Winnebago Era 70C - with slide out - Page 3

Mike · 12-23-2013, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobojay

Quote:

Originally Posted by georgelesley

In our ERA 70A the rear doors can be opened from the inside for emergency exit purposes. For us, the sit down on the pot wet bath is ideal. I have to sit down when showering anyway, so a separate shower stall would not work for us. I think that having a slide out that mostly provides a larger bath would be a waste of space. How much time do you spend in a bath anyway vs the rest of the RV?

We did have an American Cruiser for several years and it had the bed in the middle. That floor plan did not suit us because of the one area does all DavyDD mentioned. We much prefer the separate zoning we now have.

Bottom line, I don't see any need for a slide out in a "B". If one wants/needs a slide out a class "C" would be a better choice.

What georgelesley says...

You like sitting on "the pot" to bathe?
I would spend more time in a full bathroom, since I wouldn't need to spend time in public facilities any more. I agree that spending time in a water closet with wrap around folding doors and shower curtains, isn't particularly appealing. That's why we don't spend much time in our current toilet closet, and certainly don't see it as a good overall personal hygiene solution. For us, at least.
As for the separate zoning, that's not a problem for us.

That's it. I'm outta here..........

bobojay · 12-24-2013, 04:32 AM

Mike, yes bobojay, me, had the factory installed slide topper on the bedroom slideout on the Navion. When it rained it was much noisier than our current Sprinter B is, which really surprised us the first time it rained on us in the ERA. Also like I said earlier, if the wind was blowing hard enough in the right direction, the topper would flap a bit and cause the whole slide to jiggle and jump around enough to keep us awake. After having to close it several times in the middle of the night just to be able to sleep, I'd had enough of that. The side slide with the bed in it will have the same issues.
The wife & I have found it a lot easier to sit on the stool when/if we use the shower in the ERA also. No issues whatsoever there. I even leave the lid open to add more water to the black tank if we're close to dumping anyway.
Over the course of owning 4 RV's in the last 13 years, 2 B's, a C and a 5th wheel (that sucked), we've figured out what works for us, along with talking to several dozen other B owners to get their experiences and insight.

All RV's are full of compromises....

Mike · 12-24-2013, 02:02 PM

Bob, I agree, life is full of compromises. Not just with RVs.
It's all subjective, as I've said all along. What works for one person, may not work for another. There isn't a right opinion, or a wrong opinion, there are just opinions, based on personal preferences. There are lots of things that a majority of people don't like, but that doesn't make them bad things to be summarily dismissed. Unpopular, maybe, but not necessarily bad or useless.
I think it might be worth the slide out compromise, if that's what it is, to have the fuller bathroom, you and george (and probably others) don't. I respect your opinions, and as you said, you've figured out what works for you, and that's fine. We have similarly figured out what works for us, and sitting on, or straddling a toilet to bathe didn't make the list. Aisle showering also didn't make the grade. Doesn't make them bad options, just not for us. We've been looking for a workable alternative to self-contained hygiene when public showers aren't readily available, and short of upsizing to a larger motorhome, we think the LTV FS SS or the Winnebago ERA 70C might be the answer, in a class B sized RV.

Davydd · 12-24-2013, 05:55 PM

I think I said earlier people wish or try to make a B what it isn't. I think at that time it might be time to consider a different type of RV. If you have a bathroom you think you'll use more in a B such as luxurious shower every day you have to understand then you'll never have Class A size tanks so will end up dumping and filling just about every other day. That's not too easy to do in a remote boondocking situation. Interestingly, we use our bathroom more when we have the full hookups to water and sewer and can get city water pressure. Often in such situations in a full hookup campground the public facilities often aren't that accommodating especially when you are amongst a Class A/large trailer centric CG.

bobojay · 12-25-2013, 03:20 AM

David, we both really like that PW Plateau FL floor plan. If we hadn't already found the 70A, that's something we'd definitely look into with the new 4 cyl/7 spd combo.....

georgelesley · 12-25-2013, 08:52 PM

Dave, I think you are right. Unless one does not mind dumping and filling tanks every day or two, the size of the waste tanks in any "B" makes remote boondocking without hook ups impractical if two people plan showers everyday. If at a CG with full hook ups available then any RV works Mixing boondocking with full hook up CG's inbetween is a viable alternative. I must sit down while showering due to medical concerns thus we have no choice as to type of bathroom. A separate stall simply is not big enough for me to put a seat in.

markopolo · 12-26-2013, 01:13 PM

I like that bathroom also

It would be nice for us - like a mini micro condo.
Great point about the smaller tanks in B vans though. With a comfy shower like that the waste tank would get full quickly. I hadn't really thought of that. I'd be looking at it more for extended winter stays with full hookups though.

