Foggy
Kalamazoo Mi. U.S.A.
Senior Member
Joined: 04/01/2001
View Profile
 Offline
|
When I went shopping-looking at the RV dealer I told the dealer I was interested in a class C. He started by showing me a van with a couch which made into a bed, and ended by showing me a bus. Somewhere in between was a class C. The bottom line is the sales people don't care what you want to call it. Just buy something.
Happy-Trails
Foggy
|
klhutch
Sububan Chicago
Senior Member
Joined: 09/14/2005
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club
Offline
|
burlmart wrote:
What Westronics calls a Class C is similarly called a C Class, or more informatively, coachbuilt, wherein the van body has been left off or removed to be replaced with more spacious and complete living quarters (coach) similar to a small travel trailer (which they call caravans).
The B+ that Wes calls an "undefined marketing term" is very much defined in the Briitish wording:
What we call a B+ is a C-Class in the UK,
So, to sum up what burlmart is saying: In the UK our class C is a class C and our class B+ is also a class C.
Well, that is what a lot of us have been saying all along, they are all class C's and saying "class B+" is exactly the same as saying "small class C". There is no need at all for a "B+" class and since a "B+" is a C, not a B, it only confuses newbies when the term is used. It should be expunged from our vocabulary.
Who knows how the RVIA defines classes these days? They sure used to define classes the way they are defined on this forum, that is where the forum definitions came from after all. They weren't invented here to annoy "B+" owners. The definitions currently posted on the RVIA website are not "usage based", they are vague to the point of being useless. The real RVIA classes, if they still exist, are now hidden away in an area accessible only by RVIA members. The pictures of the various types of motorhomes shown on the RVIA website are a thousand times more useful for figuring out what the classes really are than the words that accompany them. And the pictures don't show what some want to call a B+ at all! So there, it is confirmed that they don't exist. 
Here is how useless the current RVIA "definitions" are. I have a motorhome. It sleeps four. It costs $70,000 new. What class or type motorhome is it? Look at the definitions, it is a Type ABC motorhome since it fits all three. To classify it any further with the given definitions we would have to ask some people how they feel about it. If ten people claim it drives like their family van and looks like a van camper then it is a class B, even if it is a 45 foot Diesel pusher (unlikely in that price range, I know!). If the same ten people claim it is roomy and has luxurious amenities then it is a class A even if it is entirely built inside the standard body of an E450 van. If those 10 people claim you could contrive to put a sleeping area over the cab somehow, as an option, then it is a class C. The truth is the words in the RVIA "definitions" are useless, the pictures are what really tell the story, and the pictures agree 100% with the traditional "RV.net" definitions of motorhome classes.
Why should we care? The only valid reason for dividing motorhomes into classes, here or elsewhere, is to group similar things together to make them easy to understand and to facilitate discussion about them. All RVs, from the tiniest travel trailers to the largest DPs and fifth wheels, have many features and systems in common. One could argue that we really only need one forum. But that forum would have a huge number of posts per day and people would have to write a paragraph describing what they actually owned with every post so that everyone else could determine how similar their experience was before responding to a thread. Thus the overall forum is divided into subsections. This makes it a whole lot easier for everyone to get the information they need without sifting through screen after screen of perfectly fine information that simply does not apply to them. There are issues that you can have with a class B that you will not have with a class C or class A and the same statement applies no matter which order the three classes appear in it.
There are no issues that are unique to a "B+" and absent on a C or vice versa. None. There is no functionality that you get or lose on a "B+" compared to a traditional C of the same length. I know, I've owned both. They are the same thing and that is why so many of us dismiss the un-needed and confusing class B+ terminology as merely marketing. We would embrace a term that captured the true essence of the subclass without introducing confusion, as Super C does for the large end of the class C universe. Mini C would work, maybe there is something better. I always point to the Winnebago View as a victim of what I regard as the class B+ nonsense. It handles very well and it is certainly small and fuel efficient. Yet no one regards it as a B+ because it has a boxy body and an overhead bunk. On the other end of the scale a 31 footer that is 8 feet wide and has a stylishly rounded fiberglass shell with a fairing instead of a cabover is a "B+".
Where is the sense in that? The View is certainly a Mini C and has far more in common with the photographic catalog of "B+" models that burlmart posted than that 31 footer does. A Mini C sub-class would be both far less confusing and far more useful than this putative "B+" class. Whatever it is....
Ken
|
burlmart
Baton Rouge
Senior Member
Joined: 03/28/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
burlmart wrote:The British have clear definitions of B, C, and B+:
The B+ that Wes calls an "undefined marketing term" is very much defined in the British wording:
What we call a B+ is a C-Class in the UK, and "many have overcab beds in the ‘Luton’ but there are also ‘low-profile’ versions of these motorcaravans without the Luton over-cab space and sometimes with a lower roofline, these vans are much more economical on motorways due to their improved aerodynamics."
Ken,
I go to the trouble and ridicule on these forums to make the case that it is absurd to deny that there DOES exist a visually observable subset of coachbuilt motorhomes which are PRECISELY described in the italicized words above.
The description of the luton (overhead cab area) should have drawn your attention as you discussed the Winnie View as being a mini C.
The 'low-profile Class C' may be clearly recognized in the following images
So much for B+ style Cs. As for the distinction between a Class B and a C, in all future discussions on RV.net forums, we again must take our que from the UK - the precise distinction lies in the definition of 'coachbuilt'
As for this Class C forum of RV.net, I do not think it should be subdivided, and feel the B+ and Super C subforums will eventually disappear for lack of necessity (and the sooner the better).
* B+ is a confusing label compared to 'low-profile C'
* mini-C obviously includes B+ and other small Cs
* and all are Cs.
* This post was
last
edited 11/02/09 01:03pm by burlmart *
View edit history
2005 Trail Lite 213 B-Plus w/ 6.0 Chevy
|
burlmart
Baton Rouge
Senior Member
Joined: 03/28/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
An RV.net blog entry
I was not aware that Phoenix evolved into builders of B+ motorhomes after starting out as van converters - this has also been the company histories of Leisure Travel Vans, Great West Vans, and Coach House.
* This post was
edited 11/01/09 01:23pm by burlmart *
|
rvten
Crossville,TN
Senior Member
Joined: 11/30/2000
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club
|
The never ending topic.
Tom & Bonnie
Crossville, TN.
Aspect 29H 2008
Class C past Class A owner
Pontiac G6
There is NO such Thing as a B+
.jpg)
|
|
|
|
