Wow, a lot of replies in a day. I'll do my best to respond to everyone now, I'm not discounting anyone's opinion. Some points are valid in both directions. The feedback is helpful, and I will be pushing forward on this regardless of what is said here on this forum.
It's gonna happen period. This is not a question.
I'll start with jjaj823's comments:
However, the OP uses paramotoring as an example, which to me is like apples and oranges. For one, the FAA is responsible for certifying all aircraft in US airspace. Motor vehicles, on the other hand, are regulated art the state level...so the idea is not a direct transfer, but I do get where they are coming from. My point is that it's too late to prevent regulation by the government because by default, motor vehicles are already subject to a variety of regulatory messes. Therefore, that argument is null and void.
It's never too late to make your own certification and push it. It's not different than the paramotor world. Often times with many things the first person to step up to handle a tasks becomes the authority on it. That will be the case here as well.
1) What do people do who have existing Skoolies that are insured and running...not getting certified would seem to have repercussions. Maybe not in a week, maybe not in a month, or even a year, but eventually. As in "Nice bus! Unfortunately, you don't have a XXXX sticker, so we can't let you in anymore." How do you deal with those situations as an organization?
Insurance companies who already agreed to insure them could as a result change their minds and further require they update their Skoolies. Or they could continue to insure them as a grandfathered policy since they already have binding legal agreements. Be what it may, it could be a consequence of the action being taken here eventually. This can be a negotiation ask with the insurance companies that all prior current bindings be grandfathered in. No future insurances without the certifications done. If the goal is to make it safer it still becomes safer overall as people are improving their skoolies up to a certain standard.
2) An online/visual only certification leads to lots of questions, and can even undermine the entire process. How are inspectors trained in recognizing good welds from bad only via image? How do you know that something hasn't been photoshopped? How do you know that the bus in the photos is THE bus being certified?
This is a non-issue in todays world. All welds are visually inspected and always have been. In the world of Pixel phones and iphones with 4k+ resolution photos, you can take very high quality photos that allow you to see even closer than with your own naked eye as you can zoom into the pics and see in better quality than your own eyes. The certification will require exacting photos taken in a certain way in a certain direction at a certain distance and of certain things, and if they aren't to spec, inspecters will ask them to re-take the photos until it can be determined.
3) How are inspectors qualified and certified? Understand the difference between qualification and certification. Like in welding (not related to Skoolie's, just in general), a completing a welding school course doesn't lead to certification...but rather qualification. That qualification says something like "This welder has been trained to weld overhead with flux core". It's up to an employer to state that person xxxx is qualified and can, in fact, perform YYYY type of weld. Being qualified does not automatically mean certified and vice-versa.
How are any inspectors qualified in any certification process? It always starts with one who has the knowledge, someone stepping up and taking the reigns. Then time proves the knowledge. We here have the best collective knowledge in the world at building skoolies. The more we contribute to the requirements and information the better the certification can be. If we take your example of a welder. We take a few welding experts, and figure out what is an acceptable minimum standard for certification. Welds don't have to be perfect either, just strong, and in the right places. Flux core welding does present more popcorning, but it can also be stronger in some cases because it penetrates more, but if the welds aren't done in the right place it doesn't pass as an example. We've also proven already that it's strong enough if done in the right places we have many examples of this working and being sufficient.
4) Cost. Regardless of how streamlined and easy the process is meant to be, building something to a standard and proving it will ALWAYS increase the overall cost. In my mind, this kind of goes against the spirit of what we are all trying to do. It's a delicate balance and any proposed actions should be carefully considered.
Agreed, it is a delicate balance, we don't want to overprice those on a shoestring budget, but there still needs to be a minimum requirement to make the roads safer (Regardless of insurance) but also inherently by doing so makes insurance companies more likely to insure.
5) Standards. Having standards, by definition, means making things the same. By implementing a standard, then you are requiring the use of certain materials or meeting certain other requirements. This, like the cost, goes agains the Skoolie ethos. Uniqueness is what makes these so interesting. Have you ever wondered why RV's all generally look the same and have similar layouts (well, besides the fact they are all essentially made by the same company...
)? Probably because they have to meet certain RVIA standards which limits what they can do. Although, obviously, there is an element of mass production here as well.
