EternaBond on LD roof March 05, 2009, 12:42:17 am Yahoo Message Number: 99949Has anyone tried re-sealing their Lazy Daze roof with EternaBond tape?Are the Lazy Daze roofs sealed with silicone at the factory? Or can I just apply EternaBond tape over the existing LD sealant? My understanding is that EternaBond will adhere to just about anything other than silicone. I read very good internet reviews about using this product on RVs.I have a late production 2002 30' IB in Central Calif. No leaks, but am I thinkng some preventive maintenance wouldn't hurt.thanks, Gary
Re: EternaBond on LD roof Reply #1 – March 05, 2009, 06:48:27 am Yahoo Message Number: 99954Many of us have used Eternabond with excellent results. The caulk-adhesion issue is moot, since the standard 4-inch product width easily spans it.Joanne in Boston 1994 TK NE-44
Re: EternaBond on LD roof Reply #2 – March 05, 2009, 07:49:12 am Yahoo Message Number: 99955Here's quick info stored in the LINKS for you:underLinks > Repairs & Maintenance > Roof repair http://tinyurl.com/EternabondHope that helps, Tessa
EternaBond on LD roof Reply #3 – March 05, 2009, 09:11:22 am Yahoo Message Number: 99958The factory doesn't use silicone, and eternabond works very well right over the top of the stuff they do use.
Re: EternaBond on LD roof Reply #4 – March 05, 2009, 11:18:44 am Yahoo Message Number: 99967"Has anyone tried re-sealing their Lazy Daze roof with EternaBond tape?" Many of us have. Use the search feature to look for 'Eternabond' and you'll find plenty of posted info."Are the Lazy Daze roofs sealed with silicone at the factory?" As Marc and others pointed out, the factory doesn't use silicone; in fact, silicone should *never* be used for exterior sealing. (Again, search the archives for more on why this you shouldn't do this.) The factory has used Parlastic, and more recently, PR-255 sealants, which don't have silicone's drawbacks--but unlike Eternabond, they don't last forever. Eternabond does, and when you use the 4" wide variety, you can be apply it even over silicone-caulked seams. (You might have of those as a legacy from a misguided former owner, as I did).Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Andy's Fit Reply #5 – March 12, 2009, 10:36:39 am Yahoo Message Number: 100292Andy's not the only one having a Fit! Well, thanks to Andy, Pete and I have a (Honda) Fit, too! Got her a couple of days ago after spending hours and hours looking at dealers' inventory, searching the internet far and wide for price - - - and like Andy, finally bought under the Consumer Reports Bottom line price, which, as you know, is $$$ less than the Total Dealer invoice. Nice! Thanks Andy - - for the lead, and for all the great tips. I used them all.Virtual hugs, Sarah
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #6 – March 12, 2009, 03:43:59 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100304"Andy's not the only one having a Fit! Well, thanks to Andy, Pete and I have a (Honda) Fit, too!SarahWhat happened to your Honda Element. I thought you loved it?Larry
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #7 – March 12, 2009, 04:30:18 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100309"Pete and I have a (Honda) Fit, too! Got her a couple of days ago... and finally bought under the Consumer Reports Bottom Line price, which, as you know, is $$$ less than the Total Dealer invoice." Great news--congratulations, Sarah! :-) What color did you get? I know they offer and absolutely gorgeous sapphire blue... :-)Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #8 – March 15, 2009, 03:26:08 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100446Larry wrote: What happened to your Honda Element. I thought you loved it?Larry The Honda Element was a great tow car, but it was totaled. Pete was in an accident - not hurt, nor was anyone else, but the car didn't make it. All 4 airbags deployed. The fellow where the Honda Element was taken said the airbags cost about $5,000 each, and if for no other reason, that would probably total the car. Sheesh! So that's all there is about the Honda Element - we love driving the Honda Fit, and now I have to get back to Andy's web site and see which receiver hitch I need to get put on the front. It sure is wonderful when someone else does all the research. Especially when it's someone you know has researched it perfectly. Andy - we got the Honda Sport with Navi, altho didn't need the Navi - but the deal was better than I could find without it. Go figure. We picked white as that was my first choice, although I loved the bright red. So far, it looks like we're getting almost 40 mpg. I wish it was 50-100, but we're not in Europe, yet.Happy trails to all, Sarah[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #9 – March 15, 2009, 04:28:03 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100449"we got the Honda Sport with Navi, altho didn't need the Navi..." I had some experience with Honda's built-in GPS ("Navi" ) system this winter in a friend's 2008 CR-V, and was unimpressed. The database was very incomplete, so it kept saying "Entering unregistered zone" or something like that--terra incognita, in other words. And I'm not talking about out in the boonies, somewhere--I mean