Trial by Fire Completed. GT 27FBT first tow with Cayenne!

[foobar]

Originally Posted by jcl

I wouldn’t exceed any recommendation without understanding the potential failure points.



In the case of the receiver, it is a simple structure. If it wasn’t designed for the torque loads of a WD hitch, that can be addressed. With the Cayenne, it has been addressed. The vehicle structure itself isn’t the issue. The connecting points may be.



In the case of my receiver on my X5, it was clearly far more robust than required. It has been described as being built like a one ton receiver. Not the vehicle, just the E53 receiver, The issue was rear axle loading, and WD, set up correctly, addressed that. It didn’t make it worse, it resolved it. The vehicle specs simply didn’t consider the use of WD.

This is true for the Cayenne as well. The overall subframe and hitch are over built and over designed. Except the Germans don't use WD hitches, so the hitch lacks margin with respect to vertical forces.

Lots of Cayennes tow Airstreams for 10's of thousands of miles without the hitch bending upwards, so adding the Can Am RV hitch reinforcement isn't strictly required. The modification is simply adding safety margin and making it as over built in that respect as the rest of the hitch and its attachment to the Cayenne.

[Fortemd]

Congratulations on your new GT!
My wife and I just received our 27’ 2022 GT with the same trim as your beautiful rig. We completed our first 7 week trip in June.
We met another couple on our trip who were towing their 27’ 2022 GT with a Land Rover Discovery! It was their third Airstream. He stated that he had scaled down his his tow vehicle at each iteration of his Airstream journey.
My point is that, in reality, Airstreams don’t weigh 10-12,000 lbs, so can be safely towed by something smaller than an F350…
It’s easy to get reality distortion when reading the posts re: tow vehicles on these forums. As I’m sure you’ve seen, there are those that feel that a super duty turbo diesel is necessary for pulling a garden trailer.
Having said that, I’m happy to see that your not ignoring the mechanical/engineering specs. There are limits. I wouldn’t tow my Airstream with a Prius.
My tongue weight with dry tanks and full propane was 1,000 lbs, so adding 100 lbs for WDH only left me with 300lbs for driver, passenger and dog.
I was able to reduce my tongue weight by 100 lbs by swapping out the steel propane tanks for composite and by replacing the batteries with lithium (under the foot of the driver side bed). The other important upgrade was to trash the factory inverter and replace it with a 3,000 watt inverter. Moving the batteries and inverter closer to the CG.
We added a magnetic knife bar to the left of the cooktop and a paper towel holder to the right of the over the cooktop vent, both using VHB tape. We have many of the brushed nickel Command hooks.
Lastly, and IMO most importantly, I swapped the 720P tv in the galley with the 32” 4K Samsung. It’s stunning and has WiFi so you can stream Netflix, Sling, etc.

[FredWilma]

Originally Posted by Fortemd

Congratulations on your new GT!

My wife and I just received our 27’ 2022 GT with the same trim as your beautiful rig. We completed our first 7 week trip in June.

We met another couple on our trip who were towing their 27’ 2022 GT with a Land Rover Discovery! It was their third Airstream. He stated that he had scaled down his his tow vehicle at each iteration of his Airstream journey.

My point is that, in reality, Airstreams don’t weigh 10-12,000 lbs, so can be safely towed by something smaller than an F350…

It’s easy to get reality distortion when reading the posts re: tow vehicles on these forums. As I’m sure you’ve seen, there are those that feel that a super duty turbo diesel is necessary for pulling a garden trailer.

Having said that, I’m happy to see that your not ignoring the mechanical/engineering specs. There are limits. I wouldn’t tow my Airstream with a Prius.

My tongue weight with dry tanks and full propane was 1,000 lbs, so adding 100 lbs for WDH only left me with 300lbs for driver, passenger and dog.

I was able to reduce my tongue weight by 100 lbs by swapping out the steel propane tanks for composite and by replacing the batteries with lithium (under the foot of the driver side bed). The other important upgrade was to trash the factory inverter and replace it with a 3,000 watt inverter. Moving the batteries and inverter closer to the CG.

We added a magnetic knife bar to the left of the cooktop and a paper towel holder to the right of the over the cooktop vent, both using VHB tape. We have many of the brushed nickel Command hooks.

Lastly, and IMO most importantly, I swapped the 720P tv in the galley with the 32” 4K Samsung. It’s stunning and has WiFi so you can stream Netflix, Sling, etc.

Hi Fortemd

We are also looking at upgrading our 22’ Caravel to a GT 27. I have a similar TV challenge as the OP, however in my case it involves an F-150 Powerboost with the 7.2KW pro power generator on board.

