Greater livability: Width or length?

[EA37TS]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

I'm curious: Do you know how much weight a slide adds?

If it only adds like 500 lbs then saving the slide weight really isn't an issue, but if it adds 1000+ lbs then its a big deal.

Looking at our unit: without a slide you'd still have the couch, cabinets, walls, etc. So adding the slide just adds the weight of the Schwintek mechanism and any reinforcements in the slide and framing around the slide. Looking at the Schwintek videos it doesn't look like they'd weigh more than 100lbs or so thus I'd be inclined to think that in the 24.1 the extra weight from the slide is minimal.

The only added weight for the slide structure would be the two narrow walls since the longed exterior wall would have to be on the side of the coach anyway. You may also have the weight of the slide floor or platform since it rides on the original floor.

[blw2]

there;s the box.... the slab side wall is the same but the return walls that extend out wrap left, right, top, and bottom.

I'll guess that stuff weighs 7 or 8 pounds per SF, so a 2ft slide x 10ft long would add 50-60SF... so roughly 400-500#
then the slide mechanism, motors, rollers, etc..... 50-75# maybe?
a slide topper... maybe 20-30#?

All just guesses, but it adds up...

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

I'm curious: Do you know how much weight a slide adds?

If it only adds like 500 lbs then saving the slide weight really isn't an issue, but if it adds 1000+ lbs then its a big deal.

Looking at our unit: without a slide you'd still have the couch, cabinets, walls, etc. So adding the slide just adds the weight of the Schwintek mechanism and any reinforcements in the slide and framing around the slide. Looking at the Schwintek videos it doesn't look like they'd weigh more than 100lbs or so thus I'd be inclined to think that in the 24.1 the extra weight from the slide is minimal.

Jamie, that's an excellent question. I'm sure there is a big difference depending on slide size, among other factors. I don't have an answer but expect it's more than some think. Certainly far more than 100 pounds even for a small slide like on your MH.

Comparing specs for similar-size trailers which often publish weights, it becomes obvious that slides can add significant weight. I was surprised.

Also while doing research, I found references to repair sites warning people not to try removing a slide, even with help, because they are heavy -- more than what a few guys can lift.

While the walls, floor, and ceiling of slides may me made of lightweight foam panels, I'd bet they have a stiff metal frame built-in to give it structural strength and rigidity. Without stiffness it would be hard to keep them from binding.

Additionally, from an engineering standpoint, I also expect that when a large hole is cut in the side of any RV, that it weakens and makes the structure more flexible unless a lot of reinforcement is added back. Plus there are the weather seals, all the added interior trim, and an awning on the outside. It all adds up.

I'm just saying that the total weight added by slides is much more than that of four extra walls and a couple of motors. If you want to get a good estimate, look up trailer specs for similar-size trailers with and without slides.

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by Chance

While the walls, floor, and ceiling of slides may me made of lightweight foam panels, I'd bet they have a stiff metal frame built-in to give it structural strength and rigidity. Without stiffness it would be hard to keep them from binding.

Yeah I was thinking that with all our estimates above there may be a steel frame in the slide and a steel frame around the hole (instead of the general foam + aluminum of the camper itself) thus adding some significant weight.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Yeah I was thinking that with all our estimates above there may be a steel frame in the slide and a steel frame around the hole (instead of the general foam + aluminum of the camper itself) thus adding some significant weight.

Jamie, in doing more research on pros and cons of slides, I found one guy's reference to a 1500-pound estimate. I have no way of knowing what size that applies to, or where he got the number.

While I think the writer is way off the mark on importance of some pros and cons, his mention of safety in a highway collision is something I hadn't given much thought to -- mostly because few of us plan on crashing.

It raises a good question though about how well slides are secure in place in a violent collision. He suggests the industry is essentially unregulated in this area.

I've seen a couple of serious RV accidents and have to say they didn't hold up well on outside. The insides were probably even worse. I'd be interested in hearing what you guys know about RV collisions, and what impact slides have on safety.

