RE: Weird 12 volt problem
I have had male plugs that work only when you hold it in the socket with your hand. You push it in, and it will push itself out just enough to loose contact. Inly solution I found was to replace the male plug.
I understand there are at least two different female receptacles, 5 amp and 15 amp (I think). From what I have seen, the boat shops have much better female receptacles, but you gotta pay.
Wayne
RE: How much weight is too much weight?
skipro3, I never have seen any of the truck failures you stated, Actually, I have never read about one in all the years I have been on RV.NET.
I do feel strongly that each of us must have a vehicle that is within our individual comfort level. The more uncomfortable you are, underweight or overweight, the more distracted you will be while driving your truck/TC. That can be far more dangerous that being overweight.
RE: How much weight is too much weight?
People frequently refer to the truck manufactures using the engineers data when they make claims on truck capacities. Typically, people post something like; "The engineers provide the info to sales, therefore it is correct." Not much consideration given to the details of the engineering. The truck manufacture and truck engineers are absolutely correct.
People frequently state the TC engineers design the TCs, therefore absolutely correct. However, when it comes to the weight of the TCs, the engineers do not know what they are talking about.
Sometimes I get confused. Are the truck engineers much more qualified or truthful than the TC engineers? Personally, I see many contradictions in both. More importantly, I am of the belief the truck and TC manufactures provide data based more on marketing.
If the truck door sticker is absolutely true, then so is the TC sticker. If I am to believe, and take literally the stickers on my door post and my TC, with the 500 pounds of additional gear, I am not overloaded. My door sticker says my GVWR is 8800 pounds. The sticker on my TC says 1900 pounds. My truck weight (per scale) is 6200. That is a total truck/TC weight of 8100 pounds. That leaves me with 700 pounds left for camping equipment.
I should point out, my truck is a 2WD, and the TC has no basement, slide or built in generator. It also has only a 22 gallon water tank.
RE: How much weight is too much weight?
I wonder how many folks have really read the dor decals. Not just the numbers, but the decal verbiage itself. I have attached two photos of decals, one Ford and one Dodge. Notice the verbiage gives weight with a given tire size on a given wheel, at a given psi. The key word is "with". My point is, the load capacity on these two trucks are WITH the tire size specified.
http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd435/Bigfoot_Wayne/Misc%20stuff/forddoordecal_zpsf21e41c9.jpg
http://i1219.photobucket.com/albums/dd435/Bigfoot_Wayne/Misc%20stuff/dodgedoordecal_zps35221841.jpg
RE: Heading North 5 or 99?
I have a better understanding on your route now.
After you leave Sacramento on 99, it can be a very slow drive on 99. Not necessarily a bad drive, but slow. Lots of farmland, and passes through small communities. I5 and SR99 split in Sacramento.
According to my Delorme map program I5 knocks about 1 hr off the drive. From the intersection I5/SR99 (Sacramento) to I5/20 (Williams). Using I5, about 56 miles (1 hr @55 MPH). Using SR99 and 20, 69 miles (2 hr @55 MPH). I do not see anything particularly interesting for camping on SR99/20 or I5.
No question for me, I would go I5. I have gone that way before, but it has been a few years.
Simplygib makes a good point about 101 or 1, but it would definitely increase your travel time.
Wayne
RE: Heading North 5 or 99?
After you leave Sacramento on 99, it can be a very slow drive on 99. Not necessarily a bad drive, but slow. Lots of farmland, and passes through small communities. I5 and SR99 split in Sacramento and rejoin in Red Bluff.
According to my Delorme map program I5 knocks about 1 hr off the drive. From the intersection I5/SR99 (Sacramento) to I5/SR99 (Red Bluff). Using I5, 125.4 miles (2 hr 16 min @55 MPH). Using SR99, 12.7 miles (3 hr 20 min @55 MPH). I do not see anything particularly interesting for camping on SR99 or I5.
If I was driving at night, I would definately go I5. During the day, it would depend on how tired I was when I hit Sacramento, and the time of day. This time of year, probably lots of farm equipment on SR99. I am not sure there is a cam place on either route, till you get to red bluff. I5 makes the trip 1 hour shorter. I would probably go I5.
Wayne
RE: Roof splitter...better front end aerodynamics
I'm thinking you will rub the paint off the cab of your truck, and/or the underside of your TC cab over.
This concept has been around at least since the 70's. A very common TC add on. Back then, a cushion was inserted between the cab and cab over, then aired up. As I recall, 6 psi. Some were simply made of foam. Put the foam on the roof, then lower the TC. I have had both types.
These devices usually wore the paint off the cab of the truck. Someone then come up with a plastic film you put on the roof to protect the paint. That only left the paint on the underside of the TC cab over to rub off.
