The Downsides to Getting Tested

Getting tested for the Corona Virus has few advantages for the individual.

Testing capacity for the Corona Virus is ramping up and they are starting to promote it more.  Here on our island, they are offering free testing at the convention center.  Should we go?  Turns out, there are reasons not to - maybe not good reasons, but reasons.   Testing might be good for society as a whole, but not for the individual.

A friend of mine is a former nurse, and I get a lot of medical insights from them, as well as the latest data and gossip.   They took me to task the other day for forgetting my mask in the Home Depot, so I was a bit surprised to find out they didn't get tested at the free testing clinic offered on the island.

Since there is no vaccine or cure for this virus, getting tested isn't likely to help you much if you are asymptomatic.  Even if there was a vaccine, if you have the virus, it is too little, too late to take it.  If you test positive but are asymptotic (or have mild symptoms) there is really little in the way of treatment they can prescribe, other than cold medicines and chicken soup and stay home.

But if you do test positive, perhaps you can prevent others from getting the virus, by quarantining yourself.  On the other hand, if you are staying six feet away from other people, wearing a mask when going out, washing your hands religiously, not touching surfaces if you can avoid it, and minimizing your outside contacts, you lower the risk of spreading or catching the virus.

In a way, it is like HIV testing.  If you get tested for HIV and come back negative, this doesn't mean you are clear to spend a wild weekend at the local bathhouse.  You still have to practice safe sex, if you want to avoid getting the virus - or transmitting it.  Testing negative can just give you a false sense of security.  Testing positive can give you a false sense of despair.

If you do get tested for the Corona Virus, and test positive, you may become somewhat of a leper. You may be forced to quarantine for 14 days and cannot travel to some other States (is that Constitutional?  Vermont's restrictions require you log in every day for 14 days, even if you don't have the virus!).  In other words, as cruel as it may sound, if you test positive, it really doesn't help you, but it may help the rest of us.

And if you test positive, you may be grilled as to where you have been and who you have seen. There is even talk of tracking people by cell phone, to see where they have been, or to make sure they stay in quarantine.  So from the totally selfish personal point of view, getting tested has a lot of downsides and no upsides.

By the way, this "contact tracing" nonsense was tried back in the days of HIV, and it really didn't work.   People having anonymous sex don't have the names and phone numbers of their contacts, and the threat of contact tracing was enough to prevent people from getting tested in the first place, making it a self-defeating effort.   Again, what turned out to be more effective was to simply assume everyone was infected and act accordingly.  The idea you could break down the population into haves and have-nots turned out to be specious in every regard.   Contact tracing simply didn't work then, and it won't work now.

For example, I was at Home Depot yesterday.  There were over 50 cars in the parking lot, maybe more, and just as many people inside.  During the day, probably hundreds went through there, touching things and whatnot.  Suppose one of those people tested positive for the virus?   How do you track down every single person who was in the store that day?   Maybe by credit card receipts, but that leaves cash customers out.  And do you really have the manpower to do that?   It is highly likely that there was one person in the store who was infected, every single day of the week, all month long, and next month and the month thereafter.   You'd need at a least a dozen "contact tracers" as well as a bank of phones and computers, working non-stop for the next three to four months, just for that one store.

It's just an idiotic idea, but then again, Governor "I sent the patients to live with your Grandma" Cuomo is the one pushing it, and as we have seen, he is full of [good ideas] all the time.  Maybe he can raise taxes even further in New York to pay for all this, or maybe all those unemployed people can become "contact tracers" instead of welfare recipients.  Gee, no wonder the taxes in New York are at least 400% more than they are in other States!   No wonder people are fleeing the State!

Throw in the difficulty of getting tested in some jurisdictions, and you start to see why many people are not bothering to get tested.  If you have to get in your car, drive to the health department, bring a note from your doctor, wait in line, and even pay for the test, then there is little incentive to get tested, as selfish as that may seem.  Funny thing, but people tend to do what is in their own best interests - realize this and you will be less outraged in life.

Testing may not stop the spread of the virus - or not by much.  What we learned from HIV was to assume everyone you meet has it and act accordingly.    If we do the same things with this virus, I suspect that would slow or eventually stop the spread, and in fact, is probably what is causing the gradual decline in new cases and deaths.  People not practicing safe distancing, as we saw this weekend, will probably lead to a spike in new cases and deaths.   But the risk to you of those people "acting stupid" is pretty low, unless you act stupid yourself.

