Audi RSQ8 towing 27' Globetrotter... Are we nuts or in love?

[jcl]

Originally Posted by franklyfrank

Huh ?
Your response makes no sense.
Advice and consultation is part of the sales pitch.

But a purchase isn’t required. If you are not charged for the advice, and don’t need to purchase anything to benefit from it, how does your claim hold up?

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

Which specific guidelines are you referring to?

Trailer weight? No
Resultant tongue weight after loading the trailer? No
Length? No
Height? No
Aerodynamics? No
Frontal area? Probably.

I haven’t studied F150 guidelines recently, so may be out on the above.

The point is, most here will focus on trailer weight. Then they will, or may, and should, consider tongue weight after loading. Most don’t consider the rest. If the manufacturer’s tow rating was performance or safety based, it would consider those factors.

jcl, I find much of this back and forth astounding because thoughtful people like you generally converge on and agree with fact base arguments. I wonder if you see your roll here as more of a contrarian than one trying to contribute to a discussion that reveal truth. This post seems to fit the contrarian model and are is why taking your points one at a time.

1) Trailer weight, yes it is a problem since it is 12,600 empty and once loaded for camping by any reasonable standard will certainly exceed the 13,200 max rated towing capacity of the most capable F150.

2) Tongue weight, yes it is over Ford F150 max tongue weight and no reasonable and knowledgable person familiar with towing would say it is safe and logical to load that trailer to bring tongue weight below 1,320 lbs. It is foolish for someone to pretend this is a practical possibility. Something only a contrarian would argue. It is a premise that all rational people would reject out of hand.

No reason to go any further since this combination fails by the two primary measures.

[jcl]

Brian, I don't think you are astounded as much as you are frustrated.

You have put a lot of stock in the absolute nature of tow vehicle manufacturer's tow ratings. You recently acknowledged that perhaps you should have softened that position for the higher ratings, particularly with pickup trucks.

But when given an example of a trailer that (I suspect) neither of us thinks should be towed by an F150 (if at all), you call it a contrived example. If you like, I could show you a similar design trailer with a lower tongue weight. And don't worry about loading it for camping, it is a destination trailer not a travel trailer. And if we were worried just about tongue weight we could install a heavier receiver hitch. Ford already supplies different ratings for different hitches on that vehicle. Just purchase a heavier one in the aftermarket if you like, and still respect axle weight ratings of course. But all that doesn't matter. The proof of the argument is that the first response here was that yes, an F150 can tow that, because tow rating. People believe those ratings somehow define upper limits. The focus on tow ratings in the perennial "what should I buy" threads reinforces that IMO. People equate tow rating with towing safely, as if it is some sort of guarantee, and then conclude that not matching that tow rating is by definition unsafe.

You perpetuated that approach in your post above, by focusing on trailer weight and tongue weight. No mention of the length, height, and side area of the trailer. That is where the real risks are.

What is contrived is the standard used to establish the tow rating, and in many cases, the ratings themselves.

You say we should all just trust the manufacturer. But then you say that the rating is for a best case trailer, and other trailer designs should be factored down. What does the manufacturer say about that, since we are trusting them absolutely and all? They don't provide that guidance, or test travel trailers. How can they be the ultimate authority in such a vacuum?

Your position that manufacturer tow ratings are an absolute authority is essentially a house of cards. And when we poke at it, and say look, here is where it fails, you get frustrated and call others names like contrarians, illogical, irrational, and impervious to logic.

Tow ratings have some value, sure. But they aren't absolute limits. And when you insist that the manufacturer is the final word, and their ratings are shown to be limited in practicality, you want to make it someone else's problem. IMO it is simply that you are so wedded to the manufacturer tow rating, as imperfect as you acknowledge it to be, that you are caught out.

[BayouBiker]

I'm not frustrated, I am quite aware the internet is full of trolls and I expect it.

I agree, most of those posting here don't understand tow ratings so I'm not surprised some see the unladen weight and the max rating and stop there, but I know you understand them. I have long advocated subtracting 20-25% from the OEM guidance to address the difference between travel trailers and flat bed utility trailers, I was musing to you that perhaps I should be as vocal as I have been about it as I have been with the European ratings.