RV Slide Room Pros and Cons

[JamieGeek]

Well in all the collisions that we've come across have always been trailers. In every one of those the trailer disintegrated--the only recognizable pieces was the frame and the slide box off to the side.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by Happily Retired

...cut....

For us, the perfect Axis would be the 24.1 on a 450 chassis, so we could have a second slide, preferably in the bedroom. No more crawling into bed!!! It would also be at least a foot longer, with all of that extra length devoted to a bigger shower!! Now that would be just about perfection!!!

....cut....

I thought that Thor would not use an E-450 chassis (stripped or cutaway) under a narrow coach like the Axis/Vegas because the wheels would stick out too far outside the body, but apparently that's already done on RVs of similar widths.

In this month's MotorHome magazine they reviewed a 93-inch-wide Phoenix Cruiser built on an E-450. Additionally Thor builds the Siesta B+ which at 94-inches wide is the same as the Axis/Vegas.

According to Ford specs the rear axle is 2.3 inches wider on E-450 versus E-350, so wheels should stick out the side unless fender flares are used.

From some angles the Phoenix Cruiser seems to have a rear track a little too wide for the body, but it seems to work OK. So for those wanting a bigger Axis/Vegas with more slides, built on E-450, maybe it's very possible.

As I stated before, I would personally prefer a little of the "less is more" design approach but know I'm in the minority.

[Chance]

Looks a little odd to me but seems to work.

[EA37TS]

Originally Posted by Chance

I thought that Thor would not use an E-450 chassis (stripped or cutaway) under a narrow coach like the Axis/Vegas because the wheels would stick out too far outside the body, but apparently that's already done on RVs of similar widths.

In this month's MotorHome magazine they reviewed a 93-inch-wide Phoenix Cruiser built on an E-450. Additionally Thor builds the Siesta B+ which at 94-inches wide is the same as the Axis/Vegas.

According to Ford specs the rear axle is 2.3 inches wider on E-450 versus E-350, so wheels should stick out the side unless fender flares are used.

From some angles the Phoenix Cruiser seems to have a rear track a little too wide for the body, but it seems to work OK. So for those wanting a bigger Axis/Vegas with more slides, built on E-450, maybe it's very possible.

As I stated before, I would personally prefer a little of the "less is more" design approach but know I'm in the minority.

If that is what you want buy a Class C on the E450 chassis. The Phoenix Cruiser is a high priced Class C. BTW, with the Phoenix the DSI hot water heater, backup camera, and trailer hitch are all options and not standard equipment.

The Axis should not be compared to a Class C in chassis or any other feature for that matter.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by dstankov

?....cut....

The Axis should not be compared to a Class C in chassis or any other feature for that matter.

Dave, I don't know what you mean in that they shouldn't be compared. The Axis' chassis is the same as most Class Cs which are built on either E-350 or E-450. It seems like a fair comparison, but I'm probably missing your point.

I was wrong to think that manufacturers wouldn't use an E-450 under a coach as narrow as the Axis/Vegas, but they already do.

For me personally upgrading to E-450 would be going in the wrong direction. I'd want a smaller Axis before a bigger one.

[JamieGeek]

Personally I don't see why there would be a need to go to an E-450 chassis on the Axis/Vegas to begin with.

When we weighed ours with all of us in it, full fuel, full water, empty waste tanks and all loaded with our stuff it was 11,400 lbs. A full 1100 lbs less than GVWR--that is quite a bit of margin.

Now if they made a floorplan that was significantly longer, or had larger slides then the additional GVWR may be necessary.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

....cut....

Now if they made a floorplan that was significantly longer, or had larger slides then the additional GVWR may be necessary.

That seems to be the case with the Siesta or Citation B+ model 29TB which are 31'-7" long and have 3 slides. Without the extra 2,000 pounds of GVWR that the E-450 chassis offers that coach wouldn't be possible.

