RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Search

RV Blog

  |  

RV Sales

  |  

Campgrounds

  |  

RV Parks

  |  

RV Club

  |  

RV Buyers Guide

  |  

Roadside Assistance

  |  

Extended Service Plan

  |  

RV Travel Assistance

  |  

RV Credit Card

  |  

RV Loans

Open Roads Forum Already a member? Login here.   If not, Register Today!  |  Help

Newest  |  Active  |  Popular  |  RVing FAQ Forum Rules  |  Forum Help and Support  |  Contact



Open Roads Forum  >  Search the Forums

 > Your search for posts made by 'pulsar' found 80 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 4  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: Carrying capacity question, vista

The OCCC for a new coach will be on a federally required label, which can be found in the drivers area near, the vehicle certification label. Sales people I've talked with, don't know the label is there. On edit: OCCC = GVWR - UVW - propane UVW is the weight of the motorhme as built at the factory with full fuel, engine oil and coolants Water and occupants count as cargo; propane does not. Sources: 49 CFR 571.110 as found on www.law.cornell.edu Tom all of these new weight ratings (OCCC, UVW, etc.) are, in my opinion, designed to confuse. I prefer to consider weights and weight ratings this way. GVWR minus the actual unloaded weight of the MH (nothing in it that didn't come from the factory or added dealer options) equals the payload. and one needs individual axle weights to determine not only how much payload the MH has but where it is located. First, UVW is not new; it has been used by the RV industry for as long as I can remember. It was used in the original CCC definition that came out in 2000 and it was used in the NCC definition that goes back much further. UVW is identical to curb weight that has been used by the automotive industry for even a longer period of time. It appears that you want to use the dry weight, which doesn't include fuel, oil, nor coolant. I think it unrealistic to think that the majority (let alone large majority) of RVers would calculate the weight of the fuel, oil and coolant as part of their cargo. Do you really think that RVers should calculate the weight of those fluids as part of their cargo? Because I understood it, I didn't mind the old CCC. But I will admit the sleeping position part of the calculation would cause a problem for many, if they were trying to calculate how they could "fudge" by having fewer occupants. The newer OCCC accounts for what is not really flexible. GVWR - UVW - propane, assuming that all RVs will need to carry propane and that is not likely that many will ask for a partial fill of their propane tank(s). Recognizing that many RVers don't have as many passengers as the RV could carry and that an RVer may choose not to take a full tank of water, the OCCC definition places water and occupants in the cargo category. In that light, the regulation requires that how to calculate the weight of the water is on the OCCC label that is required to be posted in the driver section of the coach. In the end, I believe that all RVers should have their rigs weight, preferably each wheel separately, after they have loaded it. Tom
pulsar 07/24/14 06:40pm Class A Motorhomes
RE: Carrying capacity question, vista

The OCCC for a new coach will be on a federally required label, which can be found in the drivers area near, the vehicle certification label. Sales people I've talked with, don't know the label is there. On edit: OCCC = GVWR - UVW - propane UVW is the weight of the motorhme as built at the factory with full fuel, engine oil and coolants Water and occupants count as cargo; propane does not. Sources: 49 CFR 571.110 as found on www.law.cornell.edu Tom
pulsar 07/24/14 06:28am Class A Motorhomes
RE: Broken plastic Atwood hot water heater drain plug

I carry a large straight-flute screw extractor, purchased at Sears. I've only used it twice, once on my rig and once to help a fellow camper. http://i3.tinypic.com/4c233bn.jpg Tom
pulsar 07/24/14 06:02am Class A Motorhomes
RE: Travato Weights

FWIW, from RVsafety.com: In June of 2008, the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA) adopted revisions to the regulations in 49 CFR Part 571 to require separate and specific RV weight labels. This ruling superseded any prior RVIA requirements and replaced the 2000 RVIA labeling system (see below). The NHTSA label requirements include the following additional key terms: OCCC (Occupant and Cargo Carrying Capacity) (for Motorized RVs only): This figure states the maximum allowable weight of all occupants (including the driver), plus the weight of all food, tools, full fresh water tanks, full LP-Gas tanks and personal belongings. The maximum allowable weight of passengers is based on the number of seat belted positions in the motorized RV. The regulation also states that the “tongue weight of towed trailer counts as cargo.” CCC (Cargo Carrying Capacity) (for Towable RV’s only): This figure states the maximum allowable weight of all cargo, including all food, tools, full fresh water tanks, full LP-Gas tanks and personal belongings. Load Carrying Capacity Reduced: The regulation also requires dealers to state on an amended or additional label the total amount (in pounds and kg) that additional options or changes to the RV have decreased the OCCC or CCC. The amount stated is limited to the total weight of all additions or changes made by the dealer ‘prior to the first sale’ that are the ‘lesser of 1.5% of the GVWR or 100 pounds’. LP-gas, is no longer in the regulations. Instead the term "propane" is used. Also the weight of the full propane tank is counted in the UVW, not in OCCC. Here is a direct quote If the vehicle is a motor home and is equipped with a propane supply, the weight of full propane tanks must be included in the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight. 49 CFR 571.110 as found on www.law.cornell.edu Tom
pulsar 07/19/14 08:08am Class B - Camping Van Conversions
RE: Black box with white x instead of Picture in signature.

