CCC as it relates to safety

EDIT - John:  This post and the following posts were split off from Sarge's "I hope the motorhome is put together better than this..." topic in the Winnebago board.


sargew, you point on vehicle weight is well taken and this is perhaps the single most important area that the rv industry should be taken to task for.  Horrible workmanship and sub standard materials are bad enough, BUT with the vast majority, some estimates put the number at 95%, of coaches/rv's being overweight is categorically criminal-no one seems to care or even be aware of this.

Certainly the manufacturers have to get creative when they are designing/building coaches and slides are heavy but the answer is NOT going to osb and mdf, these materials are far heavier than plywood, however oddly enough the composites are far cheaper-imagine that....so they outgas tons more voc's, the stuff is cheaper and that is what the name of the game has become.

BB said:

some estimates put the number at 95%, of coaches/rv's being overweight is categorically criminal-no one seems to care or even be aware of this.

Click to expand...

I think that estimate is a little high, and for motor homes is probably way less. Motor homes tend to be built with much heavier frames than your typical TT or 5ver.  But actually you asked and answered your own question.  It's all about the dollar even when it comes to weight. RV manufactures could easily build RV's that would hold whatever weight was needed.  All is needed is high tech thicker materials, or bigger starting steel I beams. And all it takes is money.  Money that consumers don't want to part with (me included).  And I don't believe that ANY RV is over weight when it rolls off the line.  It's when the consumer puts in that first bottle of water......

And the RV manufactures main argument is that they can't build a RV to fit the life style of ever consumer and how they are going to use it.  I am a good example. My last MH was a 32' pusher with 2 slides.  I had so much CCC that I couldn't load enough stuff to get close to the GVWR.  But my new rig at 35' and three slides and lots of other goodies that came with it put me right at the weight limit when I loaded it with the exact same stuff I had in my other shorter rig.  But I full time and carry everything with me.  Someone else may have thousands of pounds of unused weight available in the same rig. 

It doesn't make it right, it's just how I choose to travel around the country.  But one thing doesn't change. It is still MY responsibility to not travel over weight and endanger anyone else. 

SargeW said:

RV manufactures could easily build RV's that would hold whatever weight was needed.  All is needed is high tech thicker materials, or bigger starting steel I beams. And all it takes is money.  Money that consumers don't want to part with (me included). 

Click to expand...

You're right, Sarge.  Very often,  the biggest difference between a $500, 000 coach and a $250,000 coach is in the cost of the rolling chassis/engine/trans. BTW: I hate to break it to you, but a lot of the money you guys spent on your coach went to things you cant see unless it is up on a lube rack. ;D

Bob.n.Sue said:

You're right, Sarge.  Very often,  the biggest difference between a $500, 000 coach and a $250,000 coach is in the cost of the rolling chassis/engine/trans. BTW: I hate to break it to you, but a lot of the money you guys spent on your coach went to things you cant see unless it is up on a lube rack. ;D

Click to expand...

I absolutely agree!!  That's why as soon at the rigs start rolling off the assembly line with the new 2011 emissions (urea systems) there will be an instant $10,000 bump on the cost of the chassis. Oh, and I'm sure that all the RV manufactures will eat the cost and not pass it on to the consumers..............

Eat the cost.......riiight!  Hey, but look at the bright side:  Think of all the space you'll save in your blackwater tank, once you have a urea system! 

BUT with the vast majority, some estimates put the number at 95%, of  coaches/rv's being overweight is categorically criminal-no one seems to  care or even be aware of this.

Click to expand...

I haven't attended one in a number of years, but the figures given out at the A-Weigh-We-Go seminars said that about 2/3rds of all the RVs that they weighed  were overloaded. That figure was a combination of both the RV weighing more than it's GVWR and/or the tires being underinflated for the weight being carried, even if within the GVWR. I don't remember the breakdown between the two situations.

sargew,  perhaps people can post the ccc of their rigs and we can get a good feel for just how bad the situation is, my figure could certainly be off but as BernieD states whatever the true number its awful high.

One very high end B+ I looked at had roughly 600lbs of ccc, so you stock it up and more than likely your over-at the very least the chasis is completely maxed out, add anything on the hitch and you have huge problems.    I understand that most of the View/Navion's are grossly over-and from the articles I read its this negligence on part of the manufacturers dates back years, they don't care.

I had thought that all of you -A- boys/girls were in real good shape, but I am shocked to learn that this is not the case, it looks as though the only safe ride is the truck conversion, I have not seen one yet that did not have monster ccc ratings, two to three tons.

