Not to be argumentative, but I don't recall them ever using any primer, galvanizing or anything else on the lower structure. No stainless fasteners, fiberglass mat instead of cloth used in many place, etc. How much extra would it have cost to have made a shop manual along with a parts manual? One extra employee to record and make all the information available. My bus came with an illustrated shop manual with instructions for maintenance along with a parts manual with an exploded view of every part along with an exact description of that part. Every model and even custom versions should be documented in print easily accessible by owners. Aircraft cost about the same but every modification, every airworthiness (AD) directive is sent to owners free of charge. When an aircraft has an accident, the cause is investigated and a recommendation is given or made mandatory. We get a kick in the teeth. Not just FT but most of the RV industry.
I love our coach but suffer no illusions for it's shortcomings.
Pierce
Split this post out to its own topic since it was unrelated to the fuel line discussion.
You need to understand, they were built to best of their knowledge at the time. I don't think they expected steel to get wet. Many cars etc are built today with exposed steel. Most RV's also.
Rember, Ray Fore built his own RV 1st, and it transpired from that. I was at the factory many times back then, having had my own business, specifically a van conversion shop, I questioned a few things. Also, Texas is very dry for the most part, unlike most of the US.
But they were good ol' boys, just doing the best they could, with they had. They were not Boeing airplanes. They were not like many huge big dollar financed factories I worked at in Socal in the 60's. They mostly dealt in cash, were hand to mouth. I respected everything they did.
I have worked on them all in 60 yrs, and the ones today are simply piles of cardboard. very sad.
Chris
I have come to believe that to be a actual truth. They in my opinion did a pretty good job. Yes there could be areas with 20-20 hindsight that could be improved. If they had been built to the standards you say they like a Boeing they would be unaffordable to most of us. And I honestly will say if I was designing a Boeing it would be too heavy to fly. Look for the good things, there there. Or dwell on the negative and never go skiing using your coach as home base. Yep everything has its faults
Scott
"If your going to be dumb, you got to be tough."
is DSD's motto.
I read his posts with enjoyment, and finding myself agreeing with him frequently.
I conclude he is weak, because he certainly is not dumb.
Regards
Klaus
I'm fairly confident DW will disagree with you. I think all I ended up with was tenacity.
Chris, Did they really think that every buyer would only be from Texas dry country and never drive to or move to a wetter place? A bit of paint is pretty cheap and the buried steel wouldn't even have to be pretty, Just protected. Esp on a $400,000 piece of equipment. So not even labor intensive to throw on a coat before sending the structure down the line. It ain't rocket science, nor would it have added weight beyond a few once's of paint.
I liken it to the same type of thinking in the Boeing 737Max situation. Boeing didn't think it necessary to use an already existing second AoA sensor on the nose for the MCAS system to compare to when the MCAS was activated by the flight computer and allowed the MCAS to take total control of the aircraft stabilizer and didn't mention that one needs to turn MCAS off if the runaway stabilizer continues to push the nose down for more than three seconds. In this case there was essentially ZERO cost involved to use the other sensor when the runaway stab went beyond three seconds or brief pilots about MCAS's over control and when to shut it off.
Now I'm not directly comparing Foretravel to Boeing. Just the thinking involved in why such a decision was made.
Boeing assumed that the MCAS system would very, very rarely activate. They were wrong. But sadly the solution was always there. Boeing just chose to not use it.
Foretravel assumed that the coach would never see a drop of water. They were wrong. And the solution was easy and cheap to do. Foretravel just chose to not do it. And considering the avg home in 98 was $119K and the 36ft U320 was $375K I wouldn't think that a coat of paint on the 'frame' wouldn't be a bridge too far. But it was.
It sure raises an interesting point of discussion about our coaches that cost 300% more than the average home. The hind sight excuse is not valid. Water has always throughout the history of this planet been the enemy of homes, whether they are mud, sticks and bricks or mobile.
I full timed in a 1981 Foretravel for 10 years before upgrading to my current 1993 U225. There are many similarities but all in all the 93 is a much better coach. (chassis, air brakes, etc. etc.)
I believe that being in business for so long and providing customer support has been a huge benefit for Foretravel, it's products and their customers.
All good points, there are shortcomings. No product of man, my new grandson excepted, is perfect.
Back up a bit, though, and consider. What is it about these coaches that makes them so eagerly sought, even at an age where the majority of competing brands have long ago hit the scrap heap? Durability, longevity, servicability, usefulness, and an enduring aura of quality workmanship are the characterisitcs that are often echoed among owners.
Bear in mind that hindsight is 20/20, and the folks that built em did not have the 10+ years of experience operating and maintaining an individual coach like many of us have had.