The current forum software came online in early 2005. Tom
pulsar 07/18/14 09:04am Technology Corner
RE: Black box with white x instead of Picture in signature.

I was just looking at my account for the same reason. Sometimes it's there, sometimes not. At least we're not alone. :) There is a difference between the picture not being there and the picture is replaced with a "not available" box. If the picture is totally missing, then so should be the entire signature. One "cause" could be the forum policy that in all forums, except Forum Technical Support, signatures will be displayed at most once on any page. It is possible to see you signature in a tread in one post and not another, if they are on the same page. Also, as in my case, for this post, my signature is turned off. Tom
pulsar 07/18/14 08:15am Technology Corner
RE: Black box with white x instead of Picture in signature.

Lately I have noticed a lot of posts have the black box with a white x in it instead of a picture. It has happened a couple of time with my signature too. Is something going on I should refer to a Mod.? No need to notify the moderators. In 2008, the forum lost all signature pictures. When the technicians corrected the issue with the picture server, the pictures would not show - black box with white x, black box with red x, blue box with white question mark, depending on the browser and OS. To restore a signature pictures members had to upload the picture again. Many did, a number has never done that. In the latter case, you will get one of the "picture not available" boxes. That explains some number of the black boxes with white x's you see. Let's assume that the signature is properly on the server. The boxes with the x's or ?'s still mean the picture is not available to your browser at that time the page is displayed. There are a number of reasons why that may be. Among those would be the picture server is busy or offline and a slow connection timed out. Tom
pulsar 07/18/14 08:10am Technology Corner
RE: tay away from Muncho Lake, BC

The place next door has gone by many different names, Larry's Fish Camp, J & H Lodge, Den's Place (current owner's first name is Denny as I remember) He and his wife ran it for probably 30 years, decided to retire, but couldn't find a buyer for the place so shut it down and boarded up the windows. It was a real popular place for the caravans to stay in that area. Say it isn't so. Breeze learned to swim there when the was 15 weeks old. (click on picture to open a larger version in a new tab) http://i.imgur.com/oHhE7WB.jpg Tom
pulsar 07/17/14 10:25am RVing in Canada and Alaska
RE: Crossing US Canada and back conflicting info on dogs

We have crossed back and forth more times than I can count and have never been asked for more than shot records. A number of years ago, we had trouble because the US agent was familiar with 3-year rabies vaccinations. Thankfully, one of his cohorts was. Tom
pulsar 07/17/14 10:16am RVing in Canada and Alaska
RE: IPhone 6

I agree with the above: who knows what Apple will do? CNBC is reporting production problems with them but I don't remember if they said what it was. Foxconn has apparently ramped up several hundred thousand to build these things The rumors I read are that the problems are with the 5.5" model, if we can believe that there is such a thing. One of the rumors I've seen repeated about the difference between the two sizes is that the 5.5" camera will have optical image stabilization and the 4.7" model will not. But, again, who knows. TomWow, it that's real optical stabilization it'll change the game completely. I don't know if any camera doing it optically short of a Canon 35mm lens I wonder if we are using the same definition of "optical stabilization." To be it is stabilizing the image by varying the optical path to the sensor. That can be accomplished by "floating" the lens or by shifting the sensor. Which is better, but if all else were equal, the sensor shifting would have a clear price advantage; you wouldn't have to pay for the stabilization for every new lens. I suspect, that if either version of iPhone 6 has optical stabilization, it will be sensor based. Tom
pulsar 07/17/14 09:55am Technology Corner
RE: Pics of the signpost forest?