That's also correct. We are creating standards when it comes to safety which is the point of the certification. This does not stifle creativity very much if at all. Creative people come up with creative ways to maintain standards while also doing their thing. I'm not copying RVIA standards with this process, nor am I copying any existing standard. There is mass production, just not by companies, but by individuals, so it's important that they also have a certification of their own that if followed can get a certification showing such as they've achieved a safety standard that is known. I believe the "RV" standard is not meant to be a Skoolie, as some have said here earlier they are different. They may be used similarly but they aren't "Production" vehicles in the commercial sense which follows standardizations. Someone at some point came together to create the RVIA standards, we're doing the same thing but for Skoolies. Another type of vehicle that isn't an RV. Some people live in these full time. If we're being honest with ourselves instead of just trying to save a buck. That's not a recreational activity, that's residential. If the title has been converted to RV, then as far as the state is concerned it will remain that way and you can be treated as an RV. Many states won't allow conversion to RV. South Carolina being one of them. They will never change the title, there are other states as well in this category, so we cannot really classify a standard for skoolies by RV.
5a) Roof decks and wood stoves. Can these be installed safely in busses? Of course they can. But that's not the real question. The real question is "should they?". I have my own personal opinion on this, but it's not relevant to the discussion here. What I'm getting at here is that just because we CAN do something, doesn't mean we SHOULD. This can be applied to a wide range of things, including solar panels, tow hitches, bike racks, etc.
Skoolie owners want it. That should be the only reason any freedom loving American needs. (Canadian and Central/South Americans too) The only question is, can it be safely installed and secured? If it can be, then it should be allowable. This may mean if you want them, you may not be able to cheap out in these areas for safety factors. But if that's what it takes to insure a skoolie with these items then that's what we gotta do. If we cannot secure these items then I don't think it's going to pass. We will need to develop these safety standards and that's on the To Do list, but I believe personally they can be secured.
In my mind, why reinvent the wheel? Perhaps reaching out to another similar, but already established institution an "piggyback" off of what they have already done would be a route?
Simple. We're developing our own standard because when you piggy back on other's standards you are beholden to their limitations or demands. I'm building this with everyone's help to have an independant "SKOOLIE" certification with our own classifications and safety standards meant for and unique to "Bus Conversions". That's not to say we won't take some good common sense items from existing standards, but I don't want in any way legally be tied to any existing standard. I want from the ground zero up to the roof decks standards and certifications for Skoolies.
Further, some states have safety inspections for bus conversions anyway. Maryland is one of them (they call it a Class R vehicle...). What about adopting one of those standards in the same manner that some states just adopt CARB standards? If a state has determined that X, Y, and Z make a suitable bus conversion, then who are we to argue (not an actual question...there are TONS of possible arguments here...)? Trying to tell states that their requirements don't matter will be an effort in futility.
This is true, however things like this can change especially when there is precedent for it. We may have to go to congress to push for such a thing but can ultimately be a long term goal for this project. Just as easily as I can dissect our arguments here, I can present to congress as well and help them understand the need for a unique classification of vehicles. They'd rather have unity across all 50 states and I think we do as well to make it clear and easier for all of us to register our buses as buses. Simplifying titles, or potentially allowing provision to change the title upon request to SKOOLIE and having our own classification on the titles. Forcing states like South Carolina and the like who don't allow conversions on the title. I personally believe if a vehicle has been fundamentally changed it should be classified as what it is, not what it was made to be in the factory. Another reason skoolies are unique because none of them are born from the factory as a skoolie, but a bus. RV's are born from factory as RV's. This mentality needs to change for states who believe it should remain as it is on the factory floor.
Finally on inspections, from my boat-building experience, there wasn't one inspector who came through and looked at everything. Each functional areas had it's own inspection process...I'm not sure if a one-size-fits-all inspection solution would be received. Is the carpenter really able to tell if a weld is holding correctly? Can the welder tell if that wire is too small for the run? I think the inspection process will be the hardest to nail down along with what qualifies someone to be an inspector.
This can be whatever we make it to be. As restrictive as we need it to be. The plan is to have a collective knowledge from people here who know what is safe vs what is not, that gets established in our guidelines we set, then an inspector training course telling them specifically what to look for so they don't have to be an expert on everything, they just need to know what to look for and if it doesn't meet the stated requirement they fail that item and they ask them to correct. This can be done and set up in this way. It's a non-issue.
Not trying to be a debbie downer, but do think it's important to call out potential problems before it's too late.
Not at all, and I appreciate your comments, they do provide insights and I want people to poke holes in the process so it can be come a stronger setup. Thanks for the hardening!
iirc
the only person on here complaining about lack of insurance... was declined due to their driving record. not sure who said it, but it wasn't due to lack of a non existent certification.
fake business? i think the norm is people skirting business regs as they travel. if i vend and travel, legally, i'd have to pay sales tax in each locale as well as conform to the rules of the road.
insurance is available to people. period.