This is an awesome vehicle in many respects: 430 bhp, 570 ft-lbs torque and the pro- power system is a game changer for boondocking.

The challenge of this vehicle is the low payload at 1300lbs. So for me, reducing tongue weight is imperative as I would be loathed to “upgrade” to a larger truck.

I have been considering a path similar to yours. Move batteries off the tongue and closer to cg and also replacing the steel LP tanks with Viking composite tanks.

I have heard rumors that some places will not fill composite tanks. Have you ever had this issue?

Many thanks.

[WellSaid11]

Originally Posted by Fortemd

It’s easy to get reality distortion when reading the posts re: tow vehicles on these forums. As I’m sure you’ve seen, there are those that feel that a super duty turbo diesel is necessary for pulling a garden trailer.

Yes, the same way that there are those post about how a large trailer being pulled by an SUV or other TV that is close to or is maxxed out in some spec will be "fine despite what anyone else tells you...."

As the person behind that setup on the road, i'd rather be behind the person with the "super duty turbo diesel" any day of the week.

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by richard5933

I'd be interested to know how you determine which components on a vehicle it's okay to exceed spec and which it's not okay? If I understand what you're saying here, exceeding tire or axle ratings is a no-go, but other critical components like the receiver are okay to exceed?

Like said elsewhere, a failure is only as far away as your weakest component.

Weakest component here are the folks who ignore/exceed the limits of the TV...not caring about potential fatigue/failure while on the road..untill it happens...just hope no others are impacted by folks ignoring/exceeding the safety specs of vehicle MFG.

Being "cool" and being safe are not the same while traveling at 65+mph with an AS in the rear.

[NWBoondocker]

Originally Posted by FredWilma

...in my case it involves an F-150 Powerboost with the 7.2KW pro power generator on board.

This is an awesome vehicle in many respects: 430 bhp, 570 ft-lbs torque and the pro- power system is a game changer for boondocking.

The challenge of this vehicle is the low payload at 1300lbs.

Agreed, the Pro Power onboard generator really is a game changer for boondocking. It would be truly great if Ford offered Pro Power in the F-250 with its greater tongue weight capacity. Maybe someday...

[SlowPokePete]

Originally Posted by foobar

... completely uneventful even at 65-70mph ... 2 panic stops due to unexpected traffic stops.

I'll hold off on commenting on the tow vehicle vs size of Airstream you have, but two panic stops in 400 miles would make me want to SLOW DOWN just a little bit.

This has nothing to do with what you are towing your trailer with.

SPP

[Fortemd]

Re: composite tanks
During our recent trip we only experienced one person who would not fill a composite tank

[Dennis C]

Originally Posted by SlowPokePete

I'll hold off on commenting on the tow vehicle vs size of Airstream you have, but two panic stops in 400 miles would make me want to SLOW DOWN just a little bit.

This has nothing to do with what you are towing your trailer with.

SPP

That would scare me a bit too. The only panic stop that I've had in the last ~10,000 miles of towing was due to a catastrophic tire blowout. It's critical to leave more space than usual between your vehicle and the vehicle ahead of you when towing. When I'm towing the Airstream, I make a point to never be rushed or in a hurry.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Weakest component here are the folks who ignore/exceed the limits of the TV...not caring about potential fatigue/failure while on the road..untill it happens...just hope no others are impacted by folks ignoring/exceeding the safety specs of vehicle MFG.

Being "cool" and being safe are not the same while traveling at 65+mph with an AS in the rear.

The weakest component when considering towing setup IMO is operator attention to setup details, not equipment selection, and certainly not other posters.

Overall, operating decisions including travel speed rank right up there.

An extreme focus on equipment selection as being the most critical element can blind people to those two factors.

And it isn’t cool to insult others. This doesn’t change with the addition of emojis.

[foobar]

Originally Posted by SlowPokePete

I'll hold off on commenting on the tow vehicle vs size of Airstream you have, but two panic stops in 400 miles would make me want to SLOW DOWN just a little bit.

This has nothing to do with what you are towing your trailer with.

SPP

Sorry, I probably chose my words less carefully than I should.

They weren't really panic stops. Situation was simply rounding a corner in a below grade freeway and discovering that traffic had come to a complete stop. I.e. Needed to come to a full stop a lot more rapidly than normal.

This sort of thing is somewhat common in metro areas. And note that I had already reduced my speed to 55mph in anticipation of such events. You can't go any slower than that without becoming a traffic hazard yourself.

Tradeoffs... Unfortunately there are no perfect choices. Need to balance the differing risk factors.

I did not feel unsafe in either of those rapid stops. The trailer stayed planted behind the Cayenne. No tendency to fishtail or jacknife and I was able to stop quickly.