Dakota, Chuck.
My point of contention is that it has always been a given that water is enemy #1 of all homes. (mobile or stationary) This water is the enemy is not a new concept that came to light only after FT started using the hidden internal sub-frame design.
So if water is enemy #1 and always has been. Why was it not job #1 to take the small step of painting the sub-frame?
If it were a cheap sob coach, then I guess you get what you pay for.
And that's the point. Foretravels are and always have been high dollar semi custom coaches and thus the high cost should include such simple things. Like rust prevention on the 'hidden' structure that supports the whole bloody coach.
Of course talking about what Foretravel did or didn't do back then or even on ANY? of their sub-frame coaches until they switched to a properly painted Spartan chassis. Is in the end a fruitless exercise.
I find it more interesting that some have proffered excuses for that blunder by Foretravel in past threads on this subject. When in actuality, there is no excuse.
That said. We still like our Foretravel in all it's luxuriously frustrating glory.
Interestingly we don't see this problem with Newell's or other coaches. I figured out that after 18 years and three Foretravels my next coach will be built by engineers who have many iterations behind them on the chassis. There was and is no way for FT to have made enough coaches to see enough issues to adjust. It is actually better that they are on Spartan now than making their own.
John S, thank you for your valid comment. Please realize that you recently moved up 15+ years in technology. This is not a criticism of your comment, just my observation. As far as Spartan, yes, an exceptional mfg and product. Also know they too have had numerous, yet understandable, issues over the years. Spartan in 2020 was acquired by REV Group, a specialty vehicles manufacturer with 29 vehicle brands, including, Fleetwood RV, Holiday Rambler, Monaco Coach, American Coach, and Midwest Automotive Designs Fleetwood RV, Champion Bus, E-ONE Fire and Horton.
I have to agree with Chuck on this one. Foretravel was a leader in the industry, building a quality rv, on the revolutionary 8 outboard air bag chassis. Others, choosing to choose components from Spartan, Gillig, and BFG torsion suspension would have their own specific shortcomings, not from an intentional cheapened design, however from not having the benefit of hindsight.
Over the years, on my side, I've had the advantage of hindsight, seeing the shortcomings of many mfs. This goes back to manufacturers from the first rv I retailed, in SF, CA, in the early 70s, a motorized rv, a Revcon, and then a 1972 Silver Streak aluminum travel trailer in 1975 in San Jose, CA. I was around for the rotting out of the wet bay in Spartan chassis 1995 American Eagles, the soft floors that needed replacing in Winnebago diesels, the too short diesel pusers from various mfgs, the collapsed aluminum roofs in Monaco rvs, the poorly designed heating systems and other quality issue's that lead to their demise of Alpine luxury diesel pushera, the complications of design issue's of Travel Supreme that eventually lead to the mfgs selling out. I had over the years customers cussing out Newell, Bluebird, and Newmar quality issues. I've had this advantage.
I choose a Foretrave to be the best quality rv I could purchase in 2017 to retire in, meeting my budget, requirements, and needs. I did this after after experiencing the above and after owning many rvs and rv diesel pushers. I did this thinking I'd have to replace the basement sub structure. I did not know that a previous owner had already addressed this properly.
This posible repair, I considered, easy issue to rectify.
I see bigdog's point, I also believe Foretravel did this not intentionally, as the above mfgs did not intentionally have their shortcomings. I still believe after three years of ownership I made the right decision for my budget, needs, and experience.
We all have purchased a structure that travels down the road in a constant state similar to that of an earthquake. Ever hear of a water leak or other issues after a quake?
Bigdog, I believe, has had many and different experiences, that have given him credibility and a sense of what perfection can be. I respect his comments and look forward to our unique forum complimenting our Foretravel expectations, understanding, and ownership.
https://youtu.be/ad6jiLqAguU
https://youtu.be/-lGTzJxXeCk
https://youtu.be/iT_0O-7q-r8
https://youtu.be/iCKKlHqL0D0
A total of 22,138 Cessna 150s were built in the United States between 1958 and 1977. 19 years of production with only minor modifications. Of all the Cessna 150 models, the 1966 model year was the most plentiful with 3,067 1966 Cessna 150s produced. This was the first year the aircraft featured a swept tail fin, increased baggage area and electrically operated flaps the only major change in 19 years. So yes you can purchase a parts book with every nut bolt and Dzus fastener listed.
I think of Fore family Foretravels as what they are, limited production catalogue bespoke motorhomes. Catalogue bespoke? The closest industry that I can think of which offers as example is the pipe organ industry. You can go to the Andover Organ Company in Andover, Massachusetts, and order yourself a practice organ from their catalogue.
