Class B vs B+ General Discussion

[Bertiboo]

I know this is a flame drawing subject so to try to avoid that:
- I am aware that RVIA does NOT recognize B+ as a motorhome type and that only Class A, Class B and Class C exist by their definition
- Any motorhome based on a full van chassis even with walls cut away is a Class B
- Any motorhome based on a Van Cutaway chassis regardless of cab overhead bed or lower profile is a Class C

However by common usage, Class B+ is the general vernacular term for van cutaway motorhomes without an overhead bed but with a wider manufactured coach aft of the driver/cockpit area.

So I see that this main forum has a site for general discussion area for Class Bs, and this one for B+. So it seems that the forum regulators recognize us B+ owners as wanting a separate forum from the multitude of Class Cs out there On the other hand, aBout half the topics here are Class B, not B+, making me think this is the wrong place. But I really haven’t found other good B+ specific forums other than some brand names like Rialta that have very good sites that are not applicable to me.

Without drawing the ire of B owners out there, are there other B+ owners who feel the same lack of coverage? Any better B+ sites? I do watch IRV, Sprinter and LTV sites but they are either not that active or applicable.

Gary
Shawnigan Lake, BC
2008 LTV Libero

[Davydd]

There are about 5-10 times B+ as you defined them than B’s. So any site that allows equal talk the Class B’s will quickly get overwhelmed, IMO. I’ve seen it in Facebook groups. I have little interest in cab cut away chassis and the discussion will get confusing. Then manufacturers confuse us further in claiming a 32 ft. RV is a B+. They name them B+ because they want to confuse the buyers and buyers buy into the wannabe syndrome. What we don’t have (yet) is much of the European really small C’s of about 20 foot and width and height no greater than B’s. I think that so far is because of our open road structure and not needing them. B’s no matter how you cut it are no greater than 2% of the RV market motorized and trailer pulled.

RV.net has a B+ forum. This forum has a separate section I think because the site owners wanted to accommodate Rialta owner who were I think orphaned from another site. The title ClassBForum probably keeps the Class C owners at bay or pass over it.

[mumkin]

Originally Posted by Bertiboo

...But I really haven’t found other good B+ specific forums other than some brand names like Rialta that have very good sites that are not applicable to me.

Without drawing the ire of B owners out there, are there other B+ owners who feel the same lack of coverage? Any better B+ sites? I do watch IRV, Sprinter and LTV sites but they are either not that active or applicable.

As an ex-Libero owner, who has also had 3 Class B's, I can relate. I resent that the RV sales industry created such a fallacious designation that has caused nothing but confusion for buyers. I ended up staying mostly on the B boards when I had my Libero, but our "issues" were rarely related. And with the high quality of the LTV, I also didn't fit in with the Class C groups... with so many of them mostly dealing with lack of build quality.

The owners were also quite different. Class B owners are mainly singles or empty nesters... while Class C owners are mostly families with kids. (although the Hymer Class B's successfully added lots of young families to the Class B groups)

The answer to your question is that I never found any such group... and wandered between RVNet and here back then. LTV started a great discussion group on their website, but when it got too labor intensive, they stopped it. At a rally around 2012 up in Winkler, we owners tried to arrange with them to have some owner moderators to help out, but nothing came of that. It went to Facebook, which I don't find a good platform for the sorts of things we discuss.

[Bertiboo]

Originally Posted by Davydd

There are about 5-10 times B+ as you defined them than B’s. So any site that allows equal talk the Class B’s will quickly get overwhelmed, IMO. I’ve seen it in Facebook groups. I have little interest in cab cut away chassis and the discussion will get confusing. Then manufacturers confuse us further in claiming a 32 ft. RV is a B+. They name them B+ because they want to confuse the buyers and buyers buy into the wannabe syndrome. What we don’t have (yet) is much of the European really small C’s of about 20 foot and width and height no greater than B’s. I think that so far is because of our open road structure and not needing them. B’s no matter how you cut it are no greater than 2% of the RV market motorized and trailer pulled.

RV.net has a B+ forum. This forum has a separate section I think because the site owners wanted to accommodate Rialta owner who were I think orphaned from another site. The title ClassBForum probably keeps the Class C owners at bay or pass over it.