You should expect a spike for another reason as well - increased testing.  Since 90% of the people who get this virus (particularly those under 60) never show any symptoms at all, it is to be expected that there are a whole lot of people who were infected or are infected and don't know it.   Once we ramp-up testing, it will show a huge "spike" in new cases, which doesn't represent, necessarily, a spike in infections, but a spike in detections.

Will this lead to new lockdown restrictions, more stay-at-home orders and quarantines?   Maybe, but then again, maybe not.  I think our "new normal" has already been reached.  People are going out again and going shopping (yesterday in particular!).   But most are being respectful and following the guidelines - wearing masks, staying six feet away from other people, washing their hands, using hand wipes, or wearing gloves.

Will this stop the spread of infection 100%?   No, no it won't, just as "safe sex" wasn't 100% effective in stopping the spread of HIV - but is was a heck of a lot better than doing nothing.  And as we discovered, you can't stop people from having sex, just as you can't stop them from socializing, shopping, working, or just getting out of the house.  The idea of perpetual lockdown just isn't workable.

What will be interesting, in the weeks to come, is whether a reliable antibody test can be developed, and if implemented, see how many people have had this virus already, which I am guessing is a very, very large number.   It would also answer questions about whether antibodies make one immune from further infection.  Some are speculating this is not the case, but offer no reasons why, nor can they point to the legions of re-infected individuals - or even one.  There is a small minority of voices who want to say this virus means the end of mankind as we know it - and provide no basis for this view, other than to spread fear and malaise.  Perhaps they are just Russian trolls - or useful idiots who are reading Russian troll posts and believing them.

There are always those pining for the end of the world - it is a common fantasy, as evidenced by the plethora of books, films, and television shows which have that as their main theme.  If the zombie apocalypse comes, well, I won't have to pay back those student loans!  And won't Mom and Dad be glad I spent countless hours in the basement playing Zombie First-Person Shooter on my Xbox console!  And they said I would never amount to anything!   Who's laughing now?

Of course, the religious types have the same fantasy - their massive credit card debts (caused by tithing 10% of their income to Pastor Cashflo) will all be wiped out when the Rapture comes!   My Jewish neighbors will be so chagrined to see me flying up into the sky to meet Jesus!  I''ll show them - I'll show everyone!   Oddly enough, the most common Christian fantasy about the "end times" is about being "left behind" which makes no sense to me - what's the point of all that praying and tithing, if in the end, you get the shaft?   But then again, people like that never make much sense to begin with.

No, this isn't the end of the world.  It is a virus, and all things considered, not as dangerous as other viruses we have had in the past, such as the Spanish Flu that struck worldwide, a little over 100 years ago.  We survived that, in an era where medicine was far more primitive than it is today.  Somehow, I think we will survive this, too.   Maybe not all of us, but most, and mankind in general.

The Great Inventors....

What we are taught in school in McGraw-Hill textbooks was often wrong.

A reader takes me to task for saying the telephone was invented in America, when in fact, Alexander Graham Bell was Canadian, which I should have known, having been to his estate in Nova Scotia and seeing his hydroplane displayed in the museum there.  In addition to his telegraph and telephony experiments, were his ventures into things like hydroplanes and even aeroplanes - although his tetrahedral kite experiments failed due to the high amount of drag involved.  Then again, maybe his tetrahedral kite was the predecessor of the Rogallo wing, and hence hang-gliding and even ultralights.

All that being said, as a Patent Attorney - or a former one, anyway - I have to admit that no great idea exists in the mind of just one man.  Most invention is a collaborative effort, and the awarding of Patents to just one person or group of persons, while it stimulates innovation, often rewards the "inventor" - or more precisely, the corporation who owns the Patent - who files the earliest and has the best Patent Attorney (and I'm retired now!).    The realities of inventing are a little messier than the success stories we are taught in textbooks.

For example, there are a plethora of voices who claim Bell, while inventing the magnetophone, was not the original inventor of what today we would call the telephone.   Well, what in 1960 we would call the telephone - an electrically-powered device that amplified signals from a carbon microphone and sent them over twisted pairs of copper wires.   Today, the landline is all-but-dead, and even though a smart phone can send voice messages, few people even use this option anymore.   Bell was deaf, so I think he would be texting today.

