mecreature wrote: I would much rather use my GCWR then use outdoorsmans formula...
Then do so. You really can't go too wrong by choosing to adhere to the GCWR. It won't hurt any, it just may not help if you don't pay attention to ALL the other factors that make for a safe towing experience.
People need to stop betting the farm on this one silly number. So many on this forum honestly believe that GCWR is the holy grail of ratings, and that as long as you follow it you are safe regardless of any other variable. I've even read posts from senior forum members basically telling people that the GCWR rating for a particular vehicle is 'absolute' regardless of any other factor. Basically the message is if you stay under the GCWR, you are guaranteed safe.
NOTHING could be further from the truth.
The GVWR is a better number then the max tire load. How can you argue it is not. I am not betting anything or calling it the holy grail. I am not saying you need not worry about anything else as long as you are under this number.
Ah but BenK, there is really only one thing in life that is guaranteed. That is death... You don't have to pay taxes AS LONG as you are willing to suffer the consquences of not paying. You may go to prison but that is your choice to do.
Nowhere did I say it was ok I justed wanted to hear from someone that has had a ticket. Everybody keeps telling everybody that this and that is going to happen and that their insurance will not pay in an accident if the are overloaded. I like to take some of the emotions out of it and just get facts. You say that the RV segement is the next ones to get hit and I have to disagree with you. The LEOs that are out there right now have their hands full with enforcing the commerical side without worrying about RVers at this time. It may happen someday but not real soon.
This is IMO
* This post was
edited 08/06/08 12:55pm by Butch50 *
Butch
2006 F550 CC 4X4 Lariat PSD/Torqshift Dark Shadow Grey Metalic w/Manning F350 bed
2009 Excel Limited 30TKE
2009 Arctic Fox 1140 (On Order due February)
2006 Dodge 3500 Laramie 4X4 QC SB SRW/Cummins 6 speed Jake exhaust brake
Butch50 wrote: Ah but BenK, there is really only one thing in life that is guaranteed. That is death... You don't have to pay taxes AS LONG as you are willing to suffer the consquences of not paying. You may go to prison but that is your choice to do.
Nowhere did I say it was ok I justed wanted to hear from someone that has had a ticket. Everybody keeps telling everybody that this and that is going to happen and that their insurance will not pay in an accident if the are overloaded. I like to take some of the emotions out of it and just get facts. You say that the RV segement is the next ones to get hit and I have to disagree with you. The LEOs that are out there right now have their hands full with enforcing the commerical side without worrying about RVers at this time. It may happen someday but not real soon.
This is IMO
Ah...but that is my point...just payment in a different form...your time
vs money...
The other point is that we all have different valuation of whatever...
Some will think their time in prison easier than money, while some
will think the other way around is better.
Key here is that there is a 'consequence' to your actions. Maybe not
to the individual making that gamble, but to others around them...
LEO's will have no choice but to enforce the 'law'. DUI's were not
taken seriously for too long...till one mother who had her daughter
killed by a repeat DUI, so now there are laws governing DUIs. Ditto
just about anything to do with 'laws'... Anyone ever hear of MADD?
On that, do you really want our politicians (bean counters and lawyers)
to be drafting laws governing this technology based sector?
-Ben Picture of my rig
1996 GMC SLT Suburban 3/4 ton K3500/7.4L/4:1/+150Kmiles orig owner...
1980 Chevy Silverado C10/long bed/"BUILT" 5.7L/3:73/1 ton helper springs/+329Kmiles, bought it from dad...
1998 Mazda B2500 (1/2 ton) pickup, 2nd owner...
Praise Dyno Brake equiped and all have "nose bleed" braking!
Previous trucks/offroaders: 40's Jeep restored in mid 60's / 69 DuneBuggy (approx +1K lb: VW pan/200hpCorvair: eng, cam, dual carb'w velocity stacks'n 18" runners, 4spd transaxle) made myself from ground up / 1970 Toyota FJ40 / 1973 K5 Blazer (2dr Tahoe, 1 ton axles front/rear, +255K miles when sold it)...
Sold the boat (looking for another): Trophy with twin 150's...
51 cylinders in household, what's yours?...
mecreature wrote: The GVWR is a better number then the max tire load. How can you argue it is not.
Max tire load is a design rating from the tire manufacturer. If you put too much weight on a tire, it will pop. Blowing out tires is unsafe. Having a 3.73 axle ratio and hauling the GCWR of the exact same truck with a 4.10 axle ratio will alter your acceleration and perhaps your transmission life, but it is not unsafe, nor is it against the law.