I'd like to know if a person can get around the end of the bed when it is set up for sleeping. If anyone sees the 70C at a show please post whether that is possible.

The lines between RV classifications are more blurred than ever. I'm glad to see options like these in a B van because I prefer a B over a Class C or Class A. It's just more useful as a second vehicle to me even at 24' like some of them.

booster · 12-26-2013, 04:01 PM

As I mentioned earlier, the lines are getting so blurred between classes of RV's. I think a lot of the manufacturers are overly struggling to produce what they can call a B, but give the amenities of larger rigs. By the time they are done, they wind up about the same size, but with less useful space in a lot of cases, trying to do the squeezing, and remain "open".

As mentioned by several folks, tanks and water are a big deal. With a big shower, and a couple of people who are out getting dirty, cooking, pottying, while boondocking, having 200 gallons of total tank capacity is not all that unreasonable. That is something like 1700# of water and 27 cubic feet of space. That is quite a bit of weight, but the volume not so much of big deal, I would think.

The B makers run into a big problem, the floor. The Promaster is too low maybe, others maybe not, but none are designed with putting tanks in place. The unibodies really make it tough with cutout rules. No room to put that much water in the vans, in most cases. If the chassis is ground up designed to accommodate tanks, there are plenty of places to hide that much volume. It is probably obvious where this is going! A 24' purpose designed class A could easily do all the things folks are wanting, I would think, as there would be lots of space available that is not able to be used efficiently in the workaround world of converting a commercial van. It could be the same size as an extended Sprinter. IIRC a few short A's are showing up again, but usually they are built to max width, which in a short A might be better a little narrower. Could you imagine the floorplan an usefulness you could come up with if you had 24' of flatnosed class A chassis to play with. I would think you could have something like 20+ feet by 6.5 feet wide open and flat to set up as you would like. For the $130K they are charging for class B's, I would think you could build a very, very nice, same overall size, class A. Unfortunately, the B market is pretty small, and even if you throw in B+ buyers, is still not all that big, so it most likely won't happen, though.

Davydd · 12-26-2013, 04:33 PM

Like this?

They were only about 22 foot long. My parents had one.

georgelesley · 12-26-2013, 04:56 PM

OK Dave, I'll bite. Which are we supposed to like, the model or the RV? BTW, I think both are cute but don't tell Lesley.

mlts22 · 12-26-2013, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booster

Could you imagine the floorplan an usefulness you could come up with if you had 24' of flatnosed class A chassis to play with. I would think you could have something like 20+ feet by 6.5 feet wide open and flat to set up as you would like. For the $130K they are charging for class B's, I would think you could build a very, very nice, same overall size, class A. Unfortunately, the B market is pretty small, and even if you throw in B+ buyers, is still not all that big, so it most likely won't happen, though.

The closest that comes to this is the Thor AXIS or Vegas, and their floorplan is a big on the "meh" side. It is almost half the price of a decent "B" though.

I have come to one realization -- because of the fact that there are such strict rules in working on a unibody van (both from the maker, and obvious things such as not cutting a vital structure), it takes more engineering to make a usable motorhome. I wonder if the future of the inexpensive short, agile RV market might wind up with something like Thor's "RUV" concept or a Winnebago Via, except a little bit narrower (think a Phoenix Cruiser in width.) Of course, with an "A", you are on your own when it comes to a crash. However, (and I feel sort of dirty always pointing to rigs across the pond), Europeans have "fully integrated coach builts" (type A rigs) that are under 20 feet long and offer some pretty amazing stuff when it comes to livability.