Oddly enough, his initial experiments with the "harmonic telegraph" are eerily similar to the spread-spectrum ideas that we use today both for DSL and Cellular communication.  But then again, we all know than Hedy Lamarr invented that!   Hedy, not Hedley.  But I digress.

As I noted, others point out that similar inventions came about at the same time, but Bell was the first to file at the Patent Office - and presumably first-to-invent as well (we have since reverted to a first-to-file system).   But without improvements by others - such as the carbon microphone invented by Edison - the modern, well, mid-century-modern, telephone, would not exist.

Oh, right, Edison.  The "Wizard of Menlo Park" who invented the phonograph cylinder - but not the phonograph record (the latter of which may have been an attempt to design-around his Patents) and the electric light and a host of other things.   Like Bell, he was an inventor.  Like Bell, the mythology and reality are hard to separate sometimes. Many argue that Edison took credit for anything invented at his Menlo Park laboratories, regardless of who actually invented it.   And in my experience as a Patent Attorney, I've seen this sort of thing happen - supervisors or company owners insisting their name be listed - first - as primary inventor on any Patent application, even if their contribution was tangential.  And I've seen, in litigation, an example of an "inventor" who took credit for work a former co-worker did, after he left the company.

But that is complex reality, and we like simple rags-to-riches stories, even today.  Bill Gates invented Windows (he didn't).   Steve Jobs invented the iPhone (ditto).   Elon Musk invented the electric car, the tunnel boring machine, solar panels, lithium-ion batteries, and the Dragon space capsule (ditto, ditto, ditto, etc.).  Jeff Bezos invented online retailing (no, just no).  And of course, Zuckerberg invented social media (but should take the blame, neverthless!).

But back in the day, it was the same deal.  Growing up in the 1960's, our elementary school textbooks taught a story of American exceptionalism - continuous and glorious growth from 1492-onward (bectcha didn't know Columbus was an American!  Why else would he name the new world, "America"?  Like, duh!).   Of course, school textbooks are simplified and streamlined for the novice mind, and complexity and details serve only to confuse young children.  And since all of our textbooks are vetted by the Texas Board of Education, they tend to take a pro-America, conservative tone.

Every country does this, of course.   We criticize Japan for teaching their kids that their country won World War II and that Koreans were so grateful to be "liberated" by the Japanese army (ditto for China).   We run down Russia for its similar pro-Russian propaganda, Iran for pro-Shia nonsense, and so on and so forth.  In some ways, we are no different, other than, well, we are allowed to critique these things, such as I am doing here.

Pursuant to the Executive Order Preventing Online Censorship, the above paragraph is to be stricken from this blog.   This is your first and only warning.  Further "Censorship" of the President's MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN - OR ELSE! platform will be met with strict, severe and unspecified punishments.  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!  Covfefe!

What was I saying again?  I can't remember, some loud clanging noise just occurred in my ears, making it hard to hold any thoughts.

Oh, right, textbooks.   As a kid, we had an "American History" textbook which taught us about "the great explorers" starting with Columbus, going on to DeSoto, and Lewis & Clark, all the way to John Glenn.  The next chapter was on the "Great American Inventors!" which detailed how Morse invented the telegraph, Bell invented the telephone, Franklin invented electricity, Edison invented the record player and the light bulb, Ford the automobile, Westinghouse the electric motor, and Marconi the radio.

All of course, were Americans, or at least honorary Americans, or had the common-sense to come to America at some time or another.  It was only when you got to things like "television" that the textbook would admit that it was a collaborative effort of sorts, although the British like to tout Baird has having invented mechanical television first, but there were even precursers to his efforts - and the Nazis, like so much else, got involved with some of the first broadcasts of electronic television,  but they were more imitators than innovators.

But this does illustrate two things.  First, we - as human beings - like simple, direct stories.  We like the story of the solo inventor toiling in the garage in Palo Alto inventing the personal computer, even if it is something of a myth.   Complexity and nuance are not something we are comfortable with, as it calls into question our belief system - and these are beliefs we have, not science or fact, to be sure.  And of course, nuance and shading are hardly appropriate for grade-school children, who like everything in black-and-white, or at most, in bright primary colors.   No pastels or complex colors for the children, please, other than the "flesh" colored crayon in the box of Crayolas!

