Apples and Oranges. A or C
Hey all. This might be long. My brother is a big bus coach conversion guy who thinks he know everything, but since he has lots of money to make mistakes he's ahead of the pack. We are looking to en...
Forum Discussion
GENECOP, you're drinking the government Kool-Aid in believing that just because they (NHTSA) says something, it must be true.
My class A has steel C beams which are just about head-level for anyone riding in a car or van. I'll take those beams and an extra 10,000 lbs. of weight travelling in my direction over airbags & crumple zones. :) You don't have to be a rocket scientist, but having a fundamental understanding of physics helps. :)
Crashing into a wall, maybe the C would be better, maybe not. But the majority of those collisions are due to driver in-attentiveness. I know my abilities and will take my chances there. But in a collision with another vehicle of which I have no control over, mass is your friend. You want as much mass heading in your direction as possible. Simple conservation of momentum. But shhhhhhhhh! Don't tell NHTSA we know that. :) Their tests are fine, as long as you run into a wall or a smaller vehicle. By the way, does NHTSA test how well the cab of that class C holds up when 10,000 lbs. of RV pushes forward into it from the back? Just wondering? And I'm not sure if those crumple zones up front are also designed to perform optimally under that extra weight. I thought the tests were done on the standard van chassis, which is much lighter than the majority of RVs on the road.
But if they're so much better, in your opinion, why is it that no crash data exists to substantiate that claim? I can't say for certain my A is safer either because no data is available to substantiate that. So, until such data is available, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Just don't state it as "fact". It's not.
As for service, I still don't see what would be easier for me to service on a C than my A. My A is as easy to work on as our cars for routine stuff. In fact, because it's higher off the ground, it's actually easier to do a lot of things underneath 'cause I can just crawl under without even jacking it up.
~Rick
My class A has steel C beams which are just about head-level for anyone riding in a car or van. I'll take those beams and an extra 10,000 lbs. of weight travelling in my direction over airbags & crumple zones. :) You don't have to be a rocket scientist, but having a fundamental understanding of physics helps. :)
Crashing into a wall, maybe the C would be better, maybe not. But the majority of those collisions are due to driver in-attentiveness. I know my abilities and will take my chances there. But in a collision with another vehicle of which I have no control over, mass is your friend. You want as much mass heading in your direction as possible. Simple conservation of momentum. But shhhhhhhhh! Don't tell NHTSA we know that. :) Their tests are fine, as long as you run into a wall or a smaller vehicle. By the way, does NHTSA test how well the cab of that class C holds up when 10,000 lbs. of RV pushes forward into it from the back? Just wondering? And I'm not sure if those crumple zones up front are also designed to perform optimally under that extra weight. I thought the tests were done on the standard van chassis, which is much lighter than the majority of RVs on the road.
But if they're so much better, in your opinion, why is it that no crash data exists to substantiate that claim? I can't say for certain my A is safer either because no data is available to substantiate that. So, until such data is available, you have your opinion, and I have mine. Just don't state it as "fact". It's not.
As for service, I still don't see what would be easier for me to service on a C than my A. My A is as easy to work on as our cars for routine stuff. In fact, because it's higher off the ground, it's actually easier to do a lot of things underneath 'cause I can just crawl under without even jacking it up.
~Rick