Andover Organ Company :: New Organs :: Opus 117 (http://www.andoverorgan.com/organs.new.117.php)
And then they custom build it for your home. Excuse me, for that much money, residence.
I recently repaired a factory flaw in my shower skylight. Stuff happens in limited production vehicles.
Thank goodness we don't have to maintain like a Boeing. Every coach out there would be unsustainable imagine having a 10k annual inspection and required updates. I'll keep cleaning stripping priming and sealing as I can afford. Good enough for me
Scott
If I had the bulkhead issue, I might be more sensitive to it. But our coach was repaired, welded and done overkill, so I don't think about it much. It wasn't rusty, it was a Texas coach, then a California coach. Bolts just failed.
As most have mentioned above, any shortcoming by Foretravel, was not done because of lack of care. Ray Fore took any new model coach, and used it for months before it went into production, to find any issues. Mostly it was useability, light switch here, a light here etc.
I always tell people it's like putting your home on a trailer, and dragging it around the US. And secondly, "You have an RV, so you have a problem, you just don't know what it is yet" They all have issues, some worse then others.
I could go on about needing to rebuild my Cat engine at 119K miles. Is that Caterpillars fault for a oversight? Did they do this intentionally? Mine wasn't the only one, and a FT with a Cat engine gave you a 200K warranty, and demanded a higher price tag. Is that FT's fault?
Everything mechanical made by man has issues. How many control boards need replacing, and the customer always has to pay for the " New upgraded version"
I love our coach, despite all the dramas we had.
Chris
But let's take a look at the famous Beechcraft Bonanza. An upscale aircraft at about the same price as a Foretravel. In 2006, they cost about $700,000 and a little over 100 were built in that year. They crossed all the T's and dotted all the I's as far as every little part and documentation goes. And this is for a very limited production aircraft.
No one is suggesting our coaches are Boeings but how much additional would a coat of paint cost as Bigdog mentions in his post? An extra employee for the manuals? Some steel for the front cap so the windshields don't crack and move around? Even a little bit of front cap tubing would be better than none.
But 95% of RVs are much worse. In fact, terrible in construction and documentation. To avoid a $1200 recycle fee, the SOB we had was stripped and then taken to the junk yard. I have photos of the steel structure that was left. Just a couple dozen small, thin wall square tubing pieces sticking up from a Dodge frame. The structure provided almost no protection for occupants.
Our U300 is almost like owning a Jaguar. Love it until you find something wrong, fix it, curse the designer but still love it regardless of it's faults.
Pierce
Jack, Hope things are well with you and the DW way down south in Brazil. After you guys get back I hope we can meet up with you two again.
I'm a bit conflicted on that quote. While I don't think Foretravel acted with anything even close to malice. They most certainly intentionally decided to not paint the support structure. It's not a flaw of the design. It's not near as technical a matter as a truck engine breaking or an Aircraft. Minus the corrosion issue, These bulkhead/sub-frames seem to be immensely strong. I doubt that there has ever been a failure from the design itself.
I'm talking about not taking the simple VERY SIMPLE step of spraying a bit of paint on a frame that has just been welded and has yet to see any added items mounted to it. What a great time to spend $20 on paint and an hour(ish) of labor and an hour or so of drying time. So what is that in relation to the total cost to the end user? A few hundred dollars? No reason to not do it as it would have been such a cheap & easy step to have accomplished. And their reputation has a preeminent coach builder would have been even greater.
Just think of the brochure copy. "We at Foretravel are so dedicated to building the finest coach. We went the extra mile and even painted the hidden sub-frame to guard against even the remotest possibility of future corrosion"
As always, I find it interesting to hear everyone's take on this issue. Even though the deed has been done long ago and I don't have Mr. Peabody's "way back machine" to go back and change Mr. Fore's mind on the issue.
Pierce, just to be a d*&k here, the Beech Bonanza was originally type certified in 1947(ish) and every one since then has been built, with modifications, on that original TC.
Exactly! But it's a very low production aircraft. The point I'm making is that it does not have to be a high volume item to have lots of employees, big profit and only then does it get done correctly. The Beech engineers/designers were able to get it right from the get go without making a lot of mistakes. I had a D-50 Twin Bonanza for many years and never found a design flaw.
I never thought Foretravel intentionally cut corners. I just don't think some at the drawing board were up to the level they needed to be. Others were brilliant with the interior design, cabinets, choice of carpets, etc. The frame guy dropped the ball in the front and rear. Think many manufactures copied the side radiator on the GM buses. Problem was that GM put the engine in as a sidewinder so the fan was direct drive. Others have same side radiator with a fore and aft engine placement and a ridiculously complex and problem plagued pump/fan arrangement. Europeans and Latin Americans used the correct rear frame design so they could run a side to side radiator even in 96 inch coaches.