But a second thing I almost mentioned in passing - that Nazis were great copiers but not necessarily great innovators. Nazi scientists would be the first to admit that the work of Goddard - in the United States - was the basis of all their rocket experiments.   But in a totalitarian regime, their direction of research was of course, strictly guided.  It is fortunate for us, but not unexpected, that the Nazis would dismiss nuclear physics as "Jewish Science" and limit their research in this area.   Stalin did the same thing, often advancing people and ideas that were not proven, and whose "technology" was in fact based on wishful thinking, if not outright mysticism.

Today, the Chinese are in the same situation. Early on, they were slavish copiers of Western technology, and as their society opened up to capitalism and more personal freedom, more and more innovation took place.  Sadly, the bamboo curtain is slated to come down again - as totalitarianism once again takes hold in China.  This, in turn, will stifle innovation, which will kill off the Chinese technological miracle - particularly if they chase away Western technology partners, and markets.

Our Patent system is arguably unfair - awarding to one or more inventors, almost randomly, the rights to an invention, which may be more of a collaborative effort by many more.  Our quasi-capitalist system is also arguably unfair, awarding billions of dollars to people who are in the right place at the right time, or have the right connections.  Why should Bill Gates be a billionaire and not Gary Kildall?   Why should Jeff Bezos be the richest man in the world, and not someone else who started a similar online retail shop (and there are many, I am sure) whose name is lost to history?  Why should Zuckerberg be so rich, while Tom Anderson labors in obscurity (he co-founded MySpace).

The results are uneven and arguably unfair.   Well, blatantly unfair in many if not most, cases.   It isn't the outcome that drives innovation and technology, though, but the promise of the outcome.   Every inventor knows, going into this gig, that they may not succeed. They need to develop an invention that people want - or need - and then market it successfully and hope someone else didn't beat them to the punch, or that their Patent is held invalid, or someone steals their ideas - or whatever.

Bell patented the telephone, but had to sell off more than 90% of his interest to investors, as the cash was needed to build the tremendous infrastructure needed to make a phone company.  Go big or go home - you also need that cash to fend off competitors as well.   Even still, he made out OK, although he hardly was a captain of industry.   It is only when inventors fail to realize this, that they end up in trouble - thinking that inventing is the only relevant part, and that riches pour in, automatically, once you come up with an idea.

The potential reward is there - but many, many are competing for it.  And it is not always rewarded, or rewarded fairly. Outcomes in our society are not preordained nor are they evenly distributed.   Some argue this is an injustice, and perhaps it is.  But in other societies - totalitarian societies - rewards are evenly distributed, which is to say, little or no reward at all.  In the Soviet Union, they awarded "Inventor's Certificates" to Comrades who came up with new ideas (and were not shot for doing so). The Certificate entitled the inventor to... nothing, because in an ideal socialist society, no one has advantage over another, right?

The free expression of ideas and freedom of thought is necessary, and like the Chinese - and other countries worldwide - we seem to be lurching toward a totalitarian thought-control State, where "freedom of expression" is limited to those in power.  Seems harmless enough, but when you suppress the right to express your opinion - whether that opinion is of an individual or a corporation doing fact-checking - you suppress innovation and in turn, economic growth.

Yes, I've digressed a long way from elementary school textbooks here, but somehow, it all ties together.  Reality is messy and nuanced, and not like an elementary school textbook.  Some people, it seems, would rather it was more black-and-white.

RV Rentals

Renting an RV isn't cheap, but if you've never had one before, it might be a good idea to rent one before you buy one.

RVing isn't for everyone - and oftentimes it makes little sense, economically.  The whole business started out in tents.  People went camping, up in the mountains, or down by the sea, and brought their tents, sleeping bags, camp stoves, and later on, cots, and tables, and chairs and so on and so forth.

Some clever fellow got the bright idea of putting all this junk onto a trailer and towing it behind their car, as it got to be too much to carry in the car.  Besides, if you had all your "camping gear" in a trailer, it was easy to hook up and go - less packing!   Well, from that, some other clever fellow quickly figured out that, hey, maybe we could set up the tent right on the trailer and not have to camp on the ground.   Why not attach the tent to the trailer so it just "pops out"?   And so the pop-up trailer was born.