Thor could probably stretch the Axis/Vegas in a similar manner but their entire "RUV" marketing campaign would likely have to change.

[EA37TS]

Originally Posted by Chance

Dave, I don't know what you mean in that they shouldn't be compared. The Axis' chassis is the same as most Class Cs which are built on either E-350 or E-450. It seems like a fair comparison, but I'm probably missing your point.

I was wrong to think that manufacturers wouldn't use an E-450 under a coach as narrow as the Axis/Vegas, but they already do.

For me personally upgrading to E-450 would be going in the wrong direction. I'd want a smaller Axis before a bigger one.

The Axis is marketed as an RUV (Small Class A) and should not be compared to a class c. The Axis has more livable space than a comparably sized class c.

Since the Axis has more livable space than a Class C and is more mobile and agile than a typical small Class A (on F53 chassis) changing the chassis configuration would take away from some of those features (agility and mobility). What benefit would one receive from an E450 vs E350? A wider stance which takes away from mobility, higher ground clearance which takes away from agility.

The E350 and E450s use the same drive train with the primary difference being in the suspensions and foot print. I'm sure Thor considered which chassis to use when they came up with the RUV concept.

[blw2]

These "RUV's" never really hit my radar when I was shopping, so I don't know much about the idea. Reading this thread give me a taste of the idea though.

Originally Posted by dstankov

The Axis is marketed as an RUV (Small Class A) and should not be compared to a class c. The Axis has more livable space than a comparably sized class c.

I was wondering the same thing.... why not compare? Still don't totally get your point, but I guess you're saying they are designed for different purposes.

Originally Posted by dstankov

Since the Axis has more livable space than a Class C and is more mobile and agile than a typical small Class A (on F53 chassis) changing the chassis configuration would take away from some of those features (agility and mobility). What benefit would one receive from an E450 vs E350? A wider stance which takes away from mobility, higher ground clearance which takes away from agility. The E350 and E450s use the same drive train with the primary difference being in the suspensions and foot print. I'm sure Thor considered which chassis to use when they came up with the RUV concept.

why?..... greater towing capacity maybe? added margin in CCC? Greater stabilty? more capable brakes? I'm just guessing, since i'm not familiar with the differences in the two chassis

Kinda like my coach would be a much more capable unit if it were sitting on an F-550 rather than the E-450

I just don't get your agility angle though..... these aint sports cars.... but I guess it's relative. What are the real differences between the 350 and the 450, anyway?

[JamieGeek]

Originally Posted by blw2

What are the real differences between the 350 and the 450, anyway?

Basically its weight carrying capacity. Similar to the F-250 and F-350 (and F-450). The trucks are pretty much identical but the higher numbered trucks are spec'd to carry more weight.

If you look at the literature for the Vegas/Axis units Thor is selling them as "tricked out conversion vans". To be used to take little jimmy to the soccer tournament, or tailgate the local college football game. In that respect they are small enough to be easily maneuverable around small facility parking lots, don't really take up much more space (ok yeah two parking spaces back to back), etc. Thus the idea is that an E450 chassis, being slightly larger, doesn't fit that "RUV/SUV" idea--even though the differences are pretty minor (e.g. just some heavier springs and rear axle).

[Chance]

Originally Posted by blw2

.....cut.... What are the real differences between the 350 and the 450, anyway?

Comparing detail specs, the only difference I can see is the rear axle and leaf springs.

The frame, wheel sizes, wheelbase, etc... appear the same. They have the same front suspension, engine, and transmission.

The stronger and slightly-wider rear axle increases GVWR from 12,500 to 14,500 pounds. The rear springs have a higher load rating also, which makes them stiffer. For a light motorhome it may make the ride a little harsher.

We should note that the E-450 is practically the same as an E-350 in most dimensions, and neither resembles a F53 motorhome chassis. The use of a van chassis is what sets the Axis/Vegas apart from most Class As which use chassis derived from larger trucks.