Installing a heavier receiver does not correct potential for instabilities which are the primary reasons for a tongue limit. The F150 cannot safely handle the trailer inertia that comes along with tongue weights greater than 1300 lb. It lacks the mass and geometry required to manage it.

I did not have to mention size or length etc. since the system already was a fail. No sense beating a dead horse.

The standards used to establish tow rating are rooted in sound engineering principles. Sure they are imperfect, but one must compromise in order to simplify the very complex otherwise there is no hope of practically applying it. They are not contrived.

The default is to trust the manufacturer until it can be shown they are in error. They are in error sometimes, not often. They are for best case, people intuitively understand that. What fool would publish less than best case? The OEMs are aware the numbers are best case and address it by limiting tongue weight also so trailers requiring higher tongue weights for stability will self regulate downward. It is a simple and effective system and works except for those foolish enough to drive tongue weights down by poor loading practice.

You deliberately misstate my position when you claim I believe the OEM numbers are cast in stone. They are the default, until they can be shown wrong. That is not the same as assuming they are wrong as many here do though. Then you continue to misrepresent my position despite me having articulated it to you numerous times. You indeed seem to be a contrarian, you seem to have little interest in arriving at fact based conclusions.

[jcl]

Instead of focusing so much on the empty tongue weight of the model of destination trailer shown, why not just switch to a different model of trailer? Then we could address the original question instead of avoiding it.

Looking at their info, there is a longer model, over 43 feet, with a 1300 lb tongue weight. 13000 lb total weight. Looks like they achieved that tongue weight by adding a second rear slide out. So three slide outs, all at the very ends of a very long trailer. Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners.

What does Ford say about the ability of a properly equipped F150 to tow that trailer? Since they use very sound engineering principles and all. Do they publish a maximum trailer length? That is a very easy limit to impose. They could even publish a derate for various factors, since they know their vehicle so well.

Maybe they aren’t actually putting as much design and validation work into the tow ratings, with respect to towing stability, as some suggest they are doing.

I am in no way suggesting that an F150 would be a good match for this type of trailer. But I think that it debunks the claims that towing stability the primary driver of tow ratings. I think tongue weight and powertrain issues figure more highly,

ps It isn’t nice to accuse people of trolling.

Jeff

[Shiny16]

Originally Posted by jcl

Which specific guidelines are you referring to?

Trailer weight? No
Resultant tongue weight after loading the trailer? No
Length? No
Height? No
Aerodynamics? No
Frontal area? Probably.

I haven’t studied F150 guidelines recently, so may be out on the above.

The point is, most here will focus on trailer weight. Then they will, or may, and should, consider tongue weight after loading. Most don’t consider the rest. If the manufacturer’s tow rating was performance or safety based, it would consider those factors.

Frontal load for one thing. So no need to look further.

[Collyn]

Originally Posted by Countryboy59

I am a degreed engineer and a manager. I wouldn’t hire an engineer unless he/she had demonstrated “hands on” mechanical ability. I’ve seen too many who couldn’t think their way out of a paper bag.

I agree. I once hired an engineer who had a Ph.D. He was useless!

Collyn

[Collyn]

Originally Posted by jcl

Instead of focusing so much on the empty tongue weight of the model of destination trailer shown, why not just switch to a different model of trailer? Then we could address the original question instead of avoiding it.

Looking at their info, there is a longer model, over 43 feet, with a 1300 lb tongue weight. 13000 lb total weight. Looks like they achieved that tongue weight by adding a second rear slide out. So three slide outs, all at the very ends of a very long trailer. Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners.

What does Ford say about the ability of a properly equipped F150 to tow that trailer? Since they use very sound engineering principles and all. Do they publish a maximum trailer length? That is a very easy limit to impose. They could even publish a derate for various factors, since they know their vehicle so well.

Maybe they aren’t actually putting as much design and validation work into the tow ratings, with respect to towing stability, as some suggest they are doing.

