Weight distribution and anti sway equipment?

[Kent M]

Originally Posted by USAtraveler

......... From an environmental standpoint, these HD tow vehicles, especially the diesels, are a pollution disaster. New technologies hold the prospect of making these high consuming fossil fueled HD vehicles obsolete, the sooner the better........

Did you include this little tidbit of "truth" because it's your honest opinion based on your expert opinion, or is there some other factor set that we're really ignorant about?

Pot, meet kettle.....

Have you done any research into the reduction of pollution in the US over the last 20 or so years? I'd also like to find out what your expert opinion is about what the I/C tow vehicles are to be replaced with?

Just curious.


Kent
Houston

[Kent M]

Originally Posted by jcl

That simply isn't true. Yes, there is ammonia and water vapour emitted as a result of the SCR, but also a host of harmful substances, including carcinogens and smog creating NOx.

...........

Not sure what you mean by "SCR", but the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in newer diesel Fords is included in the diesel system SPECIFICALLY to scrub the NOx. It's been used in combustion turbine applications for years for exactly the same reason, as I recall.....


Kent
Houston

[DKB_SATX]

Originally Posted by KMarshall

Not sure what you mean by "SCR", but the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in newer diesel Fords is included in the diesel system SPECIFICALLY to scrub the NOx. It's been used in combustion turbine applications for years for exactly the same reason, as I recall.....


Kent
Houston

SCR = selective catalytic reduction = the system that uses DEF

[jcl]

Originally Posted by KMarshall

Not sure what you mean by "SCR", but the diesel exhaust fluid (DEF) in newer diesel Fords is included in the diesel system SPECIFICALLY to scrub the NOx. It's been used in combustion turbine applications for years for exactly the same reason, as I recall.....


Kent
Houston

David clarified what SCR is above.

The SCR system (using DEF) certainly does reduce the levels of NOx. There have been great advances in that area over the past few years. It doesn't eliminate NOx, however, even when working at peak efficiency. It also doesn't work all the time, under all operating conditions. Note the reductions in efficacy at engine start up, at higher temperatures, and so on. Also, as real world testing has shown in numerous examples, some vehicles aren't anywhere near as clean over the road as they are on the dyno, with up to 7 times measured pollutants being emitted.

Then, think about all of the harmful substances coming out of the tailpipe other than NOx.

The original claim was that it was essentially water (and ammonia) coming out the tailpipe. If you want just water coming out the tailpipe look for a hydrogen fueled vehicle.

Even a "clean" diesel is a long way from being clean compared to a gasoline engine, or an alternate fuel vehicle. It is certainly clean, or cleaner, compared to older technology diesels, which is a feat in and of itself. Some posters above appear to believe that a clean diesel is a literal description.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by KMarshall

I'd also like to find out what your expert opinion is about what the I/C tow vehicles are to be replaced with?

Just curious.


Kent
Houston

Don't know about USAtraveler, but here is a scenario for you, looking a little broader than just tow vehicles.

Reduction in use of diesel for lighter duty vehicles. Continued use of diesel for heavier duty vehicles. Lighter includes passenger vehicles. Heavier includes large trucks. You can decide where to draw the dividing line between the two applications depending on your thoughts on how fast it will come. Regardless, look for more restrictions on where and when diesels can operate, ie city limitations on diesel truck operation.

More diesel electric hybrids, especially in heavier trucks.

Increased use of alternate fuels (natural gas in particular, until the price goes up). Spark ignited CNG for lighter duty vehicles, and heavier duty vehicles with sufficient real estate available for fuel storage, or those applications with return to base route profiles. LNG for heavier duty vehicles (spark ignited plus Westport or similar diesel dual fuel technology) and where fuel storage density is important (considering the balance of space limitations and range requirements). See Volvo/KW/Caterpillar/EMD/etc projects.

Steady move towards electric power as replacement for IC. The IC will be around for quite a while, but eventually will be in the same category as kerosene lanterns are today. Interesting relics.

And any of the above can use weight distributing equipment when towing.

Note: For a look at what future tow vehicles may look like, see ohmman's threads on towing with his Tesla. Best info out there IMO.

Jeff
(Who doesn't claim to be an expert)
(But who spent a long career in the heavy duty diesel (and natural gas) engine business - the yellow ones from Peoria)
(And a shorter career in the alternate fuel heavy vehicle engine business leading engineering development of on board fuel storage, LNG and CNG)

[tjdonahoe]

Yep, I run them yellow ones for 52 years, best engines ever built, the 1693's to the 3606E's......I know how dirty they were....a fun ride...