That was quickly followed by the camper trailer.  Why have some flimsy tent, when you can have a flimsy trailer instead - with "solid" walls and windows - a regular home-on-wheels?   Taking that a step further, people put homes on old truck or bus chassis and the motorhome was born.  RVing took off from there.  (Of course, none of this is true.  RVs didn't exist until ten years ago when Millenials "invented" something called "tiny homes" and discovered the Avocado).

Some of the early pioneers are still with us today, albeit in different forms - Airstream, for example, or Serro Scotty.   But since those early days, we've taken the whole concept to new and crazy levels. Professional bus chassis are used on million-dollar motorhomes, which were originally designed for touring rock stars and NASCAR drivers - people who had to travel long distances between gigs or races, and needed a place to relax and get work done while on the road.

Pretty soon, the average weekend warrior decided they needed one of these, and if they could not afford one, the industry would build something that looked like one. Motorhomes went from the dorky looks of the mid-60's Winnebago (now considered a classic) with one door in the middle, to the "bus motorhome" look, with one door in the front.   While these look like the rock-star buses, they are just a styling effect, just as the ten-speed bike you bought at Western Auto in 1976 was hardly the racing machine they used on the Tour de France.  It's all a style statement.

Nevertheless, prices have crept up and up, and you can easily spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on RV equipment, which is a lot of money to go camping.  Some people "justify" this expense by "full-timing" in their RV, which means they live in a park in Florida for six months of the year, and spend the rest of the time in a park "Up North" in the summer - travelling between the two.  I've heard more than once, a "full-timer" justifying the expense of a half-million-dollar coach with "It's our only home!" which is a line I first read in The Good Sam magazine, Highways, which is now little more than an advertising supplement.   Of course, the largest dealer of motorhomes in the United States has no vested interest in helping you justify blowing your life's savings on a rapidly depreciating asset.   Funny how that works - from consumer advocate to shill for the industry, in less than a decade.

But even if you buy a "lesser" rig, and spend "only" $50,000 to $100,000 on it (and maybe a tow vehicle) you are still spending a lot of money.  And if you buy one of these "on time" you may find yourself "upside down" on the loan for years - even a decade - which gets sticky if you need to sell the unit, say, because you lost your job due to a pandemic or something.  Placing yourself in financial peril for the sake of a recreational toy is never a good idea.   Doesn't matter if it is a motorcycle, RV, Boat, or hobby car, my philosophy is simple:  If you can't pay cash for it, forgetaboutit!

Even paying cash, the depreciation on these things is murder.  Anything with a motor on it depreciates pretty linearly - 50% every five years.  Sure, there are some things with "low" depreciation - only 40% every five years - or "high" depreciation - 60% every five years.  But there are no motorized vehicles and toys that don't depreciate over time, simply because motors wear out, better ones are made, and it makes no sense to pay as much for a used item as a new one, particularly when new items have warranties and don't have half their useful life used up.

This is why I am big fan of the travel trailer, as I discussed before.  We bought our Casita 15 years ago for $8375 and sold it last year for $7500.   No motor - no depreciation!   Meanwhile, we went through two vehicles to tow it - the X5 and the Nissan - both of which depreciated like cars do.  but since you have to have a car anyway (or at least some people do) this is not an additional motor vehicle to own and pay for, in terms of depreciation.  And its not an additional motor vehicle that sits for months on end, unused, which is death for most internal combustion engines.

But again, all that being said, maybe you don't like RVing, so if you buy a travel trailer and decide you don't like it, well, you are probably going to lose money in the transaction, as even with "low" depreciation, trailers still depreciate, particularly brand-new ones.

My neighbor decided to rent an RV for a week to see the Blue Ridge and try out this camping thing.  They saw our trailer in the driveway many a time, as we loaded it up to go North, and thought, "Maybe that might be fun!"

They came back after two days of uncomfortable sleeping, constant bickering, and not having fun. Good thing they didn't drop a hundred large on a new 24' Class-C!   Renting an RV can be a good idea before you buy.  Granted, a rental RV isn't quite the same experience as owning one.  Most rentals are motorhomes, not trailers (although trailer rentals are on the rise).  And most rental RVs are configured very slightly different from those sold to consumers (although used rental RVs are often sold to consumers - sometimes with the consumer not being aware of it!).