Your input is wanted, but I will say Insurance is not available to people. I have a perfect driving record for over 27 years. Own 2 cars, a house and STILL couldn't get insurance from my insurance company. Progressive cancelled mine once they realized it was a converted bus, national general is starting to decline some people. I literally called over 22 different insurance companies at random, and couldn't get the thing insured. It's simply not easy. Just because YOU found someone that would doesn't mean others aren't having issues. This forum is littered people needing help because they are getting rejected. And how many of us with skoolies with full coverage who get in a wreck after doing a roof raise after the fact get denied coverage for having one? This has to change, or we give the government all power to prevent us from even driving skoolies on the roads legally. We have to stop lying about what we want to have on our buses, and be legit and legal. It's the LAW to require insurance to drive on the roads, and if people cannot get insurance then they cannot drive the Skoolies.
This is unacceptable! If we can build a safety standard and THEN have those meetings with the insurance companies to show we've put in the work, and the infrastructure to make them safer all on our own, it will go a long way to convincing them there is a way to make these things safer. This is a big reason as to why I want to do this. And if that should fail, and we can't net a single insurance company, then at the very least I can sleep knowing we created something to make us all safer on the roads. It will be worth it to me.
so you spend 10k on a bus, 10k on a conversion..... whats the retail value? whats the insured value?
ok, you have a retail value and depreciation to calculate as well, then right?
so you spend 10k on a bus, 10k on a conversion..... whats the retail value? whats the insured value?
Regarding this, for most people it doesn't cost them more than 10k for the cheapest builds up to maybe 40k. in materials. Insurance companies rarely pay for labor costs in these but only give retail value as to what it would cost to restore it. I think somewhere in these ranges are acceptable, but this is malleable and subject to opinion and change. If you can build a skoolie for $20,$25k once you can do it again for that price. This makes the most sense to me especially since these aren't treated like cars made in a factory with ready made parts. It's all unique anyway, and can be rebuilt by you the manufacterer of said skoolie for those prices, but what do you guys think?
here is a roof test
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-49/subtitle-B/chapter-V/part-571/subpart-B/section-571.216
i have real rv insurance. so do others.
so no, your desires are not perfectly explanatory.
what do you seek? have you heard of the newsome lady that knows how to fill out apps so your underwriter approves your application?
insurance is a financial product and has more to do with your credit rating and driving history than an individual vehicle.
The article here is moot. Skoolies have some of the strongest rollover strength of any vehicle on the roads, even with roof raises if the welding is done correctly. They were designed to protect kids.
And regarding as a financial product that has more to do with your credit rating and driving history is also not true and has been proven by myself and many others on this forum. 27 years without so much as a speeding ticket and still denied. I work for Microsoft making $147k a year, my credit rating is stellar. I was still denied. It's simply not true.
Here's the thing...we're not RVs. The reason RVs are easy to insure is because they are all essentially the same. There are no major differences between any Winnebago Minnie Winnie produced in a given model year.
I haven't seen a Skoolie yet that is the EXACT SAME as another...that's the beauty of what we do.
So, I have to respectfully disagree that the problem isn't with the ease of insurance per se or not...but rather with people's expectation that it AUTOMATICALLY WILL BE just as easy to insure a conversion as it is an RV.
It's the risk we take by using retired busses to transform into vehicles to live/camp/work/etc...
JB
This is correct in the fact we're not RV's and we shouldn't be classified as them. We need to be skoolies. Regarding ease of insurance, this is what I hope to help change. If someone meets the certification insurance companies can know that a certain standard was met and can rest more easily that they aren't as likely to be paying out for it for stupid reasons that could of been fixed or repaired and meeting a safety standard. Standardization for safety is the goal, not stifling creativity.
awe, thanks for reading!
ok,ok,
so is it liability? mine was $40/year
is it full coverage.... comprehensive and collision?
that one is expensive. right now cost me about $100/ month
i have heavy roadside assistance too. (ya know, for my rv)
since my bus is a 93, they insure it as a 93. by now the deprecated value is probably less than i pay in a years worth of premiums.
so, whats the benefit?
maybe it will pay out if a couple grand if its in an accident. no way it replaces the vehicle.
after you pay off a vehicle, do you keep full coverage insurance on it? is it worth it? maybe for a while.....
I was able to eventually get Insurance, but could not as an RV. I have to pay $1100 a year to ensure my bus. It took commercial level insurance to get it. South carolina does not allow titling as an RV if it started as a Bus, and if you come to South carolina with an RV title, they do a history check on the VIN and if it came out as a BUS they will change it back to a BUS. The problem is all over the place for everyone varied by state. I'd like to standardize this process as well to make it easier. Titling as a skoolie should be and is a long term goal of this project.
I think you are correct...if a Skoolie certification was seen in the same light as RVIA certification, then yes...it would as easy to insure a conversion.
On that point we agree.
The point I am trying to make is that there is no one size fits all solution that would work for bus conversions to put them on an equal playing field with RVs.
There just isn't any way to make certain a standard is being followed without making it cost prohibitive (at least as I see it).
