Short MH's

RLS7201 wrote:

scbwr wrote:
This article on wheel base ratio may be of interest.
https://axleaddict.com/rvs/Why-RV-Wheel-Base-Ratio-Is-Important

Hog wash! If you can't figure out why a coach handles poorly, blame it on the wheel base to chassis ratio.

I drive what is considered one of those foul handling coaches.
190" wheel base, 33' coach.
It drives and handles quite well. Get the chassis and steering right and they'll all drive well. Yes I still do part time work in the alignment business.

Richard

You may think of it as you wish, I was simply sharing an article indicating that road handling may be affected by wheel base ratio. I'm no expert on the subject nor do I claim the article to be "the final word". But in my online reading, there seems to be more stability issues with gas motor homes with shorter wheel bases. And if you look at it, the larger DP coaches have longer wheel bases and aren't prone to the handling problems of the Ford F53 chassis.

That's not to minimize the importance of front end alignment, proper tire inflation, maintenance of steering components, etc.

RLS7201 wrote:

scbwr wrote:
This article on wheel base ratio may be of interest.
https://axleaddict.com/rvs/Why-RV-Wheel-Base-Ratio-Is-Important

Hog wash! If you can't figure out why a coach handles poorly, blame it on the wheel base to chassis ratio.

I drive what is considered one of those foul handling coaches.
190" wheel base, 33' coach.
It drives and handles quite well. Get the chassis and steering right and they'll all drive well. Yes I still do part time work in the alignment business.

Richard

Are you saying that the ratio WB/OAL is totally out of the handling equation? I only know trucks. With the same size bed I have found a out of spec on say the caster may not be noticed by the driver on a 214 WB LTL, but a LN with a 190, works the driver to death.

crawford wrote:
I'm not sure but was told shorter the unit them more handling problems before you buy take one out for a good ride before you find out for sure. Not just around the block like a few company's do.

I think what you heard was the ratio of wheel base to over all length. The lower the ratio the more the more likely of handling problems. Actually the Vegas MH has a ratio of 59% which is higher than many longer MH's. I am surprised more people don't actually own these MH's, they seem to be a good alternative to a Class C.

scbwr wrote:
This article on wheel base ratio may be of interest.
https://axleaddict.com/rvs/Why-RV-Wheel-Base-Ratio-Is-Important

Hog wash! If you can't figure out why a coach handles poorly, blame it on the wheel base to chassis ratio.

I drive what is considered one of those foul handling coaches.
190" wheel base, 33' coach.
It drives and handles quite well. Get the chassis and steering right and they'll all drive well. Yes I still do part time work in the alignment business.

Richard

This article on wheel base ratio may be of interest.
https://axleaddict.com/rvs/Why-RV-Wheel-Base-Ratio-Is-Important
As to how the handling may vary between the F53 chassis and the 450 chassis, I don't know.

way2roll wrote:

Gjac wrote:

way2roll wrote:
The axis is on the E450 chassis which will handle differently than the F53. The E/F450 is traditionally the platform for class C's. Thor decided to make a small Class A on it. The Axis does have an independent front suspension though and that should help the ride. It will also have a lower center of gravity which should help pitch and roll.

Are you saying that because of the lower CG it should ride better than a Class C on the 450 chassis?

That's what I read on another forum. I have no personal experience.

This is interesting, with the IFS it should ride better than the solid front axle of the F53 chassis(that everyone complains about) also. Has anyone on here driven both and can comment on the ride?

Gjac wrote:

way2roll wrote:
The axis is on the E450 chassis which will handle differently than the F53. The E/F450 is traditionally the platform for class C's. Thor decided to make a small Class A on it. The Axis does have an independent front suspension though and that should help the ride. It will also have a lower center of gravity which should help pitch and roll.

Are you saying that because of the lower CG it should ride better than a Class C on the 450 chassis?

That's what I read on another forum. I have no personal experience.

way2roll wrote:
The axis is on the E450 chassis which will handle differently than the F53. The E/F450 is traditionally the platform for class C's. Thor decided to make a small Class A on it. The Axis does have an independent front suspension though and that should help the ride. It will also have a lower center of gravity which should help pitch and roll.

Are you saying that because of the lower CG it should ride better than a Class C on the 450 chassis?

The axis is on the E450 chassis which will handle differently than the F53. The E/F450 is traditionally the platform for class C's. Thor decided to make a small Class A on it. The Axis does have an independent front suspension though and that should help the ride. It will also have a lower center of gravity which should help pitch and roll.

I'm not sure but was told shorter the unit them more handling problems before you buy take one out for a good ride before you find out for sure. Not just around the block like a few company's do.