I did not originally specify this level of detail because my post was already getting too long. But, I forgot that everyone wants to second guess everything :-)

[Dennis C]

Originally Posted by foobar

I did not originally specify this level of detail because my post was already getting too long. But, I forgot that everyone wants to second guess everything :-)

Get used to it… the second guessing and bickering on this site can become frustrating. It’s one of those things that cuts both ways; I wouldn’t tow my Airstream with a Cayenne (for a variety of my own reasons), but that doesn’t mean that I think you need a Ford F-450 to tow it. There are many subtleties and many combinations that exist between these two choices.

It’s not just towing that gets people fired up. There are several controversial topics on this site, as I’m sure you’ve seen. I think it’s largely because a relatively high percentage of the posters here are retired and they have plenty of free time to read Airforums and argue.

[foobar]

Originally Posted by Dennis C

Get used to it… the second guessing and bickering on this site can become frustrating. It’s one of those things that cuts both ways; I wouldn’t tow my Airstream with a Cayenne (for a variety of my own reasons), but that doesn’t mean that I think you need a Ford F-450 to tow it. There are many subtleties and many combinations that exist between these two choices.



It’s not just towing that gets people fired up. There are several controversial topics on this site, as I’m sure you’ve seen. I think it’s largely because a relatively high percentage of the posters here are retired and they have plenty of free time to read Airforums and argue.

Hey Dennis, I have only been a forum member since February of this year.

Since then, I hadn't noticed that people have strong opinions on any particular topic (this is where the reader of this posting should be saying... Yeah, right :-)).

I don't really have any problems with differing opinions as long as they are rendered as respectfully as possible given the limitations of the medium we are using to communicate. Some of the the opinions are well founded and help me rethink things to hopefully make things better.

And, I can't blame anyone for not wanting to deal with the payload limitations and other perceived challenges with towing a medium sized Airstream using a modest size SUV. But it can be done safely and I intend to do it in exactly that way.

[Dennis C]

I agree. I think the best plan is too keep from letting people get under your skin. I’m with you - differing opinions are a good thing. I’ve learned a tremendous amount here from many great people, and I’ve changed my mind on a number of things based on the experiences of people here. I agree with your comments on a mid-sized SUV also. While it’s not for me, I don’t doubt that it can be done safely.

[WellSaid11]

Originally Posted by jcl

The weakest component when considering towing setup IMO is operator attention to setup details, not equipment selection, and certainly not other posters.



Overall, operating decisions including travel speed rank right up there.



An extreme focus on equipment selection as being the most critical element can blind people to those two factors.



And it isn’t cool to insult others. This doesn’t change with the addition of emojis.

You stated earlier that overloading tongue weight was somehow ok if still within axle and tire load spec, and you were not talking about user error. Not sure what user error (i.e. a "mistake" due to inadvertence) has to do at all with intentionally being over your tongue weight max (not a "mistake" or oversight but a conscious decision despite knowing the max).

It would be hoped that people would not setup incorrectly "by mistake," "speed" down the road and also address whatever else they can control. One of those factors is also maxxing or going over tongue weight while disregarding the limits intentionally.

[foobar]

Appreciate all of the feedback, comments, and opinions.

Let's keep this discourse civil. It's OK to disagree but let's do so respectfully. So far, for the most part the postings have been alright.

It is really easy to misinterpret what someone says because it is often possible to read something multiple different ways and some interpretations might not have been intended by the person posting the response. In a face to face discussion there is greater opportunity for give and take along with clarification. We do not have that as easily in the forums.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by WellSaid11

You stated earlier that overloading tongue weight was somehow ok if still within axle and tire load spec, and you were not talking about user error. Not sure what user error (i.e. a "mistake" due to inadvertence) has to do at all with intentionally being over your tongue weight max (not a "mistake" or oversight but a conscious decision despite knowing the max).

It would be hoped that people would not setup incorrectly "by mistake," "speed" down the road and also addresses whatever else they can control. One of those factors is also maxxing or going over tongue weight while disregarding the limits intentionally.

May be ok. Leaving aside the strength of the vehicle structure, which I think is often a red herring, manufacturer tongue weight limits can be due to the strength of the OE receiver, the resulting axle loading, or dynamic handling issues. The last two can be addressed with proper WD setup in many cases, and shouldn't just be ignored in any case. The strength of the receiver can be addressed through analysis, to determine if it is a limiting factor, and reinforcement if necessary.

User error referred to operating the combination, not setting it up. Things like travelling too quickly, following too closely, operating without due care in windy conditions, etc. I think all of those matter more than equipment selection in terms of safety.