We did look at a B+ on an E450 and I want to say that the sticker was just over a ton in ccc, there should be a mandate with this as the minimum capacity.

There's no doubt that many rigs are running overloaded. And I am sure a lot of it is owner caused. If law enforcement ever started weighing RV's like they do semi's they would have a field day (and make a ton of money).

BB, the CCC would be interesting but I'm not sure how useful it would be because of the widely different way people load their rigs for use.  I do agree that manufactures do play fast and loose with the CCC though.  Case in point is that the GVWR on my 34Y chassis is the same that is quoted on the 39' Journey Express.  Same drive train, same weights and capacities but the coach is 4 to 5 feet longer.  I don't know how much that extra length actually weighs, but if I had bought the 39 instead of the 34Y, I most likely would have been way over the GVWR.  Honestly it comes down  to  "buyer beware".  But the truth is most folks never think about that when they buy a rig.

sargew,  perhaps people can post the ccc of their rigs and we can get a good feel for just how bad the situation is

Click to expand...

BB

The GVWR for my coach is 32,600#s. Over 8 years, I've had the coach corner weighed twice and both times it was under 30,000#s: full fuel, full water, full propane, empty holding tanks and both of us in the coach. But remember, you can still be overloaded if only one tire is underinflated and not rated to properly support the weight on it.

Bernie I suspect that virtually all of  your class of coach will be 100% legal when used for its intended purpose but as sarge posts even those buying this class have to be careful.

My position is that this should not be, manufacturers should be accountable for substandard workmanship, materials and design and they should be jailed for marketing products that they KNOW are going to be illegal-overweight- when used as they are intended to be used.

Two things have to change immediately, first the rv manufacturers have to be accountable for every coach/product that is an outlaw on the  highway AND the RVIA must also be exposed for its role in  fleecing the American rv consumer, remember all, or every coach we have ever looked at bears the RVIA sticker, the rv is unfit to be used as intended but its got the sticker.

Didn't intend to take the topic off on this tangent but when you speak of parts flying off on expensive coaches it really does lead into these other areas, the industry has very serious problems and the most serious is that it, the industry, is irresponsible.

Many take the position that a rv 'lemon law' is whats required but from my perspective this would not work, certainly Sarge would have valid grounds to start the process as would all those who have parts flying off but how do you provide fair resolutions when you have two distinct manufacturers involved-how would a buyback of the entire coach be handled when the issue lies with one and not the other?

The manufacturers know the situation and the dealers know the situation and they continue to prey upon the consumer, it really isn't right.

That's OK BB, you are not really off topic at all.  This is just a continuation of the original problem.  You are spot  on with a lot of your points, but getting that elusive RV lemon law would be about impossible.  You are also right about rigs being over weight due to low tire pressures. I am a huge fan of TPMS for ALL RV's, not just MH. 

I must say here though that when I brought the problem to Winne's attention I did receive prompt response and an interested customer service rep's attention. I have been in contact with him several times trying to figure out a coax routing issue with my rear TV.  I really do believe that my e-mail was seen by several folks in the company. It doesn't make them perfect, it just means that they are trying. 

Bernie I suspect that virtually all of  your class of coach will be 100%  legal when used for its intended purpose but as sarge posts even those  buying this class have to be careful.

Click to expand...

BB

Really not sure what you mean by that, your request was to get a reply from other members as to the ccc's of their rigs, which I gave you. However, you are also damning the manufacturers for one issue that is out of their control; tire pressure. As I mentioned low tire pressures were a significant factor in overloaded RVs being weighed. As Sarge stated, owners must also take responsibility for maintaining their tire pressures.

BernieD, I have known that ccc is, and has been, an issue with the industry for many years but I have also been under the impression that the larger coaches, specifically the -A- class and the truck conversions were exempt from this problem-Sarge has posted that - perhaps- this may not be the case. This is why I wondered and asked that any of the 'big boys' might post the specifics on their coach, you did and I appreciated it.

When I mention ccc I am referring to the maximum safe, read legal, weight that the chassis can support and stop and this is solely determined by the manufacturer of the chassis who selects the tires based on THEIR rated weight carrying capacity at a given pressure. 

Certainly tire pressure is important and this is the sole responsibility of the operator, the manufacturer's only duty is to make certain that the required pressures are clearly marked and located in easily seen locations as they should be required with regard to ccc, thats my point.