Pierce
Pierce, I would go so far as to say that I think "cheapen out" is probably to harsh a term. I'd say as the cost of painting the bulkhead area was so low to begin with. I would call it "being lazy" more than anything.
So, knowing that many of these aircraft were going to be operated in corrosive costal environments, did they paint or otherwise corrosion protect the interior of wings and spars during production? Or was it left to future owners to deal with corrosion protection?
What USA production vehicles came with properly painted and undercoated undercarriages?
Thru years of failures they have become very proactive. Every flight they get cold soaked and accumulate condensation apron reaching lower altitudes. Corrosion control is a huge issue, then you add in lavatories and baggage bins. Also about twenty years old and cost to maintain a active jet becomes non cost effective and they go to work somewhere else in the world under way less than desirable conditions
Perhaps if the government had sunk as much money into recreational vehicle technology as was put into planes ?
Oh that's right RVs seldom if ever go to war, so that would explain the planes having all the hard work done.
And I don't know of any aircraft that fills it wings with water absorbing foam like our coaches are under the baggage and water utility bays.
Olde English, Perhaps a direct comparison of Airplanes to RV's is not fair. But then again our Foretravels when new were as expensive as a fair amount of non-commercial civil aircraft of the same period. So maybe the comparison isn't so out of line. I'm probably crazy, But the painting of the frame of our coaches is not hard work that takes an aeronautical engineer to figure out. All it takes is a bit of thoughtfulness. Our coaches have mild untreated steel frames surrounded by water absorbing foam that takes a very long time to dry once it's wet. So figuring out that a shot of paint might be the proper thing to do does not rise to the level of Foretravel needing to hire a rocket scientist.
They still are using basically fiberglass insulation. If part of the skin is exposed it collects condensation. I worked water leaks that were only condensation, gallons of it. Everything gets pulled and replaced. Now imagine urine or Mercury. It's a dirty job
I agree with both of you, I had a poor shot at sarcasm, oops.
As far as the untreated mild steel frame well I never did figure out what the thinking was there. I used to send anything over 6 ft down to Texas to get hot dipped galvanizing on occasion. Most of my equipment was shot blasted and then powder coated though the odd customer would request heavy equipment paint, takes forever to go off but boy does it set up.
Sarcasm via the typed word. That's a hornets nest for sure and has lead to a few kerfuffles on FB and other forums for me. After which I always try to remember to use (sarc) in my post when I'm being sarcastic. Too darn many rules to remember though. :facepalm:
Fiat builds lots of different cars that are priced for the masses. The weather in Northern Europe is bad in winter, much like our northern states. I've driven behind the trucks that are full of salt with a spinning device on the back that evenly distributes the salt across the lanes. Fiat's cars were starting to rust out in less than two years so they followed Porsche's example and galvanized them. Much tougher to start doing on a car as Porsche went through over 100 different galvanizing types/mixes before they found one that paint would stick to for the car's life. Here is a great site for comparing most of the world's cars and they type of rust prevention they use:
Fiat cars list with types of processing (https://galvanicar.com/fiat/) All cars listed, just select the make and model that you want to see.
Yes, why not galvanize the steel? Not that expensive and we would not have this problem today. If Fiat can do it on inexpensive cars, RVs can certainly do it. Not going to add much to the price of the car.
Pierce
An additional thought.
While it may seem like a lot of Foretravel bashing in these bulkhead threads. I personally don't look at Foretravel in a disparaging way.
I do think that keeping the bulkhead issue out in the open is in the long run a service to the perspective new Foretravel buyer about the one big Achilles heel of the Unicoach series. And then ask us questions and look at the various recommendations by the forum membership.
It wasn't the unpainted metal that caused the bulkhead issue. Not saying it shouldn't have been painted. The issue was the drill tip tec screws, that stripped out in the 1st part of the channel, then barely held in the second part.That was the big oversight. Probably should have been bolted.....Could have, would have, should have.
They are 20+ year old coaches, and many are still trucking. Lack of maintenance / inspection, with broke bolts letting water in, is the issue. Paint, yes might have slowed rusting down.But you would have still had a bulkhead issue. Many are still holding together, with no issues.
My coach came apart so bad, it broke the vertical angle irons the 4 link (trailing arms) are attached to. There was zero rust issues. Unpainted framing had nothing to do with it.Tubing was welded between the vertical angle irons, and the lower part was welded back with angle iron after a come along was used to pull the coach back together.. I have no bolts. Been this way for 8-9 yrs.