And here I thought we were having a productive conversation about how we could make something like this work...
I get that others here may not be interested in helping with this kind of effort. But, you can't look at all criticism as being anti-certification. If there was no disagreement, then what's the point?
Just because I mentioned some issues as I saw them doesn't mean I think your idea is terrible. I don't. It just means I have a slightly different set of experiences that I'm trying to use to add to the discussion.
I hope we can continue the conversation to figure out if something like this is actually realistic in a format that doesn't do more harm than good.
JB
I welcome all criticism. It's the only way to make this stronger. And you are right it's not an RV and there's no way to unify a RVIA standard for Skoolies, so we should build our own that services the same goals as RVIA standard does for RV's.
I already have a vision and goal in mind of how to make all of this work, or at the very least take a good shot at it. I can't guarantee success, nobody can, but we can shoot for it and see. If something like this makes skoolies safer for everyone on the road, i can't see it doing more harm than good, even if everything else fails.
ok....
all you inspectors out there.....
here is your inspector test.....
https://www.skoolie.net/forums/f14/skoolies-fast-sale-43495.html#post514289
pass or fail
please dont comment on his thread.
post your inspection here.
First off, it's a bit disingenuous as the certification requirements have yet to even be developed or fully conceptualized. But if I'm being honest and if this link you posted was a fresh build it would FAIL because the pictures don't show what we would require a certification to show. 4 simple pics of a bus wouldn't pass anything in an inspection. We need closeups EVERYTHING we'd require such as welds for roof raises, rivets around the whole bus, front suspension, axles, brakes, brake lines, etc, you get the point. I'm talking 100's of pictures. Eventually if an inspector is local or you are within driving distance to meet one, you can do a visual inspection and they pass you, but to start it will have to be remote inspections.
Commercial is waaaaaay more expensive in many states.
This. I'm paying double what I'd have to pay for RV insurance.
Great discussion.
I'm skeptical that the process of converting a school bus to a motorhome at the motor vehicle department will ever standardize. Some states appear to have good processes while others not so much. Since these are state-level statutes and rules, some states are always going to be easier to register than others and you have to become educated on the process to complete registration with a minimum of fuss.
Just a thought-it might help if we had subthreads in the Title/Insurance Forum to separate out state by state registration and insurance discussions.
One of the long term goals I want to push for this is recognition of the "Skoolie" as a type of vehicle, this may require changes in state by state. Even if we can get some states to do this and accept out of state skoolies for registration it would be a win. Like the Vermont Loophole which was nice while it lasted. It worked well for anyone wanting to convert titles to RV's. But there's already been a locking down on that. If we can convince even one state the reasoning why we need options it could help, and if the states can't give it to us, then we can try pushing at the federal level some day. These are long term goals of course, but if certification is successful, we can slowly build funding required to make those happen. I'm not really one for taking away states rights, but when they are being authoritarian and restrictive and it's what the people want, I'm not against appealing to a federal level to make it happen.
with factory built RV's there is a trail of code and regulation thats followed.. those suburban RV furnaces have been built and often times UL listed as safe for mobile RV use.. the propane lines, electric wires etc that are being used.. each item has its own listed uses..
creating this program in the original post probably means no more home water heaters,, no home style furnaces, woodstoves definitely arent officially built for mobile use, want a 13 foot tall RV buy a coach and convert it.. (from what ive heard more insurance companies insure converted coaches than do school busses)...
I have zero issues insuring my busses with seats....
I don't think it means that at all. If we can certify safety in these items, it shouldn't be an issue. We of course can't just "Say" it's safe, but ACTUALLY make them safe. If it's safe, it's safe. Water heaters can be in enclosed, fire proof boxes as an example, or add fire suppresents when a flame is detected. No more 2x4 boxes to hold the water heater that should a flame get out of control catch then catch other items till the whole bus is enflamed. Let's make these dangerous items safe, see what is required for those to accomplish that and make that the standard.
Also, I mean in every way no offense or disrespect. Just pointing out that your buses are a bit spartan, and by choice and aren't the typical skoolie. (Nothing at all wrong with that). Most people who are taking this endeavor are wanting the roof raise, decks, and wood stoves. "Tiny Home"/"RV" style environments, not with only changing the back and keeping original seats and throwing only a mattress in the back, and most want these items in their vehicles, so that's what I want to shoot for with this certification. Insurance would be possible and easy to get in these types of busses easy, and there's nothing wrong with one having that sort of spartan setup. It's cost effective, and functional for you. And easily insurable, but most people are wanting to go the full monty.
It is of course a problem to insure when we all want to add all of these additives. No one is disagreeing, but the point of this is to figure out what is the safety standard to have these items, make it the standard, and certify people's builds who want these things. Then after safety has been established, work on the politics of insurance companies, and government.
