I'm just curious why it would be built as a 449"
>unit (17' + 10' + 125") when 480" is allowed.
Because this is a casual daydream, not requiring specifics. If and when it gets down to it, we would of course be more rigorous in our thinking. The sleeper space/cargo space tradeoff would have to be considered before all else. That goes to the truck's purpose. Is it RV, working truck, or combination of both? If combination, what portion is dedicated to what purpose?
For the present, we have answered those questions in the truck we have. For the future, where we might be interested more in liesure than work, the RV aspect would carry greater weight. The attractive part of building an RV with a small cargo box is it provides the ability to move an RV around the country while earning perhaps enough money to pay for fuel, RV park camping space and maybe a bit more.
I like what you said above, Leo, " It's always fun to mentally build various configurations and think about the options and opportunities." This conversation is as much about the fun of mentally building a truck as it is anything else.
By the way, with our Volvo VNL day cab, ARI wanted five inches of space between the cab wall and sleeper. The Volvo day cab back wall slopes forward at the top. A special frame must be built to square off the back of the cab and anchor the boot. They specify three inches between the back of the sleeper and the front of the box. If the air bags deflate on the sleeper, the three inches keeps the two components from touching.