* This post was
edited 08/06/08 02:16pm by Fast Mopar *
2004 Ford Freestar 4.2 liter
2003 Jayco Qwest 12A
preserve the Second Amendment
GCWR per the manufactures is a performance number only, it has NOTHING to do with safety. So what or whoms performance are we asking about? someone that is needing to go 70 mph over ever every hill or if you want to go 50 over a given hill, then a less motor is needed.
Otherwise, there is not a officer out there that will ticket a person over the gcwr of a rig. Possibly over an axel rating yes, but not the GVWR or GCWR, as most GVWR's is less than the axel ratings combined.
My last rig I was consistanly over its GCWR by upwards of 4000 lbs, yet I found it to have better speed up hills etc than equal rigs with the higher GCWR ratings. I had a rig with an 8500 GCWR, yet its GVWR was 8600 lbs. A GCWR less than it s GVWR! explain that to me. None of the so called engineers on here or at the manufactures have explained that one to me! This said twuck with an 8500 lb gcwr rating out pulled a rig with a 16K rating! to boot! When that happened, I knew GCWR ratings were not worth worrying about any more. My dumptruck with a 170/335 motor, has a 35K GCWR, yet my 300/600 dmax a 23K GCWR!?!?!?!?! yet on a 3% grade the dmax leaves the navistar behind at 20K lbs. BUT< the navistar due to better gearing can out pull the dmax on steep grades in first gear, the navistar can pull 30K up a 30% grade, the dmax would be lucky to do 20K up a 23% grade, and my old 5 sp 6.5td GM would do 20K up a 30% grade! All due to better low end gears for the slow speed stuff.
GCWR is not a rating one should be concerned with, worry about the axel ratings of the TV and trailer BEFORE worrying about the GCWR ratings.
If you want to worry about ratings, follow some of the rules of thumb given out at time, such as the max trailer length to WB of TV, or some I follow, max trailer is 2x the GRAWR, or max GCW is 3x the GRAWR or 2x the GVWR of the TV. None of these rules of thumb should be put in stone, but are good guide lines for more comfortible towing times if followed. One is not safer staying under these guidelines or even the ratings for that matter, but generally speaking, it will be easier in the brain etc.
Marty
Marty
05 Chev CC D/A LS Dooley
92 Navistar dump truck, 7.3L 7 sp, 4.33 gears with a Detroit no spin
00 Chev C2500, V5700, 4L80E, 4.10, base truck, no options!
92 Red-e-haul 12K equipment trailer
3 Single axle utility trailers
mecreature wrote: The GVWR is a better number then the max tire load. How can you argue it is not.
Dude, you are confusing my statement with someone else's.
I did not say GVWR was more/less important the tire rating, that was a different post.
I will say the GCWR is not nearly as important as GVWR, GAWR or tire ratings. Which order those last 3 come in as far as importance is not up for debate in this thread. The topic is about GCWR, not the others.
'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
mecreature wrote: The GVWR is a better number then the max tire load. How can you argue it is not.
Dude, you are confusing my statement with someone else's.
I did not say GVWR was more/less important the tire rating, that was a different post.
I will say the GCWR is not nearly as important as GVWR, GAWR or tire ratings. Which order those last 3 come in as far as importance is not up for debate in this thread. The topic is about GCWR, not the others.
this was the quote I was originally referring too.
"If you want to be safe, it is my recommendation that you stay within your tire's weight ratings." I was just saying the GCWR would be a better guide IMO. You said then Do so...
On another note. Blt2ski's formulas all put me in a bigger trailer...
I think the GCVWR is the engineers way of putting it all in a nutshell. Every rating has a bit of wiggle but when you wiggle all of them a bit you can get a bad combo real quick... especially with all the people pulling with 1500's. Tons less wiggle room.. You don't have to drive very far at all till you end up seeing a combo you would just as soon stay away from traveling to close too.
JIMNLIN said: "Question 4 is for certified vehichle modifiers/upfitters that "structurally" modify a vehicle under 10000 lbs. Which isn't a RVer adding bigger tires/wheels. A vehicle that is structurally modified is required to be relabeled..."
Where does it say that Jim? None of the imbedded links take you to any part that discusses "certified upfitters" and question 4 certainly makes no mention of "certified upfitters." If that was the intent, it certainly could have said so, but it doesn't! It says what it says:
"Question 4: If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle."
Note that it specifically refers to a motor carrier, who is in fact the end user, just as I said. Additionally, as you yourself have said, the immediately preceding Question 3 was about vehicles where no sticker existed at all, yet alone "relabeled."
Further, you appear to take the position that the tires and wheels don't matter. This would mean that one could modify the frame, modify the suspension, and modify the axle but leave the wimpy oem tires and wheels on the vehicle and call it upfitted to a higher GCVW. I don't think so, inasmuch as if an enforcement officer bothered to look at an RVer at all for weight issues, the FIRST thing he'd look at would be the DOT ratings on the tires and wheels.