Thanks David
I still think it’s confusing to have this separately labelled B+ site and that B owners converse here instead of the B site under the same forum header. Being a former Rialta owner and a regular contributor to the Rialtatech forum, I’d say that is one of the best tech forums out there, so most Rialta owners end up there eventually.

Anyway I’ll try the other one you mention too.

[tbrsedona]

Try this site. It separates B+ makes and models. The link takes you to LTV Unity models, our model.
https://sprinter-source.com/forum/fo...193&order=desc

[tbrsedona]

Here’s a link that takes you to the home page.
https://sprinter-source.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=57

[Brad1998RD]

Calling them a B+ is just a rediculous sales ploy by sales departments to get the customers mindset that the vehicle is smaller than the class C that it actually is.
Just like the sales ploy to play to pet owners looking at class A's , that the little window by the passengers feet is a pet window. When in actuality it is a window for the blind spot that is there without it. Just like on semi trucks.
Sales people and management should be held accountable for both of these falsehoods.

[Bruceper]

However by common usage, Class B+ is the general vernacular term for van cutaway motorhomes without an overhead bed but with a wider manufactured coach aft of the driver/cockpit area.

Some so called B+ units do have an overhead bunk.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by Brad1998RD

Just like the sales ploy to play to pet owners looking at class A's

Those aren't "Class A's"...They are Class B++.

[Camoman]

There are 2 thungs that puzzle me with this whole argument/question.
1) that some people whine and complain that there is no such thing as a class b+ simply because some trade group doesnt make that classification and
2) that somebody would want a "special group" for them.

More sane classifications for boards such as this would be by chassis manufacturer and coach builder, not the very general classification of a,b,c.

First, the idea that there is no such general category is ridiculous. I have several campers. In fact i have a class a, a class b, and a class b+.
And i can tell you that my b+ has as much in common with my class A as it does with my class b, but it has SIZE THE SAME, and FUEL ECONOMY BETTER THAN my class b.

My b+ is a 1987 allegro, which is a chevy astro MINIvan cutaway with a camper section attached that is slightly wider than a full size van(about 6.5 feet). It is a 4.3 v6 engined SINGLE REAR WHEEL AXLE on air ride.
It has no bunk over the cab.

It is 21' long. So it is the same lenth as my class b, yet it gets 2 miles per gallon better fuel economy because it is more aerodynamic and has a smaller engine.

However, inside it is WAYYYY roomier than my class b with a full standip bathroom/shower combo that is functional not tiny. However, to compare it to 25-35ft class c's with v10 engines on truck chassis with cab overhangs is ridiculous. It literally has nothing in common with them except the LONE fact that it is a cutaway(although its a cutaway from a MINIvan not a full size van like most others).

In every other way it is more like a b. However since it IS a cutaway its not really a b either obviously.

Hense why the term b+ gives it a much clearer description of what it is. It is IN FACT a b+ because it is BETWEEN a b and a C and hense the term b+ is linguistically and descriptively accurate.

As for why someone would want a separate thread for them, that makes no sense unless it is model specific. Most of them are made on the same list of chassis as the class c's or b's and by some of the same camper builders.

So if you have a b+ built on a ford chassis then youd want to be with class c forums, if you have one built on a mercedes sprinter diesel then youd want to be on a class b forum OR BOTH, again, unless you were on a model specific forum if there was enough of a particular model produced to make that beneficial.

As an additional note, my b+ is better in EVERY SINGLE WAY EXCEPT ONE than my b because that slight extra width makes literally EVERYTHING about the camper more user friendly and i can still park it anywhere that i can park my class b.

The ONE THING that my class b is better at is OFFROADING. it is on a fullsize ford e350 chassis(also 1987) which is very high off the ground(unlike new front wheel drive dodges), and since it is normal vehicle width(the same as fullsize trucks) i have taken it to some.pretty remote backwoods locations down rutted dirt roads that my b+ wouldnt be able to go because of its very low belly. Although my class b is the hightop version w roof a/c so i do have to watch carefully for trees, a midroof would be even better.