And yes, I do feel that both the industry and dealers can and should be damned for what has been foisted onto the rv buying public in the US.

Poor workmanship and sub standard materials are a 'shame on me' situation being 100% illegal on the road is not.

A few years ago I read a review of a high-end coach (maybe a Bluebird??)  in FMCA or Motorhome magazine that had a CCC of of a couple of hundred pounds    :.  I don't remember the exact number but the point was the coach was essentially useless as produced.  It might have been a prototype or concept coach - unfortunately I just don't remember the specifics.

BB said:

This is why I wondered and asked that any of the 'big boys' might post the specifics on their coach, you did and I appreciated it.

Click to expand...

BB, the published max GVW of our coach is 50,300 lbs.  Its a 45' Monaco.  the actual weight of the coach at last weigh-in, was 45,750 loaded with us, full water and propane and all our stuff.  This seems like we've got plenty of capacity, as we could theoretically add 4550 lbs more stuff.  As someone mentioned, the trouble is, we not only have to worry about exceeding GVW, but have to really watch the load on the corners.  Each floorplan, and the way we load each of the cabinets and basement storage areas, can drastically effect potential loads.  Our coach, even with it's 15,300 lb max on the front axle, and all it's load potential at the above numbers, was within 50 lbs of the max for the passenger side steer tire, and within 400 lbs of maxing out the front axle.  Needless to say, we did what we could to redistribute the weight of our stuff toward the back.  And the man who weighed our coach said that our floorplan was better balanced than most bigrigs he'd seen.  He has seen many that were well within total GVW, yet, way overloaded, particularly on drive axles.  He said he'd seen new coaches that were over GVW empty, on one side or the other of the front axle.  Seems like saleable floorplans are priority one, so long as the coach is well within it's max GVW, and coach balance comes in further down the priority list.

BTW, I notice on the spec sheet for the 2010's, even though the max GVW of 15,300 lbs hasn't changed, Monaco has increased the tire size from 295 80r 22.5's to 315 80r 22.5's on the front axle. 

Also, a tip for you guys out there:  If your coach is heavy on the passenger side next time you weigh it , don't even joke that it's the side your wife sits on.  I didn't have to run the A/C for days after that one!......I guess I should count my blessings that Sue didn't notice the unused 4550 lbs at the weigh-in, which was in a Camping World parking lot, about 50' away from the shopping carts :-X

Bob.n.Sue,  this is what I would have expected-your coach can be used as anyone would expect, plenty of ccc as it should be.

John, at the risk of stirring up the ant hill, as recently as '05 Winnebago was marketing the View/Navion that had a ccc of significantly UNDER 400 lbs-four hundred pounds.

Don't know about everyone else but from my perspective its real easy to pack way over 400 pounds of stuff, chairs, bikes, food, booze, cook stoves, tools, tables, games, clothing, books, dvds, dishes, pots/pans, bedding, blocks, bottled water, and a whole lot more-AND remember I believe that the Company says it sleeps four..

Without a toad, which I have seen , a trailer, which I see alot, solar panels, cargo carriers-the owners are criminally overweight add the preceeding and its goodby assets if you have a bad accident with sharp people on the other side.

Please don't misunderstand-I am not faulting the owners of overweight rv's even if they now know just what can be done?, aside from packing light there are no options: 100% of the blame is rightfully placed on Winnebago and their dealer network as with all other manufacturers that have victimized the public.

AND lets not forget that the RVIA has sanctioned-its that stupid sticker thing again- this criminal behavior making them as culpable as those who make and sell the illegal coaches.

Here's the calculation of weight capacities for our coach, in an article in our forum library.

BB, The CCC of my coach is #4548 not counting how ever much water I am carrying.  Last time I weighed I was at 26,120. My max GVWR is 27,910.  I seriously don't think I could have been running legal weight if I had bought the 39' Journey. 

BB said:

...as recently as '05 Winnebago was marketing the View/Navion that had a ccc of significantly UNDER 400 lbs-four hundred pounds..

Click to expand...

There is an order of magnitude difference between a 24' View/Navion (whatever the length) with 400 pounds of CCC and extremely limited storage space and a 45' Bluebird (or whatever) with 200 pounds (or whatever) that probably had the volume to store 4,000 pounds of stuff.  Guess which one is safer.

The CCC tangent is an interesting one and if we want to keep on going, I'll split off the obvious posts and move them to the Motorhome Board.