check out the new remote control Jockey Wheel SmartBar Salute Caravans Coolzy Portable Air Conditioners
Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Is this legal weight


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:
RE: Is this legal weight


malken wrote:

Hi there Yobar.
I just realised those figures I originally advised were for the Ford Everest, not the Ranger XLT that I want so are things better with these figures. What do you think?
GVM. 3280
Kerb weight 2130
GCM. 6400
Payload. 1150
Weight in vehicle
With 2 pax. 293
Van weight. 3400
TBW. 300

Cheers
Malcolm

Oops, looks like Are We Lost has already addressed this.


   Hi Malcolm,  As I posted in my 10.29pm of 20/11, a caravam of 3300kg ATM looks feasible, but that's TOP weight. 

Stephen has outlined a reasonable guide to the figures.FORGET anything over 3300kg ATM.

Don't be tempted to go "just a bit more" if encouraged by a salesman with ulterior motives, or by reading of those who tell of using a small car to tow 3500kg "over a million kilometres Mate. Just gotta drive to the conditions Mate". Yeah, right!

This is LaLa Land stuff, with such an "achievement" being more a result of good luck than of good driving.

Again, I applaud you for being so responsible with your weights. Cheers



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Date:

Further to Yobarr's words, and adding to my previous responses, I don't think there is any specific point that a rig suddenly switches from being safe to unsafe. I doubt that anyone would disagree that a vehicle towing a lightweight caravan would be a safer combinatiion than towing a heavier van (all other things being equal). So a Ford Ranger towing 2500kg would be safer than towing 3000kg. And a lot safer than towing 3300kg, let alone 3400kg.

I believe it is the sum of many things that determine the level of safety. All the following decrease safety to some extent:

  • Lower towball weight
  • Shorter wheelbases and/or longer towball overhang
  • Weight at either end of the van, particularly the rear
  • Nearing maximum ratings for axles, towball weights, etc
  • Excessive weight on tow vehicle rear wheels vs front wheels
  • Poor tow vehicle/towed weight ratio (the most critical)

All these are just my opinion. If one of those factors is at an undesirable level, then all the others need to make up for that. Others may have different ideas and accept differing levels of safety.

So, the first thing is to ensure the combination is legal. I believe the Ranger can squeeze in to do it legally. Currently the rules permit the van to be heavier than the tow vehicle. That is illogical when you can't do that once over 4500kg GVM, and such larger rigs would typically be driven by professional drivers.

So it comes down to level of safety you are prepared to accept. With the unladen weight of the Ranger being 2773kg as proposed (see workings in my post 21 Nov ... and see beow), that suggests a similar maximum weight for the van. The proposed combination (at the reduced 3300kg) would still have the van 527kg heavier than the Ranger. While it is not illegal at present I believe it should be.

In summary, I don't agree with Yobarr that 3300kg is reasonable. Put more weight into the Ranger and less into the van and it gets closer. But then you soon bump into the GVM limit. So in my opinion, the Ranger is not suitable for this van. For the record I am a Ranger owner (PX2 with a lower towing spec than the current V6).

Edit of my post 21 November (too late to edit and correct).

I realise that in my workings I fell into the trap of double counting the towball weight. Laden with the weights as calculated the V6 Ranger can legally tow 3400kg and even 3500kg, but that fact does not change the overall response that I consider it unsuitable.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Are We Lost wrote:

Further to Yobarr's words, and adding to my previous responses, I don't think there is any specific point that a rig suddenly switches from being safe to unsafe. I doubt that anyone would disagree that a vehicle towing a lightweight caravan would be a safer combinatiion than towing a heavier van (all other things being equal). So a Ford Ranger towing 2500kg would be safer than towing 3000kg .And a lot safer than towing 3300, let alone 3400kg.

I believe it is the sum of many things that determine the level of safety. All the following decrease safety to some extent:

  • Lower towball weight
  • Shorter wheelbases and/or longer towball overhang
  • Weight at either end of the van, particularly the rear
  • Nearing maximum ratings for axles, towball weights, etc
  • Excessive weight on tow vehicle rear wheels vs front wheels
  • Poor tow vehicle/towed weight ratio (the most critical)

All these are just my opinion. If one of those factors is at an undesirable level, then all the others need to make up for that. Others may have different ideas and accept differing levels of safety.

