Waste of Money… again.

montie · Guru

Waste of Money… again.

oldbloke · Guru

montie wrote:
Blxxdy hell..talk about a pissing contest.

Does anybody have anything useful to contribute....

Why is it a pissing contest? All I have done is put forward an alternative opinion. And I'm sticking to what I stated. The tug appears to be close to level. Only the van is on an obvious angle.

Oh, in addition I can't see a WDH, further supporting that the tug may not be substantially over loaded.

Bobdown · Guru

oldbloke wrote:
Yobarr, I stand by my statement. Put your glasses on. The car is very close to level. Only the van is on an angle.

As they say, the picture tells the story.

Chris, not been taking your happy pills again, getting agro with everybody that doesn't agree with you.

Surely Newbies would listen if you didn't ram it down their throats and enough of the triple and quadruple quotes, a bit of editing wouldn't go astray.

As Neil says the 100 series is pretty level and the van is unbalanced and not loaded correctly.

As for LC200 series, you have no creditability after your last rant saying they are over rated and you are sick of them.

Constructive advice welcome, overbearing chest beating not.

Cheers Bob

montie · Guru

oldbloke wrote:
montie wrote:
Blxxdy hell..talk about a pissing contest.

Does anybody have anything useful to contribute....
Why is it a pissing contest? All I have done is put forward an alternative opinion. And I'm sticking to what I stated. The tug appears to be close to level. Only the van is on an obvious angle.
Oh, in addition I can't see a WDH, further supporting that the tug may not be substantially over loaded.

This is not a debate about weights but like a bunch of schoolkids it's about who get's the last word.

Time to move on.

JackoFJR · Senior Member

Yobarr mate , I will see if I can find the reply that bloke got from Nissan tech it cleared everything up ( but what would the Nissan Tech department know ) and maybe next time the VicRoads Officers are at the weigh bridge I might just swing in and have a chat to them if they don't look to busy.

Like I said I don't really care it doesn't concern me

Magnarc · Guru

Chris, as one who has found your info useful, may I suggest that your posts on weights should be confined to the place specifically allotted to it, thus avoiding the situation that inevitably occurs when you post on the General Forum.

In the words of the great Dougwe, "just sayin'".

JackoFJR · Senior Member

Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker

Dougwe · Chief one feather

Magnarc wrote:
Chris, as one who has found your info useful, may I suggest that your posts on weights should be confined to the place specifically allotted to it, thus avoiding the situation that inevitably occurs when you post on the General Forum.
In the words of the great Dougwe, "just sayin'".

Someone said my name?! I wouldn't say great Phil. Someone told me my name was mentioned in this thread as normally I avoid threads that should be somewhere else or by certain people. It's called choice.

Well said Phil. Agree 100% and I tell you that for free "just say'n"

Keep Safe on the roads and out there.

montie · Guru

JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker

owball downloadVehicle Mass250kgGVM (all models)300kgReduce loaded vehicle mass below GVM# by 70kg325kgReduce loaded vehicle mass below GVM# by 100kg350kgReduce loaded vehicle mass below GVM# by 130kg

That information contradicts what Nissan say in their specifications on their website.

JackoFJR · Senior Member

Yes I know but that's the official word from Nissan and probably why they removed that bloody sticker because to many people were completely confused by it , it was supposed to be a guide only and says exactly that on the sticker in the door of my S4 " GUIDE ONLY " . But they still say in the specs the Patrol has a GCM of 7000Kg that's ridiculous it can't happen legally anyway , Toyota do the same with the 200 series just add the max GVM of 3350kg and max tow of 3500kg together and call it a GCM of 6850kg its just not happening legally .

montie · Guru

JackoFJR wrote:
Yes I know but that's the official word from Nissan and probably why they removed that bloody sticker because to many people were completely confused by it , it was supposed to be a guide only and says exactly that on the sticker in the door of my S4 " GUIDE ONLY " . But they still say in the specs the Patrol has a GCM of 7000Kg that's ridiculous it can't happen legally anyway , Toyota do the same with the 200 series just add the max GVM of 3350kg and max tow of 3500kg together and call it a GCM of 6850kg its just not happening legally .