I am in no way suggesting that an F150 would be a good match for this type of trailer. But I think that it debunks the claims that towing stability the primary driver of tow ratings. I think tongue weight and powertrain issues figure more highly,

ps It isn’t nice to accuse people of trolling.

Jeff

'Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners'.

Sound more like a mobile accident seeking the opportunity to manifest!

Collyn

[Collyn]

Originally Posted by jcl

Instead of focusing so much on the empty tongue weight of the model of destination trailer shown, why not just switch to a different model of trailer? Then we could address the original question instead of avoiding it.

Looking at their info, there is a longer model, over 43 feet, with a 1300 lb tongue weight. 13000 lb total weight. Looks like they achieved that tongue weight by adding a second rear slide out. So three slide outs, all at the very ends of a very long trailer. Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners.

What does Ford say about the ability of a properly equipped F150 to tow that trailer? Since they use very sound engineering principles and all. Do they publish a maximum trailer length? That is a very easy limit to impose. They could even publish a derate for various factors, since they know their vehicle so well.

Maybe they aren’t actually putting as much design and validation work into the tow ratings, with respect to towing stability, as some suggest they are doing.

I am in no way suggesting that an F150 would be a good match for this type of trailer. But I think that it debunks the claims that towing stability the primary driver of tow ratings. I think tongue weight and powertrain issues figure more highly,

ps It isn’t nice to accuse people of trolling.

Jeff

' So three slide outs, all at the very ends of a very long trailer. Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners.'

This a mobile accident awaiting the opportunity to happen.

Collyn

[BayouBiker]

Originally Posted by jcl

Instead of focusing so much on the empty tongue weight of the model of destination trailer shown, why not just switch to a different model of trailer? Then we could address the original question instead of avoiding it.

Looking at their info, there is a longer model, over 43 feet, with a 1300 lb tongue weight. 13000 lb total weight. Looks like they achieved that tongue weight by adding a second rear slide out. So three slide outs, all at the very ends of a very long trailer. Sounds like a challenge to tow safely, considering the height, and square corners.

What does Ford say about the ability of a properly equipped F150 to tow that trailer? Since they use very sound engineering principles and all. Do they publish a maximum trailer length? That is a very easy limit to impose. They could even publish a derate for various factors, since they know their vehicle so well.

Maybe they aren’t actually putting as much design and validation work into the tow ratings, with respect to towing stability, as some suggest they are doing.

I am in no way suggesting that an F150 would be a good match for this type of trailer. But I think that it debunks the claims that towing stability the primary driver of tow ratings. I think tongue weight and powertrain issues figure more highly,

ps It isn’t nice to accuse people of trolling.

Jeff

Ford gave it a bit more thought than perhaps you did. What are you proposing, we load it up with 20 lb of water and gear? It debunks nothing because set for camping this one fails also.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by BayouBiker

Ford gave it a bit more thought than perhaps you did. What are you proposing, we load it up with 20 lb of water and gear? It debunks nothing because set for camping this one fails also.

No, I proposed loading it to maximum GVWR for the trailer, which is the trailer weight number I gave you. It is actually a few hundred pounds under 13k. This is not the empty trailer weight. I shifted to a slightly longer model, without the dual loft sleeping areas. It is not quite as tall, by 8 inches. And as noted, the tongue weight reduction appears to be related to the inclusion of 3 slideouts at the fore and aft extremes. So load it to the gunwales. And balance the load to maintain the manufacturer's published tongue weight. But that isn't the point. This is:

You seem to be working very hard to avoid responding to the question. Put simply, this trailer is within the tongue weight rating, and tow rating, for a properly equipped F150. I wouldn't tow that trailer with such a truck, and apparently neither would Collyn (see above). But Ford, who you claim know their vehicle best, and carefully engineer their vehicle tow ratings (and presumably consider the stability issues you reference frequently) don't put any limitation on towing a 43 foot trailer. They likely haven't tested it, since they use a smaller, shorter, cargo trailer with the weight carried very low, to test tow their tow ratings.