So, the first thing is to ensure the combination is legal. I believe the Ranger can squeeze in to do it legally. Currently the rules permit the van to be heavier than the tow vehicle. That is illogical when you can't do that once over 4500kg GVM, and such larger rigs would typically be driven by professional drivers.

So it comes down to level of safety you are prepared to accept. With the unladen weight of the Ranger being 2773kg as proposed (see workings in my post 21 Nov ... and see beow), that suggests a similar maximum weight for the van. The proposed combination (at the reduced 3300kg) would still have the van 527kg heavier than the Ranger. While it is not illegal at present I believe it should be.

In summary, I don't agree with Yobarr that 3300kg is reasonable. Put more weight into the Ranger and less into the van and it gets closer. But then you soon bump into the GVM limit. So in my opinion, the Ranger is not suitable for this van. For the record I am a Ranger owner (PX2 with a lower towing spec than the current V6).

Edit of my post 21 November (too late to edit and correct).

I realise that in my workings I fell into the trap of double counting the towball weight. Laden with the weights as calculated the V6 Ranger can legally tow 3400kg and even 3500kg, but that fact does not change the overall response that I consider it unsuitable.


 Hi Steve, Don't have a lot of time to go into detail, but I'd like to applaud you for the fact that you seem to have absorbed a lot of the info that I've posted in the last few years about weights, and for picking-up that you'd counted towball weight twice in your initial calculations. Excellent. Well done!

You will no doubt have noted that I said that "3300kg looks feasible, but that's TOP weight" and elsewhere I said "FORGET anything over 3300kg.

Definitely 3300kg ATM is pushing the limits a bit too far, but the figures are as follows. With a 3300kg van, assuming the generally accepted towball weight of 10% you'd have van with weight-on-wheels of 2970kg behind a car with the potential to have 3280kg on its wheels. 

Thus the weight on the wheels of the car is 10.4% greater than the weight on the wheels of the van.

Looks good? Problem is you'll NEVER get 3280kg on to the wheels of the car because the 330kg towball weight takes 150kg(+/-) OFF the car's front axle. Even with the use of the universally accepted cure-all WDH this weight can NEVER be returned without creating all sorts of other dramas, many of which I've previously covered,in detail, but don't have time to redo at this stage.

Oops, gotta go. Just got asked to do a load in Roadtrain, but I will iterate that 3300kg is TOP WEIGHT, and that weight is pushing the boundaries. Cheers



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1469
Date:

On a side note, I'm wondering how many caravans are available with say 3000kg ATM that have all the features and capabilities of one with 3400kg ATM? Aluminium frames, lighter torsion suspension etc. Resale would be easier also with many more vehicles capable of towing safely easily within weights. Tony

__________________

Be nice... if I wanted my school teacher here I would have invited him... 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Date:

Eaglemax wrote:

On a side note, I'm wondering how many caravans are available with say 3000kg ATM that have all the features and capabilities of one with 3400kg ATM? Aluminium frames, lighter torsion suspension etc. Resale would be easier also with many more vehicles capable of towing safely easily within weights. Tony


I agree and that is what I would be thinking of. I think the issue is that the van is already owned and to sell it and buy something less is not palatable. Hence the discussion on finding a suitable vehicle to tow it.  btw it's 3500kg ATM.

 

yobarr wrote:
....... you seem to have absorbed a lot of the info that I've posted in the last few years about weights, ...

 Ha ha. But jokes aside, we do mostly agree on weights issues .... just disagree on the benefits of WDH. What a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything.



-- Edited by Are We Lost on Sunday 26th of November 2023 04:46:17 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Are We Lost wrote:
Eaglemax wrote:

On a side note, I'm wondering how many caravans are available with say 3000kg ATM that have all the features and capabilities of one with 3400kg ATM? Aluminium frames, lighter torsion suspension etc. Resale would be easier also with many more vehicles capable of towing safely easily within weights. Tony


I agree and that is what I would be thinking of. I think the issue is that the van is already owned and to sell it and buy something less is not palatable. Hence the discussion on finding a suitable vehicle to tow it.  btw it's 3500kg ATM.

yobarr wrote:


....... you seem to have absorbed a lot of the info that I've posted in the last few years about weights, ...