In fact, the remote access ability is the reason that i keep the class B, because for ALL onroad activities the b+ blows it away in every regard.
However, that said, a taller chassis b+ that isnt very wide might be able to offroad within reason too, but mine was designed for a very low floor and easy entry so it cant handle rutted dirt roads.

But if you do remote camping often, the all steel sides of a class b are tougher and more forgiving than the aluminum or fiberglass sides of a b+ would be.

[avanti]

IMO, the primary advantage (by far) of a B-van is the fact that the body is fully-engineered and built in a factory rather than by some guy in Elkhart with a staple gun (exaggeration for emphasis only). This is a qualitative difference, whereas every other distinguishing dimension (length, height, weight, etc) is quantitive. Any line your draw along such dimensions is going to be arbitrary and thus subject to dispute. THAT is why the industry chose the categories it did. Any other obvious definition would be a matter of opinion and subject to abuse. Co-opting a well-defined term like "B-van" for marketing purposes is an example of such abuse, which is why it annoys so many people.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

IMO, the primary advantage (by far) of a B-van is the fact that the body is fully-engineered and built in a factory rather than by some guy in Elkhart with a staple gun (exaggeration for emphasis only). This is a qualitative difference, whereas every other distinguishing dimension (length, height, weight, etc) is quantitive. Any line you draw along such dimensions is going to be arbitrary and thus subject to dispute. THAT is why the industry chose the categories it did. Any other obvious definition would be a matter of opinion and subject to abuse. Co-opting a well-defined term like "B-van" for marketing purposes is an example of such abuse, which is why it annoys so many people.

I agree, the big deal for me is that they are riding the coattails of the class b van construction METHOD, not the SIZE necessarily, although I think a 32' B+ is truly a deception in every way. When built on a standard steel van body, everything is likely to survive longer in relation to roofs and other body related failures like delaminaton than tradition C style rubber roof laminated sides. You hear very little complaining about a dually 24' class b not being really a camper van, but lots about a 24' class C being called a B+, and I think the above is why.

[Camoman]

Well if this a qualitative determination, then the same should apply to class A's.

My class b wasnt designed by ford, it has an aftermarket hightop fiberglass roof, which incidentally would pop right off in any serious accident. My B+ actually has a steel framework and while watching races i have had 5 full grown men standing on top of it with no noticable flex, i was even surprised.
I would necer do this on my fiberglass B because it flexes significantly under the weight of 1 person.
My class A is also steel framed, but ive never had multiple people up there because it still moves a little with just me up there, but it is quite a bit wider and perhaps not engineered as well.

There is certainly no automatic "better" that car manufacturures get for quality. They enormous amount of "fails" from engines, transmissions, to structural components and safety concerns is legendary.

Often it is the aftermarket that finds solutions to these errors.
This of course doesnt mean that all camper makers make.great products, they obviously dont, but some do.

And basically most of them all use the same stuff on the inside.

I agree that a 32' is not a B+ but then what would we call the old rialto diesel ? Technically its a class A, But that is ludicrous on the face of it because it is FAR MORE similar to an actual B, not even a b+ because of the hoakie bathroom, but yet in size it is a B+, cause its not a cutaway so its not a C.

It would be helpful if there was a more agreed upon term, but i call anything a B+ that is of similar overall length as the biggest B, but that is NOT a B.
In other words, something that is a little narrower than a class C but maybe a little longer, or something that has only 4 tires.

In other words, basically anything smaller than around 25' that isnt a class B, because that gives it some reasonable parameters that cover the rialto, my allegro, and some of the smallest class Cs because nobody thinks of my allegro when they think "class c camper" and nobody thinks of a rialto when you say "class A coach".

If you say class b+ people are going to be thinking of campers in the size range of both of the allegro and rialto and of the really small class c's like some of them with single wheels that are only 21- 23' long.

