Narrow Body — Any Real Demand?

[atreis]

Originally Posted by Chance

All van slides I’ve seen involve using the optional driver-side door as the outer wall of the slide.

That makes a lot of sense ... The strength to support it would already be there.

I agree about it not adding much and detracting from the appeal of the B in the first place.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by atreis

That makes a lot of sense ... The strength to support it would already be there.

I agree about it not adding much and detracting from the appeal of the B in the first place.

When I think about it, the most useful application for a slide in a van is to accommodate a bed. And unless it’s a second bed for additional people (and 2 is plenty in any van for us), then the bed slide is likely the primary bed as is the case in that Winnebago ERA 70M. So just to end up with a bathroom larger than many Class Cs, you compromise sleeping to a tiny couch bed that requires the slide to be extended? Seriously?

Some designs seem so bad to me that I wonder how they get approved.


P.S. — Only explanation I have is that perhaps few owners of luxury ERAs, like Airstream Camper Vans, actually camp in them.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by atreis

Any notion of how well the Axis/Vegas sells? There are a lot here, but I haven't seen many at parks relative to other smaller Class A's...

It’s a great question, but I have never seen data broken down by models or floor plans. One rough number to compare how well different units sell relative to each other may be to compare RVTrader listings for new units.

2021 Axis — 80 units
2021 Vegas — 40 units

2022 Axis — 14 units
2022 Vegas — 20 units

What I continue to find most interesting is how well the 24.1 floor plan does relative to others, yet Thor doesn’t capitalize on that general design by developing similar floor plans. As of today, 24.1 listings for new Axis/Vegas motorhomes outnumber the other three floor plans combined.


For what it’s worth, there are 150 Winnebago EKKO listed (in relatively shorter period). Of those, 92 are smaller 22A, and 58 the larger 24C floor plans.

[atreis]

Originally Posted by Chance

It’s a great question, but I have never seen data broken down by models or floor plans. One rough number to compare how well different units sell relative to each other may be to compare RVTrader listings for new units.

2021 Axis — 80 units
2021 Vegas — 40 units

2022 Axis — 14 units
2022 Vegas — 20 units

What I continue to find most interesting is how well the 24.1 floor plan does relative to others, yet Thor doesn’t capitalize on that general design by developing similar floor plans. As of today, 24.1 listings for new Axis/Vegas motorhomes outnumber the other three floor plans combined.


For what it’s worth, there are 150 Winnebago EKKO listed (in relatively shorter period). Of those, 92 are smaller 22A, and 58 the larger 24C floor plans.

Interesting way to go about it. So, for comparison's sake ...

ACE - 84 2021, 21 2022
Hurricane - 56 2021, 6 2022
Windsport - 120 2021, 30 2022

If this is a valid way to measure, that would indicate the axis/vegas combined is quite popular relative to their other smaller Class As. Really does make one wonder why no one else has tried to make something similar.

And just for grins (see sig):

Four Winds - 360 2021, 44 2022 (plus Chateau - 307 2021, 47 2022)


FWIW, Axis/Vegas 24.1 is VERY appealing. Didn't work for me and my family of 5, but still appealing. If it were just my wife and I though, the Ekko is also very appealing!

[Chance]

Originally Posted by atreis

.....cut....

If this is a valid way to measure, that would indicate the axis/vegas combined is quite popular relative to their other smaller Class As. Really does make one wonder why no one else has tried to make something similar.

.....cut.....

Actually, Axis/Vegas was not first to build small Class A on the E-Series (Econoline) stripped chassis. The first that I’m aware of was the Gulfstream Montaj, but there were significant differences in design. Cost was a lot higher too, and it came right after the recession, so it was manufactured for only 3 or 4 years.

The Montaj had driver and passenger seats lower and a little further back compared to Axis/Vegas so front seats were part of living room space. Also, while lower than Axis/Vegas, they were much longer.

The biggest difference I see in design is that the body did not taper inward at front like Axis/Vegas, which left front wheels (due to narrow front track) sticking inside the outer walls so much that it looks really odd.

The Axis/Vegas is 87 inches wide at front, and 94 inches wide at rear. This helps with front wheels not looking so out of place, but requires side walls to not be straight. I personally think this issue is what has prevented other manufacturers from using the E-Series stripped chassis to build small Class As. Obviously if they made one narrow enough like the front of Axis/Vegas at 87 inches, walls could be straight.

Below are few pictures of the more expensive Montaj, which had dual pane windows, bike garage, Euro interior, etc. Some of the aero claims seem a little exaggerated, but made the point. I personally though it was not very attractive.
.

[Bob Denman]

I actually kind of like the look of that rig!
I wonder how many used units might be for sale?

[atreis]

I was mainly thinking about current offerings and the large manufacturers - Winnebago and Forest River. It does seem to fill a niche.

[Bob Denman]

I only saw one on RVTrader: a 2010 30'

[Chance]

I primarily want to see a flat floor in front so that driver and passenger seats can become a more integral part if living space. Having seats elevated like Axis/Vegas detracts from function in my opinion. And having seats too low like in Winnebago EKKO so it requires sitting on thick cushions is just as bad or worse. I also want to see forward-facing seats for extra passengers that can double as living and dining area.

A smaller Class A similar in size to European Hymer and other Class As would be a great option to have here in North America, but I expect that as a motorhome design becomes smaller, designers will stick with Cutaway rather than stripped chassis.

[Chance]

The longer EKKO has been cancelled during prototype development and testing, and all previous orders by dealers cancelled as well.

At a major dealer, orders for the shorter 22A floor plan based on 156-inch wheelbase Transit outnumbered the longer 24C version on 178-inch WB by almost 5:1 ratio.

The reason given was that it did not meet expectations during testing, not low demand. Since motorhome is being marketed for light off-road and also winter conditions, the larger and heavier floor plan would appear to be at a disadvantage. Who knows what real reason is?

[atreis]

Couldn't hit their OCCC target on that chassis is another possibility ...

[Bob Denman]

There's no doubt that off-road usage changes the game plan significantly.
What works on the street; is usually a non-starter in the dirt.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by atreis

Couldn't hit their OCCC target on that chassis is another possibility ...

Yes, that’s another possibility, although I personally doubt that was the cause. The longer floor plan had a slide which no doubt adds weight, but its overall size was still small compared to other Transit and Sprinter motorhomes built on +/- 11,000-pound GVWR chassis.

My guess (and that’s all it is) is that cost got too high and that the floor plan design is poor. They added 22 inches in length (plus a slide) and only gained a separate shower and a bit more counter space when slide is out. There’s no more sleeping or seating.

They could have easily added the separate shower with a regular toilet with black tank (versus cassette) without having to even add the slide at all. I would like them to offer a longer version, but a lot cleaner design than the cancelled 24C. And for off-road and winter use — no slide. You’d have stronger structure and better insulation. All that’s required is relocating fridge to driver’s side. Between that and 22 extra inches, there’s plenty of room for split bath.

[Chance]

Interesting comparison from Ford Fleet brochure showing Transit versus E-Series rear width side-by-side.


Shows overall width of SRW E-Series is essentially the same as DRW Transit.

Also shows SRW E-350 is exactly 12 inches narrower than DRW E-350.
.