Why Doesn't Newmar Build It's Own Chassis?

[siggyd]

When you have a problem with your "Newmar chassis", where would you go ??
...to a Newmar dealer ? LOL.
Siggy

[Lug_Nut]

I don't know whether the same is true today, but years ago I remember that most of the north American auto makers bought their frames from a third party company. I used to see their semi's on the highway delivering to the big three. I don't remember the company's name, but I do remember their moto which was written on their trucks.........Framing The World..

I think it is probably wise not to get into the chassis manufacturing for a motor home builder. Tiffin's move may in time prove that case.

Motor home makers have their hands full with keeping up with the market today. Chassis' require constant engineering, new design, etc going forward.

[Lug_Nut]

My computer stopped typing so I couldn't finish my last post here.

This is still a great question which probably comes up every once and a while and will continue to do so. I guess if General Motors didn't do it, at least years ago, then Newmar is doing the right thing.

Peter

[Gdawgs]

Outside of Newell and Foretravel today it's just not economically feasible to vertically integrate their product. A good example of how this can cost you is the old Monaco motorhomes known for their Roadmaster chassis that went bankrupt. The benefit was the ability to work with the design team and tweak the chassis or make major changes as needed for new models. I think the Spartans and Freightliner people have become better at making changes and offering flexibility in their product to meet the ever changing motor industry. I'm just glad I got the last year Roadmaster was built with it's 10 air bags and 10 shocks all outward mounted close to the wheels.

[patch-y]

Spartan and Freightliner have been building chassis for many years, have the experience, design/engineering support, know-how and service support network......and even with all that experience both companies have recalls for issues in need of correction. Newmar, or any other non chassis builder, will have to "go-to-school" to get up to speed----- I for one don't want to be on their learning curve.

I am happy with my Ventana and have no bone to pick with Newmar.....
-----But ----- before they start building chassis----
I would be happy to see Newmar fix the (simple ) nagging problems they have been building and selling to date.....like the hard closing door, the loose slide-motor-bolts........and the other stuff you see on this forum.

just my $0.02

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by Gordon Dewald

It is a matter of economics. If there was money and they saw a future in it you would see them getting into it. Perhaps they are investigating the matter right now for consideration.

Using third party frames gives any manufacturer access to a myriad of frames and frame customization options. Building in house would make them design a frame and stick with it until the frame cost was amortized. With the rapid design changes of coaches and accessories the in-house frame could constrain future changes.

I had a recent conversation with Newmar public relations and was told they were producing 40 MH per week with production soon to be increased. If you spread that over ???? models each with a different frame they would be producing small numbers of each frame.

I am not sure if Newmar builds their tanks and other house components in house or gets them from third parties but building more of those components would seem to be a logical first step. Because Winnebago does it is possible to get replacement parts for very old units.

IMO chassis seems to be best left to the professionals as stated in previous posts.

At least 3 chassis built by coach builders were widely considered to be superior.
1. The Country Coach Dynomax
2. The Monaco Roadmaster
3. Alpine Coach Peak.

These parent companies are no longer in business but their chassis business had no part in their demise. The crash of '08-'09 took them out. The engine builders have now gone to a tiered pricing system. The price of an engine to a proprietary chassis builder is a good deal higher than the same engine sold to a pure chassis builder who sells to several coach builders. When REV purchased Monaco, I lobbied Mike Snell hard to continue Roadmaster and particularly the S Series chassis. He told me about the tiered pricing on engines & how it made it difficult to be price competitive with a proprietary chassis. I continued to lobby for a S Series semi monocoque chassis on their new Roadmaster/Freighliner hybrid. None of the coach builders will spend the money now. They don't think their customers are knowledgeable enough for their marketing people to sell it. Frankly the marketing people are to lazy to make the effort. They want to copy each other & demand certain "hot button" items to point to.

Look at the recent problem Newmar had with the overweight front axle. Newmar is a first rate builder who certainly had the engineering expertise to have avoided the situation. Obviously some product managers got caught looking the wrong way and a serious issue resulted. Why did it happen. Trying to give marketing dept things they were crying for. Longer coaches, tag axles, 15k tow capacity. Not to mention big generators, granite counters, porcelain tile throughout. Heavy stuff. They loaded up the coaches and cranked up the weight on the tag axle. Oops, also transferred weight to steer axle. Bad form from a respected builder.

[nothermark]

FWIW while I am not sure vertical integration is all bad it I can see where it no longer makes sense for smaller operations. I base that on the implementation of computerization that has happened over my work lifetime. When I started out in other areas the chassis equivalent would be Joe drew up the new chassis on a big sheet of paper and showed it around to see if anyone saw a problem. More paper to do the details of various bits and some slide rule time for standard guesses to order stock parts or modify them. Build one and see what happens. A lot of in house paper to track and maintain. Hand copying anything that had to be sent to the supplier. Not much testing.

Today it is all drawn up on the computer. The drawing files can be moved around faster than I can sip coffee. Simulation and strength analysis software read the drawing files and give their opinions with a lot more data to back them up. All that takes some big computers and a lot of money to produce an arguably better product. Somebody like the frame builder is working on experience from last week not a couple of years ago if he sees a problem. Small shops like the whole industry cannot afford that kind of setup past the initial drawing phase.