It just a terminology to make things a little more clear as to size and layout, and its really not necessary if everyone just gave dimentions, ie length, width, height; as that would tell you what you most need to know and i suppose we could have class B mean a FACTORY ONLY UNMODIFIED SHELL(which my class b would fail on but the new factory hightops would pass), and everything else could just be brand and dimentions. Cause ford allegro would mean its a cutaway van of whatever dimentions, as class A 's are never named by the chassis brand and a 21' rialto would obviously be a small non-cutaway and my chevy astro allegro 23'x6.5x11 would be a small van cutaway, because the current 3 categories dont leave a realistic space for the intermediaries between class b and c(and A for that matter, ie rialto style.)

[markopolo]

Originally Posted by Camoman

..................
I agree that a 32' is not a B+ but then what would we call the old rialto diesel ? Technically its a class A, But that is ludicrous on the face of it because it is FAR MORE similar to an actual B, not even a b+ because of the hoakie bathroom, but yet in size it is a B+, cause its not a cutaway so its not a C....................

Rialta's would be compact Class C's. Same with the Lesharo's.

Class B = starts converted life as van chassis (comes with roofed cab & cargo area)
Class C = starts converted life as cutaway chassis (comes with roofed cab & just open frame behind cab)
Class A = starts converted life as bare chassis (no roof at all)

Rialta base vehicle:

[Jon in AZ]

This has been an interesting thread for a newcomer to Class Bs. While I get the basic distinction between B and C (full cargo van versus cutaway chassis), I’m still trying to understand how some of the so-called B+ units are built. I get that some are just small Class Cs built on a cutaway chassis. I’m more interested in those that start as a full van but end up looking like a small Class C, with only the cab visible.

I know the Roadtrek Popular 210 is a true Class B+ because it started out as a full cargo van, and it visibly preserves the side and rear van doors. How much of the rest of the van is left and what do they cut out? I’m thinking it must preserve structural beams around the upper edges to support the doors, no? Anybody have a picture of what it looks like after they cut it up and before they add the fiberglass rear shell?

Are there other true Class B+ units that remove more of the superstructure? Are there some that leave only the cab and floor pan? How does a cutaway chassis work with new unibody vans? How do you really know, since to the eye there’s no trace of the original van body? How much of a full cargo van is it practical to remove in the making of a B+?

[markopolo]

Roadtrek 210 is a Class B. Heavily modified but it's a Class B.
Pleasure-Way Excel is a Class B. Again, heavily modified but it's a Class B.


Roadtrek 200 would technically be a Class C as it was a cutaway before conversion.


Nothing is cut away from a Cutaway model, it's just what that offering is named.

[peteco]

The 2004 and on Roadtrek 210s started as a van, then cutaway behind the cab area. I always wondered why they didn't start with a chassis cab. Perhaps because they used the rear doors and door frame integrated into the new fiberglass body.

[mumkin]

Originally Posted by markopolo

Class B = starts converted life as van chassis (comes with roofed cab & cargo area)
Class C = starts converted life as cutaway chassis (comes with roofed cab & just open frame behind cab)
Class A = starts converted life as bare chassis (no roof at all)

Exactly... RVIA has defined it so that anyone can understand it with minimal problem.

Why all the mental gymnastics twisting and turning to try to create one's own definition escapes me.

The only reason that the Sales term B+ exists is because B's have the reputation of higher quality and price tags. Class C is too often tossed together with a low price tag to match. Taking off the cab over the bed and making it more streamlined does NOT make it into a B by any stretch... even if they do up the quality like the small LTV and PW models.

My first Class B... in a Ford E-350 van had a bed over the cab. My Class C LTV Libero did not have the bed. Both were high quality examples of their classes as defined by RVIA.

[Jon in AZ]

Originally Posted by markopolo

Roadtrek 200 would technically be a Class C as it was a cutaway before conversion. .

Haven’t looked underneath one, but are you sure it doesn’t have the original full van floor pan?

What about the Xplorer vans? They are also all-fiberglass behind the cab, but seem to be considered Class Bs. How did they start life? (EDIT- looked at some pictures and see now they have a regular van body with some fiberglass enhancement on top and at the back.)

[Bud]

Originally Posted by peteco

The 2004 and on Roadtrek 210s started as a van, then cutaway behind the cab area. I always wondered why they didn't start with a chassis cab. Perhaps because they used the rear doors and door frame integrated into the new fiberglass body.

Also the side doors.