Yes, measured weight of the combination cannot legally exceed the lesser of:

1) Manufacturer's rating.

2) GVM + ATM - Ball weight (GVM + GTM)

yobarr · Guru

JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker

Hmmm.Sorry,but I would tend to believe specifications published on the official Nissan website than I would a few words in a text message from who knows where?The problem of the reduction in GVM has been known for years,and can't be changed by a few words in a text message from an apparently unidentified individual.Any correspondence on a matter as important as this would surely be more plausible if it was on an official Nissan letterhead,or was able to be viewed on the Nissan website? "Provided as a guide to assist owners in managing their vehicle/axle loads at incremental towball download levels". What a lot of garbage.If the GVM is not affected,why would Nissan even bother posting relevant figures on the website,as doing so would only further confuse those amongst us who have little understanding of weights,surely? And saying that you are "able to apply the full 350kg download whilst the vehicle is loaded to GVM" is very convenient,but does not acknowledge the fact that the GVM has been reduced by 130kg,to 3370kg.If they published,on their website,that the FULL 3500kg was able to be used when a 350kg towball weight is applied,then it would have credibility.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Monday 28th of June 2021 07:22:04 PM

JackoFJR · Senior Member

Yep ok yobarr you stick to ya guns , you are the expert , I tried to get the full page sent to me but hasn't happened . It was a email sent to Nissan tech to clear up the confusion and that's the email he got in reply , I guess it could be a fake .

If everything on Nissans Web Site is 100% why do they list the GCM of the Y62 at 7000 Kg or is that accurate .

montie · Guru

Not many tug manufacturer's GCM ratings can be legally attained because of the restrictions of other ratings..the Patrol at 7000kg and Cruiser at 6850 kg are a couple of examples.
At the other end of the scale you have the dual cab crop with GCMs of 6000kg and spruiking 3500kg tow capacity.
GVM + GTM is usually the limiting factor.

yobarr · Guru

JackoFJR wrote:
Yep ok yobarr you stick to ya guns , you are the expert , I tried to get the full page sent to me but hasn't happened . It was a email sent to Nissan tech to clear up the confusion and that's the email he got in reply , I guess it could be a fake .

If everything on Nissans Web Site is 100% why do they list the GCM of the Y62 at 7000 Kg or is that accurate .

Ron,these towing capacities and GCM figures are indeed capable of being attained,but only with an absolutely perfectly loaded car,towing a DOG trailer with zero weight on the car's towbar,which can be achieved with a counter balanced drawbar on the trailer.Or you could do what this driver did,and have zero towball weight,as evidenced by the van being level,but no jockey wheel in place.. The resulting accident killed him and his family.Happy to explain the process of how towing capacities are calculated,but it all centres around a loaded vehicle's ability to proceed from a standing start on a set gradient, and continue to climb as that gradient gradually increases. This all is,IMHO, smoke and mirrors,designed to deceive those who have little understanding of weights and physics, which is how many relatively high-powered,lightweight twin-cab utes,have a rated towing capacity of 3500kg. Yeah,right! Such vehicles can never SAFELY tow much more than about 3100kg as a PIG trailer. (MOST Caravans) Hope this helps you? Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Tuesday 29th of June 2021 01:10:35 AM

Rob Driver · Guru

yobarr wrote:
JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker
Hmmm.Sorry,but I would tend to believe specifications published on the official Nissan website than I would a few words in a text message from who knows where?The problem of the reduction in GVM has been known for years,and can't be changed by a few words in a text message from an apparently unidentified individual.Any correspondence on a matter as important as this would surely be more plausible if it was on an official Nissan letterhead,or was able to be viewed on the Nissan website? "Provided as a guide to assist owners in managing their vehicle/axle loads at incremental towball download levels". What a lot of garbage.If the GVM is not affected,why would Nissan even bother posting relevant figures on the website,as doing so would only further confuse those amongst us who have little understanding of weights,surely? And saying that you are "able to apply the full 350kg download whilst the vehicle is loaded to GVM" is very convenient,but does not acknowledge the fact that the GVM has been reduced by 130kg,to 3370kg.If they published,on their website,that the FULL 3500kg was able to be used when a 350kg towball weight is applied,then it would have credibility.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Monday 28th of June 2021 07:22:04 PM

Hey yobarr,

I note that information provided on an official manufacturer's print out is accepted by you.WHEN IT SUITS your agenda in the topic.

