ib516 wrote: 1) Yes he's likely over the hitch capacity, but that's just a number they print in a brochure that means nothing in the real world, most enlightened folks just exceed it... <-- Jab, Jab
I realize the jab is well-earned, but I think you know me enough to jab in fun now and then.
For the rest, I do NOT exceed engineering ratings such as hitch ratings, axle ratings, tire ratings, or even GVWR generally.
GCWR (and therefore tow rating) are not engineering-driven ratings as much as I can tell. There is no basis of uniform measurement, no comparative data between like equipment, and no known controlled testing to validate them. Sometimes tow ratings change from year to year even though hardware stayed the same. In my opinion, tow ratings are driven and set by warranty and marketing departments. Warranty wants to limit their exposure, marketing wants to compete in the market place.
The SAE is currently working on fixing the above, but for now we are stuck with the phrase "There are lies, damn lies, and tow ratings". Circling this back around to the main topic, there is absolutely no way one can use the "tow rating" as a metric of a safe/unsafe setup without first validating the metric itself.
I've said many times that I consider GCWR to be mostly about "satisfactory performance". Exceeding it is not necessarily unsafe, but performance will suffer. Example: I towed my current TT witha 2001 Dodge 2500 Ram with the 360 cu.in. gas engine. I was over GCWR, but no where near unsafe. I did slow down quite a bit in the hills, especially if they were long. I recall one grade in the Canadian Rockies where I was down to 55 Km/h (~30 mph) in the slow lane (there was an added far right lane for 18 wheelers to climb the grade) with my flashers on. I had it right to the floor and would not gain any speed at all. IIRC, I was in 2nd gear at about 4000 RPM+ (auto trans) as well. I take the same grade very year (Scott Lake Hill west of Calgary for those that know it, eastbound side), and the diesel slows, drops out of OD, gains speed, and shifts back to OD (cruise on) with the same load.
Tow rating (and therefore GCWR) are "engineering" driven though. They have to do with the vehicle's ability to stop the load, engine cooling capacity, trans cooling capacity, trans load capacity, and the strength of all of the other driveline components. It also has to do with warranty and the life of certain components (engine/trans).
I'll completely agree that there is no standard (yet) for determining tow ratings and/or GCWR.
I agree with the OP's point, but I'm not sure anybody ever claimed otherwise. I can't recall anyone ever giving the advice "Just check your tow rating; as long as you're within that you don't need to worry about anything else."
The above is rather different than the advice "Make sure your vehicle has enough tow rating to pull the trailer you are looking at before you buy it." The second statement may be incomplete since it says nothing about monitoring tongue weight, wdh, brakes, sway, etc. But I'm not aware that anybody advocates the first position.
I'm not wanting to restart the debate about tow rating basis in engineering, but I do want to point out that it isn't quite fair to paint everyone who believes in BOTH being within all ratings AND having a proper setup as 'knee-jerk weight police' unable to think beyond the 'tow rating.'
willald wrote: You know, looking at this, I'm not sure I agree with all the comments about 'move the tractor back on the trailer' to fix this.
Look at the picture again, folks. He *already* has almost all of the really heavy parts of that tractor either over the trailer axles, or behind them. Entire bucket is behind axles, and most of the tractor (except rear axle) is over the trailer axles or behind them. The REAL heavy part of that tractor, the engine, is right over the trailer axles. Thats exactly where you want the heaviest part to be.
No, I think he has this tractor loaded on the trailer just right. Haha, if he puts it any further back, that thing would probably be a swaying nightmare, even more so than it may already be.
I think, this is just a case of too much tongue weight for the truck involved. Don't think he can reduce the tongue weight much, either, as I explained above. He needs either some rear suspension upgrades, or a 1 ton truck. Think I'd be looking into either airbags or helper springs, if I was gonna tow that load regularly with that truck.
And, folks....LAY OFF of caddywhompus! He makes some excellent points, and I for one am glad he snapped this picture and uploaded it for us to see.
I find it really hilarious, how one tries to accuse Caddy of creating more danger than this truck by trying to snap this photo when driving. When that (spiteful!) poster finds out Caddy *was not* driving, then suddenly he shifts gears, and goes from calling Caddy dangerous, to being a 'bad man' basher. LOL, talk about some serious 'back-pedalling', LOL.
Maybe the problem isn't tongue weight but what height the ball receiver is meeting the trailer tongue? Maybe the ball is too high for a level trailer/tv tow connection?
Regards, Eightballsidepocket
2005 Dodge Ram 2500 SLT 4x2 Quad Cab, Cummins, 48RE Tranny, Lg Bed, Line-X Spray-on Bed Liner.
06 T25BS Komfort Trailblazer TT
"If you can't say it in person, it isn't worth saying while hiding behind an anonymous P.C.!"
JIMNLIN wrote: lots og guessing going on here. My 50 hp tractor with front loader weighs around 7000 lbs with both rear tires loaded with Rimguard and 8200 with the 7" mower. The tractors rear tires carry about 70 percent of the tractors weight even with a FEL. I can make the back of my 2wd 2500 Cummins and the front of my implement trailer squat just like the picture shows if I don't get loaded properly. Squatting is not a indication of over loading with a bumper set up. Two problems jump up big time with my tractor loaded like the picture. One is severe chunking and the other is the trucks front tires are unloaded which is a big issue on wet pavement when braking or steering/moving around in the mud on construction sites/pasture/etc. That's the reason I drive the tractor on when loading instead of backing on. The interstate near me speed limit is 75 mph. Lots of commercial and non commercial haulers, self included, using 2500/3500 trucks just like in the picture run those speeds every day and have many years before the net.
He's got the right tool for the job but sure has it loaded different than my rig. Its alway amases me folks can tell a rig is overloaded at 75 mph. Making a call that this rig is unsafe from just that picture ?? Maybe wondering a bit but I have no probs with sharing the road with a rig in the picture. It may be safer than a RV newby that is only 80 percent of his tow vehicles weight rating.
Jim
You totally missed the point.
I specifically stated that I believe his rig is WITHIN HIS RATINGS.
The point was it is unsafe regardless. Spending all one's time worrying about being under tow rating is NOT the equivalent of being automatically safe.
There is no way I would choose to share the road with the guy I pictured. He couldn't have had more than 100 pounds on those front tires. If you had seen the front of the truck hovering up and down over expansion cracks you would agree. In an emergency situation that whole rig is ending up like a twisted pretzel of steel and plastic.
'04 Ford Freestar (Primary tow vehicle) '05 Subaru Forester (Backup tow vehicle) '65 Bethany popup (best popups ever made!) Looking for a tow vehicle Minivan towing
..............Hard to tell but that is either a 14 foot or 16 foot trailer , should have been an 18 footer , mimimum ! Tractor is loaded ass backwards because the bucket should have been lying down flat upon the floor in case he has to apply max brake pressure .
..............Those look like 3500 axles which are 5 holers and way TOO small for the load on that trailer , if that is what they are . Also , if 3500 axles then tires would have been load range C as they normally come equipped from the mfger . Not a very smart way to haul a load on a major interstate . Might be OK for short distances but a big no no in this set of circumstances . , jf
Offline
<-- Jab, Jab 