Further, if the tires and wheels don't matter, if they are not a part of the vehicles supporting structure, in your opinion which parts do matter?
Question 4:
If a vehicle with a manufacturer's GVWR of less than 10,001 pounds has been structurally modified to carry a heavier load, may an enforcement officer use the higher actual gross weight of the vehicle, instead of the GVWR, to determine the applicability of the FMCSRs?
Guidance: Yes. The motor carrier's intent to increase the weight rating is shown by the structural modifications. When the vehicle is used to perform functions normally performed by a vehicle with a higher GVWR, §390.33 allows an enforcement officer to treat the actual gross weight as the GVWR of the modified vehicle.
question 4 says the vehicle has been "structurally modified" to carry a heavier load.
NHTSA Issues Pertaining to Load Carrying Capacity
It is very dangerous to drive any vehicle whose load carrying capacity has been exceeded. Too much weight in a vehicle can cause difficulty steering and braking. It can also compromise a vehicle's safety by causing the tires to wear more quickly and unevenly and suspension parts and axles to wear more quickly. In extreme cases, overloading may cause catastrophic failure of any of these components. Therefore, when a vehicle is proposed for modification, the modifier should determine:
the weight of all equipment that will go into or on the vehicle,
the size of the client and his or her mobility aid(s), family, and
whether additional objects/cargo will be added to the vehicle for recreational or other activities.
To determine whether a vehicle exceeds its GVWR, NHTSA's rules specify that only 150 pounds must be allowed for each designated seating position regardless of the weight of the intended users. However, consideration of the items described in the bullets above will help you deliver a vehicle that is not likely to be routinely overloaded by the user.
This information should then be used to calculate whether the modification would cause the vehicle to exceed the manufacturers Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) or Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) when in normal use. If it would, the vehicle should not be modified. Note: The "make inoperative" regulation requires modifiers to notify consumers of a vehicle's new load carrying capacity, if the load carrying capacity has been reduced by 220 pounds or more.
What is the intended meaning of load carrying capacity?
The term load carrying capacity was not defined in the make inoperative final rule but the intended meaning is the same as "vehicle capacity weight" as defined in FMVSS No. 110, Tire Selection and Rims. In brief, load carrying capacity is the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR) minus the unloaded weight of the vehicle.
What is the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating?
A Gross Vehicle Weight Rating is assigned to the vehicle by the manufacturer and "shall not be less than the sum of the unloaded vehicle weight, rated cargo load, and 150 pounds times the vehicle's designated seating capacity." (49 CFR 567.4(g)(3)).
What is the Gross Axle Weight Rating?
The Gross Axle Weight Rating (GAWR) is the maximum weight that the designated axle system is designed to carry. It is set by the OEM and noted on the vehicle's original certification label. Alterers must determine whether their modifications affect the manufacturer's stated GVWR or GAWR. If they do, the alterer must specify the new GVWR or GAWR on the alterer's certification label (see 49 CFR 567.7). Note: A modifier or dealer should never accept an altered vehicle that does not have an alterer's certification label.
This give guidence when the vehicles structure has been modified for the certified alterer to relabel the vehicle.
Never said tires and wheels don't matter. What I said was RVers adding bigger tires and wheels doesn't meet a modified vehicle per NHTSA; Terms used to describe types of businesses regulated by NHTSA:
Manufacturer means a person or business manufacturing or assembling motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment or importing motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment for resale.
Alterer means a person or business making changes to a certified vehicle. These changes do not include the addition, substitution, or removal of readily attachable components, such as mirrors or "tire and rim assemblies". Nor do they include minor finishing operations such as painting. "Alterer" also means a person or business who alters a certified vehicle in such a manner that its stated weight ratings are no longer valid. All of these changes are made before the first purchase of the vehicle in good faith for purposes other than resale.
Repair business means a person or business holding itself out to the public to repair for compensation a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. This term includes businesses that receive compensation for servicing vehicles without malfunctioning or broken parts or systems by adding or removing features or components to or from those vehicles or otherwise customizing those vehicles. Note that a "modifier", as the term is commonly used in the industry making vehicles accessible to persons with disabilities is considered a repair business by NHTSA.
Simply put question 4 is about a under 10k vehichle that has been modified per the above NHTSA guide lines using certified persons relabling their modifications within NHTSA guidlines. Again it does not include A RVer adding bigger tires and wheels to a vehicle.
'03 2500 Dodge/Cummins HO 3.73 6 speed manual Jacobs
'97 Park Avanue 28' with two slides
Offline
