Go Back   iRV2 Forums > MOTORHOME FORUMS > Class A Motorhome Discussions
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
  This discussion is proudly sponsored by:
Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about their products on iRV2
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-05-2014, 12:15 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
George Schweikle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,195
My understanding is that the reason for this is the limited carrying capacity of the front suspension. The extreme rear overhang "cantilevers" the weight over the rear axle so the front is not overloaded. This also occurs on smaller class A's. The GM motorhome chassis on my '99 Safari Trek was actually developed from the GM Step Van, and these were close relatives of a pickup truck chassis. That's why the GM class A chassis had supplementary air bags inside the front springs.

Super C's are a different animal; originally using the medium duty GM Kodiak truck chassis with a Duramax diesel, then moving to Freightliner, International, etc. when the Kodiak was discontinued. In my opinion (only), the only disadvantage of a Super C is the restriction of a truck cab instead of the front of a roomy class A motorhome. That said, a friend has a GM - Duramax Super C, and loves that it tows his two car drag race trailer with ease.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 60Bubba View Post
...I pretty much agree with you on van based class C's of that length, as I've seen some where it looks like there is as much house box behind the rear axle as between the two axles. Ridiculous!
__________________

__________________
George Schweikle Lexington, KY
1999 Safari TREK 2830, FMCA 190830, Safari International chapter
1995 Safari TREK 2630, 1983 Winnebago Chieftain, 1976 Midas Mini
George Schweikle is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 07-05-2014, 08:24 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
JFXG's Avatar
 
Newmar Owners Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today? Mercer, PA
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Schweikle View Post
My understanding is that the reason for this is the limited carrying capacity of the front suspension. The extreme rear overhang "cantilevers" the weight over the rear axle so the front is not overloaded. This also occurs on smaller class A's. The GM motorhome chassis on my '99 Safari Trek was actually developed from the GM Step Van, and these were close relatives of a pickup truck chassis. That's why the GM class A chassis had supplementary air bags inside the front springs......
With all due respect, George, that merely explains how some designers used innovative engineering to build a motorhome on a chassis that was too small.
__________________

__________________
John & Diane, Fulltimers. RVM103 NHSO
On the road since June '12 with Lincoln, the guard cat.
2002 Dutch Star 40, Freightliner, Cat 3126, 2004 Element
JFXG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 10:34 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
George Schweikle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,195
Yes, you are absolutely correct. I didn't say such designs were wrong, but merely why some had such long rear overhangs. There is nothing wrong with a properly designed class C. We put 97,000 miles on a 1977 23 ft. Midas Mini - remember those?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JFXG View Post
With all due respect, George, that merely explains how some designers used innovative engineering to build a motorhome on a chassis that was too small.
__________________
George Schweikle Lexington, KY
1999 Safari TREK 2830, FMCA 190830, Safari International chapter
1995 Safari TREK 2630, 1983 Winnebago Chieftain, 1976 Midas Mini
George Schweikle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 12:21 PM   #18
Community Moderator
 
Scarab0088's Avatar


 
Damon Owners Club
Workhorse Chassis Owner
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: SoCal
Posts: 13,997
Our ol' El Dorado (Chevy 3500 van / remember those?) had so much rear overhang, that we had to add wheelie wheels to the rear bumper because how often we bottomed out the tail...and there was no trailer hitch!
__________________
Kim and Steve, Mustang LCDR (Ret), Damon Outlaw #1193
I have seen gross intolerance shown in support of tolerance, Samuel Coleridge
https://www.irv2.com/attachments/signaturepics/sigpic84535_7.gif
WE LOVE OUR OUTLAW RV
Scarab0088 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2014, 02:05 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
JFXG's Avatar
 
Newmar Owners Club
Freightliner Owners Club
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Today? Mercer, PA
Posts: 3,614
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Schweikle View Post
.........There is nothing wrong with a properly designed class C......

Absolutely right. Key words: properly designed. Some are. But if you use clever engineering to squeeze a 32 ft box onto a too small chassis, you've achieved your design goal but are left with a product that will most assuredly be overloaded and will handle dangerously on the highway. This does not qualify as "properly designed", IMO.
__________________

__________________
John & Diane, Fulltimers. RVM103 NHSO
On the road since June '12 with Lincoln, the guard cat.
2002 Dutch Star 40, Freightliner, Cat 3126, 2004 Element
JFXG is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
class a



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Class "A" Toyhaulers Scarab0088 Class A Motorhome Discussions 685 12-01-2017 07:02 PM
Class A vs. Super C (Dynamax) pivotdoc Class A Motorhome Discussions 3 06-27-2014 09:35 AM
Class IV Hitch on F53...tongue weight 700lbs. camaraderie Ford Motorhome Chassis Forum 10 06-20-2014 07:04 AM
Are There Class B's That Can Pull 10,000+ lbs? isucivile Class B Motorhome Discussions 10 02-28-2014 07:36 AM
Class B Production Expansion - New Leased Plant to Build Travato DriVer RV Industry Press 0 11-20-2013 06:26 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:33 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.