Visit our Popular Forums

dznf0g · 05-07-2016, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clamb

J.M. ( and Slowmover), thanks for joining the fray! I must admit, I was a bit intimidated by starting this, being a relative newbie and all. And I knew I would be getting input from some, if not many, who have towed for many years and have set their rigs up by feel, by eyeball, or by 6th sense. And there is really nothing wrong with that. Whatever works for you and gets you safely to the next campsite is what it's all about.

In my situation, with a new F150, Ford recommends putting 25% of the weight back to the front axle, thus the section of the spreadsheet where you can input the % to return to the front and see how many lbs. that is. This seems to agree with your comment about squatting a bit in the rear end.

I hope that you will give it a try and help us find out if there is something about the spreadsheet that needs to be tweaked. You can post your filled in sheet here and we can review it. I have protected all cells in the sheet except user inputs, so the formulas and basic structure can't be changed.

clamb, I'm confused by the 25% Ford statement and meant to ask you about it earlier, but forgot. Is that 25% of the weight removed from the front axle with no wd hooked up....or 25% of the added rear axle weight with no WD hooked up....or 25% of receiver weight? Surely they don't mean 25% of the weight removed from the front axle?????? That would be as weird...or wrong as the 50% of ride height restoration, IMO.

clamb · 05-07-2016, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dznf0g

clamb, I'm confused by the 25% Ford statement and meant to ask you about it earlier, but forgot. Is that 25% of the weight removed from the front axle with no wd hooked up....or 25% of the added rear axle weight with no WD hooked up....or 25% of receiver weight? Surely they don't mean 25% of the weight removed from the front axle?????? That would be as weird...or wrong as the 50% of ride height restoration, IMO.

The manual says to measure the front height unloaded, then measure the height with TW, not hitched, then adjust the hitch tension to bring the front end down 1/4 of the way. I just double checked the manual, and that is the way it is stated.

When I first tried out my new Blue Ox, at the nominal recommended link, it brought the front end down 2/3.

I have no idea what the logic is behind this.

dznf0g · 05-07-2016, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clamb

The manual says to measure the front height unloaded, then measure the height with TW, not hitched, then adjust the hitch tension to bring the front end down 1/4 of the way. I just double checked the manual, and that is the way it is stated.

When I first tried out my new Blue Ox, at the nominal recommended link, it brought the front end down 2/3.

I have no idea what the logic is behind this.

Me neither. I need to ask some questions at work. I could understand the statement if they said "minimum of 25%" or 50% for GM. I'll look into it.

slowmover · 05-08-2016, 05:38 AM

In the end folks will do what they want.

The point is to experiment. Most won't try (as Andy Thomson notes, more than 90% don't even come close) and have no idea what they're missing. "I need a bigger truck". Or, a truck. Not the answer. Damned expensive choice for lowered performance.

FALR is a minimum as I see it. The old 1/3-rule the best to shoot for. "Equal Squat" on the tow vehicle is another way of stating the latter EVEN IF the numbers aren't exact to spec.

No I never saw a perfect 1/3. But close enough for hand grenades and a good deal more than equal squat. Same thing, then, to me. The amount of TW back to the TT axles was what was telling.

Want to make your TT handle better? Fill the fresh water tank and max out the transfer to TT axles. Now it's on the way to best braking as well. Fiddle with what's on TV rear axle after that.

A spreadsheet isn't a starting place. It doesn't tell what a given TV can do as "weight" is NOT the primary consideration with this trailer type. It is dependent on other factors. It's a factory snow job.

Hell, SAE doesn't even use travel trailers in J2807. So there is no recognition of a higher COG or of winds.

The inferior design of today's hitch receivers on pickups (not able to contain frame flex; have to make room for that spare tire instead; and -- maybe -- meet crash testing parameters) is why we see the revision of tried and true.

slowmover · 05-08-2016, 05:42 AM

In the end folks will do what they want.

The point is to experiment. Most won't try (as Andy Thomson notes, more than 90% don't even come close) and have no idea what they're missing. "I need a bigger truck". Or, a truck. Not the answer. Damned expensive choice for lowered performance.

FALR is a minimum as I see it. The old 1/3-rule the best to shoot for. "Equal Squat" on the tow vehicle is another way of stating the latter EVEN IF the numbers aren't exact to spec.

No I never saw a perfect 1/3. But close enough for hand grenades and a good deal more than equal squat. Same thing, then, to me. The amount of TW back to the TT axles was what was telling.

Want to make your TT handle better? Fill the fresh water tank and max out the transfer to TT axles. Now it's on the way to best braking as well. Fiddle with what's on TV rear axle after that.

A spreadsheet isn't a starting place. It doesn't tell what a given TV can do as "weight" is NOT the primary consideration with this trailer type. It is dependent on other factors. It's a factory snow job.

Hell, SAE doesn't even use travel trailers in J2807. So there is no recognition of a higher COG or of winds.

The inferior design of today's hitch receivers on pickups (not able to contain frame flex; have to make room for that spare tire instead; and -- maybe -- meet crash testing parameters) is why we see the revision of tried and true.

Get a start and be painstaking. There's a range of adjustments for any combo that is narrow. Find the upper and lower. That's most of the work right there. Respect axle and tire limits is about it. The rest is marketing.

Playing with factory numbers WILL NOT result in a good towing combination. But maybe one the uneducated are used to.

dznf0g · 05-08-2016, 06:44 AM

Again, this sheet is not designed as a starting point. The scale is still the starting point. This sheet is for informed confirmation of proper loading as you change loads during your normal course of trips and travel. I would take exception with an overall all encompassing Statement of equal squat is needed. It is more true on vehicles where the axle ratings are the same or near same. On pickups, they are designed with rear capacity much greater than front capacity. This allows for loading a disproportionate share of the load to the rear axle. I do believe that front ride height should be close to the unladen height, preferably a bit lower than unladen height. I also take exception that the manufacturers numbers are to be ignored and "playing with them will not result in a good towing combination " It will result in a very good towing combination.

clamb · 05-09-2016, 02:57 PM

My apologies- the originator of this spreadsheet has pointed out a few errors in my version- please stand by!

clamb · 05-10-2016, 09:06 AM

Trying to get the earlier link removed

clamb · 05-22-2016, 07:32 AM

I see that many have downloaded the spreadsheet I attached in post #9- please be aware that it had a few errors pertaining to tongue weight (as truck cargo) and GCVW. Please use the new version in #48. Thanks, and let me know if any questions.

slowmover · 05-23-2016, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Again, this sheet is not designed as a starting point. The scale is still the starting point. This sheet is for informed confirmation of proper loading as you change loads during your normal course of trips and travel. I would take exception with an overall all encompassing Statement of equal squat is needed. It is more true on vehicles where the axle ratings are the same or near same. On pickups, they are designed with rear capacity much greater than front capacity. This allows for loading a disproportionate share of the load to the rear axle. I do believe that front ride height should be close to the unladen height, preferably a bit lower than unladen height. I also take exception that the manufacturers numbers are to be ignored and "playing with them will not result in a good towing combination " It will result in a very good towing combination.

Fifth wheels and gooseneck trailers are hitched so as to restore front end weight value, if not a little more. That should be a given with a conventional.

Dividing out the TW by three positions isn't much of a change, after the above is accomplished.

But it is a real change when concerned with handling and braking.