When were you there? These pictures are from 2006. If you click on a picture, the larger version will open in a new tab. Depending on your screen resolution, you may need to use view options to get it to full size. http://i.imgur.com/d5i87xe.jpg http://i.imgur.com/dMQSkac.jpg http://i.imgur.com/vAswhC0.jpg http://i.imgur.com/z0aVJnk.jpg In the last picture, the Lewisville, NC sign is ours. Wonder if it is still there? Tom
pulsar 07/17/14 09:38am RVing in Canada and Alaska
RE: Virginia to Maine

Pulsar is correct except there's no need to take I295 in ME-stay on I95. 295 goes through Portland, 95 avoids any city driving. At rush hour, 295 can be a bit white-knuckle. I'm sorry for the late reply. We almost start this drive from Foxboro, MA. We really like the Normandy Farms Campground. So, we are not going through Portland during rush hour. We find this route to be more interesting than I-95. Of course the tolls are less. Tom
pulsar 07/16/14 07:41pm Roads and Routes
RE: IPhone 6

I agree with the above: who knows what Apple will do? CNBC is reporting production problems with them but I don't remember if they said what it was. Foxconn has apparently ramped up several hundred thousand to build these things The rumors I read are that the problems are with the 5.5" model, if we can believe that there is such a thing. One of the rumors I've seen repeated about the difference between the two sizes is that the 5.5" camera will have optical image stabilization and the 4.7" model will not. But, again, who knows. Tom
pulsar 07/16/14 07:36pm Technology Corner
RE: ccc

GGROTZ, Follow the link below to read exactly how CCC is calculated and what is included. Too important to listen to some that might be providing bad information. Safe travels. http://www.fulltime-rving.com/Cargo_Carrying_Capacity.html In my opinion, a poorly written article. (More about that, at the bottom) However, the regulations (not laws) changed in 2008. The OP's rig is a 2005, so the old rules were used to calculate the CCC for his coach. The old RVIA rules were CCC = GVWR - UVW - propane - water - 154 * sleeping positions UVW is the weight of the motorhme as built at the factory with full fuel, engine oil and coolants That is the basis of the 2005 Pace Arrows 37a's ccc of 935 pounds. Most RV's have more than 2 sleeping positions; lets say it has n sleeping positions. Then 154n - actual weight of occupants can be added to the 935. Carrying less than a full load of water can also increase the amount of other "stuff." But, don't forget that the contents of the grey and black water tanks are cargo and counts against the CCC. About the article: It starts by telling us the rules have changed, there is now an OCCC. It doesn't tell us that pertains to motorhomes and not trailers. Nor does it tell us there is a new CCC that pertains to trailers. The article tells us: The new OCCC label calculates the average 150 pound belted, seated passenger seat, plus the weight of fresh water cargo. This total cannot exceed the GVWR of the manufacturer. Cargo weight includes the weight of the battery, propane, water, furniture, appliances, and all the stuff we have in our RVs. Battery, propane, furniture, and standard appliances are not part of the cargo. Under the new regulations, water is part of the cargo as are the occupants. And since the occupants are part of the cargo, the number of sleeping positions or belted seating positions is not used at all. Then the article "shows" how to calculate CCC and use the old rules. At the start of this portion the article states: The Cargo Carrying Capacity (CCC) of an RV is the GVWR less the empty weight, the weight of the full water tank, the weight of the full propane tanks and the sleeping capacity (My emphasis.) And in step 5 the article states: Subtract the weight of the seating capacity weight rating (SCWR) (150 pounds times the number of seating positions) (My emphasis.) A poorly written article. What is the new OCCC, which in now required to be posted on motorhomes OCCC = GVWR - UVW - propane The commentaries I have read state that propane is considered cargo, but the NHTSA regulations clearly state: ...the weight of full propane tanks must be included in the RV's UVW… What is the difference between OCCC and the old CCC? Fresh water now counts as cargo as do all occupants. i mentioned there is a new CCC. new CCC = GVWR - UVW - propane Looks the same as OCCC. The difference is, OCCC applies to motorhomes, CCC applies to trailers, with the assumption, traveling down the road, there are no occupants in a trailer. How did "belted seat positions" get into the regulation? As the regulations was first put forth, NHTSA wanted to subtract 150 times belted seat positions; RVIA wanted to keep the old 150 times sleeping positions. (RVIA didn't object to 150 as opposed to their previous 154.) That was resolved by counting occupants as cargo. Sources: 49 CFR 571.110 as found on www.law.cornell.edu and Federal Register Volume 72, Number 232 That is a lot of technical reading. Note: Although UVW is used in the regulation, UVW is not in the list of definitions for the regulation. I used the commonly understood definition. Tom On edit: Insert 'not' in the last note to give the sentence the proper meaning.
pulsar 07/16/14 08:37am Class A Motorhomes
RE: Need a place to stay overnight