You have noted that you would derate the maximum tow rating in some cases. Great. But if the manufacturer knows the vehicle best, and has tested for things like stability, what is their derate number? It should be available.

How do we reconcile the above? From my perspective, it doesn't appear that they are concerned about tow vehicle combination stability for commonly available North American trailers when they determine their tow ratings. That is directly opposed to what I understand your position to be.

A side note: they do have a caution in the Ford towing guide on the trailer frontal area, but they don't restrict it, they just point out that it is a consideration, and that towing performance may be reduced. Since they reference only frontal area, it appears that their caution relates to wind resistance in the direction of travel, and resultant powertrain loads. Happy to be corrected here if they also reference trailer side area.

[BayouBiker]

The problem you're having jcl is that your contrived examples are simply that. I agree your examples should not be towed with an F150. I also note when properly loaded for travel they in fact exceed Ford guidance. In your latest example you failed to include hitch and shank weight. Presuming the owner actually succeeded in holding trailer tongue at 10% (a very foolish thing to do when at max vehicle limits), the combination would absolutely require a PPP hitch weighing in at 180-210 lb. Oops, we are over.....

But let's say you keep trying and you find a destination trailer or toy hauler that fits the limits using 10% tongue (oh wait, that would require a 11,000 max GTW) now I would argue the combination marginally can be safely towed by an experienced driver.

The notion that a Destination Trailer is a "common" trailer is also laughable, they are quite specialized and are not intended to be on the road that much, thus the name.

[Ultraclassic]

Lmao

Originally Posted by GCinSC2

Last year before RETIRING! we had a mechanical engineering intern work with us in an automotive aftermarket industry. I was installing a new clutch in my personal truck before leaving. "Mgr" engineer asked me to take intern under my truck and show him the installation. Both were Moccasin office shoes and kakis type. Me I wear boots, always.

Intern, I asked please go over to THAT workbench and bring me the BFH.

Huh what's that.

Just stay out from under my truck and watch from the edges.

Gary

[Ultraclassic]

Hammer time

Originally Posted by mythbuster88

Which BFH did you mean? I had to look up acronyms and this is what I got:

BFH
Big F***ing Hammer
BFH
Bacacheri Airport
BFH
Benign Familial Hematuria
BFH
Benign Fibrous Histiocytoma
BFH
Bitch From Hell
BFH
Baby Friendly Hospital + 1 variant
BFH
Ballenger Field House
BFH
Ballet Folklorico Huehuecoyotl
BFH
Barrel, Forged, Hammer
BFH
Basaloid Follicular Hamartoma
BFH
Bastard From Hell

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by gator.bigfoot

Dry weight on the trailer is 7200 lbs. Hitch weight is 750. I don't know where you get your numbers from. Towing capacity without WDH is 7700. Like I said MB is fully aware of all numbers.

Your GVWR of your trailer is upward of 9-10k lbs. MB does not state that as a number that is within it's specifications and you have failed to demonstrate where MB USA/North America states the SUV is rated tow a trailer of that weight.

Pretty big difference in dry weight and wet weight, plus you didn't even really address how you overcame passengers and cargo further lowering that 7700.

The stated factory hitch weights that you claim are also not realistic. Every Airstream I have ever owned, no matter how l load it, the hitch weights are almost ALWAYS more than factory spec that you claim, unless the trailer is missing components or is void of any cargo.

Even if you only carried 1/2 the of the total NCC of the Classic (as I see you eluded to in an earlier post), you'd still be over that 7700lbs max tow rating of your TV, let alone still have a short wheelbase.

Let's compare apples to apples. Comparing dry vs wet weight is pointless as no one travels with nothing in the RV and there is always at least one passenger in a TV. If you tow with nothing in the RV, pull your LP tanks and batteries, then yes, you would fall back to the max rating of your TV and an acceptable hitch weight, but let's be honest here, are you really towing an empty trailer and just you in the car, with almost no fuel, etc? I think not....but you are steadfast in your setup, and I'm not going to argue, I've made my case, you've not been able to provide me anything more than seat of pants type statistics to justify you exceeding the manufacturer's specifications. Nor have you (or CanAM) provided detailed engineering specs on how said modifications increase the TVs ability beyond that of the stated manufacturer's specs. I by no means advocate buying a Mack truck to tow your RV, but in my opinion and the available engineering specifications from MB and Airstream seem to not like the best setup.

