it's not my desire to post negatively about any specific shop,
especially one so apparently DEDICATED to it's unique approach ...
but i can say that i've communicated with a couple of customers
they were "talked into" using some components they'd rather not have used and can't easily UNdo.
what u kids do north of the boarder is not by concern really,
it's suggesting THAT APPROACH is OK to USE in the lower 48.
and MOST who follow the magic towing approach BUY into an entire set of conditions, tweaks and behaviors...
that NO ONE ELSE can or is willing to duplicate.
and the folks following the "go slow, PAY to change a lot of bits" approach really DO all seem happy about it...
i met a guy towing a 34 with a caddy
who was THRILLED with only traveling 100 miles per day and taking 30+ days to cross ocean to ocean.
but it's ONE shop in an entire industry,
which is VERY MUCH like going to one health guru who does things NO ONE ELSE in the profession supports.
i have also gotten UNsolicited commentary from state park rangers...
who FREQUENTLY see seasonal canadians enter their parks
with rigs that BARELY look stable at 20 mph.
MUCH of this use of compromised towing vehicles relates to FUEL COSTS, i get that.
and there is ONE GUY here who regularly sings the PRAISE about towing with a small minivan....
but fails to mention his "TOWING" is only about 10 hours PER YEAR.
yes, ALL the details matter.
the CONSPIRACY theory regarding ratings is often suggested...
"underrated to boost sales of something else"
or "liability causes them to UNDER rate a yaya..."
there is of course NO PROOF of this
and upon digging one will find...
the axles, bearings, springs, gearing, drive shaft, exhaust, fuel management, frame, unibody or TIRES...
account for the lower rating (or some other critical bit that is NOT engineered for towing stresses)
there is ALWAYS some component which is the weak link or lowest common rating factor...
the fallacy and TRAP is that folks think changing ONE BIT solves the limitation when it doesn't.
that's why reinforcing the receiver
or shortening the overhang is NOT a complete solution.
but conspiracy theories are SO APPEALING...
and offer SIMPLE blanket explanations where boring old engineering TRUTHS or details put folks 2 sleep.
so it's very hard to disprove a conspiracy,
and when DISproofs DO exists, the theorists just move to ANOTHER angle on the theory...
it may be one world and the web might make life ALL seem to be the identical
but small differences really do matter.
a monkey and a donkey and a human all have basically the same genetics right ?
so how about a blind date with someone 99.5% similar?
i'm not drinking ANyONES kool-aid (including goodyear)
but i do accept the notion that MOST tire calamities can be traced...
to a known or UNknown user abuse or error.
curbs, wheel chocks, pot holes, UNDER inflation, scuffing, prolonged parking or AGE, and so on.
as just ONE EXAMPLE of this, consider the following...
IF one tandem tire is UNDER inflated or removed for a flat
and the trailer is towed more than 50 miles with the other tire OVER LOADED...
BOTH TIRES are due for replacement, not just flat/leaking one.
and how many folks buy 2 NEW tires for each solo flat,
even though NOT doing so means towing on a SPENT (now defective) tire ?
it's my understanding, the op is looking at 30/31 modern CLASSICs which have gvwr approaching 10,000 lbs.
that's up to 9000 on the axles or 2250 lbs PER TIRE of CONTINUOUS LOADING with intermittent loads much higher.
so suggesting that a tire rated for INTERMITTENT LOADING to 1900 lbs
(and much LESS continuous loading) is an OK/wise choice...is simply foolish.
no offense intended toward ANY folks using these tires.
just don't rationalize the choice with conspiracy theories or possibly poor performance by OTHER tires.