burlmart wrote:

All points raised here seem right to me. The classification of MHs certainly has its purpose, but it causes problems as well. I think the RVIA recognized this with their current new classification scheme even if is conveniently ignored by almost everyone; it is quite loose with drawing boundaries, and people like to maintain boundaries.


Around 2001, Trail Lite (TL) creatively used “B-Plus”



as a model name for its new lower-cost line of small, streamlined Cs, that were a bit larger than the popular Cs from Chinook



and Dynamax (Starflyte)



which they emulated. Well-known Born Free



was and still is another long standing builder of this style RV.


I think it has been posted by others that use of the term B+ to designate a category of MHs seems to have arisen amongst mfgrs like Phoenix,



Gulfstream,



etc.





who had similarly popular models like the TL B-Plus.


These smaller rigs, whether they be called B+s or small Cs, all share a common intended functionality with camping van conversions (Class Bs)



but draw upon the major benefit from starting on a bare chassis (Class C) and thus are not subject to the serious constraint on living space that confronts Bs as they attempt to stay within the van box.


With the tenacious adherence to hard-drawn classification boundaries, too much energy is spent on the forums explaining, for instance, that this



is a Class C, and this



is a Class B campervan. As weird as these cases seem - and they are weird - what is gained from such silly discussion?


In hindsight, had the Euro term 'low-profile C Class'



been adopted, there may have developed a more robust version of the B+ subforum that might better serve owners of the many unique rigs


















As things stand now, the more novel styles above find it hard to gain an audience and tend to fall between the classification cracks. The price for being different, I suppose.