Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-15-2012, 10:56 PM   #29
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by n2916s View Post
As a government employee I have to say that I am just too damn busy ripping off the taxpayers to put this much work into something so utterly useful.

Thanks for the big slam, mate.

mike
Hey your welcome, I know ALL government employee's sit around wasting my money.. Just joking here.


What I would like to know is how the car companies came up with the tow ratings they had in the first place.

You would think it would be on engine, transmission, rear end, and frame. But i'm not an engineer and don't claim to be. but to start dropping 3000 + lbs in tow capacity ???? something is very wrong. with the new or the old standard. Maybe a bit of both. companies going to far and the new standard going to conservative. Time will tell..
__________________

__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-15-2012, 11:05 PM   #30
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,409
Images: 5
With the old ratings (primarily)
GCWR is a function of horizontal forces...Engine, trans, brakes
GVWR,GAWR is a function of vertical loads

Understand there is a considerable amount of overlap when dynamic motion is brought into the equation. But the old ratings were "slide ruler" derived between all the engineers who work on all the various propulsion, braking and "backbone" components.

The old ratings were mechanical ratings derived for safety and durability.

The new ratings are strictly a performance rating in a set of driving circumstances.
Engineers will still design to their standards, but we will no longer really understand what we can tow....we will only know what we can tow at a given speed on a particular road.

I think the new standard should be a SUPPLEMENT to the old ratings, not a replacement.
__________________

__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 12:01 AM   #31
Rivet Master
 
TouringDan's Avatar

 
1966 24' Tradewind
1995 34' Excella
Lynchburg , Virginia
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,472
The new tow ratings are definitely a step in the right direction. I only hope that all the tv manufacturers use these performance standards to set their tow ratings.

For those of us with half ton trucks and SUVs it is real important that we don't just look at the maximum tow rating for the tv. We need to also look at the maximum rear axle rating and the GVWR for the tv, because if we travel with lots of people and gear in the back of our tv, this is the limit that we will exceed first. For example, my Tundra has a maximum trailer tow rating (2008) of about 10,500 lbs, yet my loaded 66 TW trailer weighs only about 5,000 lbs, yet I am within a few hundred lbs of exceeding the tv GVWR and the rear axle weight rating.

I applaud the new SAE tow standards, especially for a first cut.

Dan
__________________
TouringDan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 12:31 AM   #32
3 Rivet Member
 
1973 31' Excella 500
Marysville , Washington
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 219
Dan, My first thougfht was you need a properly adjusted weight distro hitch. Then I reread your post. Being within a few hundred lbs of exeeding is is a lot like being a few hundred lbs under the rating. Thats doesn't sound problematic. However,
a properly adjusted WD hitch would move some of that weight to the front axle if you feel that needs to be addressed.
__________________
Not Done is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 03:07 AM   #33
Rivet Master
 
MrUKToad's Avatar

 
2011 28' International
Chatham , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,372
Images: 17
Blog Entries: 13
As others have said, the new SAE standards are a step in the right direction. Current "tow ratings" have little to do with engineering requirements and a lot to do with marketing; the intro to the Automotive Magazine's piece alludes to that as the reason for the need for standards.

Two points to remember, though. Firstly, these standards are voluntary and not binding; no one's going to get sued over them. Secondly, they apply to the vehicle bought at the showroom; modify it with better cooling, braking, tires, etc., and the standards don't apply. Still, the whole thing is designed to get manufacturers away from their fantasy "tow rating" claims and that surely has to be a good thing.
__________________
Steve; also known as Mr UK Toad

"You can't tow that with that!"

http://toadsoftowedhaul.com
MrUKToad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 07:56 AM   #34
Rivet Master
 
1981 31' Excella II
New Market , Alabama
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,648
I can tow 10,000lb with my Ford Ranger but that don't mean it is the same as an F350. I could not tow it very far but I could make it move on a flat road. I think axel ratings are going to give you a good DO NOT EXCEED value. I have noticed the tow rating for 1/2 ton trucks going from about 6000lb to over 10,000lbs in the last 10 yrs and the hardware has not changed that much. This amounts to 4000lbs of hype.

Perry
__________________
perryg114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 08:37 AM   #35
Rivet Master
 
Skater's Avatar
 
1995 30' Excella
Bowie , Maryland
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,344
Good idea. It'd be really nice if they'd go back and re-rate the older trucks using this standard - there are plenty of them still on the road and plenty of people buy them used for towing (like me) - sort of like how they guesstimated the fuel economy of older vehicles under the new system.

And for purman's comments: Saying nasty things then saying, "Don't listen to me," is still quite rude.
__________________
1995 Airstream Classic 30' Excella 1000
2014 Ram 2500 Crew Cab with Cummins 6.7L Diesel

Sold but not forgotten: 1991 Airstream B190
Sold: 2006 F-250 6.0L Powerstroke Supercab
Skater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 08:54 AM   #36
4 Rivet Member
 
field & stream's Avatar
 
2008 23' Safari SE
2007 Base Camp
Santa Ynez , California
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 362
It is important to see here the difference between the manufacturer's ratings and the SAE standards --- they are different things.

As dznf0g said: "The old ratings were mechanical ratings derived for safety and durability". They were semi-subjective numbers arrived at by a committee of engineers, lawyers and marketing guys who have a common interest in getting us to buy their vehicles.

In contrast, the SAE ratings are objective measurements of performance in the real world. Important things like ability to maintain speed on a grade, ability to accelerate to merge into traffic, and braking distances.

