Why to most "large" A class RV's look the same?

[Long & Winding road]

Why do most of the "large" A Class RV's look the same? The front cap and windshield look the same (to me) on 75% of the LARGE RV's from the last 20 years. It dont matter if they are Gas or DP.

Why dont the rake the entire front end back 5 or 7 deg (or more)? That would help with fuel mileage and how it handles at higher speeds, should help with wind noise (plus add to the top end speed - lol).

Sure the manufacturers have changed the headlights / grill area about every 5 years but the front cap is mostly straight up and down (esp when you compare to my Axis).

And I know there are exceptions but I wonder why they are not the norm in this biz.

Are they trying to maximize floor space inside the RV? Is that was is more important. I know my Axis has a dash that is about 2 foot longer (Deeper) than the Hurricane and ACE RVs.

So I have lost about 2 foot of living space in my RV - But I put It to good use for my office stuff when parked.

The Axis window would have more of a green house effect over the Hurricane / Ace front windshield. So thats a down side as well.

Im not saying they should have the large curved glass like mine, but just lay the top part of the front cap back about 6 inches and keep the same (or simular) windshield. Perhaps they would actually extend the bumper area out 6 inches so they can lay it back and keep the rest of the RV the same.

What do you think?

[10scDust]

I think it is for overall length.
Add two feet, or give up something.

[The Gritz Carlton]

Maximize space and cheaper to do it this way. They don't care about your gas mileage...it's the least thing on the list when shopping around. If NHTSA came out with a cafe mandate for minimum mileage you would see them start to look like bullets. Otherwise, it's what brand and color of shoe box do you prefer and who makes the cheapest light clusters in China. They can stack and ship more front shells with them flat vs. curved. All about cost and maximizing floor space.

[JamieGeek]

Yeah probably cheaper to design a box than something angled and more aerodynamic (also they are now putting the bunks up there so if you angled the window the bunks would be smaller).

The Axis/Vegas units have a big dash because of the E350 chassis: The dash and steering wheel are that far back because its a van chassis instead of a truck chassis (like the F-53 which has the dash + steering wheel much further forward).

Of any RV the Axis/Vegas units are the biggest example of Thor trying to put a square peg in a round hole and, for the most part, succeeding at it! LOL

[Bob Denman]

There's only a few things that you can do to make a 45 foot-long box look different...

http://www.thorforums.com/forums/att...1&d=1546951892

[Long & Winding road]

Originally Posted by JamieGeek

Yeah probably cheaper to design a box than something angled and more aerodynamic (also they are now putting the bunks up there so if you angled the window the bunks would be smaller).

The Axis/Vegas units have a big dash because of the E350 chassis: The dash and steering wheel are that far back because its a van chassis instead of a truck chassis (like the F-53 which has the dash + steering wheel much further forward).

Of any RV the Axis/Vegas units are the biggest example of Thor trying to put a square peg in a round hole and, for the most part, succeeding at it! LOL

Yep, thats true.

Yep, I think Thor was spot on when they made the Axis / Vegas RUV (IMO).

I guess I like to see I big brother too. LOL.

[TurnerFam]

it's probably true that the factories aren't as concerned about fuel mileage, as most don't print any type of 'mpg' averages in their brochures, or don't necessarily try to 'sell' their coaches on mpg facts.

having said that, the front cap is purely a functional and design end game, but functional from the perspective that it needs to hold the windshield, and that's about it. The rest of the fiberglass front cap is just to cover the front of the coach.

If the factories were to try to make the front end more 'aero dynamic', then they would be adding footage to the overall length of the coach, which may not sound like a big deal, but that would also require more steel/metal infrastructure, more weight, and the length of the coach may suffer since a 45' coach is already at the maximum road-length.

I agree that everyone would love more fuel mileage, but most don't buy a coach, especially on the higher-end, because they are as concerned about it.

but, then again, as fads and design elements change, you may see this in the future...who knows. We can certainly look back to some in the past, especially the 70s and 80s, where this design seemed to be of importance - but most today wouldn't dare want to 'invest' in that look.

[Bob Denman]

I agree. If we can afford these rigs: we not so worried about fuel economy... but we sure aren't going to brag about it either!

[Long & Winding road]

Well i would think if they wanted to they could just add about 5 or 6 inches of length with the fiberglass cap only (not to the frame). Its all about the looks mostly to me and perhaps less wind resistant which might help with noise levels.

The MPG would be just a small benefit of the new front cap but not really the reason I would like to see it change some in the future.

Im not talking about radical changes... just something that looks cool and is layed back more than normal.

It seems like all you see is the flat front end on the RV's and the only differance are the headlights and grill area/fog lights.

[Bob Denman]

http://www.thorforums.com/forums/att...1&d=1546965891

[The Gritz Carlton]

That looks like some of the stuff in the RV/MH Hall of Fame in Elkhart. A must-see if you're in that area.

[Beau388]

I traveled for 16 years in one of the most aerodynamic class A coaches ever produced a UltraVan; eight feet wide, eight feet high and twenty two feet long. All aluminum semi-monocoque construction, it weighed 3,500 lbs empty. It had a 164 cuin (86 hp) air-cooled engine in the rear. Fuel mileage averaged 16 mph on 91 octane gas for the 188,000 miles my wife and I put on it.



If you don't travel above 60 mph, aerodynamics does little to help fuel mileage. The cd for a flat plate is 1.0, the cd for a Class A is in the range of 0.85 and for a car it is about 0.40, so it sounds like aerodynamics matter, but frontal area a much bigger item in total drag than the cd coefficient. At 60 mph under standard conditions aero drag contributes about 8% to the total fuel consumption. Tire flex is the biggest contribute to rolling resistance. Putting 15 more pounds of air pressure into your tires will increase you mileage more than any aerodynamic shape at 60 mph.

[Bob Denman]

Originally Posted by The Gritz Carlton

That looks like some of the stuff in the RV/MH Hall of Fame in Elkhart. A must-see if you're in that area.

That's a Bowlus... Kind of like an Airstream on steroids!

https://www.bowlusroadchief.com/

[Long & Winding road]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

http://www.thorforums.com/forums/att...1&d=1546965891

Thats cool. Slap a two piece windshield on the front and a motor underneath and im good to go. LOL

[Bob Denman]

Kind of like riding down the road in a really cool bicycle helmet!

[Chance]

Efforts to make campers aerodynamic date back a very long time, and for good reasons.

[Chance]

Some modern efforts look quite differently than the average motorhome. Smaller frontal area and or lower coefficient of drag can reduce power requirements at normal highway speeds significantly, thereby improving fuel economy.

[Bob Denman]

Who made (or who makes) that vehicle?

[Chance]

That’s a Rexhall Aerbus

It’s obviously kneeling, but still looks a little lower than many others.

[Bob Denman]

Interesting...

https://www.roamingtimes.com/2015/12...s-a-motorhome/