in downtown Las Cruces, NM. In fact, ironically, one of the places the Honda GPS couldn't find was the local Honda dealer! ;-) My four-year-old Garmin with three-year-old database had no trouble locating the same dealer. My advice: stick to your Garmin. :-) Sorry to hear about your Element, but I'm glad nobody was hurt. For what it's worth, when I was researching the Fit I learned some interesting things. The Element has 47 cubic feet of cargo space, while the Fit, surprisingly, has 54. The Element has 675 pounds CCC, while the Fit has 850 pounds. Yup--despite appearances, the Fit holds more and carries more than your old Element did. :-) And with its slippery shape, it's a safe bet it gets better gas mileage. In my first 800 miles--mostly running errands in town--I've averaged just over 48 mpg. "We picked white as that was my first choice, although I loved the bright red." White was my second choice; I would certainly have been happy with that. It's really a more practical color for the southwest--cooler and fades less. But I just loved that fire engine red. ;-) It still makes me smile every time I see the car.Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #10 – March 16, 2009, 09:47:00 am Yahoo Message Number: 100479Quote The Element has 47 cubic feet of cargo space, while the Fit, surprisingly, has 54. The Element has 675 pounds CCC, while the Fit has 850 pounds. Yup--despite appearances, the Fit holds more and carries more than your old Element did. :-) Andy, I think you're mixing info sources here - Honda lists the Element cargo area as 74 cu ft. CR says 47 cu ft, but they don't rate the Fit the same way - 2+2 suitcases+carryons. They also don't rate the Fit cargo area very large.Steve
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #11 – March 16, 2009, 01:20:41 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100487"Andy, I think you're mixing info sources here..." No, both numbers came from Consumers Union's detailed specs for the two cars, and both are for the same measurement--not the "pieces of luggage" one, but the usable cargo volume. Note that "usable" volume isn't the same thing as *total* volume in CU's book. CU measures this with an adjustable box frame made of pipe. It's extended to its largest possible dimensions inside the car, and the usable volume is calculated from that. In other words, the numbers I quoted are for the largest rectangular solid that will fit in the car (with the rear seats down, of course). Now, if a car had an unusually shaped cargo area, CU's methodology could penalize it. For example, if a car had a high transmission hump running down the middle, it wouldn't be able to accept as large a box as a car with a flat floor, even though it might have signnificant additional volume on either side of the hump. You can argue the pros and cons of CU's methodology, but measuring the largest box that will fit inside a car seems like a reasonable rule-of thumb way to compare storage space. And as I said, the numbers I cited were both from CU, and both arrived at in the same way... so at least by this measurement, the Fit has more cargo space and more CCC than the Element. :-)Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #12 – March 16, 2009, 08:56:03 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100503QuoteNo, both numbers came from Consumers Union's detailed specs for the two cars, and both are for the same measurement--not the "pieces of luggage" one, but the usable cargo volume. Andy, I'm puzzled. Maybe you can provide me with a link, but the only spec I see for the Honda Fit cargo area has a half-black circle and lists 2+2 for luggage. Since I'm a member, I can follow a link in.Steve
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #13 – March 16, 2009, 09:11:32 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100505QuoteNo, both numbers came from Consumers Union's detailed specs for the two cars, and both are for the same measurement--not the "pieces of luggage" one, but the usable cargo volume. Andy, I found the specs - but you transposed some figures! The Fit is listed as 23.5 cu ft:http://tinyurl.com/coy68nThis is still not bad, as the CR-V has only 2 cu ft more.Steve
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #14 – March 16, 2009, 11:12:02 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100508"Andy, I found the specs - but you transposed some figures! The Fit is listed as 23.5 cu ft..." You're right, Steve, but now I'm at a loss to explain the numbers I cited, because they did not come from that chart you cited--this was the first time I'd ever seen it. I got the cubic feet by going to the CU website's report for the 2009 Fit, clicking "See Complete Specifications," and then clicking to expand the "Comfort/convenience" list. Under that heading, "Trunk/Cargo Area > Luggage/cargo capacity, cu. ft." showed the numbers I quoted--at least they did as of about a month ago. But now, instead of the promised cubic feet, they show "2 + 2," meaning two large suitcases and two small duffels (which, by the way, I find useless as a metric, since I don't carry luggage). I swear they had actual cubic feet listed there when last I looked! And when I did the same thing for the 2009 Element, the CU site