Quote:
Originally Posted by JamieGeek
Ah but doesn't that just follow the normal Class C ratio (I see many class C's where the wheelbase to overall length ratio is just over 50% where Axis/Vegas (and most class A's) the ratio is much higher--like 61% for our 24.1). For another discussion I had made this spreadsheet comparing wb to length for Forrester Class C's vs Axis/Vegas units: Attachment 10469 --even looking at those, however, the Axon appears to be even worse... |
I agree that too short a wheelbase isn’t a great idea, although I’m not sure there is anything “normal” in the RV industry. I think designers build whatever they want based on what they think people will buy with little regard to how it may affect function.
Both E-Series and F-53 are available with 158” wheelbase, but I see very few F-53-based Class A motorhomes that short. On the other hand the 158” E-Series is very common on Class Cs below 25 feet in total length.
For comparison, all Sprinter Class As and Cs are 170”, and are “normally” limited to 24 ~ 25 feet. Their WB ratio is a little better, which may contribute to their better handling and stability.
As I’ve mentioned before, I’m still puzzled why they don’t use the E-Series 176” WB chassis for mid-size Cs (25 ~ 28 feet) instead of stretching the shorter 158” WB. I recall only seeing specs for one Class C with 176” WB.
Thor Forums