Just cast your mind back a few months when Clarky1 did some great investigative research on the crap that you were quoting re the Tow Ball Weight and during his investigation he produced a document on the subject from HAYMAN REECE and you alluded to this official information as being incorrect.

Topic here so others have reference.

https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst

I repeat once again.you are not an expert and hold no qualifications to comment as you do,

I have asked this before, if you have qualifications and are holding out on us all, then just produce the documentation now.

Regards

Rob

montie · Guru

bentaxlebabe wrote:
yobarr wrote:
JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker
Hmmm.Sorry,but I would tend to believe specifications published on the official Nissan website than I would a few words in a text message from who knows where?The problem of the reduction in GVM has been known for years,and can't be changed by a few words in a text message from an apparently unidentified individual.Any correspondence on a matter as important as this would surely be more plausible if it was on an official Nissan letterhead,or was able to be viewed on the Nissan website? "Provided as a guide to assist owners in managing their vehicle/axle loads at incremental towball download levels". What a lot of garbage.If the GVM is not affected,why would Nissan even bother posting relevant figures on the website,as doing so would only further confuse those amongst us who have little understanding of weights,surely? And saying that you are "able to apply the full 350kg download whilst the vehicle is loaded to GVM" is very convenient,but does not acknowledge the fact that the GVM has been reduced by 130kg,to 3370kg.If they published,on their website,that the FULL 3500kg was able to be used when a 350kg towball weight is applied,then it would have credibility.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Monday 28th of June 2021 07:22:04 PM
Hey yobarr,
I note that information provided on an official manufacturer's print out is accepted by you.WHEN IT SUITS your agenda in the topic.
Just cast your mind back a few months when Clarky1 did some great investigative research on the crap that you were quoting re the Tow Ball Weight and during his investigation he produced a document on the subject from HAYMAN REECE and you alluded to this official information as being incorrect.
Topic here so others have reference.
https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst
I repeat once again.you are not an expert and hold no qualifications to comment as you do,
I have asked this before, if you have qualifications and are holding out on us all, then just produce the documentation now.
Regards
Rob

Ah yes, that was the disappearing ball weight thread where somebody suggested that fitting a HR WDH made the actual ball weight magically disappear! smile

That of course is rubbish, a WDH transfers the weight imposed on the rear axle to the front axle and a percentage to the van axles.

If the ball weight disappears there is nothing to transfer! smile smile

But as I posted earlier neither of these threads were about the subject, rather a campaign of one upmanship by a small group of posters trying to prove a point.

If you haven't got something intelligent or useful to contribute to a thread it is best not to post.

Winston Churchill once said..keep your mouth shut and people will think you are a fool...open it and they'll know it! smile

JackoFJR · Senior Member

Come on yobarr give it a rest that email from Nissan is 100% and all Y62's can have a 350kg ball weight and still be at Max GVM including the TBW , not that I think its a good idea .
The Nissan max GVM of 7T and Toyotas of 6.85T is ok because of all the perfectly balanced dog caravans out there that have no TBW , I might go see how many I have to choose from .

Every other 4x4 I have owned the GCM was a lot less by several hundred kg than just adding the max GVM and MAX towing together .

Rob Driver · Guru

montie wrote:
bentaxlebabe wrote:
yobarr wrote:
JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker
Hmmm.Sorry,but I would tend to believe specifications published on the official Nissan website than I would a few words in a text message from who knows where?The problem of the reduction in GVM has been known for years,and can't be changed by a few words in a text message from an apparently unidentified individual.Any correspondence on a matter as important as this would surely be more plausible if it was on an official Nissan letterhead,or was able to be viewed on the Nissan website? "Provided as a guide to assist owners in managing their vehicle/axle loads at incremental towball download levels". What a lot of garbage.If the GVM is not affected,why would Nissan even bother posting relevant figures on the website,as doing so would only further confuse those amongst us who have little understanding of weights,surely? And saying that you are "able to apply the full 350kg download whilst the vehicle is loaded to GVM" is very convenient,but does not acknowledge the fact that the GVM has been reduced by 130kg,to 3370kg.If they published,on their website,that the FULL 3500kg was able to be used when a 350kg towball weight is applied,then it would have credibility.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Monday 28th of June 2021 07:22:04 PM
Hey yobarr,
I note that information provided on an official manufacturer's print out is accepted by you.WHEN IT SUITS your agenda in the topic.
Just cast your mind back a few months when Clarky1 did some great investigative research on the crap that you were quoting re the Tow Ball Weight and during his investigation he produced a document on the subject from HAYMAN REECE and you alluded to this official information as being incorrect.
Topic here so others have reference.
https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst
I repeat once again.you are not an expert and hold no qualifications to comment as you do,
I have asked this before, if you have qualifications and are holding out on us all, then just produce the documentation now.
Regards
Rob
Ah yes, that was the disappearing ball weight thread where somebody suggested that fitting a HR WDH made the actual ball weight magically disappear!
That of course is rubbish, a WDH transfers the weight imposed on the rear axle to the front axle and a percentage to the van axles.
If the ball weight disappears there is nothing to transfer!
But as I posted earlier neither of these threads were about the subject, rather a campaign of one upmanship by a small group of posters trying to prove a point.
If you haven't got something intelligent or useful to contribute to a thread it is best not to post.
Winston Churchill once said..keep your mouth shut and people will think you are a fool...open it and they'll know it!

Really montie, I didn't think that I would have to post the Hayman Reece document.

In some ways this is a similar thread where some information was supported by an email or message from the manufacturer and was dismissed by the so called expert.

The Topic Here..

https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst

Back to this topic,

Yobarr started this topic with information that he knew full well would be disputed.

He then posts a pic of a 79 or similar with an obviously incorrectly tensioned WDH and then continues to post other pics which are more than likely completely out of context. They have no link to a source and one pic is nothing more than a cartoon.

His agenda is double in this topic. How good a fellow he is to be able to inform someone that they have wasted their money on a vehicle modification and the other is how a WDH does not help a 79 series. He posted this out of his weights forum to milk his attention seeking fetish.

It is from there that he has become a so called expert on Nissans.

Even when the communication received clearly has a Nissan Identification it is dismissed by yobarr as a comment from an unknown individual. (his words) He did the same thing in the WDH thread until Clarky posted the Hayman Reece document as proof of his communication with the manufacturer.

I think my request for proof of qualifications is intelligent and useful. At the moment as it stands yobarrs opinion is worth nothing when he continually disputes communication from manufacturers be it right or wrong..he is not qualified.