 Ha ha. But jokes aside, we do mostly agree on weights issues .... just disagree on the benefits of WDH. What a boring world it would be if we all agreed on everything.


Yes Steve, it definitely would be a boring world! You certainly are entitled to your opinion on the use of a WDH, and sometimes, in moments of weakness, I wonder whether I should agree with you on some points, but I quickly come to my senses and realise that if I did that we'd both be wrong!!

To clarify my position on the usage of the universally accepted cure-it-all WDH I will iterate that such an apparatus is primarily used by those who do not understand weights and dynamics, but are trying to make a car do things for which it was not designed

As well as caravanners, this comment also relates to those manufacturers who recommend or dictate that a WDH should be used with their lightweight vehicles that simply are not up to the task of towing heavy loads as PIG trailers. Not negotiable.

          Get a BIGGER car or a smaller van.

However, a WDH may be useful if the caravan is of an appropriate size for the car. .. that is, the car has at least 10% more weight on its wheels than is on the wheels of the van it is towing, but the load in the rear of the car means that the rear-axle carrying capacity is exceeded. 

Assuming that the van is inside its ATM, and the weight on the van's wheels is within its axle carrying capacity, or its GTM, then a WDH may serve to transfer weight back to the car's front axle, along with the associated transfer of weight to the van's axle group.

Forget all the rot about measuring mudguard heights etc, as such theories are used only by those trying to justify their use of a WDH, with no consideration given to, among other things, the wheelbase of the car, towball overhang, or spring rates of the vehicle, all of which have a direct influence on how much the front of the car rises and the rear drops. So much for tape measures!

But it makes people feel better! 

Using a weighbridge gives much more accurate results, even allowing for the 20kg increments, but doing things at a weighbridge soon will show that a WDH transfers weight from the car's rear axle to both the car's front axle and the van's axle group.

In summary, a WDH may be useful in limited circumstances, but it is NOT the cure-it-all that many believe it to be. Cheers

 

9B61EF73-D498-41B5-87A0-000B10107C4D.jpeg

 



Attachments
__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Date:

Wonders will never cease. We are on pretty close agreement on what you have written there.

I agree a WDH is not always the best solution, and using one because your rig exceeds some limit is not good either. But in most cases where a vehicle is towing a heavy van (for that vehicle) and the rear end is sagging down, it helps a lot. But sagging down at the back is not the problem to fix. The sagging is a symptom. Fix the cause and the symptom goes away.
In the same way, measurements of height changes are just a visual guide for basic setup and tensioning. While those measurement give a pretty good guide of what is going on, it is only the actual weights that matter.

But Yobarr, please don't bring a discussion on WDH to every thread. I know I raised it first, but just a sentence. Not the thesis you like to write.

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Are We Lost wrote:

Wonders will never cease. We are on pretty close agreement on what you have written there.

I agree a WDH is not always the best solution, and using one because your rig exceeds some limit is not good either. But in most cases where a vehicle is towing a heavy van (for that vehicle) and the rear end is sagging down, it helps a lot. But sagging down at the back is not the problem to fix. The sagging is a symptom. Fix the cause and the symptom goes away.
In the same way, measurements of height changes are just a visual guide for basic setup and tensioning. While those measurement give a pretty good guide of what is going on, it is only the actual weights that matter.

But Yobarr, please don't bring a discussion on WDH to every thread. I know I raised it first, but just a sentence. Not the thesis you like to write.


 Nice comment Steve, but my reasons for writing what you kindly (?) refer to as a "thesis" are many fold.

Briefly, no matter how clearly and logically I explain facts there still are those who do not, cannot or will not understand, so I employed the benefits of rote learning, always understanding that there will be a certain number of individuals who flatly refuse to learn, but getting satisfaction from knowing that some will benefit.

When I first wrote that a tensioned WDH increases the weight of a van, I was shot down, abused and ridiculed from all angles, and by many senior members who also were members of the "Head in the Sand" brigade, but I persisted with the rote-learning method.

This has resulted in many members now understanding, and posting about, that exact process. Cheers

P.S Bit more than a sentence, but I hope that this is sufficiently condensed? 