We will simply have to agree to disagree.

[AdvToaster]

I’m confused how showing that a manufacturers stated *upper limits* (based on an ideal trailer) may be too high for certain trailer types (meaning you need to reduce those limits) means that you can suddenly exceed them for any reason at all.

That’s like saying that a sports car that is limited to say 149mph due to running on V rated tires can safely drive on those same tires at higher than 149mph, simply because there are situation where it isn’t safe to drive as high as 149mph.

There’s a reason they’re called “limits”. No manufacturer says in their documentation that “you can tow any trailer you find no matter how you load it as long as you don’t exceed these numbers”.

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by AdvToaster

There’s a reason they’re called “limits”. No manufacturer says in their documentation that “you can tow any trailer you find no matter how you load it as long as you don’t exceed these numbers”.

One other point I'll mention not directly related to my points with Gator is the liability portion. Sure we've talked hardware, but I don't recall seeing a lot of liability conversation in this thread (didn't read every single sentence though).

I have spoken with at least 3 different insurance agents in my tenure as an Airstream owner. I had asked pointed questions to them that went something like this (when I was doing what Gator and a good number of others are doing):

I have a vehicle that I have modified. It has a 5500lb factory rated tow capacity and I want to tow (at the time) a roughly 7300lb trailer if fully loaded, could be closer to 6800, but let's say 7000 for arguments sake. I have about a 115" wheelbase and a big honkin V8 with about 300hp and wicked upgraded brakes, etc. If something goes wrong, what could I be looking at?

All three answers fell along these lines +/-

You should always follow manufacturer specifications. We cannot suggest you do otherwise, however, if you did this and there was an accident, we would do our due diligence and we would find that you had the incorrect vehicle setup that exceeded the manufacturer's specifications, particularly if there were other parties involved and they were insured with a different carrier as the other carrier will try to assign liability. If the fault was found to be yours, we would pay the claim up to your policy limits and anything beyond those limits would be your responsibility. In our exp, you would in all likelihood be dropped shortly thereafter and getting insurance after being dropped would be fairly costly both long and even worse short term. Additionally, if you did the modifications yourself and God forbid loss of life or significant injury in your party or that of another you encounter on the road happened (as can often happen with 5-6 tons of hardware in motion), you would be most likely liable should a civil suit be brought and we would pay up to your policy limits. If you contracted with a company it's entirely possible the company that did the installations could also be named in a civil suit.

I then ran this by a couple of lawyer friends and they seemed to concur for the most part with these statements with a few small exceptions based on perception and what they could or couldn't argue out in a court case (gotta love lawyers). They also mentioned that given society today, it doesn't take a whole heck of a lot to get sued and that regardless of what folks say, the discovery phase will look at all the variables, and, given what you've described, I can't see it going well for you. If you do this, make sure you have a sizable liability policy as you have assets you could loose.

So you see, it's not just that it's not a great idea, without proper non seat of pants engineering docs you **could** open yourself up to another whole dimension. It's kind of like saying I keep my 5 gallon gas can in the basement 10 feet from the furnace and water heater. For 10 years, I never had a problem, but one year the fumes ignited and the house burned down due to my negligence. Insurance companies are like Casinos. They aren't in it to lose money. They have small armies of lawyers and such who's sole job it is to find ways to pay nothing or pay as little as possible. Given that reality, it's not hard to see who could get the short end of the stick if the music stops. The house always wins. How much do you want to gamble at the high stakes table?!

[jcl]

When you talked to that insurance company, and those lawyers, did you point out that the manufacturer's tow rating that you are relying on to keep you safe is not based on towing a class or design of trailer that they used to develop that number? That the trailer involved may be longer, have a higher CoG, and so on? That the manufacturer didn't tell you to modify it for those other factors, so you assumed you were fine? If you put a number on it (eg 20% derate) what is your argument that that is the correct number?

