Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-08-2010, 11:59 AM   #15
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by driftless View Post
I have towed my 31' AS three times for a total distance of less than 200 miles with my Ram 1500. I can tell you that with a tongue weight of about 800#, the load on the hitch definitely lowers the rear of the TV and takes load off of the front wheels (of the TV) with nothing in the bed of the truck. There is an effect on the handling although I've not had any significant problems. But, when her first trip is made in the spring, she will be equipped with a WD hitch.

The rated loads for pickups assume the load will be distributed within the cargo area, above or between the axles, which is a lot different than hanging it all on a hitch that is between 2 and 3 feet behind the rear axle of the truck. There is a significant difference in the load capacity and the allowable hitch weight for any pickup. (and it may even be so stated in the owner's manual of the pickup)
All correct, and well covered elsewhere.
__________________

__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 12:09 PM   #16
Rivet Master
Airstream Dealer
 
Inland RV Center, In's Avatar
 
Corona , California
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 16,499
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Don't need to go there....that's for another thread...an existing one.

More on topic....Andy, will you share you test perameters and accept input, for what it's worth? (that'll open a can, won't it?)

I am thrilled you're taking the initiative to take this on, so we all have some factual data. Kudos!
We are investing our time, and money, for the research.

Our intent is to answer some questions, and to present data to those that are interested as a matter of information, and not another grandstand for slamming or arguing.

However, we understand that no matter what the results will be, there are those that will continue to argue.

We wish to advise them, at this time, that we will not, under any circumstances, get involved with that behavior.

But, we would invite them to spend their time, and money, and do the research.

So far, we have made tests on 4 different setups. The results so far, are very interesting.

Andy
__________________

__________________
Inland RV Center, In is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 12:23 PM   #17
Chief Chili Cook
 
newroswell's Avatar
 
2010 30' Flying Cloud
Bakersfield , California
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 738
It appears that Andy is testing various brands & styles of bars, for their rated spring rate vs actual spring rate. I doubt his test procedure will even include a tow vehicle, which would only cloud the results. It would be up to us to take the actual brand/style WD hitch spring rate into account in tuning our towing setup.

Until now the notion that round bars are softer than square bars has been measured by the seat of pants method, which sometimes can be accurate "enough". I want to thank Andy up front for undertaking this work, and I'm looking forward to the results.
__________________
newroswell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 12:23 PM   #18
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inland RV Center, In View Post
You will need it.

So far, up until now, interested owners have posted.

I had a very hard time waiting for more negativity.

Andy
Andy,

I have not said anything negative on this thread. I just think this will be very interesting, will draw lots of comments about how and what parrameters are used in the testing, as well as what hitch manufacturers', or as I fear manufacturer's products are tested.

I'm very much looking foward to hearing the results of the tests, as well as seeing what products are tested.
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 01:07 PM   #19
4 Rivet Member
 
Silverexpress's Avatar
 
2000 27' Safari
Suwanee , Georgia
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 485
Blog Entries: 1
Send a message via AIM to Silverexpress
Looking forward to the results.
__________________
John & Robin
99 27' Safari
AIR #34494

Living the Airstream Life:
Silverexpress is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 01:17 PM   #20
4 Rivet Member
 
1973 31' Excella 500
Spring Green , Wisconsin
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 265
Because I will be purchasing a WD hitch in the next few months, I appreciate that InlandRV is investing the time and money to make this information available. It will be another piece of information that I can use to make a final selection.

Now, if this testing were being conducted here in Wisconsin, I'd have to believe the techs and mechanics would have more than a few 12 packs of brew bet on the outcome...
__________________
Lew TAC #WI-6
Nobody can help everybody, but everybody can help somebody.
driftless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 01:55 PM   #21
2 Rivet Member
 
2016 30' Classic
Issaquah , Washington
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
SEC,
Just looked it up for a Silverado, just as an example:
Max payload:
"1/2 ton" 1980#
"3/4 ton" 4192#
"1 ton" 6635#
Wow! More than 2 tons for a "3/4 ton" pickup. Maybe I should have gotten a Silverado. My 2008 Dodge Ram 2500 HD is supposed to be a heavy duty 3/4 ton pickup and it's payload capacity is only 1850 lbs.