39325394-556E-4305-9A07-143DA6F28C57.png



-- Edited by yobarr on Tuesday 28th of November 2023 05:58:00 PM

Attachments
__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1823
Date:

yobarr wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:

Wonders will never cease. We are on pretty close agreement on what you have written there.

I agree a WDH is not always the best solution, and using one because your rig exceeds some limit is not good either. But in most cases where a vehicle is towing a heavy van (for that vehicle) and the rear end is sagging down, it helps a lot. But sagging down at the back is not the problem to fix. The sagging is a symptom. Fix the cause and the symptom goes away.
In the same way, measurements of height changes are just a visual guide for basic setup and tensioning. While those measurement give a pretty good guide of what is going on, it is only the actual weights that matter.

But Yobarr, please don't bring a discussion on WDH to every thread. I know I raised it first, but just a sentence. Not the thesis you like to write.


 Nice comment Steve, but my reasons for writing what you kindly (?) refer to as a "thesis" are many fold.

Briefly, no matter how clearly and logically I explain facts there still are those who do not, cannot or will not understand, so I employed the benefits of rote learning, always understanding that there will be a certain number of individuals who flatly refuse to learn, but getting satisfaction from knowing that some will benefit.

When I first wrote that a tensioned WDH increases the weight of a van, I was shot down, abused and ridiculed from all angles, and by many senior members who also were members of the "Head in the Sand" brigade, but I persisted with the rote-learning method.

This has resulted in many members now understanding, and posting about, that exact process. Cheers

P.S Bit more than a sentence, but I hope that this is sufficiently condensed? 

39325394-556E-4305-9A07-143DA6F28C57.png



-- Edited by yobarr on Tuesday 28th of November 2023 05:58:00 PM


 With all due respect it is you who is depicted by the picture you have provided.

Your singular view is devoid of evidence, there is a massive weight of evidence that contradicts your view of the measurement method.

The measurement is widley accepted in the industry, and I for one fully support its use as the primary method, because without it how can you safely move to a weighbridge to confirm the settings are correct or some adjustment may be required.

trying to make a car do things for which it was not designed.

That statement is the biggest load of unsupported rubbish, call it what you like all it is your own personal opinion, devoid of any evidence.

I have noticed you have not made comment on my published weights in the Tech section, do your best.

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Online
Posts: 7286
Date:

Weight saving plans akin to 17 times before plus 1!

 



__________________

Procrastination, mankind's greatest labour saving device!

50L custom fuel rack 6x20W 100/20mppt 4x26Ah gel 28L super insulated fridge TPMS 3 ARB compressors heatsink fan cooled 4L tank aftercooler Air/water OCD cleaning 4 stage car acoustic insulation.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 4396
Date:

Brilliant post When.

Almost like, 12 x 12 = 144
11 x 11 = 132 ?

__________________

Cheers Craig



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Gundog wrote:

         Your singular view is devoid of evidence, there is a massive weight of evidence that contradicts your view of the measurement method.

The measurement is widley accepted in the industry, and I for one fully support its use as the primary method, because without it how can you safely move to a weighbridge to confirm the settings are correct or some adjustment may be required.


 Hi Graham, with reference to your comment that there is a "massive weight of evidence" could I respectfully point out to you that there is NO such "weight of evidence", and that the suggested measurement system merely is another example of a company catering to the lowesr common denominator, akin to the HR site's diagram of a WDH reducing towball weight to zero.

Simply to illustrate the veracity of my claims regarding the usage of this rubbish "measure the mudguards" method, taking things to extremes, let's assume that we have two vehicles, one being a vehicle with a wheelbase of 5 metres and a towball overhang of only 500mm, and the other being a vehicle with wheelbase of 2850mm and towball overhang of 1400mm.(Typical of one much-idolised car)

Now we fit both vehicles with a WDH, before applying a 350kg towball weight to each, and measure the height to mudguards of each.

When the WDH is tensioned the change of height to mudguards of the longer wheelbased vehicle will be neglible to nil, while the change in height to mudguards of the smaller vehicle may be 100mm(?) dependent on respective spring rates which I haven't even bothered discussing. Surely you can understand these facts? 

Simple physics, with levers being the influencing factor. 