Regards

Rob

-- Edited by bentaxlebabe on Tuesday 29th of June 2021 08:08:44 AM

montie · Guru

bentaxlebabe wrote:
montie wrote:
bentaxlebabe wrote:
yobarr wrote:
JackoFJR wrote:
Here ya go yobarr the official reply from Nissan to the question of the reducing GVM with tow ball down for pre S5 Y62 Patrols even some of the first Y62's imported in to Australia had the same sticker
Hmmm.Sorry,but I would tend to believe specifications published on the official Nissan website than I would a few words in a text message from who knows where?The problem of the reduction in GVM has been known for years,and can't be changed by a few words in a text message from an apparently unidentified individual.Any correspondence on a matter as important as this would surely be more plausible if it was on an official Nissan letterhead,or was able to be viewed on the Nissan website? "Provided as a guide to assist owners in managing their vehicle/axle loads at incremental towball download levels". What a lot of garbage.If the GVM is not affected,why would Nissan even bother posting relevant figures on the website,as doing so would only further confuse those amongst us who have little understanding of weights,surely? And saying that you are "able to apply the full 350kg download whilst the vehicle is loaded to GVM" is very convenient,but does not acknowledge the fact that the GVM has been reduced by 130kg,to 3370kg.If they published,on their website,that the FULL 3500kg was able to be used when a 350kg towball weight is applied,then it would have credibility.Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Monday 28th of June 2021 07:22:04 PM
Hey yobarr,
I note that information provided on an official manufacturer's print out is accepted by you.WHEN IT SUITS your agenda in the topic.
Just cast your mind back a few months when Clarky1 did some great investigative research on the crap that you were quoting re the Tow Ball Weight and during his investigation he produced a document on the subject from HAYMAN REECE and you alluded to this official information as being incorrect.
Topic here so others have reference.
https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst
I repeat once again.you are not an expert and hold no qualifications to comment as you do,
I have asked this before, if you have qualifications and are holding out on us all, then just produce the documentation now.
Regards
Rob
Ah yes, that was the disappearing ball weight thread where somebody suggested that fitting a HR WDH made the actual ball weight magically disappear!
That of course is rubbish, a WDH transfers the weight imposed on the rear axle to the front axle and a percentage to the van axles.
If the ball weight disappears there is nothing to transfer!
But as I posted earlier neither of these threads were about the subject, rather a campaign of one upmanship by a small group of posters trying to prove a point.
If you haven't got something intelligent or useful to contribute to a thread it is best not to post.
Winston Churchill once said..keep your mouth shut and people will think you are a fool...open it and they'll know it!
Really montie, I didn't think that I would have to post the Hayman Reece document.
In some ways this is a similar thread where some information was supported by an email or message from the manufacturer and was dismissed by the so called expert.
The Topic Here..

https://thegreynomads.activeboard.com/t67499696/wdhs-verses-upgrades/?page=1&sort=oldestFirst

Even when the communication received clearly has a Nissan Identification it is dismissed by yobarr as a comment from an unknown individual. (his words)
I think my request for proof of qualifications is intelligent and useful. At the moment as it stands yobarrs opinion is worth nothing when he continually disputes communication from manufacturers be it right or wrong.he is not qualified.
Regards
Rob

Nissan's published specs clearly state a GVM reduction with increased ball weight and the HR website makes it clear that the ball weight does not change.

That's good enough for me so what is there about it that you guys cannot accept.

You don't need a master's degree to access that information...Nissan and HR publish that information for the benefit of their customers.

We were having a discussion about GCM's and for no good reason you have posted a link to a totally unrelated topic just to prove a point.

Rob Driver · Guru

I am sorry montie but my point is that any publication, be it on official manufacturers paperwork or as an email or sms message is discounted when it does not suit the *experts* view.
He is not qualified, or at the very least he has not shown anyone on here that he holds any qualifications apart from a degree in being able to google and his claim of a self appointed expert.

Yobarr was the OP, his post was to create the very thing that is now happening in this topic.

it feeds his *look at me, look at me* requirement. ( My view )

Regards

Rob

montie · Guru

bentaxlebabe wrote:
I am sorry montie but my point is that any publication, be it on official manufacturers paperwork or as an email or sms message is discounted when it does not suit the *experts* view.
He is not qualified, or at the very least he has not shown anyone on here that he holds any qualifications apart from a degree in being able to google and his claim of a self appointed expert.

Yobarr was the OP, his post was to create the very thing that is now happening in this topic.

it feeds his *look at me, look at me* requirement. ( My view )

Regards

Rob

Regardless of the OP's motivations, published information provided by both Nissan and HR support his arguments.

Maybe we should be playing the ball not the man.

If a txt message from an unknown employee whose status or qualifications are unknown serves to over ride the Nissan published specs then why would Nissan bother in the first instance.

I also can't help wondering why the published Nissan specs were questioned in the first instance by requesting such a response. Surely you would accept the official published info.

I know, from experience, that the majority of new van buyers have little or no understanding of weights and ratings and quite often rely on forums such as this one to access accurate information.

As dealers we would never recommend that a prospective vanner question van or tug manufacturers ratings. It's not a free for all and those ratings are set for a reason and they need to be clearly understood.