How Do We Classify an RUV?

I have a question for those who own one, or have seen one.

How many belted seating positions are there? The Via shows 4, but only 2 are front facing. The Thor offering doesn't show any on the floor plan and I didn't see any mention in the literature. Could there be more than 2 which are front facing?

One of the promo pieces I read suggested you can entertain your cheer-leading daughter and her two BFFs, so to me, that would imply at least 5 belted positions for travelling. Or does the daughter and the 2 BFFs ride in another vehicle?

And for what it's worth, I think it should've been put on the E-450 chassis. Minimal up-cost for a large increase in weight ratings. Perhaps that's in the plans for future models.

~Rick

I like the idea--shorter, narrower, class A. I just think if they built it on the Ford or Chevy 450 chassis it would have a more useful CCC. We have a 2005 24 ft. Tioga(23E) that is built on the Ford 450 chassis and are glad we have that extra payload capacity.

Looks like an A to me. Like the ones Winnebago makes.

burlmart wrote:
It is interesting how the industry changing Thor RUV has an identical fp to the Winnie Via







This is what innovation in the industry looks like?

The only gutsy new move from Thor appears to be admitting that, like the Via, the Axis is built on a light truck chassis intended for Class C MHs.




It would be good to hear from some Via owners on this forum about how well the lighter chassis performs on the road with these tall, narrow coaches.

Difference is that the Thor, by not using a Mercedes chassis like the Via has been able to deliver the same size and floor plan (with larger holding tanks btw) for much less money! That's the new innovative part...(ok, no fiberglass roof like the Mercedes either)

burlmart wrote:
It is interesting how the industry changing Thor RUV has an identical fp to the Winnie Via







This is what innovation in the industry looks like?

The only gutsy new move from Thor appears to be admitting that, like the Via, the Axis is built on a light truck chassis intended for Class C MHs.

It would be good to hear from some Via owners on this forum about how well the lighter chassis performs on the road with these tall, narrow coaches.

you obviously don't research. This chassis has a wider track than f53. And sits lower.

A nice slideshow and an interesting interview w/ a Thor rep. The text mistakenly says its 9" wider instead of narrower.

http://guaranteerv.com/blog/interview-ryan-nienhuis-2014-axis/


If memory serves me, in the B+ heyday in early 2000's, they referred to its go anywhere, do everything, more compact BT Cruiser B+ as an RUV as well.

More innovation for those who quickly forget,

It is interesting how the industry changing Thor RUV has an identical fp to the Winnie Via







This is what innovation in the industry looks like?

The only gutsy new move from Thor appears to be admitting that, like the Via, the Axis is built on a light truck chassis intended for Class C MHs.

It would be good to hear from some Via owners on this forum about how well the lighter chassis performs on the road with these tall, narrow coaches.

fortytwo wrote:


The most important part of an RV is the functionality of the house part for the particular user.

Slamming an RV for it's roof type shows a lack of understanding of priorities, and misleads less experienced users.

my priorities are getting the best made RV and easiest to maintain. I think if you check the top of the line units, units costing $750K to over a million you will see what their construction is. no rubber roofs to be found. A good floor plan is worthless IMHO if the unit is shabbily constructed/built.
and it is precisely for the less experienced users that I always comment on construction materials. they can pay attention and learn or ignore as they see fit.
JMHO
bumpy

Rubber roofs don't leak! Had one for 20 years that didn't leak, but left a hell-of-a lot of white streaks. Fiberglass roofs don't leak either! Aluminum roofs don't leak either! Had one for 7 years! Shipped to Europe and back as deck cargo. No leaks. Penetrating any of them with a cutout or screw that isn't sealed properly creates a leak.

As for fiberglass, the thin stuff on many of the less expensive RV's will probably not last as long as the newer "rubber" roofs. The fiberglass on a Rexhall, however, is almost 1/4 inch thick and has a jellcoat surface like a boat. Still had a leak in mine - from a bolt on the A/C that wasn't properly tightened, and an improperly sealed clearance light.

The most important part of an RV is the functionality of the house part for the particular user.

Slamming an RV for it's roof type shows a lack of understanding of priorities, and misleads less experienced users.

Dakzuki wrote:

super_camper wrote:

Bumpyroad wrote:
liked it until I got to the TPO roof. don't know why they didn't make it fiberglass.
bumpy

Bumpy, I see a lot of comments from you against TPO roofing materials and they may steer perspective buyers in the wrong direction.

You should educate yourself on the pros and cons of TPO vs fiberglass as they are both excellent roofing materials.

Here is a good article for you to read.

There's a surprise. The head sales guy of a rubber roof company slagging on fiberglass roofs and pushing his product.

The only useful nugget I found in there was that the rubber roofs are cheaper. That says it all to me.

yep, when I saw the source of this "reference material", I stopped reading quickly. guess I didn't educate myself.
but I would point out to super camper that most of my dislike has been aimed towards rubber (EPDM) roofing. and I don't feel that saying that I prefer fiberglass to TPO really slams TPO that badly.
bumpy