As for a "soft" ride, with the trailer (790 lbs tongue weight) the dogs, canopy, generator, etc., if I do not use weight distrubution the "load" causes the truck to be very close to riding on the overload springs and it is definitely not a "soft" ride.
__________________
PJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 02:14 PM   #22
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJohnson View Post
Wow! More than 2 tons for a "3/4 ton" pickup. Maybe I should have gotten a Silverado. My 2008 Dodge Ram 2500 HD is supposed to be a heavy duty 3/4 ton pickup and it's payload capacity is only 1850 lbs.

As for a "soft" ride, with the trailer (790 lbs tongue weight) the dogs, canopy, generator, etc., if I do not use weight distrubution the "load" causes the truck to be very close to riding on the overload springs and it is definitely not a "soft" ride.
Not sure why...Dodge lists 2010 specs on website???

MAX payloads

1/2 ton 1900#
3/4 ton 3160#
1 ton 5130#
__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 02:38 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Andy,

I am certainly not being negative at all, and as I expressed above, I am very appreciative of your efforts. I have read through ALL the prior "stuff" and have a very technical background, but I'm still stuck.

I understand the uniqueness of the AS construction and it's strengths and weaknesses.

I will be in the market for a TV sometime (OK when funds become available).

I am really interested in your findings because I like the ride and behavior of a half ton suspension with a "stiff" bar. Equal-i-zer with 1000# bars (Per scales I'm at 900# tongue weight)
I know I am good relative to GAWRs, GVWR, but am over on GCWR. That means powertrain and braking are underspec'ed for my trailer.

With a softer truck suspension and "stiffer" bars, the truck front suspension will take quite a bit of the stress off the trailer frame tongue when entering a sharp drive, etc. How much? I don't know. Same scenerio with a 3/4 or one ton...not as much compression of front suspension and more stress on the tongue. In this scenerio....softer equalizing bars are in order????

This is the reason I was asking about spring bar deflection rates with various truck configurations. No negtivity meant at all.

What I really want is a truck with a 1/2 ton suspension and 3/4 ton brakes and powertrain. (NO! I'm not going to start modifying suspensions to this degree! Not safe without the level of OEM testing)

The Yukon XL I picked up for my new company car comes close on the powertrain side, but brakes are 1/2 ton components. I'll still be over on GCWR.
__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 02:43 PM   #24
2 Rivet Member
 
2016 30' Classic
Issaquah , Washington
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Not sure why...Dodge lists 2010 specs on website???

MAX payloads

1/2 ton 1900#
3/4 ton 3160#
1 ton 5130#
The problem with these numnbers is that they are for a 2WD short bed with a regular cab and a gasoline engine. If you have a long bed, the numbers go down. If you have a quad cab the numbers go down. If you have a diesel, the numbers go down. If you have 4WD, the numbers go down. If you have all of these options, the numbers go way down. The only reliable number concerning payload capacity is the number on the door post of the truck you own or are buying.

Then there is the problem of the trailer hitch weight. Weight behind the rear axle adds more weight to the rear axle than just the absolute weight. The reason for this is that the lever action of the weight behind the rear axle takes weight off the front axle and this weight is then added to the weight on the rear axle. The result is that the truck has even less payload capacity because loading it to the payload capacity will overload the rear axle.

The function of weight distrubution is, at a minimum, to transfer the weight removed from the front axle (resulting from weight behind the rear axle) back to the front axle. As others have stated, payload capacity assumes that the weight will be distributed BETWEEN the axles.

Therefore, we really need to know what the weight capacity of the axles are and to make sure that we are not overloading the axles!
__________________
PJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 03:03 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by PJohnson View Post
The problem with these numnbers is that they are for a 2WD short bed with a regular cab and a gasoline engine. If you have a long bed, the numbers go down. If you have a quad cab the numbers go down. If you have a diesel, the numbers go down. If you have 4WD, the numbers go down. If you have all of these options, the numbers go way down. The only reliable number concerning payload capacity is the number on the door post of the truck you own or are buying.

Then there is the problem of the trailer hitch weight. Weight behind the rear axle adds more weight to the rear axle than just the absolute weight. The reason for this is that the lever action of the weight behind the rear axle takes weight off the front axle and this weight is then added to the weight on the rear axle. The result is that the truck has even less payload capacity because loading it to the payload capacity will overload the rear axle.


