Not sure the cause of the obsession with pushing the B+ marketing terminology for what is actually a C- ... a C minus the overhead bed. I don't see the change from the word "Class" to the word "Type" meaning bumpf. (A Rose by any other name...) There are still three... A, B, C... and as the RVIA portfolio of example photos shows, it is NOT the existence of an "optional" bed over the cab that decides this. Half of the pictures on their page of Class C examples are the Navion iQ model that Burlmart is insisting MUST be a B+ according to his personal interpretation of the word "type."
Personally I will follow the RVIA designation. My RV is a type C... built on a cutaway... no over cab bed... same size and sleeping capacity as the Navion iQ.
It really is so simple. A B+ is nothing more than the RV version of the marketing term "new and improved."
It really is so simple. A B+ is nothing more than the RV version of the marketing term "new and improved."
Thanks, mumkin, you pegged it! B+ means that a small C is designed to provide the positive style, handling, smaller footprint, and touring features of a B, + more flexibility afforded by starting on a bare van chassis. The result is a more spacious and liveable coach for two, but still in a compact MH.
29 ft to 31 ft B+
Burl, explain how this works into your discription. I guess it would be more livable for two.
It seems, as far as the manufactures are concerned, if it has no over the cab bed, it's a B+.
I am in total agreement with Rodger’s comment. A rig like rvten’s [30 ft Winne Aspect B+] is in no way “smaller, more maneuverable, or van like,” and it is obviously not what LTV appropriately labels as a B+, like mumkin’s Libero The Winnie has most features of a B+, but IMO its length disqualifies it as a B+ [an appropriate length for inclusion in the B+ category is implicitly that of the longer Bs (nominal 24 ft, or so)]
The first model years for Trail Lites and Phoenix Cruiser B+s in the early 2000s, as well as Starflytes, Chinooks, and Born Frees of that era were all 24 ft or less. I think after about 3 years or so, we started to see lengths go up as manufacturers wanted to capitalize on the hot appeal of the B+ concept. Manufacturers began to 'stretch' the B+ concept out to enhance the value of the common 30 ft C rigs.
You can't blame them for taking advantage of the hot selling style of the shorter B+s, but I am in total agreement with you, Rodger, that the original B+ models of up to 24 ft or so define what I have always argued to be the quintessential B+. It's a lot like freeriding on the back of a winning idea, but it has the quality reducing effect that usua;;y results from such activity.
LTV's metamorphosis from mainly B vans to mainly small B+ models is a shining example of the strength (and reality) of B+ MHs. I believe Phoenix, and Coach House have followed similar evolutions as well.
Johnworth914 wrote: There are three types of motorhomes. BTW, the industry is trying to get away from the word "Class" they are now calling them "Types"
Type A, B and C. There is no such thing as a B+ or C- or A Double ++
There are smaller and larger versions of each type, the rest is marketing baloney.
+1
+2
Bob & Sharon
Eastern Kansas
2013 Winnebago ERA 70A
Sprinter Class B Van
Our Second Sprinter
rehoppe wrote: I'll have to go with the 'marketing term' response. If you remember to look at what a 'B' was, (converted van), a B+ would be a High Top Van or extended Van.
So if you are going to use a 'cutaway' chassis, you'd logically have to term it as a 'C minus'?
Of course the whole progression is jacked up, because the 'C' used to be a PU with the back of the cab and part of the roof cut out. If you are old enough to remember. This 'C', was a CHASSIS mounted camper, and was for a certain number of years before they started to use vans cutaway and still Chassis mounted the camper.
The whole 'B' thing was just an excuse to charge more, for less, as I recall.
A lot of interesting ideas in this post.
Could you expand on your remembrances regarding your last sentence? It really seems dead on for both Bs and B+s.
rehoppe wrote: I'll have to go with the 'marketing term' response. If you remember to look at what a 'B' was, (converted van), a B+ would be a High Top Van or extended Van.
So if you are going to use a 'cutaway' chassis, you'd logically have to term it as a 'C minus'?
Of course the whole progression is jacked up, because the 'C' used to be a PU with the back of the cab and part of the roof cut out. If you are old enough to remember. This 'C', was a CHASSIS mounted camper, and was for a certain number of years before they started to use vans cutaway and still Chassis mounted the camper.
The whole 'B' thing was just an excuse to charge more, for less, as I recall.
A lot of interesting ideas in this post.
Could you expand on your remembrances regarding your last sentence? It really seems dead on for both Bs and B+s.
From the sparse shopping experience I've done in regard to 'B' units. It seemed to me that the Price was overly inflated in contrast to the 'C's. Less materials used, for the most part less livable space, less storage space, but for the most part starting at a higher price point than the 'C' counterparts. Much like the pricing that used to exist in computers. Smaller was more $s.
That being said IF you don't need the bed/entertainment center of the cabover. Don't need the cargo carrying space. Don't need the headroom. The B+ should actually be marketed as a 'C' PLUS. Because it won't leak where the cabover ISN'T. You won't overload it with cargo. And to top it all off. You'll get slightly better mileage and less mechanical wear, due to better aerodynamics, and perhaps lower curb weight?
I guess my point is; Even the RVIA, seems to ignore where these 'classes' came from. Which makes sense considering RVIA is by, of, and for the Manufacturers.
I however remember the days when I wondered what class the MHs were that looked like what we now call 'C's, actually were. They didn't have a Hood like the PUs had. They didn't look like a Greyhound looking Bus. And they didn't look like a Van conversion either, except for the grill and the short hood, with the hard to work on engine compartment.
Much like the 5th wheels that we see today. We used to call that mode of towing 'GooseNecks'.
Hoppe
2011 Dodge 1500 C'boy Caddy
2000 Jayco C 28' Ford chassis w V-10 E450
Doghouse 36' or so Trophy Classic TT
What did they call the As? Is that what you meant earlier - that C meant Chassis mount in the past, which is what we now mean by As? I was a little unclear on this.
Offline
.jpg)