[uncle_bob]

Hi

What a shame that all this really good knowledge (and reasoned debate) will now be buried deep in in a thread on a completely different topic.....

Bob

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by james.mileur

Interesting the range of Google articles on Diesel vs. Gas. More smog or more CO2 and this one claimed gas spewed more particulate than new diesels. Ah, the wonder of it all.
http://achatespower.com/are-diesels-...oline-engines/

10 years ago there was a great article in the Scientific American (a liberal leaning publication) regarding the future development on how we use energy. For transportation they advocated the further development of the Diesel engine noting that it was already more efficient in utilizing energy and held out the potential for becoming cleaner than gasoline, citing the same qualities that is supported by more recent research.

[Rocinante]

Originally Posted by uncle_bob

Hi

What a shame that all this really good knowledge (and reasoned debate) will now be buried deep in in a thread on a completely different topic.....

Bob

Sadly, that is the eventual end state of every thread on this topic. To find the gold, usually one must get out a shovel and look at the first page or two of responses.

[Kent M]

Originally Posted by DKB_SATX

SCR = selective catalytic reduction = the system that uses DEF

Thanks. I thought that was what it was, but thought it interesting that the description of the present status of the world was slightly represented in opposition.....

Learn something new every day.


Kent
Houston

[jcl]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

10 years ago there was a great article in the Scientific American (a liberal leaning publication) regarding the future development on how we use energy. For transportation they advocated the further development of the Diesel engine noting that it was already more efficient in utilizing energy and held out the potential for becoming cleaner than gasoline, citing the same qualities that is supported by more recent research.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...n-future-2006/

I didn't read that conclusion in the linked article.

Ten to twenty years ago, European regulators also went with rules favouring diesels, due to better fuel efficiencies. That is now changing when they see the negative impacts on air quality and human health associated with diesel exhaust. Hence the current discussion.

Also, if you want to pick winners in a race, would you place your bet now, or ten years prior? Lots of change happening.

Jeff

[rocco52]

I am not going to take sides here. I am just going to give you some real world observations from a non-engineer. I have a 2015 25Fb. I use a Blue Ox Sway pro. My first TV was a 2015 Audi Q7 TDI. The power and feel were great but the AS pushed the Audi around quite a bit. My 2nd TV was a 2016 Silverado Crew 4X4. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating on the door sticker was 7200 lbs. I took the Chevy to the scale and weighed it with a full tank of gas, bed cover, myself and about 150 lbs of gear. 6240 lbs. Add the tongue weight (as measured with a tongue weight scale), 890 lbs plus two generators, two 5 gal cans of gas, BBQ, fire ring, lawn chairs and tools plus my better half and total was 7,630 lbs. Make your own conclusions. I was told that to be safe you need a margin of 10% in capacity. I now have a 3500 Duramax and feel safe.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dkottum

We get insulted on this forum all the time, consider it a complement and encouragement.

Listening to the clueless is pretty funny

Funnier yet is ignorance of the basic physics in re vehicles. Clear that up and there might be a point to some differences.

The tow vehicle I'm sitting in at present weighs 19,000-lbs solo. Anyone care to bet whether it's more stable than a Dodge Charger?

Or that it can stop faster because the brakes are larger?

I know, it's better because it has a diesel! And an engine brake!!

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by dkottum

What did they tow 34' Avions with when 34' Avions were new? And more relevant to the thread, did they use weight distribution hitches?

Don't bother. Doesn't know.

[franklyfrank]

Originally Posted by rocco52

I am not going to take sides here. I am just going to give you some real world observations from a non-engineer. I have a 2015 25Fb. I use a Blue Ox Sway pro. My first TV was a 2015 Audi Q7 TDI. The power and feel were great but the AS pushed the Audi around quite a bit. My 2nd TV was a 2016 Silverado Crew 4X4. Gross Vehicle Weight Rating on the door sticker was 7200 lbs. I took the Chevy to the scale and weighed it with a full tank of gas, bed cover, myself and about 150 lbs of gear. 6240 lbs. Add the tongue weight (as measured with a tongue weight scale), 890 lbs plus two generators, two 5 gal cans of gas, BBQ, fire ring, lawn chairs and tools plus my better half and total was 7,630 lbs. Make your own conclusions. I was told that to be safe you need a margin of 10% in capacity. I now have a 3500 Duramax and feel safe.

