Serious ? for those who prefer Class C's

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by elektron

Actually, B+ was invented to give an inaccurate idea as to what an RV type is. There are three classes based on what the RV builder is going to make.

A: Truck chassis, no bodywork
B: Van chassis with bodywork complete
C: Chassis cab with the truck cab provided by the chassis maker.

The B+ term some makers invented ascribed the wrong type letter to a Class C type RV. More accurate would be to call it a C- since it is minus the cable bunk, although it still has a cabover compartment, just not a bunk.

Besides that, some Cs have that same cabover bunk compartment converted to storage; no bed. If it starts out life as a chassis cab, then it's a Class C regardless of the body style.

Daimler Benz makes a truck chassis for the Sprinter (F50 I believe) and this becomes a Class A with the entire body being provided in the case of Winnebago/Navion Via and Reyo.

They also make a complete sprinter van with all body work provided and that is made into Class B RVs (also called Van Conversions) such as the Winnebago ERA.

Their 3500 series Chassis cab is the basis for the Winnebago View and View Profile. These are both Class C.

These are the definitions in common use when I started looking at RV's some 15 years ago. I don't care what they are called.

Some camping "resorts" do though. There are several that I know of that accept only Class A units.

If you want to argue semantics and make your own name up for them, then that could be true calling it a C- lol. But they weren't called that. The do have cut-away chassis and do look more like a C without the large cab-over bunk area. So that is why people can get confused and why now they can call it a C. Again, I have a B Plus and it says so right on it. Cannot believe the arguments I have been going thru. They are also typically lower. The Concord 300TS is only 9.5 feet tall, mine is also around 10 ft. I know you don't care, but we do, as we are buyers in that market. We don't want a C, they are too tall, love that ours go under bridges, don't like the overhang that we view in our front seats either, C's don't drive as well, AND don't want a B either, as they have smaller holding tanks, mostly wet baths, Altho some B+ did have wet baths, their smaller ones like the Trail-Lite 210 model, I have the 250. Also, they are more aerodynamic and hence get better gas mileage. Mine can get around 12-13 mpg on a Ford.

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by Murf2u

Since we're educating, a Ford (just to pick an example) makes just one cut away chassis, can you explain how a B can be lower than a C?

Does it have less headroom than a C inside?

My Trail-Lite 250 B Plus is less than 10 feet tall, fits under most bridges, even ones we come up to in rural areas. The Coachmen Concord 300 that started this argument, and was called a B Plus at one time (see the video I put on here) and some knowledgable people still do, is only 9.5 feet tall. Coachmen's C Leprechaun is 10.10 feet tall.

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by cjscotty

My Trail-Lite 250 B Plus is less than 10 feet tall, fits under most bridges, even ones we come up to in rural areas. The Coachmen Concord 300 that started this argument, and was called a B Plus at one time (see the video I put on here) and some knowledgable people still do, is only 9.5 feet tall.

Maybe I'm missing something, a standard C like mine is 11' to the top of the A/C. The A/C is 16" to 18" tall (depending on the make and model) so then a C is "less than 10 feet tall" also. In fact a quick look through the specs of many RV manufacturers websites show the B, B+ and C are the same height. This makes sense since they are based on the same chassis and then have the same headroom 'house' sat on top.

"Standard" clearance, I.E. not 'low bridge' is set for truck traffic. Trucks by law are allowed to be 13'6" tall so usual clearance is 16+ feet.

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by Murf2u

Maybe I'm missing something, a standard C like mine is 11' to the top of the A/C. The A/C is 16" to 18" tall (depending on the make and model) so then a C is "less than 10 feet tall" also. In fact a quick look through the specs of many RV manufacturers websites show the B, B+ and C are the same height. This makes sense since they are based on the same chassis and then have the same headroom 'house' sat on top.
"Standard" clearance, I.E. not 'low bridge' is set for truck traffic. Trucks by law are allowed to be 13'6" tall so usual clearance is 16+ feet.

The Coachmen Concord B+ is listed at 9.5 ft tall. Their C Leprechaun 10.10 ft (I agree most C's around 11 ft). Their A is well over 12 feet. I live in an area where you can come across lower bridges. Also tree limbs, etc. Lower is easier to drive, more aerodynamic and gets better gas mileage too. What kind of gas mileage do you get in your C. We can get 12-13 mpg in our Trail-Lite B Plus on a Ford. Have plenty of inside head room, my husband is 6 ft and has a few inches or so above his head, never ducks. Not sure exact inside height tho.

[Murf2u]

Mileage is based on the amount of energy the engine is required to make.

The amount of energy is affected by MANY factors. Aerodynamics is only a small part of the overall picture since wind resistance is exponential in nature. A brick has little wind resistance at slow speeds, my very aerodynamic airplane has a LOT of wind resistance at 170mph.

Likewise weight, more weight requires more work to maintain the same speed. Comparing an 8k pound B to a 12k pound C is kind of Apples & pineapples.