Personally, I never found enough benefit to continue using them. Considering you seldom, if ever see them any longer suggest a lot of people see any real benifit.
Wayne
I feel discussion of aerodynamics pertaining to truck campers is long overdue, hopefully some really good ideas can come to light.
Actually they have been ongoing on RV.NET for years, so I really do not understand your thinking these discussions were " long overdue".
Probably once a year, someone discovers the airtabs. The discussion starts all over again how they are the greatest thing to ever hit the RVs. Some people spend lots of money based on the hype. Very few post their disappointment in the money spent and lack of performance on the airfoils, but some do.
The 70's was a different world, I recall 18 cent per gal diesel in California, most trucks were undersized for their loads, didn't have enough hp to get over 55 mph and were dangerous if you did. With new technology there is many things that can be done today that were just pipe dreams in the 70's.
I can't see how this possibly negates my experience. You can trade the cab/TC fillers with tabs or something else. But I question any serious change in the aerodynamics.
My post was intended to be informative, not negative. Some wise person supposedly said; "Those that do not study history, are doomed to repeat it."
Wayne
RE: Roof splitter...better front end aerodynamics
I'm thinking you will rub the paint off the cab of your truck, and/or the underside of your TC cab over.
This concept has been around at least since the 70's. A very common TC add on. Back then, a cushion was inserted between the cab and cab over, then aired up. As I recall, 6 psi. Some were simply made of foam. Put the foam on the roof, then lower the TC. I have had both types.
These devices usually wore the paint off the cab of the truck. Someone then come up with a plastic film you put on the roof to protect the paint. That only left the paint on the underside of the TC cab over to rub off.
Personally, I never found enough benefit to continue using them. Considering you seldom, if ever see them any longer suggest a lot of people see any real benifit.
Wayne
RE: RECALL - Lite Cylinder Company, ALL composite Cylinders
I posted this Thread in the Moderators Forum. Several of the Moderators have posted it in their Forums. For those interested, you may want to read the posts in the other Forums.
I copied the following from the Moderators Forum:
Don't quote me, But a number of folks on boats have used this style of tank for awhile. They are nice because they are so light compared to steel. ALuminum is another option many use, as both AL and composite do not rust!
another option
http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?productId=983466&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&storeId=11151&storeNum=51150&subdeptNum=51151&classNum=51155#.Ubh2X21Udco not sure if camping world is carrying that brand or not. I also do not know if it is DOT certified.
RE: TC organization
We have an assortment of paper plates, bowels and the like ......Wayne
Hey Wayne, one way to reduce your weight, is to at least empty your bowels before you leave. ;)
Actually, I am more concerned with my holding tank. :B Thanks for pointing it out.
Wayne
RE: battery location 1988 big foot
Oh I thought you were looking for someplace to hide more batteries
Good luck
Ray
I understood he was looking for someplace to install batteries, not necessarily to hide them.
There is a lot to be said for using the dead space on the left side of the closet. I preferred to mount mine forward.
My Bigfoot had no battery as built, and no place to install one. It had a converter, but not a charger/converter.
Wayne
RE: Overhead support
... I have seen them advertised lately as improving the aerodynamics of the cab over to reduce drag and increase fuel economy.
That is the theory, but I was never able to prove it to be true. If it made a difference it was so little I could not tell.
RE: Needs some opinions new to owner
My Bigfoot is a 1988. To find out if yours is pre-wired, check each breaker to see what it controls. Also look for a junction box in the overhead cabinets. On my breaker panel, I had one breaker that serviced the junction box only. Wires in, none out. After I cut the hole, I discovered the wire chase in the Styrofoam. I had to cut a small hole near the junction box to pass the wire from the box to the A/C.
RE: Needs some opinions new to owner
If you are referring to me, I have only installed mine, which was a roof mount. In my TC, the overhead cabinet on the driver side of the TC had a junction box. Factory ran wires from the breaker panel to the box, and terminated the wires. In the center (side to side) of the TC, they framed for a 14" vent or A/C. The hole was not cut. After I cut the hole, I could see a channel they left open in the Styrofoam (between fiberglass roof and interior plywood) for running the wires from the A/C to the junction box.
Pretty stright forward, after finding the location of the framed in area. Initially, the breaker would trip. I eventually discovered they ran screws into the wire when they installed the junction box.
Wayne
RE: Overhead support
That is 70's tech. The intended purpose was to increase MPG and reduce the purpose effect. They also had them, in a doughnut form, between the cab of the truck and TC. This allowed you to pass through the truck cab and TC. In the 70's and 80's, I have had both. What they did more than anything was rub the paint off the truck and/or TC. You could buy a plastic film to eliminate the rubbing. I don't know what looked worse, film or paint rubs.
Wayne