As they say the proof is in the ......:-).
I make a bet that no one participating in this forum will see the diesel replaced with electric in their lifetime.

Didn't you read the post where you could have saved all that money you spent on buying a environment destructive humongous diesel 1 ton, kept towing with your Audi by simply buying a more expensive hitch. The wastefulness of it all. :-)

[pmclemore]

I think the only way you can determine whether you need WD or not is to take your rig to the scales.

I have a 2004 Duramax and love the power. That said, I would also tow with about anything that Andy Thomson set up.

I took a quick stop at the scales heading out to our most recent trip. I have a Hensley (my second one - and I am committed). We packed pretty full for a dry camping trip to Shenandoah. Full Water (53gals), empty waste tanks and all regular stuff. Since I have a 30' Signature, I have been cranking up the jacks to the highest mark.

First pass - WD set:

Steer 4129 Drive 4080 Trailer 7340 Total 15540

Second pass: - WD relaxed

Steer 3800 Drive 4500 Trailer 7240 Total 15540.

To me, this says that, even though I have a big, honkin' 3/4 ton truck, I need WD for the best setup. Additionally, it tells me that I can loosen up a notch so a little less load is transferred to the steer axle, and this should make the lashup a little more gentle on my rig.

Pat

[slowmover]

As a followup for those not familiar:

Still want the solo weight, same day, Pat. See Three Pass Method by Ron Gratz I linked over here in 2010 or so.

I like "zero" as my Steer starting point. Same Steer Axle solo or loaded, WD tensioned.

It's the "best" point to get individual wheel loads on the TV. Whichever tire has highest load on an axle, that's the pressure minimum.

And getting weights on TT is good also. TT will always favor (pull towards) heaviest side. Hopefully (usually ) it's curb side. Main thing is axle equalization: no real difference in load per trailer axle. That's how to define "level".

With TT tires to sidewall max, the experimentation with TV tire pressure range is easier to feel.

There's a minimum, and there's a range of "best"

CapriRacer recommends 1.5-hrs steady state driving for full warm up. With an easy as possible stop in a rest area, check for pressure rise of 5-7%.

Much more than that needs more air. I use 5-lbs with LT E-rate. Find the minimum. Then changes are easy.

Try it at "zero" first. Then change WD settings. Get tire pressure squared away earliest.

If you run TT tires lower, leave that till last.

If you aren't running KONI or Bilstein shocks, it's worth the change.

Same for replacement polyurethane bushings on anti-roll bars.

And I'm guessing you avoided the cracked GM hitch receiver problem of that era.

Good luck.

[USAtraveler]

Originally Posted by KMarshall

Did you include this little tidbit of "truth" because it's your honest opinion based on your expert opinion, or is there some other factor set that we're really ignorant about?

Pot, meet kettle.....

Have you done any research into the reduction of pollution in the US over the last 20 or so years? I'd also like to find out what your expert opinion is about what the I/C tow vehicles are to be replaced with?

Just curious. Kent Houston

To answer you: (1) Yes. Don't know the extent of your ignorance, so can't answer other factors. (2) Yes. (3) Not in your lifetime.

[Countryboy59]

Originally Posted by pmclemore

I think the only way you can determine whether you need WD or not is to take your rig to the scales.

I have a 2004 Duramax and love the power. That said, I would also tow with about anything that Andy Thomson set up.

I took a quick stop at the scales heading out to our most recent trip. I have a Hensley (my second one - and I am committed). We packed pretty full for a dry camping trip to Shenandoah. Full Water (53gals), empty waste tanks and all regular stuff. Since I have a 30' Signature, I have been cranking up the jacks to the highest mark.

First pass - WD set:

Steer 4129 Drive 4080 Trailer 7340 Total 15540

Second pass: - WD relaxed

Steer 3800 Drive 4500 Trailer 7240 Total 15540.

To me, this says that, even though I have a big, honkin' 3/4 ton truck, I need WD for the best setup. Additionally, it tells me that I can loosen up a notch so a little less load is transferred to the steer axle, and this should make the lashup a little more gentle on my rig.

Pat

Yeah, but 3800 lbs on the steer tires vs 4129 I doubt makes much difference. Either way is probably fine.

[tjdonahoe]

I like this, gas VS diesel...I haven't seen big gas engines in big trucks pulling trailers lately like in almost 50 years, because of efficiency, no gas engines on the market, that I know of, in the pickups can compare with the diesel with hp,torque ,mileage and they now have an engine exhaust brake.....