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by Murf2u

Mileage is based on the amount of energy the engine is required to make.

The amount of energy is affected by MANY factors. Aerodynamics is only a small part of the overall picture since wind resistance is exponential in nature. A brick has little wind resistance at slow speeds, my very aerodynamic airplane has a LOT of wind resistance at 170mph.

Likewise weight, more weight requires more work to maintain the same speed. Comparing an 8k pound B to a 12k pound C is kind of Apples & pineapples.

That's true, but it's not rocket science to know that a big, giant, square overhang cabover C, which I can even view jutting out in front of me sitting in my front seat, is not going to be as aerodynamic and gas efficient as an angled lower B+ without the large square cab-over and lighter in weight. Of course if u load one more, that would be taken into account. And if they use porcelain toilets, glass showers, etc., solid wood, etc., etc. will be heavier. That's why for example in Europe you will see them using different materials to keep them as light as possible. B+ type RVs are very popular there.

[Murf2u]

I don't recall seeing a "square" cabover, most are like mine, steeply slanted.

If a Motorhome is 8' wide and 10' tall it doesn't much matter if the house starts 2' further forward or not IMHO.

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by Murf2u

I don't recall seeing a "square" cabover, most are like mine, steeply slanted.

If a Motorhome is 8' wide and 10' tall it doesn't much matter if the house starts 2' further forward or not IMHO.

Again we are speaking of a B+ with a cut-away chassis, not a B. The top overhang is going to catch air in a C. Have you ever driven a B+? then maybe you'll get it instead of making these silly points of cab not being an exact square. JFYI, Sprinter C's like FR Solera has a more "squarer" shape to their cab over area, than ones like Winnebago View C, and the Thor Siesta's, which have a more angled rounded shape to help with aerodynamics. I'll put pics if you need. I have never yet seen a Ford or Chevy C out yet that angle or rounds their cabovers like the Sprinters Winnebago, Siesta's, etc, which would probably get better gas mileage, if they had equal weight, and everything else, than the Solera. And B+ without this overhang, and typically lighter, better. I don't see Solera's getting as good gas mileage as Winnebago's on these forums. They are off a couple mpg. I know the Solera is 11'3' tall and boasts 7 ft of inside height. The Winnebago View is 11-2 and 6 ft 8, while the Leisure Travel are 10'6 with 6'3 inside height. So a very tall person well over 6 ft may prefer a C. C typically can have larger basement storage also.

[Old Radios]

Weight affects mileage more than aerodynamics. That concord is 31' and has three slides so there is not much cargo capacity left. Having that aerodynamic slope on a heavy B+ makes little difference over a C with a sloped cab over. I've driven both. Being a lower B+ there is little external storage and not having a cab over to store things in makes matters worse.

We looked at a concord and it was too cramped when the slides were in so not as good for overnights when traveling where you can't put the slides out. We also did not like any of the 31' rigs we tried as there is too much overhang. Too each his own but for us no matter how much you love the the lower clearance it does not come close for us to make up for less storage, little remaining cargo capacity, and that rear overhang. A lower clearance does not help maneuverability or make it fit in a pull through parking space.

[Murf2u]

Originally Posted by cjscotty

The top overhang is going to catch air in a C.

Actually they don't 'catch air'. The science of it is that 2 points, the hood and the cab over divide the amount of undisturbed air the m/h encounters. That causes more air to spill off to the sides than a unit with no cab over would. This REDUCES the overall amount of wind resistance when compared to a similar unit with the same frontal area but no cab over.

If you understood you'd know that the flat back end causes nearly as much problem as the front does. Google "air tabs".

[The Shadow]

Scotty, I have to admire you. You would keep beating a dead horse forever.

Here is what Thor says about a model that is like yours. Since you appear not to understand the differences between a C and B, it will help you justify calling yours a B+ while it is in fact a Class C.

Thor, for its Citation, which is like the Concord, provides two descriptions.

The first is TYPE: Class C

The second is STLYE: Class B+

So, our point is that the Concord is a CLASS C but the body style is similar to a B. Note that for the these units it is virtually only in the height with the bunk eliminated (and as many point out there are a lot of C's without bunks now) that is different. What also happens with these is that the box on them is lower and that really shows in the outside storage. Your Concord is a paltry 44 cubic ft. When we downsized from our Kodiak we considered the equivalents in both the Jayco and Winnie lines but rejected them because of the crappy storage (there are always 3 in our part and there was just not enough storage in any of them).

The B+ style is a Class C in every way - starts with a cutaway and the box is built on to it. It is not a Class B which starts life as a full body van that is then modified to make it a MH. I haven't seen any B's with a GCWR of 22,000 lbs like the E-450 or 20,000 lbs like the Chev 4500.

So, in summary, you are referring to STYLE while I'm referring the CLASS.

[wblynch]

Shadow should understand dead horses, he seems to be riding one.

You are not going to get the class B+ cat back in the bag. It's common vernacular now. Everyone uses it. That's life.

