Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-28-2013, 08:53 PM   #113
Rivet Master
Commercial Member
 
Andrew T's Avatar

 
2008 34' Classic
1960 17' Pacer
London , Ontario
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 955
The problem with J2807 is that the handling tests were done with trailers not connected properly often on receivers that were too weak to transfer weight effectively.

The trailers used were relatively low profile cargo trailers with independent suspension.
A box trailer with a large slide with its floor 34" off the road, no shocks, primitive leaf springs and a big flat sidewall tows completely differently and J2807 does not take the difference in trailer handling into account. I think some of the auto makers are realizing that they need a different criteria to measure towability. Again lots of 4000 pound trailers are much harder to tow and much less stable than a 9000 pound 34
Airstream.

Andrew T
__________________

__________________
Andrew Thomson
London, Ontario

"One test is worth a thousand expert opinions."
Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot
Andrew T is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-28-2013, 09:17 PM   #114
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,409
Images: 5
Oh, I agree with you on the SAE standard. I think it is pretty meaningless as to true capability of any of the vehicles...and perhaps the test and setup is "off". That is probably one of the two reasons GM and Ford and Dodge haven't gone to it. Any performance based test is just going to give the weekend warrior a SIMPLE comparison between trucks. That's not proper spec'ing.
__________________

__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 08:05 AM   #115
Rivet Master
 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A , N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Oh, I agree with you on the SAE standard. I think it is pretty meaningless as to true capability of any of the vehicles...and perhaps the test and setup is "off". That is probably one of the two reasons GM and Ford and Dodge haven't gone to it. Any performance based test is just going to give the weekend warrior a SIMPLE comparison between trucks. That's not proper spec'ing.
Actually, SAE standards, though not perfect, are a great start and certainly much better that the state we are in right now. It would allow us to objectively compare different vehicles from different (or the same) manufacturers. Right now we cannot do that.

Also, it will rule out many of the towing issues people face, for example over heating. One of the SAE tests requires the TV to tow its maximum load with AC on and 2 people on board in a mountainous road and maintain a certain speed without over heating. Or 0-60 test with max load must be below 30 seconds (and other tests).

All the car manufacturers had input designing the tests. The reason they won't implement them is that their tow ratings will take a hit (Toyota did implement them, and for example, Sequoia went from 10000# to 7400#).
__________________
rostam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 08:15 AM   #116
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,409
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by rostam View Post
Actually, SAE standards, though not perfect, are a great start and certainly much better that the state we are in right now. It would allow us to objectively compare different vehicles from different (or the same) manufacturers. Right now we cannot do that.

Also, it will rule out many of the towing issues people face, for example over heating. One of the SAE tests requires the TV to tow its maximum load with AC on and 2 people on board in a mountainous road and maintain a certain speed without over heating. Or 0-60 test with max load must be below 30 seconds (and other tests).

All the car manufacturers had input designing the tests. The reason they won't implement them is that their tow ratings will take a hit (Toyota did implement them, and for example, Sequoia went from 10000# to 7400#).
I agree, and yes all vehicles will apparently have lower ratings. For the average consumer, it will give an apples to apples comparison on a PERFORMANCE basis, but it will tell nothing about the true capability of the vehicle. I predict that the max loading controversy will spin more out of control than it is now.

The specs now are clear and concise....albeit VERY complex and hard for the untrained to arrive at an understanding of the vehicles' capability per manufacturer testing and recommendations. That is why I listed the course in the post upstream. The only way to get a handle on this is to get thoroughly trained. I have been told that GM will still provide all the GCWR,GAWR, GVWR....that we have today, further loading the conversation with debate and discussion.

EDIT: BTW, the reason some haven't adopted is not that they will take a hit. It is the fact that one takes a hit and the other doesn't implement till a year or two later and suffers a false disadvantage in the marketplace for a couple years. There is an effort for GM, F & D to adopt at the same time. 2015? It is hard to get concensis.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 10:00 AM   #117
Rivet Master
 
Gene's Avatar
 
2008 25' Safari FB SE
Grand Junction , Colorado
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,842
Quote:
Originally Posted by zigzagguzzi View Post
And by the way, I am the referee. I keep score. No one is winning but it has been a great game. Jim
Self appointed referee only.

Gene
__________________
Gene is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 10:17 AM   #118
Rivet Master
 
Currently Looking...
Nowhere , Somewhere
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,417
Blog Entries: 2
It's a joke!! Relax. None of this contributes anything to the betterment of the world. It is entertainment only, enjoy it. Jim
__________________
avionstream is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 07:13 PM   #119
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,496
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
So I am chatting with a lawyer friend of mine about this thread. He works in the aerospace industry.

I explain the conversation to him and he starts to laugh - "Oh", he says, "one of these numbers. We've got these too".

He goes on to tell me that pretty much any number that's out of the control of the manufacturer gets reviewed by, amongst others, legal. In his words "if some joker can **** it up, we generally give the engineers a third of what they start with".

No, not from a car manufacturer, but close enough I believe to have some relevance to this conversation.
__________________
andreasduess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-29-2013, 07:27 PM   #120
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,409
Images: 5
Andy, no relevance at all, IMO and experience.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 06:59 AM   #121
Rivet Master
 
andreasduess's Avatar
 
1984 34' International
Toronto , Ontario
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 1,496
Images: 5
Blog Entries: 1
Considering he works in a related engineering space, setting comparable numbers, just not for cars but for planes, I do think there's a fair bit of relevance.
__________________
andreasduess is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 07:04 AM   #122
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,409
Images: 5
Planes and cars are not comparable on operation, safety standards, etc. But That is just silly to debate. I KNOW how the numbers are arrived at, and you cannot convince me otherwise. I LIVE them daily.
__________________
-Rich-

"If the women don't find you handsome, they should at least find you handy." - Red Green
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-30-2013, 09:05 AM   #123
CLOUDSPLITTER "Tahawas"
 
ROBERT CROSS's Avatar

 
2003 25' Classic
Zanadude Nebula , WNY
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,153
Images: 1
Thumbs up

There is really is no comparison.....remember...take-offs are optional, landings are mandatory.

I can understand the stricter aviation wiggle room standards.

Bob
__________________

__________________
PFC.....

“After all these years the reason I continue to love Thanksgiving.....I still sit at the kids table.”
RLC

Sandra wanted to go to Cleveland on vacation,
but I’m the Husband, so we went to Cleveland.
RLC
ROBERT CROSS 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 01:14 AM.


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.