[Hikerdogs]

Originally Posted by nothermark

FWIW while I am not sure vertical integration is all bad it I can see where it no longer makes sense for smaller operations. I base that on the implementation of computerization that has happened over my work lifetime. When I started out in other areas the chassis equivalent would be Joe drew up the new chassis on a big sheet of paper and showed it around to see if anyone saw a problem. More paper to do the details of various bits and some slide rule time for standard guesses to order stock parts or modify them. Build one and see what happens. A lot of in house paper to track and maintain. Hand copying anything that had to be sent to the supplier. Not much testing.

Today it is all drawn up on the computer. The drawing files can be moved around faster than I can sip coffee. Simulation and strength analysis software read the drawing files and give their opinions with a lot more data to back them up. All that takes some big computers and a lot of money to produce an arguably better product. Somebody like the frame builder is working on experience from last week not a couple of years ago if he sees a problem. Small shops like the whole industry cannot afford that kind of setup past the initial drawing phase.

For many years I worked for a food company that made their own proprietary processing and packaging machinery. We went from the hand drawn prints to a CAD system in the early 1980's. The CAD system had the advantages of speed and ability to insure tolerances were acceptable, but even the newest versions of the software can't predict the longevity of a part being used under widely varying conditions on a daily basis. About the only true test of longevity is the long term monitoring of prototypes or actual production units.

Another huge drawback to producing proprietary equipment was the amortization of design and engineering costs. The engineering costs of a single model has to be amortized over the expected lifespan of the equipment produced. A large piece of production machinery could take 20 people 2 or more years to design, another year to fabricate a working prototype, and an additional 2 years of testing before being certified by the regulating agencies and put into production. That's an average of 5 years of work before a single model hits the pavement (or in our case the production floor).

The engineering costs generally ran into the millions, and in many cases the tens of millions. Given the typical lifespan of a production machine was 20 to 25 years that cost was written off over the same time period. Given the never ending changes in regulations the design of a modern day chassis would be a continuous process. The company would have to sell enough units to not only cover the costs, but make a profit for the owners and/or share holders.

With a market of only several hundred to a few thousand units annually I doubt the company would ever break even let alone generate a profit.

[ghaynes754]

Doesn't Tiffin build most if not all of their own chassis?

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by Steve Ownby

At least 3 chassis built by coach builders were widely considered to be superior.
1. The Country Coach Dynomax
2. The Monaco Roadmaster
3. Alpine Coach Peak.

These parent companies are no longer in business but their chassis business had no part in their demise. The crash of '08-'09 took them out. The engine builders have now gone to a tiered pricing system. The price of an engine to a proprietary chassis builder is a good deal higher than the same engine sold to a pure chassis builder who sells to several coach builders. When REV purchased Monaco, I lobbied Mike Snell hard to continue Roadmaster and particularly the S Series chassis. He told me about the tiered pricing on engines & how it made it difficult to be price competitive with a proprietary chassis. I continued to lobby for a S Series semi monocoque chassis on their new Roadmaster/Freighliner hybrid. None of the coach builders will spend the money now. They don't think their customers are knowledgeable enough for their marketing people to sell it. Frankly the marketing people are to lazy to make the effort. They want to copy each other & demand certain "hot button" items to point to.

Look at the recent problem Newmar had with the overweight front axle. Newmar is a first rate builder who certainly had the engineering expertise to have avoided the situation. Obviously some product managers got caught looking the wrong way and a serious issue resulted. Why did it happen. Trying to give marketing dept things they were crying for. Longer coaches, tag axles, 15k tow capacity. Not to mention big generators, granite counters, porcelain tile throughout. Heavy stuff. They loaded up the coaches and cranked up the weight on the tag axle. Oops, also transferred weight to steer axle. Bad form from a respected builder.

Hi Steve;
I think you said what I said. Business will only continue manufacturing something if they are able to sell it and make a profit. If Newmar produced a chassis they would expect a profit from it. That would, as you point out, require them to increase the chassis cost to get that return. Now that the chassis cost is more that has to be passed to the customer through the MSRP. Even with the discount the final cost is more.

It the cost of each model line (currently 10) were increased they would be competing in a different cost category which could make their product non competitive. Not many folks who buy coaches will do a chassis analysis beyond rear or side radiator for diesels (if even that much) and nothing for gas assuming the chassis would carry the load. I do believe there are some folks who will ask for a specific chassis based on anecdotal information.

Taking a flyer here. The example about the recent overweight front axle may have been avoided if Newmar was producing the chassis in house. One would hope the CAD designs of the box would be shared with the in house chassis team whose analysis would/should have shown a heavier axle was needed. As it was I believe the design was done and the axle specs given to purchasing to tell Freightliner or Spartan the axle loading requirements. Just speculating.