[elektron]

Originally Posted by Old Radios

Weight affects mileage more than aerodynamics.

At face value this is an oversimplification. My real world experience is this; I had two cars, the same weight and engine, but different aerodynamic drag ratios. The more efficient model produced 6 mpg better, due to aerodynamics alone.

I have two similar cars with the same body, one normally aspirated and the other is turbocharged. The turbocharged model produces on average 3 mpg better and at peak 7 mpg better (HP is the same, but the turbo is vastly stronger).

That concord is 31' and has three slides so there is not much cargo capacity left.

It's tragic that a 31' rv has such limited storage. Sounds like very poor design to me. In the entire volume of a 31 footer, that cab over area is relatively inconsequential. My smooth top RV has storage above the cab which is significant, although not as large as a bed would be.

Having that aerodynamic slope on a heavy B+ makes little difference over a C with a sloped cab over

How can you say that with any conviction? I've seen some evidence in real life from RV owners that the difference in shape on some RVs does make up to about 2 mpg difference when the only change is whether an RV has a large cab over bump or not. The Winnebago Via/Navion Reyo for example, while built on the F50 chassis (and thus is a Class A) is aerodynamically superior to the Winnebago View Profile/Navion IQ which are smooth topped Class C (build on a 3500 chassis cab). The difference often noted is about 2 mpg. The only significant difference, since weight and engine are the same, is the drag ratio.

Keeping in mind that these two chassis' have the same GVW and the same engine the only significant design difference is the body style. So this would seem to be a valid comparison factor.

I've driven both. Being a lower B+ there is little external storage and not having a cab over to store things in makes matters worse.

I fail to see why a smooth top would be lower than a bump top. The top measurement of many RVs is to the air conditioning unit (if one is present). The top clearance of the View and View Profile, for example, is the same.

We looked at a concord and it was too cramped when the slides were in so not as good for overnights when traveling where you can't put the slides out. We also did not like any of the 31' rigs we tried as there is too much overhang. Too each his own but for us no matter how much you love the the lower clearance it does not come close for us to make up for less storage, little remaining cargo capacity, and that rear overhang.

A further consideration is that at 31 feet you are limited to many RV sites as being too long.

A lower clearance does not help maneuverability or make it fit in a pull through parking space.

Since that cab over space usually contains only a light mattress putting anything in "storage" there of significant weight could be a positive hazard towards increasing the tendency of the truck to roll over. They are generally not designed for storing weight of any kind, and are intended to be used while standing still only. (IMHO).

A lower center of gravity always benefits maneuverability. In this context bump or not does not affect length, although the high center of gravity problem could affect (negatively) the ability to park in an uneven pull through site.

[cjscotty]

Originally Posted by The Shadow

Scotty, I have to admire you. You would keep beating a dead horse forever.

Here is what Thor says about a model that is like yours. Since you appear not to understand the differences between a C and B, it will help you justify calling yours a B+ while it is in fact a Class C.

Thor, for its Citation, which is like the Concord, provides two descriptions.

The first is TYPE: Class C

The second is STLYE: Class B+

So, our point is that the Concord is a CLASS C but the body style is similar to a B. Note that for the these units it is virtually only in the height with the bunk eliminated (and as many point out there are a lot of C's without bunks now) that is different. What also happens with these is that the box on them is lower and that really shows in the outside storage. Your Concord is a paltry 44 cubic ft. When we downsized from our Kodiak we considered the equivalents in both the Jayco and Winnie lines but rejected them because of the crappy storage (there are always 3 in our part and there was just not enough storage in any of them).

The B+ style is a Class C in every way - starts with a cutaway and the box is built on to it. It is not a Class B which starts life as a full body van that is then modified to make it a MH. I haven't seen any B's with a GCWR of 22,000 lbs like the E-450 or 20,000 lbs like the Chev 4500.

So, in summary, you are referring to STYLE while I'm referring the CLASS.

OMG. The Concord is now sometimes called a C but is the original B+ and the couple yr ago models were called that. The reason I argued this is bc I OWN ONE AND IT SAYS B-PLUS ON IT. AND I put a video showing B plus right on the side of it and you continue to say otherwise. I HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVER IN ALL MY POSTS SAID IT WAS A B. EVER. I know EXACTLY WHAT A B IS. I have stated what you are saying here, it has a cut away chassis and is similar to a C in fact, I admitted that you could maybe call them a C- but that is not what they are or have ever been called. I OWN ONE. Understand that point. I put a video showing one, similar to mine, same brand, same year, just the 230 instead of 250, with B PLUS right on the side of it and you and another endlessly argued with me otherwise. NEVER SAID IT WAS A B. What I said was it was for marketed to people that were looking for something between a B and C. You don't like that they call them B+ and not C-, take it up with the marketers, that was what they called them. And they do drive better. And the Concord looks exactly like mine and is the original B+ and the older yrs it was called that until they started changing the term with the above I wrote over and over and over.