Maybe when we start seeing the bare bones chassis options hit US shores, we might start seeing something like the Hymer "A"s which pack a lot of stuff in under 18 feet. They are nowhere near as easy to park as a "B", but likely will be a lot less expensive.

Davydd · 12-26-2013, 05:45 PM

The problem with something like the Winnebago Via shown here side by side with that vintage Winnebago is the fresh water tanks and gray water tanks are not much bigger than most Bs. It is probably a weight problem as mentioned by Booster.

Here is a LaStrada Nova, a German C I saw several times at campgrounds in Alaska. It is less than 21 feet long by 7 feet wide.

mlts22 · 12-26-2013, 06:40 PM

Now you hit upon a pretty cool rig. It sort of tapers out from the front like a PW Excel, LTV Unity or RT 210. I'm guessing this is sitting on a SRW 3500 Sprinter.

You are right about the Via -- it has a 1191 pound CCC, and with tanks full, that means probably 500 pounds at most. I wonder how much this changes with the 2014 Sprinter chassis, because that has a better weight rating than the 2013 models, at the expense of paying more for the V6.

What will be interesting is how the Trend does, if it proves my theory right or wrong. It is a little more expensive than the Travato (strange that), but one model has three separate berths (including the drop-down bed) so it can handle the general US average family. If people go for the B+ style of RV, it might be that "B"s will keep being a niche market. However, if the maneuverability of a van catches on, it might add a lot of potential marketshare.

After driving roads where a typical 100" width "C" just would not fit (so narrow that another oncoming car would mean an emergency pullover on either side), I don't understand why the US market keeps with the wider rigs, even at the 24' and shorter lengths. Of course, parallel parking at an event is another item that is relatively easy in a van, but good luck with a "C" or "A" rig in doing the same thing.

booster · 12-26-2013, 08:19 PM

As I mentioned earlier, and others have also said, width appears to be coming up as a big factor, and that may be why B's continue to get a lot of attention. The C and A motorhomes all go for space with width, even while making them shorter, pretty much killing off the entire market that wants easy driving and maneuvering. They may be missing a chance to get a whole new group of customers that could be lured away from the very overpriced B's to a reasonably priced, similar sized, more conveniently equipped mini A. I don't know if they would compete in the Roadtrek 190 size B's, but when the Sprinters are in the 22-24 foot range now, that market is there.

mlts22 · 12-26-2013, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by booster

As I mentioned earlier, and others have also said, width appears to be coming up as a big factor, and that may be why B's continue to get a lot of attention. The C and A motorhomes all go for space with width, even while making them shorter, pretty much killing off the entire market that wants easy driving and maneuvering. They may be missing a chance to get a whole new group of customers that could be lured away from the very overpriced B's to a reasonably priced, similar sized, more conveniently equipped mini A. I don't know if they would compete in the Roadtrek 190 size B's, but when the Sprinters are in the 22-24 foot range now, that market is there.

You did hit the nail on the head. I can see a ProMaster or Transit chassis being something a builder could make a 19-20 foot coach on. I look at Phoenix Cruiser as a good example -- they don't go all out, balls to the wall, when it comes to width -- they are about a foot or two narrower than the typical "C". However, this is a good thing because it allows their motorhomes to be driven in places where their wider cousins couldn't fit. The Europeans have plenty of these types of "A"s on their roads, and they are not relatively expensive -- last time I checked, they top out at around $140k or so, and that was an extremely well made model on the par with Airstream or Advanced RV.

Thor could have spearheaded this market, but the AXIS just seems to fall off the mark. They shouldn't have thought, "lets chop off length", but started from the ground up. Something the width of a ProMaster would be a good balance. Height is probably the easiest dimension to increase, which some European vans tend to do, so going up to 11 feet might be a way of getting usable space. From there, there can be floorplans that have a transverse layout, or have a drop-down bed that runs lengthwise for the taller people.

gerrym51 · 12-26-2013, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlts22

Quote:

Originally Posted by booster

As I mentioned earlier, and others have also said, width appears to be coming up as a big factor, and that may be why B's continue to get a lot of attention. The C and A motorhomes all go for space with width, even while making them shorter, pretty much killing off the entire market that wants easy driving and maneuvering. They may be missing a chance to get a whole new group of customers that could be lured away from the very overpriced B's to a reasonably priced, similar sized, more conveniently equipped mini A. I don't know if they would compete in the Roadtrek 190 size B's, but when the Sprinters are in the 22-24 foot range now, that market is there.