Starting a chassis manufacturing company to compete with the existing providers would be an expensive proposition. Otherwise I would consider it . . not! LOL

[jmon129]

Originally Posted by Steve Ownby

At least 3 chassis built by coach builders were widely considered to be superior.
1. The Country Coach Dynomax
2. The Monaco Roadmaster
3. Alpine Coach Peak.

These parent companies are no longer in business but their chassis business had no part in their demise. The crash of '08-'09 took them out. The engine builders have now gone to a tiered pricing system. The price of an engine to a proprietary chassis builder is a good deal higher than the same engine sold to a pure chassis builder who sells to several coach builders. When REV purchased Monaco, I lobbied Mike Snell hard to continue Roadmaster and particularly the S Series chassis. He told me about the tiered pricing on engines & how it made it difficult to be price competitive with a proprietary chassis. I continued to lobby for a S Series semi monocoque chassis on their new Roadmaster/Freighliner hybrid. None of the coach builders will spend the money now. They don't think their customers are knowledgeable enough for their marketing people to sell it. Frankly the marketing people are to lazy to make the effort. They want to copy each other & demand certain "hot button" items to point to.

Look at the recent problem Newmar had with the overweight front axle. Newmar is a first rate builder who certainly had the engineering expertise to have avoided the situation. Obviously some product managers got caught looking the wrong way and a serious issue resulted. Why did it happen. Trying to give marketing dept things they were crying for. Longer coaches, tag axles, 15k tow capacity. Not to mention big generators, granite counters, porcelain tile throughout. Heavy stuff. They loaded up the coaches and cranked up the weight on the tag axle. Oops, also transferred weight to steer axle. Bad form from a respected builder.

Steve, in all my research I must really challange your statement. We have been in the hard shopping stage for the past 9 months. So much so that we have had a dealer take us on a test drive with full water and fuel and had the front axle weighed. It was on a 2016 2016 Dutch Star 43' model with full fuel, myself (no light weight) salesmen and DW. Had 380lbs. LEFT OVER. NOT over weight. I will be the first to admit, 380 is not enough, but that is a big difference between being overweight. My research has found NO MFG. of a 43' diesel with full water and fuel has over 500 lbs. of capacity.
Why is Newmar the only one taking the brunt of this?
Peace!

[Steve Ownby]

Originally Posted by jmon129

Steve, in all my research I must really challange your statement. We have been in the hard shopping stage for the past 9 months. So much so that we have had a dealer take us on a test drive with full water and fuel and had the front axle weighed. It was on a 2016 2016 Dutch Star 43' model with full fuel, myself (no light weight) salesmen and DW. Had 380lbs. LEFT OVER. NOT over weight. I will be the first to admit, 380 is not enough, but that is a big difference between being overweight. My research has found NO MFG. of a 43' diesel with full water and fuel has over 500 lbs. of capacity.

Why is Newmar the only one taking the brunt of this?

Peace!

You misunderstood the intent of my post. I think Newmar is perhaps the overall quality leader particularly among diesel coaches. I also have no direct knowledge of their overweight steer axle situation but I can tell you that there was quite a dust up on the forum here. After a few missteps, Newmar stepped up and changed out axles on a number of coaches. Heavy and over weight steer axles are not a new thing for 43-45' tag axle coaches but it shouldn't devolve to a situation where concerned owners have to call out the company.

If I had to purchase a new coach now, Newmar would be one of the few builders I would consider.

[Gordon Dewald]

Originally Posted by jmon129

Steve, in all my research I must really challange your statement. We have been in the hard shopping stage for the past 9 months. So much so that we have had a dealer take us on a test drive with full water and fuel and had the front axle weighed. It was on a 2016 2016 Dutch Star 43' model with full fuel, myself (no light weight) salesmen and DW. Had 380lbs. LEFT OVER. NOT over weight. I will be the first to admit, 380 is not enough, but that is a big difference between being overweight. My research has found NO MFG. of a 43' diesel with full water and fuel has over 500 lbs. of capacity.
Why is Newmar the only one taking the brunt of this?
Peace!

You are correct 380 is substantially low if you only have full fuel, water and two or three passengers. When you add food, clothing, bedding, snacks, dishes, load the compartments, etc you are going to be extremely tight.

Newmar has not been the only one taking the hit for this. Several other manufacturers have been cited for the same error. IMO the big issue was the initial reluctance to admit culpability and the profusion of operator at fault for expecting to fill the tanks when using. Thankfully after several months of procrastination they stepped up with a solution. Should another manufacturer 'engineer' the same situation I hope the forum and all MH owners will step up and hold them to the fire.

Our front 15,5660 axle is 14,198 fully loaded with ceramic dishes, snacks, provisions for a long weekend, wobbly pop, golf clubs, etc, etc .

[tom chelbana]

As a 20 year Newmar ownership and driven 200,000 miles in both our London Aire and now our Essex on Spartan chassis I couldn't be more pleased then to have my Newmar on a Spartan Chassis. Have been to Newmar plant over 10 times and Spartan Motors 6 times on plant visits I don't think you could make a better choice. Spartan who also build fire trucks and military vehicles knows the has the chassis business and a good choice for your Newmar motor home.