DOES show a cubic feet measurement--47, same as in your chart. And there's more. In my earlier email, I described CU's "biggest-box" methodology for measuring cargo space. Well, tonight after puzzling over the missing numbers I was sure I'd seen, and the ridiculously small numbers in the chart you discovered, I realized that I could pretty closely approximate CU's "biggest-box" metric from the measurements I'd taken when I first had my Fit. ;-) You can see them in this photo on my website:http://www.andybaird.com/travels/skylarking/2009/photos/Fit-rear-dimensions.jpg> Although I didn't intend it at the time, the measurements I took pretty much conform to CU's methodology: for example, I measured width at the narrowest point, between the rear wheel wells, rather than at the midline where it's much wider. In short, my measurements approximate the largest box that would fit my Fit with the rear seats down. And if you multiply those numbers together--40" wide by 54" long by 39" high--you come up with about 49 cubic feet, which is not far from the 54 cubic feet I remember seeing in CU's specs. So where does this leave us? Well, I'm about 98% certain that as of a month or so ago, CU's report page for the 2009 Fit *did* show 54 cubic feet--the Fit's "biggest-box" capacity--but that they've changed it since then to the less informative "2 + 2." And my best guess is that the 23.5 cubic foot number they show *now* in the chart you cited represents the space *behind* the back seats with the seats up. That's a perfectly legitimate measurement--anybody with a family of four would want to know it. But it's far from telling you what the Fit is capable of when the seats are down and it's being used as a station wagon--which is, after all, what it is. In that mode, with seats folded down, the conservative measurements shown on my photos give a volume of almost 50 cubic feet. How does this compare with an Element? Well, not having an Element to measure, I can't say for certain, but if you believe that the 47 cubic feet shown on CU's chart are a "biggest-box" measurement with rear seats folded down (maybe somebody with an Element would like to confirm this), then the Fit beats the Element by a small margin. On the other hand, I can attest that the Fit will NOT swallow a 4' x 8' sheet of plywood--the maximum width of the tailgate opening is only 42". And unlike the Element, which can tow 1,500 pounds, the Fit isn't rated to tow anything. Then again, that's not what I bought a toad for. I'm not going to be pulling an Airstream with it anytime soon. ;-) Finally (in the interest of completeness), the CU chart you cited does confirm one thing I said earlier: the Fit has 175 pounds more CCC than the Element. :-) Hey, they're both good cars, and I wasn't really trying to start a "Fit Fans vs. Element Enthusiasts" dispute here... just trying to reassure Sarah that in switching from one to the other, she hadn't given up much, if anything. :-)Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #15 – March 17, 2009, 01:12:35 am Yahoo Message Number: 100512"I swear they had actual cubic feet listed there when last I looked! And when I did the same thing for the 2009 Element, the CU site DOES show a cubic feet measurement--47, same as in your chart."I'm glad this has been cleared up. I thought I was losing my mind. I have looked at both cars and was sure the Element was much larger inside. It's big, utilitarian interior has always been one of its major advantages. The Fit's gas mileage is much better than either the Element or the CRV due to being so lightweight. It weights 1200 lbs less than the Element and 1100 lbs less than the CRV, making it the perfect tow vehicle for those who have no desire to drive off-road and do not carry extra large items.Larry
Re: Andy's Fit Reply #16 – March 17, 2009, 03:08:58 am Yahoo Message Number: 100515Quote And my best guess is that the 23.5 cubic foot number they show *now* in the chart you cited represents the space *behind* the back seats with the seats up. Andy, the best I could find for a description of their box is in this video:http://tinyurl.com/cstdss It seems they have folded the rear seat first, from what I can tell. I'm guessing the curved hatch outline is what may keep the box small for the Fit, because there certainly looks like a lot of room once inside from your pic. Luckily, what we mostly carry falls somewhere between one huge box and the popcorn pellets I think manufacturers use to determine volume.Steve
Research - was Andy's FIT Reply #17 – March 19, 2009, 04:59:33 pm Yahoo Message Number: 100576On Mar 15, 2009, at 12:25 PM, Sarah Blackwood wrote:QuoteIt sure is wonderful when someone else does all the research. Especially when it's someone you know has researched it perfectly. This is exactly the reason we bought a Lazy Daze almost seven years ago! Sarah did all the research when she bought the original Mz Daisy, and she did it so well that I saw no reason to search further. Thanks again, Sarah! --Al from Bremerton (currently at Butterfield Ranch, trying to catch up on e-mail) --2002 26.5MB
Topic: EternaBond on LD roof (Read 17 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: EternaBond on LD roof (Read 17 times)
previous topic - next topic