The point is that the manufacturer's tow rating is limited in terms of how it is developed. It focuses on trailer weight to a great extent, and doesn't take into account other factors that are easily demonstrated to have a high potential impact. I would say that if you are heading into a courtroom full of lawyers armed with your manufacturer's tow rating as a key element of your legal defence, you have likely already lost.

Safe towing comes from far more than a manufacturer's tow rating.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by AdvToaster

I’m confused how showing that a manufacturers stated *upper limits* (based on an ideal trailer) may be too high for certain trailer types (meaning you need to reduce those limits) means that you can suddenly exceed them for any reason at all.

That wasn't the point at all. I don't see people saying you can exceed them for any reason.

People are saying that an overreliance on manufacturer's tow ratings is ill advised. That they are simply a figure nominated by a manufacturer based on a certain towing test standard. For a specific trailer design, without trailer brakes.

I read here often that they are set with tow vehicle oversteer limits in mind, and find that hard to fathom. Certainly a higher tongue weight can result in stressing the receiver, that needs to be considered. And a higher tongue weight can overload axles, that needs to be considered. And combination stability needs to be considered. And travel speed. And conditions. And so on.

To suggest that if they are exceeded, the world will end, doesn't help the discussion IMO.

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by jcl

When you talked to that insurance company, and those lawyers, did you point out that the manufacturer's tow rating that you are relying on to keep you safe is not based on towing a class or design of trailer that they used to develop that number? That the trailer involved may be longer, have a higher CoG, and so on? That the manufacturer didn't tell you to modify it for those other factors, so you assumed you were fine? If you put a number on it (eg 20% derate) what is your argument that that is the correct number?

The point is that the manufacturer's tow rating is limited in terms of how it is developed. It focuses on trailer weight to a great extent, and doesn't take into account other factors that are easily demonstrated to have a high potential impact. I would say that if you are heading into a courtroom full of lawyers armed with your manufacturer's tow rating as a key element of your legal defence, you have likely already lost.

Safe towing comes from far more than a manufacturer's tow rating.

JCL-

Honestly they didn't care. A lawyer can make the argument and that's all that's required in a civil suit where personal injury or death is involved. Get a sympathetic jury and it can go sideways quick. In terms of the insurance company, they don't care how the manufacturers make the rating, they have available engineering documents that say "X". If say Mercedes were to get hauled into court as another named party in a civil suit, do you really think Mercedes Benz is going to say in open court, our tow ratings were conservative? Opposing counsel would have a field day with that. MB is going to say, our tow rating is 7700lbs. On cross, it would come out that the trailer weight even 1/2 full as Gator suggests would in fact exceed that rating basically dealing a blow to a defense in a liability case. Then the question of CanAm being hauled in and then asked to provide engineering specs that allow the 7700 to be exceeded, that Andrew himself here on this thread said he doesn't have and you can see how this can be twisted pretty easily costing everyone down the line.

I've been the foreman in two civil cases and I can tell you the technical info we received in both cases was good to know, however, the underlying question in both cases- was the individual negligent in any way and you have certain guidelines you need to follow when rendering a decision.

Again, fair or not, that's the way the courts tend to work and given 1/2 the US is very liberal, can easily equate to a hefty settlement, right, wrong or otherwise. In this case, basically handing freebie points to the plaintiff's camp.

I have by the numbers (and IMHO), an acceptable setup, is it as nimble as the Benz, prob not, but it's one less bullet for opposing counsel and I also carry a million dollar liability policy which also requires more than the standard 100/300/100 (which in most cases can get used up in a few seconds).

I am in agreement that there are many variables outside of tow ratings in terms of overall safety. The average juror that doesn't tow won't see or understand that, what they will see are gruesome pictures of injuries, property carnage and specs that were not adhered to. Case in point, that woman that burned herself from McDonald's coffee that got millions of dollars with cups now telling you your hot beverage is in fact really hot. You don't have to be right to win....as with towing safely there are many variables in a court case with mostly novices in that field of understanding relying on the lawyers to share the info.