Class B Sales Drop 4.1% During February

[Ron]

Year-over-year Class B motorhome sales edged down 4.1% in February while gaining 5.1% for the first two months, according to the latest report from Statistical Surveys Inc.

Through February, Roadtrek Motorhomes Inc. was No. 1 in Class B sales, owning a 34.4% market share, followed by Thor Industries Inc. with a 23.7% share.

Pleasure-Way Industries Ltd. (18.6%) ranked third, edging out Winnebago Industries Inc. (16.7%).

Ron

[Mike]

Not surprising, considering the escalating prices for new models over the last decade, for a product that has remained largely unchanged. Some say the quality has waned in the last 4-5 years.
Interesting, considering there seems to still be demand for gently used (read as, already been through the depreciation grinder) class B products. They're scarce, so seem to hold their price better.

[mlts22]

I think it is due to short supply... from what I've heard, Winnebago is 5 months backlogged with ERA orders, and the other makers are pretty much similar.

Plus, I'm sure some people are waiting to see how the ProMaster (Dodge's van) and the Ford Transit will shake things up.

[markopolo]

RVIA posted February wholesale shipments stats. 165 Class B's were shipped. Winnebago, with their 16.7% market share, would have shipped only 28 units. With the demand backlog hopefully they can double that production.

[Ron]

RVIA posted February wholesale shipments stats. 165 Class B's were shipped:

RoadTrek: 57 Units
Thor : 40 Units
PW : 31 Units
WinneB : 28 Units
Unknown: 09 Units

If the above is correct RoadTrek did good, Thor was not to far behind RoadTrek, and PleasureWay was not to far from Thor, and Winnebago was not to far off from PleasureWay in shipping units.

I always thought that PleasureWay was second in shipping units, not so, Thor is second, doubt Thor would ever beat RoadTrek in shipping units.

Ron

[markopolo]

RVIA's stats would be accurate but my calculation of 28 units shipped by Winnebago might not be 100% accurate because one stat is sales (SSI Market Share) and the other stat is shipments (RVIA Shipments) but they probably correlate. Dealers would order based on sales or expected sales.

[Ron]

Following was posted on another forum:

Just was at a local ERA dealer. Even they are having a backlog. Orders are back at least five months from WGO.

Winnebago is putting a hurt on the competition with its prices. Just today, Roadtrek is offering a solar array for no cost with new models.

Kind of hard to believe that RoadTrek is offering a solar array for no cost with new models, especially when they are the number one Class B manufacture.

Ron

[Ron]

I understand it is true that RoadTrek will give a Solar Panel to anyone who goes to their RoadTrek dealer and purchases a new RoadTrek, it will also be installed, this is for a limited time only.

Excellent deal for someone purchasing a new RoadTrek, Kudo's to RoadTrek.

Ron

[booster]

I just got an e-mail from Jim Hammill pushing buying a new Roadtrek and getting a free, installed, solar panel. Probably because we got ours new, we must be on the list. It didn't say how big a panel, or what charge controller etc, which would be interesting to know. I am surprised that one of the "armchair engineers" that irritate him with too many questions would get the offer

If you could still get a decent discount on the Roadtrek, it could be a very enticing offer for folks to consider.

[Ron]

I also received an E-mail from Joe Morales from RoadTrek stating it was an announcement from The President of RoadTrek Motorhomes, Jim Hammill regarding a free installed solar panel with the purchase of a new RoadTrek.

Our RoadTrek is a 2010, 190 Popular that we ordered in December 2009, I was surprised to receive the E-mail from RoadTrek. We are looking forward to ordering a 2014 Class B in December.

We did see a 2013 RoadTrek, 210 Popular with a Flagstaff Mac Pop Up RV attached to it at Leisure Time RV in FL this past February when we were there having a new Macerator Pump installed.

Both Rose and I fell in love with both the RoadTrek 210, and the Flagstaff, would have traded in our RoadTrek 2010 190 Popular for both, our 3 grandchildren enjoy camping with us, they stay in a tent, they would have enjoyed the Pop Up.

