Joy, I've found the opposite to be true on my '66 Overlander, albeit it was
stored in a Nebraska quanset hut for 25 years...nice and dry. I think what other
'listers' are saying is that overall the quality of materials used in the
present a/s' is not of the same level as of yor. For example, my floors are rock
solid, no sqeeks, my frig of 35 years still works fine, as does the Univolt,
even though it's obsolete today. My walnut veneer thoughout is like furnature,
with nary a crack or delaminate. You may have had the bad luck of buying a unit
that had not had as good the attention that mine has. But if you crawl around a
new a/s, even the $80K Limiteds, you'll find that the attention to detail is not
what it was back in the '60's. Perhaps it's too nostalgic to expect that today
since the spirit of Wally Bayam does not fit well in Corporate America. If it
were put to a vote, everyone on the list would like to see Thor build a Bambi
with a little bit of respect and caring. As I view it, another $2-3K in material
upgrades would go a long way and I'm sure that folks would be happy to pay the
extra for the quality difference.
Randy Unter
'66 Overlander
Denver
"Mr. Joy H. Hansen" wrote:
> I'm not a rocket scientist, but I realize that some of the newer fabricated
> materials are far superior to our dated ideas of what's best. The plywood
> in my
> '69 Safari is completely destroyed due to rot! I understand that the new T
> and G wafer board, or what ever it's called is far superior to plywood, much
> stronger, and has greater water resistance, resistance to rot, etc. Are
> pressure treated materials a cheapening of product quality? I see chip
> board as heavier when compared to the "holey" sheets of conventional, so
> called plywood; however, chip board is just as strong and every bit as
> durable. In many applications, it's better than plywood!
>
> So, how is the use of this material somehow cheapening the quality of a
> product. Seems like we should know the engineering specifications of the
> materials before we make rash statements and assign all chip board to the
> quality of "K-Mart" furniture! Is it known for sure that the chip board
> isn't being used in all A/S models?
>
> I've used these materials for structure sheathing and roofing underlayment
> and I don't have a problem with their strength as compared to same thickness
> plywood. It's not hard to beat the 3 ply stuff that is sold for plywood
> today; unless, the older A/S were constructed with marine plywood. The
> laminate separations of most of the plywood in my '69 Safari are due to poor
> specifications of adhesives for the board. High humidity is expected in a
> travel trailer. Just plain poor specifications for the material result in
> every thing being delaminated. Almost like the incredible shrinking
> interior of my 1970s automobiles. I haven't
> seen quality in the '69 Safari unit I'm restoring. Infact, I think many of
> the materials and design of my '69 Safari "suck" when purportedly given the
> attribute of a quality product. A novel product, yes! Quality, no!
>
> The newer models might be of far superior quality to the old units?
>
> '69 Safari, Joy
>
> To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
> http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
>
> If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
> text from your reply.
>
>
To unsubscribe or to change to a daily Digest, please go to
http://www.airstream.net/vaclist/listoffice.html
If replying back to this message, please delete all the unnecessary original
text from your reply.