Overall, for safe operation, I think the biggest factor is the operator, followed by the setup of the combination, and that equipment selection, if tire and axle loads are within speed, should be way down the list. Yet there is a strong focus by some posters on equipment selection being one of, if not the, dominant factor in safe operation.

[richard5933]

Originally Posted by jcl

May be ok. Leaving aside the strength of the vehicle structure, which I think is often a red herring, manufacturer tongue weight limits can be due to the strength of the OE receiver, the resulting axle loading, or dynamic handling issues. The last two can be addressed with proper WD setup in many cases, and shouldn't just be ignored in any case. The strength of the receiver can be addressed through analysis, to determine if it is a limiting factor, and reinforcement if necessary....

But you can't set aside the strength of the vehicle structure. It's the core piece of equipment to which everything else is connected. While there might be some truth in your contention that vehicles sold in different markets are the same vehicles yet have different ratings, it's virtually impossible for the average consumer to know when this is the case vs. when there truly is a difference in otherwise similar-appearing vehicles. This is just one example - there are countless other reasons why there might be limitations in the vehicle's basic structure which the none of use are privy to. It's clear that you feel it's possible to determine the "true" capability of a vehicle beyond what the manufacturer states, but not all agree with you.

Originally Posted by jcl

...Overall, for safe operation, I think the biggest factor is the operator, followed by the setup of the combination, and that equipment selection, if tire and axle loads are within speed, should be way down the list. Yet there is a strong focus by some posters on equipment selection being one of, if not the, dominant factor in safe operation.

I'm still confused why you accept tire and axle load & speed ratings as an absolute yet feel that other limitations are open for discussion. There's lots more to a vehicle than tires and axles, and ALL components have performance limitations.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by richard5933

But you can't set aside the strength of the vehicle structure. It's the core piece of equipment to which everything else is connected. While there might be some truth in your contention that vehicles sold in different markets are the same vehicles yet have different ratings, it's virtually impossible for the average consumer to know when this is the case vs. when there truly is a difference in otherwise similar-appearing vehicles. This is just one example - there are countless other reasons why there might be limitations in the vehicle's basic structure which the none of use are privy to. It's clear that you feel it's possible to determine the "true" capability of a vehicle beyond what the manufacturer states, but not all agree with you.

I'm still confused why you accept tire and axle load & speed ratings as an absolute yet feel that other limitations are open for discussion. There's lots more to a vehicle than tires and axles, and ALL components have performance limitations.

The comment about setting aside the vehicle structure relates to the oft heard "but it is a unibody and doesn't have a frame". Unibody structures are stronger than separate body and frame vehicles in many regards. The challenge can be in attaching an appropriate receiver structure, because there isn't a convenient frame rail to bolt one to. It isn't in strength or durability issue. This has been understood by automotive designers for over 60 years. Many many years ago, using a single post lift in a service garage, I recall that all of those large 60's era US vehicles with separate frames sagged significantly. One had to half unlatch the doors before lifting the vehicle, to accommodate the sagging. That wasn't the same with unibody vehicles, they were much stronger.

With respect to tire and axle load ratings, the ratings aren't about the tires and the axles alone. They consider all the things involved in carrying that load, from the vehicle structure to the suspension to the axles to the tires. They are a way of evaluating the impact of vertical loads on a vehicle. They are just referred to as tire and axle ratings because that is what is specifically regulated. When you meet the tire and axle load ratings you stay within the vertical load ratings for all of the components on the vehicle.

Think about all those components involved in carrying a load. Tires. Wheels. Lug nuts. Wheel bearings. Axle shafts. Axle housings. Springs. Links. Chassis. etc. The rated axle loads consider all of them. We aren't picking a single rating, like the wheel bearing load rating, and ignoring the rest. The axle rating considers all of them.

[richard5933]

Except that some vehicles might be outfitted with heavier axles, tires, or wheels than required. Your assuming that all systems in a vehicle are up to the same level as these components, and it's simply not always true. Brakes, transmissions, cooling systems, and other key components are also involved here. It's even possible to have a rear axle capable of supporting a super high number of pounds and the vehicle's towing capacity is restricted due to the axle ratio. This would not be reflected in the axle ratings.

My Suburban is a great example - heavy duty 3/4-ton rear axle but with a gear ratio which lowers the safe towing limit. One could argue that this is merely a performance issue, but if the axle ratio means that the tow vehicle cannot safely get up to speed or climb the necessary grades that too is a safety issue. It can also lead to a domino effect failure of other components.

I think that I'm looking at this holistically, trying to include the whole vehicle in the towing limitations and that you're looking at a few key systems and assuming that if they're good so are all the other components.