If you see an old Class-C motorhome with no awning, a huge cargo compartment (for all the Germans' luggage) and no retractable step (but rather a lowered door) chances are, it may be a former rental.  If it is branded with the nonsense brand "Majestic" then it is definitely a former rental RV. Some folks have bought former rentals and not realized it until gassing up late at night under the florescent lights and seeing the faded outlines of the decals that once graced the side of the coach - "RENT ME!"

Used rental motorhomes are not a very good deal, much as used rental cars are not a great deal.  A horrific deal?  Not necessarily.  A great deal?  Rarely.  Most have high mileage put on them in a short period of time.  And since they started out as rentals, the resale value will be affected accordingly.  Yet, the sales prices at the rental places are sort of "meh" - we looked into buying one (with 80,000 miles on it) for $18,000 and decided it was easier to buy a unit from an original owner that had only 20,000 miles on it - for $2000 more.

But getting back to rentals, what do you rent, where, and from who?   Well, as I noted above, there are a number of different types of RVs, starting from "pop-up" trailers, to "tow-behind" camper trailers. van-type "Class-B" motorhomes, slide-in truck campers, chassis-van-based "Class-C" motorhomes (the kind with a bed over the cab, that looks like a motorhome is consuming a van) to the boxy-type "bus"-style "Class A" coaches.   The letters mean nothing - not a rating system, but just an arbitrary nomenclature identifying different motorhome types.   But that being said, the "Class-C" motorhome is usually the worst of the lot - often handling poorly, constructed poorly, and rattling and bumping going down the road.  Unfortunately, the Class-C motorhome is the most commonly rented RV - they are cheap and flexible, and thus popular with the rental companies.

I am limiting my discussion to the USA for the most part, but rentals are available in various parts of the world, including Australia and Europe, where RVs are often called "Caravans".

I noted before that trailers aren't rented often, but seem to be on the rise.   If you are in the military, check out the rentals available at the local military base as part of the "Morale, Welfare and Recreation" program Some military bases keep (or kept, anyway) small pop-up trailers for servicemen to rent.  We saw several of these in the Keys, I believe they were from the naval air station there.   A low-cost and easy way to go, but limited to those in the military, and perhaps stationed at that base.

Dan's trailer rentals,in Woodland California, rents Caistas and Scamps, which can be easy to tow.

There are places that rent RV trailers, but usually these are local outfits.  For example, this guy advertises on Craigslist, renting out small Casita and Scamp trailers, which are pretty easy to tow for a mid- to large-sized SUV.  Back in the day, U-Haul used to rent such trailers, custom-made for them.  Today, they are somewhat of a collector's item, although they are fairly small.

Larger trailers aren't often rented.  There is more to towing a trailer than just "hooking up" - you may need a brake controller in your tow vehicle, plus a weight-distributing Class III hitch head with a 2-5/16" ball.  The 1-7/8" or 2" ball you use on your jet ski trailer and the Class II hitch on your minivan ain't cutting it.   And you may need a sway controller, too.  In fact, it may take you a few weeks to sort out the "lashup" of a larger RV trailer and tow vehicle, if you don't want to dump the whole works by the side of the road.   I think that is why you don't see a lot of trailer rentals out there, other than pop-ups and smaller trailers.

There are also peer-to-peer rental places, such as Outdoorsy or RVshare, that allow individuals to rent out their RVs to other people, much as the peer-to-peer car rental model did (how did that work out?).  Myself, I am not sure I would get involved in that from either end.  I would feel nervous about renting my RV to someone, as they might damage it (and would insurance cover that?) or just not come back (trailers can be fairly easy to steal and alter the ID numbers on - or be turned into hunter's camps after being dragged deep into the woods).  I would also worry that something would break or go wrong and the customer would be unhappy. I tried to rent a car this way - through Turo in California.  It didn't work out, and frankly, it seemed just as expensive as the local car rental agencies.

More and more places are renting "Class-B" vans which are easier to maneuver but a little tight for more than two people.

Class-B vans are becoming more and more popular, as the larger Mercedes/Freightliner/Dodge "Sprinter" chassis was employed to build these.  Today, Dodge (now called "Ram") uses a "ProMaster" chassis which is made by Fiat, and Ford has its larger Transit line - both of which are also used for Class-B motorhomes.  These may be harder to find, but I think the "Big-3" nationwide rental places are starting to get into Class-B territory, too.