You did hit the nail on the head. I can see a ProMaster or Transit chassis being something a builder could make a 19-20 foot coach on. I look at Phoenix Cruiser as a good example -- they don't go all out, balls to the wall, when it comes to width -- they are about a foot or two narrower than the typical "C". However, this is a good thing because it allows their motorhomes to be driven in places where their wider cousins couldn't fit. The Europeans have plenty of these types of "A"s on their roads, and they are not relatively expensive -- last time I checked, they top out at around $140k or so, and that was an extremely well made model on the par with Airstream or Advanced RV.

Thor could have spearheaded this market, but the AXIS just seems to fall off the mark. They shouldn't have thought, "lets chop off length", but started from the ground up. Something the width of a ProMaster would be a good balance. Height is probably the easiest dimension to increase, which some European vans tend to do, so going up to 11 feet might be a way of getting usable space. From there, there can be floorplans that have a transverse layout, or have a drop-down bed that runs lengthwise for the taller people.

mlt22- i think the thor axis will be a big winner. what you want is doctor whos TARDIS. bigger on the inside smaller on outside

Mike · 12-27-2013, 01:49 AM

Saw these at a local (60 miles away?) dealer when I was getting some work done a few months back. Similar to the Thor Axis et al?
http://www.forestcitymotorhomes.com/RV- ... rzbWye9vmU
Think this one was around $110,000, but I can't recall.
http://www.forestcitymotorhomes.com/RV- ... rzZ1ie9vmU
The price on this one (new) was almost worth thinking about against the trade off shortcomings that have been mentioned with the handling of the larger/wider chassis of these RUV small class A rigs, but they're pretty roomy looking inside, too. If you wanted to boondock for a few days off grid, this would be the "off the rack" way to do it in comfort. Fuel economy will be worse than most class B vans, but it might be worth the hit out and back, if you could use it as a mother ship to a more economical toad.
If they made one of these that got 20 mpg average, the class B market might be smaller than it already is. The fuel economy of a van conversion is one of their biggest selling points. Match it, or even get close in something larger, and you might pull some people away away from the B choices.

mlts22 · 12-27-2013, 09:13 PM

The size/maneuverability thing is a tough trade-off. Some people can run toadless happily in one of those, a Thor Axis, a 28' Tiffin, or similar. Others might find 19 feet in length too long for use.

I did overlook the fact that the price is right on the AXIS. MSRP is ~96k on it, some RV places have online prices of $72k, so if one is a good negotiator, I'm guessing one could land in the low-mid 60k range, and for that amount of cash, it is a pretty good deal for a small "A". The tanks are a decent size, and the chassis has proven its mettle over the years.

Of course a TARDIS would be nice, although I doubt they are in my price range, especially the ones with the busted camo circuit.

gerrym51 · 12-28-2013, 02:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlts22

The size/maneuverability thing is a tough trade-off. Some people can run toadless happily in one of those, a Thor Axis, a 28' Tiffin, or similar. Others might find 19 feet in length too long for use.

I did overlook the fact that the price is right on the AXIS. MSRP is ~96k on it, some RV places have online prices of $72k, so if one is a good negotiator, I'm guessing one could land in the low-mid 60k range, and for that amount of cash, it is a pretty good deal for a small "A". The tanks are a decent size, and the chassis has proven its mettle over the years.

Of course a TARDIS would be nice, although I doubt they are in my price range, especially the ones with the busted camo circuit.

mlts22-rvdirect all options thor axis 66,000.00

Mike · 12-28-2013, 05:16 PM

Not bad price for what you get, imo. Specs don't look too bad for a gasser, either.
I'm unable to find any Thor Canadian dealers. I would think they must have some, but maybe not.
If not, would have to import one, and go through the naturalization process up here. It's not that difficult, just time consuming.

You may also like: