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 'Huntindog' found 564 matches.

Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 29  
Next
  Subject Author Date Posted Forum
RE: Rear Cargo Carrier

Dude lost a generator when his home made rack broke sending the gen into incoming traffic and killing someone. Dude is now being tried for manslaughter. Happened a few weeks ago. I was interested in these racks but not anymore!Got any links to "Dude's" story?
Huntindog 07/23/16 02:55am Travel Trailers
RE: Changing From 14" to 15" Tires and Rims

I have done excactly as you are proposing.. My only suggetion is to not stop at 15s. Go all the way to 16s. That is where I eventually ended up. 6s gives you the best possible selection of QUALITY tires. You will of course need 16" rims. They are normally 6 lugs, so 6 lug drums will be needed. They are suprisingly affordable. they come with new bearings, so if you do it at bearing repaking time, it makes it much easier labor wise... No need to clean all the old parts, just lube up the new stuff and install. So in a nutshell... going from 14s to 15s is good.. but the tire selection isn't a ton better. 16s is nirvana. That size is used on millons of pickups, so the market is huge. The tire manufacturers have responded with MANY choices.
Huntindog 07/23/16 02:53am Travel Trailers
RE: Rear Cargo Carrier

The Palomino/Sabre line has the best factory rear racks in the business. A 500# rating. It can be folded up via a hitch pin arrangement. When I toured the factory, the plant manager told me the the fold up design replaced a slide out design that was trouble prone. It seems that road debri/salt etc. was causing the slide versions to become stuck. I have had mine since 2009 and use it a lot. In fact I semi permantly mounted a 5 cubic ft. freeezer on it to let us carry more food on our remote boondocking trips. I have carried lots of other things on it as well. All the way from bales of straw to cages of birds to bikes to coolers to you name it. At camp it often serves as a workbench for changing the generators oil. It is a great feature to have.
Huntindog 07/22/16 01:39pm Travel Trailers
RE: 2017 PSD numbers are in FLT Offical ?

A 3" reciever???? Does anyoneone sell shanks etc. for that? I cannot imagine lifting a 3" WD drawbar into the reciever. Probably have to call a crane service. Once in place, it would never get removed... Gonna be a lot of debates about the rights/legalities of that here.. I am not sure of rhe purpose. My 2" drawbar is rated just as high as the current 2.5s.
Huntindog 07/22/16 02:54am Tow Vehicles
RE: DEF Issues

I wish one could default the exhaust brake to be on all the time. When towing it restarts in Tow/Haul but not exhaust brake. Ditto. I often find that I drive a few miles before I remember, and I'm going to wear the stupid switch out because I have to turn it on every time. A minor quibble but I wish it would remember the last setting before you shut it down.The reason it is like that is certain road condition can be dangerous with the EB activated.
Huntindog 07/15/16 05:33pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

This thread needs to be closed. Way too many useless remarks being made here and no actual facts being posted.Ummmm This thread was never about ANY facts...Read the title. It is all about speculation of what might happen.
Huntindog 07/12/16 02:47am Tow Vehicles
RE: 16 in Shank on WDH

Here is what our resident engineer, Ron Gratz had to say on this back in 2010: Quote: ---A first year engineering student can figure this one out. The longer draw bar and the farther back you get from the tow vehicle, the more stress you put on the hitch attachyment points and truck frame. But, a second year engineering student probably would be aware that the OP is using a weight distribution hitch. So, let's assume the tongue weight is 1000# and the WD bars are loaded so they exert a pitch-axis moment of about 2000# x 30" = 60,000 lb-in on the hitch head. This moment, when viewed from the driver's side, acts in a CCW direction. Now, assume the WD system reduces the vertical load on the hitch head to 800# and let's assume this force, on the non-extended setup, acts at 10" from the receiver crosstube. This generates a CW moment of 8,000 lb-in. Combining the two moments gives 60,000 CCW plus 8,000 CW = 52,000 lb-in CCW. Then, let's extend the tow tube so the vertical load acts at a distance of 20" from the crosstube. The vertical load now generates a CW moment of 16,000 lb-in, and combining the moments gives a CCW moment of 44,000 lb-in. The second year engineering student would conclude using the extension, with WD, results in less "stress on the hitch attachyment points and truck frame". I don't think any one of us really knows why the use of a specific extension does or does not result in a reduced rating. There are many examples of the "internet myths" mentioned by Larry. Gander Mountain sells an 18" extension and says, "Reduces hitch capacity by one third." Trailerhitches.com says, "Extenders come in several different lengths from 6" to 48"." And then they state unequivocally, "Hitch extensions are mandatory for some types of towing, but they do have one large disadvantage, they towing capacity is reduced by 50 percent." Are we to assume the 50% applies to everything from 7" to 48"? Cabela's sells 7", 12", and 18" extensions and state (regardless of length), "Use of this extender will reduce the vehicle hitch's overall tongue weight capacity to 1/3 of original capacity. Example: 900 pound tongue capacity would be reduced to 300 pounds." So, depending on the source, the alleged capacity reduction when using probably the same hardware, might be 33% or 50% or 67%. Reese, OTOH, justs lists a capacity for the extension and doesn't say anything about reducing the capacity of the receiver. If you're going to use an extension, there's probably not much point in speculating why there is or is not a recommended rating reduction. And, if the seller says the extension reduces the allowable tongue weight or towing capacity by 1/3 or 1/2 or 2/3, you might want to ask why. Ron This particular thread had a lot of discussion about generic hitch extensions, which are a totally different animal that a longer drawbar, in that WD cannot be used with them... But the math for the WD differences is enlightening Link:WD and longer drawbars explained
Huntindog 07/11/16 09:08pm Travel Trailers
RE: 16 in Shank on WDH

I currently have a 12 in shank coming out of my receiver on my truck, I need about 4 more inches to be able to lower my tailgate without hitting my trailer jack. Several companies offer a 16 in shank but I am concerned about extending out that much farther and creating stress problems on the receiver and hitch. Has anyone used the 16 in shank and have you had any problems with doing so, my trailer weighs about 7000# loaded, pulling with a 3/4 ton truck. Been using a 16 or 18 for the last 35 years on two trailers with GVWR from 6,500 to 8,000lbs with absolutely no issues. As long as the shank you use is rated for the wts it will see then there are absoutely NO ISSUES to really be concerned with IMO. Evidently Reese does make a shank with an additional hole where the rating changes based on what hole is used, but AFAIK that is the only one that has multiple ratings for the shank. The additional length relative to what is of concern is minor again IMO. Many folks are using these length shanks and those concerned are just WAGGING concerns in the wind w/o any real facts to base their concerns on. Larry Agree with Larry. I have been using the longest one available which is either 16" or 18" depending on how it's measured, (not all companies measure it the same way) for about 6 years. I toe a LOT and heavy as the TT gross is 11.5K I also do this on rough unimproved roads often. There are no issues at all. It does change the WD setup a little. You may experience a different ride as the bars will be in effect stronger. So you may need to remove a little tension from them. I noticed this on my 2001 Dmax when I made the switch. When lightly loaded with just the TT the ride became kind of bouncy. But when heavily loaded it rode fine. I was tof readjusting thinking of readjusting the hitch, but since I am usually loaded heavy, I never got around to it. Then I got the 2011 Dmax. With it's much beefier suspension it rides fine with the WD adjusted the way it was for the old truck. There also was an extensive thread on here a few years ago. Barney, a moderator even got some manufacturers involved. The consensous was that when WD is used the the reciever does not need to be derated as the bars counteract the leaverage force. Only on a Hitch such as the Hensley which can impart signifignant side loading to the reciever could this be an issue.
Huntindog 07/11/16 04:37pm Travel Trailers
RE: Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford. True that. Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...GM. Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought. I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers." The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD. Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out. GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards.... As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things. I remember the Chevy laying the 2011 Ford to waste on the first hill climb tests but it did it with less power. Here is a link to one of the dyno runs on the three trucks from back in 2011. Here's a copy/past summary of that dyno run: Regardless of which transmission gear we tested the trucks in, the power rankings were all the same. The 2011 Ford F-350 with the 6.7L Power Stroke made the most horsepower and torque, followed by the 2012 GMC Sierra 3500 with the LML 6.6L Duramax, and the new 2011 ½ Ram 3500 with the 800-lb-ft calibration came in third. We know some of you are going to be shocked by this data (we were), but based on seven other tests we ran these three trucks through—those numbers are the real deal.That data is not to SAE standards. Does it make a difference? Yes. Bottom line is, it takes a certain amount of power t move a given load up a hill at a certain speed. More power will get it done at a higher speed. It is that simple. No matter what the advertised rating is, the hill remains as steep and long as ever. If one truck is rated by a more lenient standard that produces a higher number, it WILL be slower that a truck that was tested to a stricter standard. The hill is not impressed with ratings. It just laughs as it says, show me what you got.
Huntindog 07/11/16 02:57am Tow Vehicles
RE: Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford. True that. Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...GM. Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought. I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers." The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD. Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out. GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards.... As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things. I remember the Chevy laying the 2011 Ford to waste on the first hill climb tests but it did it with less power. Here is a link to one of the dyno runs on the three trucks from back in 2011. The problem with Dyno testing todays computerized motors is that different dyno criteria can yield different results. SAE Dyno specs are the most stringent I know of. It specifies the duration that a power level must be maintained. This matters when climbing a hill. Motors not tested to SAE standards can use any number they want, as they can set up a motor to put out more power for a short period of time, before pulling the power back to avoid damage. So the difference is much like a continuous vs peak rating... A higher continuous rating will get you up the entire hill faster vs a peak rated motor being faster for part of the hill. Although it is possible I find it highly unlikely that Ford would design the new 6.7 Powerstroke to be much stronger than the Duramax (just look at the size of the rods and crank, the compacted graphite block, the massive radiator) and then tune it to deliver 3 more horsepower that only lasts momentarily just to say they have the higher numbers. I had both a 2010 Duramax and a 2011 Powerstroke. On the hills the GM was eager to downshift and rev to 3000 rpm where it made its 397 HP where as the Ford would lug along in a higher gear at 1300 rpm where it made about 200 HP. When racing trucks up hills it is pretty easy to select a trailer weight and grade that will exploit the Ford's laid back attitude.Your 2010 Dmax did NOT have 397 HP. That did not happen until the 2011 models. Both Ford and GM raised the bar for 2011... So it is no suprise that your 2011 PSD outperformed your 2010 Dmax...
Huntindog 07/11/16 02:49am Tow Vehicles
RE: Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford. True that. Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...GM. Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought. I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers." The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD. Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out. GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards.... As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things. I remember the Chevy laying the 2011 Ford to waste on the first hill climb tests but it did it with less power. Here is a link to one of the dyno runs on the three trucks from back in 2011. The problem with Dyno testing todays computerized motors is that different dyno criteria can yield different results. SAE Dyno specs are the most stringent I know of. It specifies the duration that a power level must be maintained. This matters when climbing a hill. Motors not tested to SAE standards can use any number they want, as they can set up a motor to put out more power for a short period of time, before pulling the power back to avoid damage. So the difference is much like a continuous vs peak rating... A higher continuous rating will get you up the entire hill faster vs a peak rated motor being faster for part of the hill.
Huntindog 07/10/16 06:16pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Care to guess the new Powerstroke HP and torque rating?

claiming and achieving are too vastly different things, especially for ford. True that. Show me any of the makers that doesn't play the numbers game...GM. Back in 2010 when Ford and GM were releasing their numbers. GM came out with 397 HP and 765 TQ. That exceeded what Ford had released, and they already had trucks on the road. Ford quickly retrenched with a nice round 400HP 800TQ, even offering a reflash to those the had already bought. I saw a interview with some of the GM engineers, They were asked why didn't GM just make their Dmax ratings the same as Fords... The answer "We have extensivly tested the Dmax and that is what the numbers came in at. We are confident and comfortable with these numbers." The Dmax then went on a tear in test after test easily beating the higher rated Ford PSD. Then the truth about the ratings slowly came out. GM was the only one that had their power numbers tested to SAE standards.... As has been said, claiming and achieving are two different things.
Huntindog 07/10/16 05:01pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Electric awning - Don't like the durned thing! Rant!

Agree!!! In fact I went and bought one just to have. It's about $7.00. Well worth it.What I hate is that I no longer have that awning rod that was so handy for all sorts of things. I seldom needed a ladder when I had that rod :-)
Huntindog 07/10/16 02:14pm Tech Issues
RE: Tire Blowout

Certainly no expert, but I had two blowouts on trip at Thanksgiving. One down, one back. Fortunately had spare each time. But, method of elimination: Age OK according to your statement PSI OK ditto Speed OK but, I don't drive over 60 Weight????? Have you pulled on scales at a truck stop? That would be my first guess. The tire shop upgraded all 4 new tires with load range E, I have 15" wheels and 3 different places said no to light truck tires on a 15"wheel. Edited by Barb I have been running LT (load range C currently Yokahamas)tires on my last two trailers with 15 in. wheels with no problem for 8 years with no tire failures. LT tires if they can be found for your load range and wheel size are acceptable and are much better and consistent quality compared to most generic ST tires.There are no load range E or LT tires in 14" tires, that I'm aware of. Yes the selection is pretty thin in the 14" size. It gets a little better in 15" Once you get to 16", there are more choices than you can imagine. My solution for a TT I owned that came with 14" was to switch it over to 16". I unfortunantly did not do it all at once... In retrospect it would have been far cheaper to bite the bullet and just go all the way. Instead I did what many do. I upgraded one step at a time thinking that a "baby" step would solve my problem. That didn't work. Many thousands of dollars later, I ended up with 16" LT tires. That was in 2006, and I have never had an LT tire fail on my TT. My advice to all who have an under tired rig sporting ST tires is to bite the bullet and do whatever it takes to get 16s and LTs. Yes the intial cost will be high... But it will pay off over time... AND more importantly you won't be dealing with tire issues while on a trip. Everybodys recreation time is precious. It is the time that counts, when great memories are made. Work time is just how we make the money to pay for it. You can always make more money. The memories lost due to tire problems is something that you will never get back.
Huntindog 07/09/16 05:22pm Travel Trailers
RE: WDH - how much does it reduce tongue weight?

I recall a post showing a WD hitch add with a front wheel drive Oldsmobile Torinado with the rear wheels removed towing a travel trailer. All the rear axle weight being transferred to the TV front and TT axles. A bit more then leveling the tongue weight.You do realize that ADs are not realistic right? Pickup tucks have been shown doing many unrealistic things in ADs,,,, Towing a 747 comes to mind right away.
Huntindog 07/09/16 02:06am Travel Trailers
RE: Help Installing Winegard Trav'ler Satellite on 2011 Wildwood

Thank you for all your guys input! I truly appreciate it! So is it safe to screw down all 9 screws to the ground? Only like 4 or the screws will hit the wood. And the other 5 will hit the vinyl.Yeah, only a few of my screws hit the studs as well. The others are into the sheating. Don't tighten those very much or they will strip. They are just there to "help". The top of the roof is vinyl so would dicor be good to use?I'm not sure what to use on vinyl. Never had any on my TTs. I think Dicor may be OK, but don't take my word for it.
Huntindog 07/08/16 06:53pm Travel Trailers
RE: Help Installing Winegard Trav'ler Satellite on 2011 Wildwood

I too installed my own. Adam above has a pretty good handle on it. I did a couple of things different on my install. My location was pretty far from the batwing, and I wanted to keep it anyway. So it was to go towards the rear. I did not want any new holes in the roof, and was able to run the wires along the rear ladder, all the way to the bottom, and come up thru the floor. No possible way for it to be a source of a leak. I also glued a nice piece of stainless steel to the roof for the roller to ride on. I used dicor for thism and for all the sealing required. Then I desided that I liked the self stowing option that can be installed, so if you forget to stow it, it automatically stows itself. This required a whole house inverter, to provide AC power to the dish at all times... That project is a whole nother thread, but it was well worth it. I used the brake lights as the trigger to start stowing. It works great, except when I stay hitched up for the night, and forget to junplug the umbilical from the TV.. Locking the truck with the remote flashes terh brake lights and stows the dish..... Believe it or not, it took me awhile to figure this out. Not a big deal once you know what to expect.. And yes that part of the install has prevented an expensive mistake!
Huntindog 07/08/16 11:01am Travel Trailers
RE: Too much WD bar?

My setup has worked very well for many years and tens of thousnds of miles... I'm not gonna stress over this "new" thinking.This is not "new" thinking. IMO, the idea of basing WD bar rating on TV cargo plus TT tongue weight it is a holdover from 50-60 years ago and does not apply to modern tow vehicles. RonThe cargo thing isn't new as you say. What has changed is that cargo used to just about always be in the trunk, which was behind the rear axle. As the population moved to nicer pickup trucks for towing, it evolved into stating that the cargo BEHIND the rear axle be included.. Which made perfect sense. The NEW thinking I am talking about is including ALL CARGO period. In my case I would need some 6K bars and one hell of a reciever to do it.
Huntindog 07/06/16 01:13pm Travel Trailers
RE: Big three HD gassers

Which gas truck has the highest ratings? Payload and towing ? GCWR? I would consider gas if one was available that could handle serious weight.
Huntindog 07/05/16 06:44pm Tow Vehicles
RE: Tire Blowout

4 tire failures in 2 years suggests not enough tire for your trailer. Larger load range E tires, aired to max PSI per sidewall would be my recommendation. He currently has load range C tires. Going to a load range E would be overkill and would cost him much more money buying rims rated for that pressure. I had Load range D tires on my 10,600 lb (empty) fifth wheel for 7 years with no problems. I'm sure his 7,500 pound trailer would be fine on D rated tires of the same size. I'm into overkill and his rims won't be a problem. Have you ever needed to use a trailer spare? I haven't.There is no such as overkill when it comes to tires. The TT I had when I started my tire upgrade journey was the same size as the OP. Many tire and rim upgrades followed as I searched for the answer to a reliable TT tire. That search FINALLY ended many thousands of dollars later with 16"rims, and LT LRE E tires... So IMO, the OP needs to skip all the steps I wasted money on and go straight to the solution... My LT changeover was in 2006. No more tire problems after the switch... Yes it is expensive.. And yes I cried when I paid the bill... But pay once right and cry once. Pay on the cheap and cry over and over.
Huntindog 07/05/16 06:33pm Travel Trailers
Sort by:    Search within results:
Page of 29  
Next


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

Adjust text size:

© 2016 RV.Net | Terms & Conditions | PRIVACY POLICY | YOUR PRIVACY RIGHTS