early in this thread), yes, they are lighter. Sometimes much lighter. That was a major reason we began to look at them seriously in the first place. Our "new to us" Dodge Grand Caravan had a towing capacity of 3600 pounds, tongue weight 360.


The smallest model Jayco "Featherlite" trailer we looked at was at least 5,000, and the salesman kept saying, "But that's not a problem, you just get a weight distribution hitch," and I kept saying, "That doesn't beat physics or momentum."

Yeah, foot for foot, they're usually lighter. k.corbin gives a good detailed description of why.

BEST
Kai
"K"
__________________
Semper ubi sub ubi.
Kai in Seattle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2018, 06:19 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,756
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz View Post
there simply aren't many 16-17-19 foot (bumper-to-hitch) stickies. most stickies, the number embedded in the model name/number is the FLOOR length, not the overall trailer length. by those standards, a 21' escape would be more like 17'.
I had a 1969 Thorobred 12ft stickie. It not only weighed a lot more than its 13ft LoveBug replacement... It also was aerodynamically pathetic.
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 01:20 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
Name: Eric
Trailer: Boler
TN
Posts: 118
Registry
From a manufacturing stand point plastic has twice the carbon foot print as wood and aluminum has four times the foot print of wood. So by that thought process a stick built camper could be more or less depending on the skin.

If you look at life of unit the vast majority of the carbon foot print will be created pulling the camper so weight and aerodynamics will be critical. This is where I think you will see the biggest issue most stick built campers have a higher and wider profile which will create more drag and wind resistance. This is what will drive up there carbon foot print. I have a utility trailer that has the same exterior dimension as a standard camper and it cost about 3 mpg more to pull than my Scamp 16.
Eric Frye is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 02:31 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
Name: Harold
Trailer: 1975 Scamp, 13-foot
Redding, California
Posts: 390
Registry
Anybody buy a trailer by the pound?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo View Post
Anybody buy a trailer by the pound?
I believe they do in England.
Doctor Harold is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 02:41 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
ZachO's Avatar
 
Name: Zach
Trailer: 91 Bigfoot 17
Montana
Posts: 2,467
Registry
I don't have much experience, but I've been going under the impression that the fiberglass trailers are actually a bit heavier than other trailers.

This is completely anecdotal, but I have definitely had multiple people be surprised when I tell them the weight of my trailer. Not because of how light it is, but how heavy. I also have a friend who has a 22' stick-built trailer with a full bed, full fridge, and single axle, which weighs less than my 17' with a little dorm-size fridge, no dedicated bed etc.

I haven't done any research into other trailer weights, the above are just my experiences which led me to think it's odd that we think of our trailers as being light weight. I should do more research.

My uneducated guess is that fiberglass trailers are more or less just as un-green as stick built. The green comes in where most people here have mentioned: the longevity.

Beyond that, since other people brought it up, whether the rv "lifestyle" is more green is completely dependent on how you use it. As a means of recreation, it's pretty wasteful and pampered. As a fulltimer, you can absolutely have a much smaller carbon footprint than those living in a house, even at as little as 9mpg.

That's not to say it's "bad". I mean obviously I have one and use it recreationally at times. But it's pretty hard to argue that owning a second home-on-wheels and hauling it around the country is "green", as compared to a lot of other forms of recreation.
ZachO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 02:45 PM   #38
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Escape 15A
Minnesota
Posts: 419
Registry
The primary "green" factor of FG trailers is their longevity.
Steve Carlson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 05:16 PM   #39
Senior Member
 
ZachO's Avatar
 
Name: Zach
Trailer: 91 Bigfoot 17
Montana
Posts: 2,467
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Carlson View Post
The primary "green" factor of FG trailers is their longevity.
ZachO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2018, 08:56 PM   #40
Member
 
Name: dust in
Trailer: Boler Trailer
British Columbia
Posts: 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon in AZ View Post
Without a definition of "green," the question is meaningless. Whoever writes the definition controls the answer. Carbon footprint is only one aspect of "greenness."

My imprecise, unscientific, and biased opinion is that molded fiberglass is a little more green than the "average" RV, where "green" is defined roughly as the aggregate of all detrimental environmental impacts- carbon output, depletion of non-renewable resources, use of toxic materials, impact on land, water, and air quality, and waste output- during production and use.

If you really want to be green, ride a bicycle and sleep in a tent.
I dido the above:::::
dust-in is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What percent of new RV sales are molded fiberglass trailers? DeanCHS1980 General Chat 23 12-11-2018 12:31 AM
I have about 8 Molded trailers for sale that I canot stude Referrals: Molded Fiberglass Trailers 10 09-26-2016 05:11 AM
This is why Stick Built trailers are different than all-molded towables Donna D. General Chat 15 01-30-2015 07:58 AM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.