Sometimes, maybe you don't even need a Class-B!

If you are more adventurous, and don't need even a Class-B to rent, there are places which rent small vans - usually a Dodge minivan - with a platform tent bolted to the roof, and a small kitchen that opens up from the rear hatch.  Juicy Van Rentals is one such place.  No bathroom, of course, but many people end up staying in campgrounds with communal bathrooms.

Not sure I want to rent this van...

There are others, too.  Another place has similar vans for rent that are "decorated" with spray cans - often having nasty slogans painted on the sides of them.   If you are trying to fly under-the-radar, maybe that is not an option.  There are other companies that offer funky paint jobs that are not obscene.

The Class-C is the most common rental unit.

There are a number of nationwide or regional RV rental companies - Cruise America (and Cruise Canada), El Monte RV, RoadBear are three of the largest.  Some rent nationwide, although even the nationwide places usually are located in areas that are popular with tourists.  Some, such as RoadBear, seem to specialize in renting to Germans.  Most of the big-3 specialize in renting Class-C motorhomes, although in places like Alaska, they often rent slide-in truck campers on 4x4 pickup truck chassis - an interesting alternative to the Class-C rental.

Saw a few of these in Alaska - not so much in the lower 48

Some of these larger nationwide rental places also offer Class-A motorhomes, too.   One gag that the big rental places like to play is to upgrade your rental to the next larger size.  Like car rental companies, they often don't have the size RV you want in stock, and thus reserve the right to "upgrade" you to the next larger size (or even larger) for the same price.  And  yes, like car rental companies, they might even try to charge you for this, if you are particularly passive about it.

CruiseAmerica (and CruiseCanada) is probably the largest of the nationwide camper rental companies. Sadly, when they sell these units, they take off the full-body wrap and then re-label them as "Majestic" motorhomes.  Let's face it, the body wrap looks a lot better!  Note the lack of awning and retractable step, and the huge "German luggage locker" in the rear.

For example, we rented an 18' motorhome (Class-C) - about the smallest you can get - as we wanted something maneuverable.   After we arrived (after flying out to California) we were told that the 18' and 21' units were sold out, and were offered a 24' unit instead.  It wasn't so bad, but it wasn't as easy to drive, to be sure.  And some Class-C motorhomes go up to over 30' in length.

RV sewer connections are nothing like this.  In fact, I beleive Robin Williams is holding a clear plastic dryer vent hose in this picture.

A reader writes asking about RV rentals and how to work all the gadgets in the RV.   I think I know where they are coming from - fear of the dreaded sewer tank, which is the subject of inaccurate folklore throughout the ages by non-RVers.   In movies like the Robin Williams comedy "RV" they make it out like there are pumps and switches and valves and hoses and all sorts of complexity that a mechanical engineer would have trouble figuring out (but of course, rednecks instantly understand).

Relax. It's pretty simple - one hose, two valves.   Buy a box of rubber gloves.   There are two systems - grey water for the sink and shower drain water, and black-water, for the toilet.  Why not one?  It works that way at home, right?  Well, in the olden days, you could drain grey water on the ground legally (not so much anymore - I would not advise it) so it made sense to have two tanks.  If you took a long shower and had only one tank, you might be chagrined to discover you could no longer use the toilet until you dumped!  While it is possible to fill the grey water tank in a day or two (particularly with a family aboard) the black water tank can - if you use water judiciously - go for a week without dumping, depending of course, on your tank sizes.

This really couldn't happen in real life.

You hook up the hose to the RV at one end (simple bayonet fitting, 1/4-turn) and put the other end in the dump-station drain.   Put a rock over that or have someone hold it down with their foot, lest the water pressure cause the hose to pop out and dump all over.   Pull the "black water" valve and dump that.  When it stops running, close it and open the "grey water" valve and let that drain.   When done, rinse the hose with the water tap provided (do NOT use that tap for your drinking water, nor use the "potable water" hose provided by the campground to rinse your sewer hose) and put everything back and go.  Don't put the sewer hose in a compartment with your luggage or other possessions.  Sadly, most rental places do not provide separate sewer hose storage compartments. Bring a black trash bag.