The Pop Up would have been just right for the grandchildren, the RoadTrek 210 would have been just right for Rose and I, we do like a 210. We did have a RoadTrek 210 as a loaner back in September 2011, we loved it.

Photos of the 210 RoadTrek and Flagstaff Mac Pop Up.




Ron

[Mike]

Originally Posted by mlts22

I think it is due to short supply... from what I've heard, Winnebago is 5 months backlogged with ERA orders, and the other makers are pretty much similar.

Plus, I'm sure some people are waiting to see how the ProMaster (Dodge's van) and the Ford Transit will shake things up.

Have to agree on both points.
Not a lot of used or new product out there compared to other classes, and prices brand new may come down noticeably, if the major manufacturers switch over to a (presumably) less expensive base chassis. Or, that could drive the prices on the current in stock models down, as dealers try to move expensive stock prior to receiving newer models priced lower.
As for Winnebago doubling production, there really isn't any incentive from a business perspective that I can see (although I'm no expert), considering people are lined up at the door already. Maintaining a steady supply keeps the pricing where it is now. Increasing production might create a glut (ok, probably not) and reduce their marketable price. Even though they seem to have the best price going for a Sprinter based model.

[Mike]

Originally Posted by Ron

I also received an E-mail from Joe Morales from RoadTrek stating it was an announcement from The President of RoadTrek Motorhomes, Jim Hammill regarding a free installed solar panel with the purchase of a new RoadTrek.

Our RoadTrek is a 2010, 190 Popular that we ordered in December 2009, I was surprised to receive the E-mail from RoadTrek. We are looking forward to ordering a 2014 Class B in December.

We did see a 2013 RoadTrek, 210 Popular with a Flagstaff Mac Pop Up RV attached to it at Leisure Time RV in FL this past February when we were there having a new Macerator Pump installed.

Both Rose and I fell in love with both the RoadTrek 210, and the Flagstaff, would have traded in our RoadTrek 2010 190 Popular for both, our 3 grandchildren enjoy camping with us, they stay in a tent, they would have enjoyed the Pop Up.

The Pop Up would have been just right for the grandchildren, the RoadTrek 210 would have been just right for Rose and I, we do like a 210. We did have a RoadTrek 210 as a loaner back in September 2011, we loved it.

Photos of the 210 RoadTrek and Flagstaff Mac Pop Up.




Ron

Do you think they were pushing them as a set for an overall increase in living space? I had thought about towing something with our 2002 C190P, before we decided to switch to truck/trailer, but there just isn't enough room left in the GCWR for that model year, to pull much more than a ton or so, based on specs. Max combined weight is around 12,000 lbs. and after you subtracted the weight of a partially loaded van there's not much room left. The tongue weight would also be an issue, as we've seen from the folks on here that have modded their "loaded to the stops" axles and suspension. Not sure how much GAWR is left on them after the conversion.

[booster]

We haven't been on the scales lately, and since we have added batteries, solar, and few other things we need to do that. We also haven't weighed when set for a long trip (3 months or so), so that is also unknown to us. I will be very interested to see how it comes out.

As Mike said, many are loaded to, or even above, the load limits without a trailer. There was just a guy on the Yahoo board that was something like 300# over in the rear of a 210. His net conclusion was that some "experts" said it wouldn't be an issue, and it was "only" 5%. Most of the over/at weight limits seem to be at the rear, although I think Photog has said he is near limit on the front. Even though we are one of them that increased our tire capacity, it was really to give the rear tires a little space from being run right at max capacity, not so we could go heavier.