The function of weight distrubution is, at a minimum, to transfer the weight removed from the front axle (resulting from weight behind the rear axle) back to the front axle. As others have stated, payload capacity assumes that the weight will be distributed BETWEEN the axles.

Therefore, we really need to know what the weight capacity of the axles are and to make sure that we are not overloading the axles!
I understand. As I stated in both posts, these are MAX figures from both MFRs. (you know with all the little footnotes relative to engines, transmissions, axle ratios, options, suspension options, etc.) Apples to apples, they are MAX figures.
__________________
dznf0g is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 03:22 PM   #26
2 Rivet Member
 
2016 30' Classic
Issaquah , Washington
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
I understand. As I stated in both posts, these are MAX figures from both MFRs. (you know with all the little footnotes relative to engines, transmissions, axle ratios, options, suspension options, etc.) Apples to apples, they are MAX figures.
The point that I was trying to make is the "MAX" weight carrying capacity(advertised by the manufacturer) doesn't have much relavence to the real world.
__________________
PJohnson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 03:44 PM   #27
2 Rivet Member
 
1979 31' Sovereign
Richfield , Ohio
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by dznf0g View Post
Andy,

I am certainly not being negative at all, and as I expressed above, I am very appreciative of your efforts. I have read through ALL the prior "stuff" and have a very technical background, but I'm still stuck.

I understand the uniqueness of the AS construction and it's strengths and weaknesses.

I will be in the market for a TV sometime (OK when funds become available).

I am really interested in your findings because I like the ride and behavior of a half ton suspension with a "stiff" bar. Equal-i-zer with 1000# bars (Per scales I'm at 900# tongue weight)
I know I am good relative to GAWRs, GVWR, but am over on GCWR. That means powertrain and braking are underspec'ed for my trailer.

With a softer truck suspension and "stiffer" bars, the truck front suspension will take quite a bit of the stress off the trailer frame tongue when entering a sharp drive, etc. How much? I don't know. Same scenerio with a 3/4 or one ton...not as much compression of front suspension and more stress on the tongue. In this scenerio....softer equalizing bars are in order????

This is the reason I was asking about spring bar deflection rates with various truck configurations. No negtivity meant at all.

What I really want is a truck with a 1/2 ton suspension and 3/4 ton brakes and powertrain. (NO! I'm not going to start modifying suspensions to this degree! Not safe without the level of OEM testing)

The Yukon XL I picked up for my new company car comes close on the powertrain side, but brakes are 1/2 ton components. I'll still be over on GCWR.
Have you checked the Chevy or GMC 1/2 ton with the max-tow package? It comes with 6.2L engine, 403 hp. speed auto trans with real nice low 1st gear, 4 wheel disc brakes, (not on regular 1/2 ton), larger diameter ring gear with stronger housing, all cooling upgrades (eng and trans oil), plus a lot more. Also recommend factory brake controller.
__________________
Topshelf is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-08-2010, 03:58 PM   #28
Rivet Master
 
dznf0g's Avatar

 
2007 30' Classic
Oswego , Illinois
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 9,408
Images: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by Topshelf View Post
Have you checked the Chevy or GMC 1/2 ton with the max-tow package? It comes with 6.2L engine, 403 hp. speed auto trans with real nice low 1st gear, 4 wheel disc brakes, (not on regular 1/2 ton), larger diameter ring gear with stronger housing, all cooling upgrades (eng and trans oil), plus a lot more. Also recommend factory brake controller.
Yes, I believe I'd still be about 1000# over GCWR. We should probably take these posts out of Andy's hitch trial thread. I think we have hijacked enough. Moderator: what think you?
__________________

__________________
dznf0g 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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Load distribution hitches-an analysis nickcrowhurst Hitches, Couplers & Balls 92 03-15-2010 07:41 PM
Blue OX hitches load levelers? Resorts Hitches, Couplers & Balls 4 07-16-2007 09:09 PM
Looking for photo/ad of equalizing hitch bkahler Off Topic Forum 4 08-20-2006 09:52 PM
Load sensing suspension and Equalizing hitch. 59toaster Hitches, Couplers & Balls 5 07-31-2005 03:01 PM
Equalizing hitch amymarie LP Gas, Piping, Tanks & Regulators 3 01-07-2005 01:28 PM


Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:08 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.