It is obvious from the many discussions on the website that we have a wide range of opinions about how much (or how little) performance is acceptable. And that is fine. But the SAE is to be applauded for giving us a way to determine, based on objective measurements, what performance we will get from a given TV.

Bob
__________________
field & stream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 11:53 AM   #37
Rivet Master
 
mefly2's Avatar
 
2015 25' FB Eddie Bauer
Western , ** Big Sky Country ** Montana
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2,283
Any standard is only a GUIDE ... just saying... we are off to the tractor pull ... too many other variables !
__________________
mefly2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 02:21 PM   #38
4 Rivet Member
 
field & stream's Avatar
 
2008 23' Safari SE
2007 Base Camp
Santa Ynez , California
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 362
The tractor pull is a good example. Which tractor wins: the one whose builder calculates the biggest number, or the one that pulls the most?
__________________
field & stream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 03:19 PM   #39
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skater View Post
Good idea. It'd be really nice if they'd go back and re-rate the older trucks using this standard - there are plenty of them still on the road and plenty of people buy them used for towing (like me) - sort of like how they guesstimated the fuel economy of older vehicles under the new system.

And for purman's comments: Saying nasty things then saying, "Don't listen to me," is still quite rude.
I don't believe I said anything nasty or Don't listen to me, or was being rude. But I guess thats subject to the reader. It was written with a hint of humor and am sorry you didn't take that from it.

I disagree with going back and re-rateing standards for towing. That is really asking for a law suite. Any who had a crash could say their truck, car, or SUV was over rated.
__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-16-2012, 03:26 PM   #40
4 Rivet Member
 
crisen's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Eddie Bauer
Fairbanks , Alaska
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 268
Images: 5
I believe that there is a slight misunderstanding on the use of such a standard as the SAE tow rating standard. It is not a guide, it is indeed a standard. If the vehicle manufacture tests to it, they then put the max weights at which they can meet the standard at as the tow rating of the vehicle.

Lets say manufacturer X meets the standard at 8000# and manufacturer Y can meet it at 9000#, you the consumer knows that under standardized test conditions one vehicle can pull, stop, and steer etc at at higher weight than the other without overheating etc.

Note I am not saying that the manufacturer has to use this standard to establish their tow rating, I have no knowledge to the legal requirements, only that if they do use it their product can be more evenly compared to the products of other manufacturers.

While this information is helpful to the consumer it is only one factor that your can use to make your choice. Also because the standard uses a weighted trailer that can be easily duplicated by the manufacturers it doesn't consider such things as variations in the dynamics of different manufacturer of actural TT's.

Rick
__________________
crisen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:40 AM   #41
Rivet Master
 
Skater's Avatar
 
1995 30' Excella
Bowie , Maryland
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 2,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by purman View Post
I don't believe I said anything nasty or Don't listen to me, or was being rude. But I guess thats subject to the reader. It was written with a hint of humor and am sorry you didn't take that from it.
This was the quote I was referring to:

Quote:
Originally Posted by purman View Post
Hey your welcome, I know ALL government employee's sit around wasting my money.. Just joking here.
Quote:
I disagree with going back and re-rateing standards for towing. That is really asking for a law suite. Any who had a crash could say their truck, car, or SUV was over rated.
If the crash resulted from a failure of the vehicle because it was over-spec'd, there SHOULD be a lawsuit. As an example, if someone was towing 11,999 lbs on a vehicle specified to tow 12,000 lbs, and the vehicle frame separated at highway speeds causing a crash, then the vehicle was not performing to the advertised specifications and the manufacturer should be slapped. No lawsuit would be successful anyway - as someone else said in another thread, every accident is the result of a bunch of things going wrong, and it'd be tough to prove the towing capacity of the truck was the single point of failure that caused the accident (unless it was a dead obvious example like the one I gave, and that never happens).

Re-rating them would mean buyers of used trucks would be picking safer rigs. The good news is that I don't think the tow rating inflation hit the 3/4 and 1 ton pickups quite as badly as the half ton pickups. I think my '06 F-250 has a tow rating of 12,000 lbs, and that's probably reasonable for it; even my '91 B190 with a 1 ton chassis had a GCVW of 15,000 lbs, leaving it able to tow ~6,000 after you factored in the weight of the B190 itself (~9,000 lbs), so 12,000 lbs tow capacity on a vehicle that's 15 years newer doesn't seem too out of line.
__________________
1995 Airstream Classic 30' Excella 1000
2014 Ram 2500 Crew Cab with Cummins 6.7L Diesel

Sold but not forgotten: 1991 Airstream B190
Sold: 2006 F-250 6.0L Powerstroke Supercab
Skater is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 07:17 AM   #42
Rivet Master
 
1981 31' Excella II
New Market , Alabama
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,648
These standards don't put any emphasis on how long a vehicle can perform to these standards without suffering failure. Yeah, I can put a 400 HP motor in a half ton truck and beat an F350 towing up a mountain but how many times can the 1/2 ton get the job done before something breaks?

These are long term testing questions which are almost never answered. I see best in initial quality a lot. What does that mean and who cares. If it don't last it does not matter. The Toyota with a lower tow rating might actually last longer towing than the Souped up Chevy under the same conditions.

I do think that holding everyone to the same standards is great. I don't think that standards for towing were followed at all before this. This is how we got 1/2 ton trucks towing as much as 3/4 ton trucks.

Perry
__________________

__________________
perryg114 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:25 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.