Date:         Sat, 26 Jun 2010 11:46:01 -0500
Reply-To:     mcneely4@COX.NET
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Dave Mcneely <mcneely4@COX.NET>
Subject:      Re: Westy Configurations and Bear-proffing (was Re: Westy's vs
              Other Configurations for Camping)
Comments: To: Pat Sloan <pmsloan@SHAW.CA>
In-Reply-To:  <98CD0D4BB5C7437EB51FB0F0FCB7C212@PC245562293221>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8

---- Pat Sloan <pmsloan@SHAW.CA> wrote:
> This thread brings up two questions that have been lurking in my
> subconscious:
>
> 1.      How bear-proof is a Vanagon? Since I like to camp in remote forestry
> campsites or even just pull over at a wide spot in the road, how easy would
> it be for a bear to open the oblong tin can that a Vanagon is, if there were
> leftover cooking smells wafting on the night air? Anyone heard of any
> experiences? A bear did a masterful and completely silent job on my backpack
> once, years ago. As I slept in my tent about 10 yards away!
> 2.      Why did VW switch the Westy inner configuration from the dual-side
> of my 1973 Westy to the all-on-one-side setup in my current 1982 Westy?
> Personally, I prefer the older layout - that great little cantilevered shelf
> right by the sliding door; the more-balanced weight distribution, etc. So
> what were the perceived advantages that motivated the shift to locating
> everything on the driver's side? Vanagon historians?

the vanagon, being heavier and built with stronger steel, is likely more bearproof than lots of other vehicles -- but people don't cook in most vehicles.  In Yosemite it is illegal to even store food in a vehicle.  But most places, a hardsided vehicle is reputed (including by most park and wildlife services) to be adequate protection from bears.

I imagine that the newer configuration was perceived as offering more convenience in use -- larger single open space.
David McNeely