There is little doubt that you have great faith in the "height to mudguard" method, and it may suit you well, but there is NO WAY that it is anything more than a rough  guide, at best.

It is far more effective to get your setup to a weighbridge and do things properly. Hope this helps?  Cheers

P.S Later today I will draw a couple of rough diagrams to illustrate my point, but I don't have pen and paper with me at present.

 

 



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Date:


Simply to illustrate the veracity of my claims



 Simple to repudiate.

The measurement method should not be used as the determining factor on whether a WDH should be used or not. The difference in measurements is what should be used as a starting point for setting up a WDH. In the case of a vehicle with very hard rear suspension with little movement, the visual sag would be minimal. But that does not mean a large amount of weight has not been lifted from the front wheels. But for a vehicle where there is substantial sag visible you can be pretty sure that is exactly what has happened. 

A short towball overhang is always better, but does not eliminate cases where a WDH should be used.

So a soft rear suspension may visibly highlight the need for WDH. A hard suspension will disguise that fact so you are less aware of the front/rear weight disparity. Some owners who install air bags or stiffer suspension are doing exactly that .... hiding it so it is out of sight and out of mind.

Errr, don't you have modified suspension on your LC79? Maybe you should have followed your own advice and bought a vehicle fit for purpose.

 



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Are We Lost wrote:

Simply to illustrate the veracity of my claims



 Simple to repudiate.

The measurement system should not be used as the determining factor on whether a WDH should be used or not. The difference in measurements is what should be used as a starting point for setting up a WDH. In the case of a vehicle with very hard rear suspension with little movement, the visual sag would be minimal. But that does not mean a large amount of weight has not been lifted from the front wheels. But for a vehicle where there is substantial sag visible you can be pretty sure that is exactly what has happened. 

A short towball overhang is always better, but does not eliminate cases where a WDH should be used.

So a soft rear suspension may visibly highlight the need for WDH. A hard suspension will disguise that fact so you are less aware of the front/rear weight disparity. Some owners who install air bags or stiffer suspension are doing exactly that .... hiding it so it is out of sight and out of mind.

Errr, don't you have modified suspension on your LC79? Maybe you should have followed your own advice and bought a vehicle fit for purpose.


 Your post actually agrees with my representations in that the measurement system is merely a guide that caters to the lowest common denominator, and it has so many variables that it is virtually worthless.

You suggest that a short TBO 'does not eliminate' cases where a WDH should be used. 

Surely you understand that a tensioned WDH returns weight to a car's front axle, but a short TBO means that there is little weight removed from that axle when towball weight is applied. Tensioning a WDH in these circumstances, with no real way to calculate weight transfer, can easily result in too much weight being removed from the car's rear axle, contributing to dangerous oversteer that few can competently control.

As I said earlier, a WDH can cause more problems than it solves, including an extra 40kg+  on the car's rear axle before tensioning, with the increased TBO multiplying that added weight. This also increases the effects of yaw, a major cause of caravans going RSup.

The point of my post above was merely to point out to Graham these variables, and the flaws in using the measurement system.

He is most certainly entitled to continue using this method, despite its many variables and deficiencies, but it certainly is not a method that would be relied upon by those of us who have any understanding of weights and dynamics. Cheers

P.S Although my LC79 has factory GVM of only 3300kg it does have factory axle ratings of 1480kg front and 2300kg rear. 

Simply combining those two figures allowed me to increase my GVM to 3780kg. Nothing compares or competes.

 

2E9CA0F1-F21C-4374-BF22-EBA900B1FEEA.png

 



-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 29th of November 2023 01:22:24 PM

Attachments
__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2807
Date:


 

2E9CA0F1-F21C-4374-BF22-EBA900B1FEEA.png

 





 Your ute may be legal, but feels like you are driving this.........smile

rusty-old-massey-ferguson-tractor-on-display-W665TP.jpg 



Attachments
__________________

Make it Snappy......Bob

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1008
Date:

yobarr wrote:
Surely you understand that a tensioned WDH returns weight to a car's front axle, but a short TBO means that there is little weight removed from that axle when towball weight is applied.

 I think you know that answer from my previous posts where I quoted the fornula to calculate it precisely.

Sometimes exaggeration helps to explain. This photo was pulled from the internet .... apparently snapped on Sydney's northern beaches.