There are 3 choices within 60 miles of each other Just north of the Virginia/North Carolina border in Emporia Yogi Bear's Jellystone Park Just south of he border RV Resort @ Carolina Crossroads A little further into North Carolina Enfield/Rocky Mount KOA RV Resort @ Carolina Crossroads is the newest of the three. I think it is also the cheapest of the three for full hook-ups. Tom
pulsar 07/15/14 08:19pm RV Parks, Campgrounds and Attractions
RE: Glacier NP and Yellowstone NP - how long to visit

We prefer Glacier National Park to Yellowstone. Both are wonderful and you will not have enough time for either! We have visited Yellowstone 4 time; Glacier 7 times. We spend 12 days in Glacier in 2012 and another 6 last summer. A problem with Glacier, you never know when the snow will leave. My brother-in-law is has a scout troop pack backing in Glacier last week and most of this week. The entire Hidden Lake trail was snow covered. One of our favorite hikes, the Highline Loop trail, was closed because of snow on both of our last two visits. Here is a picture taken at Hidden Lake in 2012 http://i.imgur.com/892w3xj.jpg A nice morning hike is the Avalanche Lake trail (about 4.5 miles roundtrip) http://i.imgur.com/D8OqdWL.jpg The Beartooth Highway has been mentioned. Its a great road for a cycle. Heres a view of a segment of the road. http://i.imgur.com/ddJYiZi.jpg And here is one of the many lakes along the Beartooth. http://i.imgur.com/2kfwlqO.jpg The Beartooth pictures were taken on June 21, 2012. Whatever you decide you will have fun and will want to go back for more. Tom
pulsar 07/15/14 07:24pm RV Parks, Campgrounds and Attractions
RE: Route Info

Always found route 9 in Maine, rather boring. Depends if all you want to do is make miles, or whether you want to see some of character of the country as you go. Why travel if you don't look and absorb. & for my time Grand Manan, Campobello Island, Deer Island, Machais, ie, the coastal road is much more interesting. ;) There is no doubt that US 1 is the more interesting route. The last time we were in the maritimes, we drove up 9 and came back on US 1. We were in no hurry; we took 10 days traveling from East Port to Bath and had a great time. However, 6 years ago, 9 was a much better route and parts of US 1 were horrible. Hopefully you, or someone else, can provide a more up to date assessment of the road conditions. Tom
pulsar 07/15/14 06:15pm RVing in Canada and Alaska
RE: Route Info

It's been 6 years since we've been to Nova Scotia (That long?? Got to get back.) Going to NS, we always stop at St. Andrews by the Sea, so our route takes us through Saint John. Coming from Amherst to Saint John: Trans Canada 2 to New Brunswick 1 From Saint John to Bar Harbor: New Brunswick 1 to the border. At this point, you have two routes, US 1 along the coast and Maine 9. We've done both and found Me 9 to be a better road and a faster route. Perhaps someone that has been there more recently can make a comment about road conditions. Assuming Maine 9, to Maine 179 to Alternate US 1 north to Maine 3. Tom
pulsar 07/15/14 06:18am RVing in Canada and Alaska
RE: Author name

On your profile page, beside your user name there is the message; ( If you would like to have your username changed, please contact us. ), where the "contact us" is an active link. Dont' bother. Unless things have changed in the last year, you will grow old waiting for a response. Instead, send a private message to Admin stating what you want. Tom
pulsar 07/14/14 05:57pm Forum Technical Support
RE: Minnesota to Florida via the Smokies

It might help to know where in Florida. If you want to stay strictly on the Interstates highways, you will not see much of the smokies, but will have some spectacular scenery. If you were headed to Orlando, and have reached I-40 in Tennessee, you would continue on I-40 to i-26 in Asheville, NC. Take I-26 to I-95 in South Carolina. Continue on I-95 to I-4 in Florida. On I-40, you will not run into "steep and twisted" roads, as I think of them. The climb from Tennessee into NC is a long, but not steep route. There are many turns, of course, but the speed limit for trucks is 50 MPH. Your steepest grade will be on I-26, a 3-mile, 6% downhill grade. Tom
pulsar 07/14/14 05:48pm Class A Motorhomes
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 4  
Next


New posts No new posts
Closed, new posts Closed, no new posts
Moved, new posts Moved, no new posts

Adjust text size:

© 2014 RV.Net | Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS