length to wheel base ratio

RLS7201 wrote:
Wheel base to over all length ratio is more forum/internet nonsense.
MY 95 Bounder has a ratio of .479 and it drives great! 190" wheel base, 33' long. Best thing is the turning. Then there is the diesel owners talking about rear over hang on the gassers. My gasser has a 13' over hang. Diesel pushers have a 12'+ over hang, depending on chassis. More forum/internet chatter. Bah Humbug!
You'll see folks telling how horrible or how great their rig drives, no matter the ratio or total length. No one can document the ratio thing.
If set up correctly, they all drive well.

Richard

It's called physics.

Have owned three diesel pushers. The current one is by far the best driving.

2003 Alpine 38.

260" wheelbase. 38'6"= 462"

260 divided by 462= 56%

I agree, there certainly are other factors (shocks, tires, suspension...) than just WB/OL, but it is hard to overcome physics!

The issue is coming from RV manufacturers who buy cheaper, short chassis and extend it out of proportion.
Pickups and cars have the ratio in 0.7 range and don't have problems with side winds.
When I see motorhome with close to 0.5 ratio, I am looking at siding above the main axle for stress cracks.

Wheel base to over all length ratio is more forum/internet nonsense.
MY 95 Bounder has a ratio of .479 and it drives great! 190" wheel base, 33' long. Best thing is the turning. Then there is the diesel owners talking about rear over hang on the gassers. My gasser has a 13' over hang. Diesel pushers have a 12'+ over hang, depending on chassis. More forum/internet chatter. Bah Humbug!
You'll see folks telling how horrible or how great their rig drives, no matter the ratio or total length. No one can document the ratio thing.
If set up correctly, they all drive well.

Richard

For something that's only 24' not sure it will be less than 50 percent.

IMO,....THIS particular parameter of chassis dynamics, and chassis design, is hard to learn,....WHEN/IF you don't immediately/intuitively see that the longer the wheelbase, coupled with shortest rear overhang, will result in the best directional stability on the highway. Sure, there are other things to consider, but it's up to you to establish the order of priority.
Be aware, you will be stuck with whichever wheelbase-to-overall length that you purchase.
Personally, I will not purchase anything that doesn't have this ratio optimized.

The reason I added "personally" is because I know that according to what I've learned in these RV forums all of us end up buying whatever WE want (within our budget). Already, the contradictions have begun,......leaving the ball in YOUR court.....:B

The longer the WB as compared to the overall length, the better the handling. Will affect turning though.

I copied this from my notes that was obtained from one of the forums. I have no experience but hope this helps:
• Traditional wisdom is that the wheel base should exceed 50% of the overall length. It's a guideline to help avoid excessive rear overhang, which can indeed make handling more troublesome. The 50% isn't a silver bullet and handling does not instantly change from bad to good when crossing that boundary, but it's a decent rule of thumb.

The recommendation is to have more than .5 by taking the overall length and dividing it into the wheel base length. The higher the number the less tail swing you will have when making turns and the "push" from passing trucks will be less pronounced as well. I am sure there are other reasons but those two are the main ones (that I am aware of anyway). As my wife and I look at Class A DP's for retirement (another 5 years) that is one of the discriminators.

I think it was more of a guideline, not a rule
something like >.55 WB/length, higher the better
there a lot of other factors, so, just a guideline