Believe it or not, and I'am sure this will freak you all out,I have scrubbed my lower bays out with soap ,water and a garden hose. I have zero rust issues. I inspect the belly all the time.
I think we have beaten this horse to death...... :D :D :D :D
Cheers
Chris
Interesting thread. I knew VW did alot of the early rust prevention research when I toured their plants in the 70s. Also Toyota talked about similar research in the 80s when I toured their factories. Interesting to see which mfg partial dip galvanized and which ones do a full dip. Then Winnebago in the 90s talked about their use of electro coating steel for rust prevention and the fact they had govt contracts to provide this coating for the military. Then last week I saw a private party that purchased a 20 yr old ex military 4wd truck painted sand beige , talking about how hard the paint was on the painted steel frame to remove the paint so that he could weld as he converted it to a dump truck. I remember Alpine talked about their painted white steel frames, not for rust prevention qualities, but foe ease in eying issues or liquid leaks, oil, etc. I also remember rv mfgs talking about how each increase in $$$ would change their market share. Having sold MBZ, Toyota, VW, and Lexus retail, I always thought this rv market share argument bogus as I saw them cut corners. In the 80's Toyota at their factory indoctrination with their engineers said they did not care if they did not make a profit for 20 years as long as they eventually thru making the best product dominated that particular models market. I came back to the US in 1986 thinking I did want to work for a company not making a profit. I looked up the profit for this company called Toyota. They were fifth in the world. The four companies ahead of them were oil companies, Shell, etc. I put 200,000 miles each on Toyota vehicles bought new in 1992, a Lexus SC400 and a ES300.
"Galvanized steel has been an essential structural component around the world for nearly 200 years.
Just seven years after William Crawford's patent, in 1844, the British Royal Navy started using galvanized steel in construction of ships at the Pembroke Docks in Wales. British steelmakers were using 10,000 tons of zinc annually for protecting iron from rust by 1850. The production of galvanized steel soared after 1916 when an American assigned to the 29th Company Royal Engineers of the British Army, Major Peter Norman Nissen, invented the semi-cylindrical Nissen hut. This structure came to be known in the US as a Quonset hut. Then throughout the rest of the twentieth century, galvanized steel found its way into a tremendous number of non-military applications uses like:
To build the lighting columns that provide nighttime lighting for roadways
To build pylons that support high-voltage power distribution to factories, hospitals, and schools.
Used in frameworks for buildings that will have a maintenance-free life expectancy of 50 years or more."
Jack,
Good post. I thought the galvanizing link was interesting and even eye opening on some vehicles.
Our U300 appeared just about rust free when we bought it and still looks that way. But you probably have read and seen the photos of all the rust that I found behind the big angle iron on the bulkheads. Galvanizing and using fasteners designed for that kind of application instead of commercial dry steel building construction fasteners would have solved the entire problem.
Like Toyota, you have to look to the future and not quick profits. That includes hiring engineers bright enough to look beyond today. That is also why we also have a Toyota.
Question: What do you call someone who graduated medical school at the bottom of their class. Answer: Doctor
Pierce
For me it's not so much what things are painted with or coated with. It's what does it take to get the coating / protection off.
Spent a few years back in the 80s working with a friend who owned a chemical cleaning/stripping business. He was into vintage cars so we spent most of the time "stripping" the paint or rust off of car parts. Al kinds of em. New old, whole chassis, frames and even industrially painted stuff.
Some (most) of the coatings, you dip the thing in the tank and immediately the paint or whatever coating started bubbling off. I hour later , out of the tank and hose off the paint. Other coatings were tougher and took overnight and then high (4000) lb pressure washing every inch. Didn't matter, imron, powder coat, galvanized they ALL washed off.
EXCEPT Mercedes vehicles. I hated to see them come in. You could leave the chassis in the tank for a week and nothing. Sure the exterior paint you could eventually get off but the White undercoating NEVER came off. Didn't matter what we tried it got shipped out with 80% of the undercoating still on it. Customers were still happy cause Mother Nature wasn't going to get that undercoat off either. Whatever coating or process they were using was absolutely bullet proof.
Moral is. Unless your coating my Foretravel with that stuff or process, it ain't good enough to be on par with the rest of the way Foretravel's are built.
Premium coaches get premium stuff today and always. Cause paint ain't gonna stop rust. I've seen it too many times.
Agree - it's run its course and also gotten way off the subject of RVs (this is not the "here's what the European/Japanese car companies or airplane manufacturers do" forum).
I'll lock it since there's really no reason to continue the discussion.