Winnebago Trend?
From the Class B forum topic: In Europe, motorhomes on this chassis are very common (read 70% are on the Fiat Ducato chassis). However, here in the US, the vans and chassis are just starting...
Forum Discussion
Snowman9000 wrote:
I personally like a low to the ground RV. You do give up a lot of tankage and storage options, that's the big downside though.
I like low to the ground too - the roof being low to the ground - but I don't want the undercarriage to be low to the ground. This opens up too much chance for hangups going into/out-of parking lots and shopping areas, as well as into/out-of various small drycamping sites with maybe gravel/dirt roads and/or gravel/dirt campsites off those roads. I even went up in tire diameter size from stock on our small Class C to give it more ground clearance.
I notice that many of the low-slung RV's in this discussion also have very modest tank sizes. How many of you have crawled underneath motorhomes and seen all that space under the floor, lengthwise, along each frame member on each side of the driveshaft (for RWD models)? Coach builders could fit various size tanks up into those voids to provide a lot more liquid storage capacity. Of course tanks up in these areas would be exposed to outside temperatures so they would have to be left empty in freezing temperatures - or heated, probably with 12 volt tank heating pads for drycamping without having to run a generator during the night.
One of the great advantages of small RV's is the many small drycamping campsites that become conveniently available because of their shorter lengths and narrower widths. It seems a shame to have these advantages compromised unnecessarily because of being too low to the ground and/or having tank capacities so small as to almost be impractical.
