Revised C.C.C. calculations January 13, 2009, 12:28:10 pm Yahoo Message Number: 98534Recently there was some discussion of the new LD CCC numbers. This discussion on RV.NET may explain the change. http://rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/22296146.cfmEd
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #1 – January 13, 2009, 04:47:39 pm Yahoo Message Number: 98541"Recently there was some discussion of the new LD CCC numbers. This discussion on RV.NET may explain the change."As far as I can see, that discussion just repeats the standard definition of CCC. Here's what the RV Safety and Education Foundation (RVSEF) says:http://www.rvsafety.org/custompage2736.html?pg=defintiions> CCC: Cargo Carrying Capacity (2000 RVIA Definition)Equal to GVWR minus each of the following: UVW, full fresh potable water weight (including water heater), full LP gas weight, and SCWR (Sleeping Capacity Weight Rating). Now, all those numbers *except* CCC are identical between the 2008 and 2009 Lazy Daze datasheets, so there should be no way that the CCC could have changed. Using the standard RVIA formula just cited, I ran the numbers for the 27' Mid Bath model, and came up with a CCC of 1,552 pounds. LD's 2008 datasheet shows 1,631 pounds--pretty close to what I got. But the 2009 datasheet shows 3,095 pounds--a 1,464 pound increase. And again, this is with no change in any of the numbers that CCC is based on. It doesn't make sense. I can think of only two explanations: the RVIA's method of calculating CCC has changed for 2009--although I can't find any reference online to such a change--or whoever put the 2009 LD datasheet together made a mistake in calculating the CCC numbers.I called up the factory, but the chap I spoke to (I didn't get his name) didn't know why the numbers had changed. He suggested emailing Lazy Daze, and promised to look into the discrepancy... so I did. I'll let you know what I hear back.Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #2 – January 13, 2009, 05:30:03 pm Yahoo Message Number: 98545QuoteCCC: Cargo Carrying Capacity (2000 RVIA Definition)Equal to GVWR minus each of the following: UVW, full fresh potable water weight (including water heater), full LP gas weight, and SCWR (Sleeping Capacity Weight Rating). The RV.NET discussion I referred to, Andy, revolves around this document where the NHTSA became involved in the definitions of CCC in order to get some consistency in the RV community. As they pointed out, the RVIA has no legal rule making authority. So, here come our government to "help" us. Look out!!!As I read it, in order to arrive at CCC, you no longer subtract the weight of potable water nor the weight of passengers. The logic being that these are variables the user of the RV, not the manufacturer, controls. I.e. A 27' LD has six seat belts. Suppose you drive solo? Has you CCC increased versus a family of six? Yes. The referenced text uses the example of someone who drives with their potable water tank empty because they are traveling to a campground with water hookups. Obviously the CCC of this users RV has increased. The NHTSA feels RV users are capable of looking at the *new* CCC figure then deciding how much cargo they can safely carry based on the number of passengers and amount of water they carry. People and water are now *cargo* just like a sack of groceries & your cat. The entire document is 26 finely spaced, boring pages. Page 68450 contains the crux of the NHTSA ruling.http://www.rvda.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home1§ion=NHTSA&template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentFileID=206At least that's my take on it. If I'm wrong, surely won't be the first, nor last, time. Let me know what you think. BTW. I got curious and e-mailed the CCC question to Steve yesterday. I'll let you know his thoughts on the issue.Ed
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #3 – January 14, 2009, 10:14:13 am Yahoo Message Number: 98556Thanks, Ed, I read it too and your interpretation matches mine. I think the NHTSA approach makes sense and mirrors the way most of us did head calculations under the old labels anyway.Gary Allen '98 Allegro Bus/Freightliner/Cat 3126 Williamsburg, VA "Life in the Bus Lane" (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100000075x1215855013x1201028747/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072%26hmpgID=62%26bcd=De cemailfooterNO62)[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #4 – January 14, 2009, 11:19:56 am Yahoo Message Number: 98560"The RV.NET discussion I referred to, Andy, revolves around this document where the NHTSA became involved in the definitions of CCC..."Thanks for the clarification, Ed! I read that rv.net thread several times and *thought* I'd followed all the links, but somehow I missed the one to the 26-page NHTSA rulemaking. Meanwhile, this reply from Steve Newton at Lazy Daze confirms what you said:"The previous weight standards and weight labels were mandated by RVIA. All RVIA members were required to post labels in each coach using their format. However last year NHTSA determined that since not all RV manufacturers are in RVIA they wanted to level the playing field. Consequently, they mandated their own standards which apply to all manufacturers. Their requirements are completely different than the now defunct RVIA standard previously in use." I question the argument that the new system more accurately reflects the way we used to do the calculations. Before, you took the CCC and subtracted 154 pounds times the number of unoccupied seats. Now, you take the CCC and add 154 pounds times the number of *occupied* seats. Similarly, if you travel with a half-empty water tank, you used to add the weight of half a tank of water to the CCC. Now you subtract it. You're doing exactly the same calculations--just changing plus to minus and vice versa. There's no advantage to the consumer that I can see.There's a big advantage to the RV industry, though: the new NHTSA rules allow them to revise their CCC numbers drastically upward, without doing a thing to improve the actual cargo capacities. ;-) Lazy Daze didn't need any help in that regard, but some RVs from other makers had CCC numbers so pathetic that they'd do anything to conceal them. Now they won't have to try as hard. In fact, popup camper manufacturers won't have to try at all: as I read the new NHTSA rules, they're exempted from posting CCCs. I'll bet they love that! I suggested to Steve that it would be a good idea to add a note to the 2009 LD datasheet, explaining that the CCC numbers have changed but the cargo capacity hasn't. Otherwise people who are trying to decide between buying a used 2008 and a new 2009 are going to get a VERY wrong impression. :-(Andy Baird http://www.andybaird.com/travels/
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #5 – January 14, 2009, 11:25:10 am Yahoo Message Number: 98561QuoteCCC: Cargo Carrying Capacity (2000 RVIA Definition)Equal to GVWR minus each of the following: UVW, full fresh potable water weight (including water heater), full LP gas weight, and SCWR (Sleeping Capacity Weight Rating). The RV.NET discussion I referred to, Andy, revolves around this document where the NHTSA became involved in the definitions of CCC in order to get some consistency in the RV community. As they pointed out, the RVIA has no legal rule making authority. So, here come our government to "help" us. Look out!!! I agree with your assessment. And boy can bureaucratic documents be tough to wade through! The NHTSA has specified new labeling requirements. Water and occupants are now to be treated as cargo. They even created a new acronym, OCCC, for motorhomes.Art
Re: Revised C.C.C. calculations Reply #6 – January 15, 2009, 01:13:00 pm Yahoo Message Number: 98589Quote I question the argument that the new system more accurately reflects the way we used to do the calculations. Before, you took the CCC and subtracted 154 pounds times the number of unoccupied seats. Now, you take the CCC and add 154 pounds times the number of *occupied* seats. Speaking as a person who travels alone and weighs less than (154 x 4 = ) 616 pounds (but, alas, more than 154) it makes sense to me to factor-in the actual passengers' weight as part of the cargo. Couples, families with small children, et al. will find the math simpler, IMHO.Joanne in Boston NE-44 PS Congratulations on the new red Fit, my daughter bought one earlier this month and loves it.
Topic: Revised C.C.C. calculations (Read 3 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Revised C.C.C. calculations (Read 3 times)
previous topic - next topic