Now, some folks have tried to make this more complicated than it needs to be.  Some manufacturers like Airstream, combined the grey and black water tanks on some models. Others use a "macerator" and a garden-style hose to evacuate the tanks.   Why?  Just stupid complexity and more stuff to break.  Oh, and the macerator probably would spray you with poop as shown in the picture above.  Gravity feed is a lot simpler - and safer.

Some folks will spend an inordinate amount of money and time ripping out all the plumbing and putting in a "hippie shitter" - the so-called "composting toilet."   Just avoid unnecessary complexity for the sake of complexity.  And avoid people like that.  You meet someone tries to tell you the composting toilet is a great invention, just keep on walkin'.

Motorhomes and drive-through windows are not a good mix.

Driving a motorhome isn't too difficult, but it is a large vehicle with huge overhangs.  While on Vancouver island,we watched in horror as a German family pulled out in a 26' Class-C rental, and turned sharply, scraping the entire rear side of the coach against a tree.   The damage wasn't as bad as it could have been, but I suspect he might not get his deposit back.

We talked with the salesman when we briefly thought about buying a used Class-C from a rental place.  He told us stories about smashed-up Class-C motorhomes.  A typical scenario is that Hans, from Germany, decides to fly the family to America and rent a motorhome and do "Route 66" and the national parks and "See America!"  One thing they want to experience is the drive-through window at McDonalds, which of course, has an overhang that tears the roof off the vehicle.   The salesman told me they sometimes cut the rest of the body off and put a flatbed on it and sell it, or even send it back to the factory to have a new body installed (they can do that?).   Needless to say, watch your overhang, and watch your height.   A dream vacation can turn into a nightmare if you destroy the RV.

But that is why smaller is better.  Our old Casita was small enough to pull anywhere - and turn around even on a narrow road.  Our new trailer, only four feet longer, seems like a whole new world - you have to plan more where you are going.  With the larger rigs - 30' and up - you have to really plan, and many of the "big boys" in the large motorhomes, towing a car, get very, very nervous travelling more than a mile from the Interstate.  If you are towing a car on all-four wheels, you can't back up, at all.  What's the point of that?

The rest of the RV is pretty self-explanatory.  Modern refrigerators either work or they don't - and automatically switch from propane to electric when you plug in to shore power.   The hot water heater is pretty much the same deal, although you may have to turn it on (with a switch).  The rental companies try to make these things as mindless as possible, hence many order units with no retractable step or awning (two less things to worry about).  But they do go through the whole rig when you pick it up, and show you how everything works.  You can also download instructional videos from their website, before you even get there.

Water isn't hard either - you either use the water tank (usually about 20-40 gallons) by activating the water pump (whose switch, like the water heater, is on a central control panel) or attach a hose to the campground site water connection.   Usually the rental places will sanitize the tanks between rentals.  Just a smidgen of bleach (less than 1/4 cup - often far less) in the tank will kill off germs, mold, and mildew.  As an owner, we do this once ever few weeks on the road.  As a renter, you probably don't need to deal with it.  But like with any travel, foreign water can cause digestive problems.  At $4 a case, purified bottled water may not save the environment, but it may save your intestines.

Is renting an RV a good deal?   Well, it can cost hundreds of dollars a day.  If you have a small family, it might be cheaper than hotel rooms, and provide the added ambiance of camping.  Then again, a lot of commercial campgrounds leave a lot to be desired - some little more than parking lots.  It helps if you can ask someone about where to go and things to see - someone who has been there.  But like anything else, if you are willing to be a risk-taker, you may see cool things and have novel experiences - but have to accept that every day in an RV is not a continuous Disney orgasm.

Our neighbors who rented their rig, splurged on a whole week - and returned after two days.   Unless you are coming from overseas, you might want to try a shorter trip - and mid-week might be cheaper, too.   You might decide, after two days, that this whole RV thing is for the birds - and I get that, too.  Sometimes, you do wonder why you are dragging around a house behind you.

Then again, other times, not.   Particularly when traveling, it is nice to always have a bathroom no more than 20 feet away.  A clean bathroom, at that.   And it is nice to know you never have to worry about where you are going to sleep at night - there are plenty of free places to stay, if it comes down to that - such as Harvest Hosts, which allows you to stay overnight at a winery, brewery, farm, or museum.   It all is a matter of using your imagination.