There have been quite a few folks go through the scales, weight, gross weight, tongue weight calculations routine, and most IIRC limited out first on tongue weight (this is on single rear wheel rigs, dualies have considerably more rear capacity). Roadtrek 210s are probably the worst, as they have very little load capacity to start with, and they add overhang. Most I have seen, who stayed within the limits, settled for about a 3500# trailer max, so 350# on the tongue, for the standard 10% rule. I don't think you could go much over 2000# with a 210. There are also quite a few who pull considerably more, and are not within the limits. They use load distributing hitches, air bags, etc. I have pulled a utility trailer that weighed about 2500#, with our C190P Roadtrek, for a fairly short distance, and have to say I could barely feel it (couldn't see it either without the camera on).

I would think the popup in the pix would be under 1500#, maybe under 1000#, so the 210 is probably still within rear weight spec, but you would have to be careful of how you loaded the inside of the van, I think.

The risks of overload would appear to be the already discussed tire failure possibilities (happened to Campskunk), possible handling degradation, and the legal stuff if you got into an accident while running overloaded. Tire brand does seem to be a consideration in the tire failure thing, as we have heard of lots of Hankooks blowing on Excels, a couple of Michelins (not XPS though), but not much about other brands. It appears the Bridgestones must be pretty tough, as a lot of vans came with them, and I haven't heard of much issue with them, even when past aging limits.

[Mike]

Back when I watched F1 racing regularly, the Bridgestones were always touted as being made with a harder, less pliant rubber compound than the Michelins. As a result, those teams that used them could run longer on a set, than the teams that used Michelin. Perhaps that carries over into the real world, and they are firmer and the sidewalls can handle more weight?

[AreCF]

The Gross combined weight rating of a Roadtrek 210 Popular is 16,000 lb. The gross vehicle weight rating is 9600 lb. Tongue weight rating is 1,000 lb. That allows maximum travel trailer weight of 6,400 lb (which is within the Roadtrek published specifications) for a fully loaded (9,600 lb) RT210P as the tow vehicle. Keep in mind that if towing in eastern U.S mountains, the rule of thumb is to keep the trailer weight at least 10% below the maximum. For western U.S mountains, the rule of thumb is to keep the trailer weight at least 15% (preferably 20%) below the maximum. Conservatively, a RT210P can tow (16,000 -9,600) X 80% = 5,120 lb in most places in the U.S.

For reference purposes, the OCCC for a RT210P is 1450 lb. Allow 230 lb for popular options (not including the 2 opt house batteries). Allow 300 lb for water, 32 for propane. Fully loaded with fluids, including propane, but no people or cargo, you can assume approx. 888 lb remaining. We and our and German Shepard weigh 425 lb. That leaves 463 lb for food, clothing and other, such as the tongue weight of a towed trailer. If towing a 3500 lb trailer, using the 10% rule for the tongue weight, would have 113 lb remaining for food, clothing and other, not nearly enough for normal traveling with the 210P. If you are going to tow a travel trailer with your 210P, you will need to transfer some of the cargo from the 210P to the TT. You could also travel with the 210P water tanks empty. That would get you close enough to the gross vehicle weight rating of 9600 lb. (Keep at least a gallon in the black water tank, however.)

If you add the 2 optional 6V house batteries (for a total of 4 6V house batteries), allow 35 lb each battery for a total reduction in your net cargo capacity (food, clothing & misc) to 393 lb. Similar analyses that I've seen generally place this amount of net cargo for food, clothing and other in the range of 350 lb +/- 50 lb.

[booster]

IIRC the folks that have done the weights and weighing on 210s found that anything more than about 350# on the tongue put them over on rear axle weight, and that would limit them to a 3500# trailer. Our 190, only had about 900# of cargo capacity, and the 210 is substantially heavier. It is very common for 210s owners to find themselves overweight when they get them weighed.

[Mike]

It's probably safe to say that towing anything bigger than a brush or ultralight popup trailer with a Chev or Ford chassis under the more common class B vans, is likely to be challenging at best, or an adventure at worst.
Still, we just got back from a short western trip and I did see one pulling one of those smaller contractor trailers, and a Sprinter pulling a toad. Small SUV IIRC.

[markopolo]

Welcome to the forum AreCF

And welcome back from the trip Mike

This topic got off track but I think we should just let it run where it wants to