Overloaded.jpg

Clearly way outside legal limits, but the principle remains. If an empty box trailer was attached, a WDH could then be fitted and used to reduce rear axle load and increase front axle load. Again, it is just to illustrate the principle. Towball overhang is not the only thing that drives poor weight distribution.

As for 40kg added to rear axle due to the WDH, so what? If it reduces rear axle weight while it increases front axle weight it has done its job. Just tension as needed. btw, my Andersen Hitch is much lighter than that. About 7kg heavier than the standard hitch, plus maybe 3-4kg for the drawbar brackets (did not remove them to weigh them). So maybe 10-11kg heavier than the standard hitch ... around 16kg added to rear axle .... but easily remove 100kg AND put most of that back onto the front axle. A double bonus.

 



-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 29th of November 2023 03:34:13 PM

Attachments
__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1823
Date:

yobarr wrote:
Gundog wrote:

         Your singular view is devoid of evidence, there is a massive weight of evidence that contradicts your view of the measurement method.

The measurement is widley accepted in the industry, and I for one fully support its use as the primary method, because without it how can you safely move to a weighbridge to confirm the settings are correct or some adjustment may be required.


 Hi Graham, with reference to your comment that there is a "massive weight of evidence" could I respectfully point out to you that there is NO such "weight of evidence", and that the suggested measurement system merely is another example of a company catering to the lowesr common denominator, akin to the HR site's diagram of a WDH reducing towball weight to zero.

Simply to illustrate the veracity of my claims regarding the usage of this rubbish "measure the mudguards" method, taking things to extremes, let's assume that we have two vehicles, one being a vehicle with a wheelbase of 5 metres and a towball overhang of only 500mm, and the other being a vehicle with wheelbase of 2850mm and towball overhang of 1400mm.(Typical of one much-idolised car)

Now we fit both vehicles with a WDH, before applying a 350kg towball weight to each, and measure the height to mudguards of each.

When the WDH is tensioned the change of height to mudguards of the longer wheelbased vehicle will be neglible to nil, while the change in height to mudguards of the smaller vehicle may be 100mm(?) dependent on respective spring rates which I haven't even bothered discussing. Surely you can understand these facts? 

Simple physics, with levers being the influencing factor. 

There is little doubt that you have great faith in the "height to mudguard" method, and it may suit you well, but there is NO WAY that it is anything more than a rough  guide, at best.

It is far more effective to get your setup to a weighbridge and do things properly. Hope this helps?  Cheers

P.S Later today I will draw a couple of rough diagrams to illustrate my point, but I don't have pen and paper with me at present.

 

 


 

So this is a case of your physics v WDH designers physics, secondarly you introduce towball overhang why, almost every different  model, manufacture has a different distance from the rear axle to the towball, I have yet to see any manufacture use towball overhang  as a calculation.

So if towball overhang is an important calculation, why is the drawbar length or rear overhang of a caravan an included calculation in setting up a caravan ?

You charge to measurement method used in setting up a WDH before you consider other factors like, if the manufacture requires the use of such a device or initial setup of a caravan and tow vehicle.

When connecting the two components a number actions must occur before it is completed, first with the caravan level you must establish the height of the towball now with the tow vehicle on a level surface you need to check the height of the towball coupling, with the coupling at the correct heights its ok to connect the components together, before doing so now is the time to take your measurements.

Measuring. Pick 2 points on the tow vehicle wheel arches are good starting points use masking tape as a good position refrence point, likewise with the caravan a point near the front and one at the rear. Record these heights and the connect the 2 parts together and then record the numbers, if there is only small changes then the use of a wdh is not requires unless it is mandated by the manufacture.

Setting up a WDH follow the manufacturers instructions, after that is complete you can now safely travel to a weighbridge to check everything is ok or make adjustments to make them ok.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Bobdown wrote:

 

2E9CA0F1-F21C-4374-BF22-EBA900B1FEEA.png

 


 Your ute may be legal, but feels like you are driving this.........smile

rusty-old-massey-ferguson-tractor-on-display-W665TP.jpg


 Hi Bob, you could well be right with your comment, but having learned to drive, and done many hours on that exact same model of tractor, the venerable Fergy 35, and having subsequently spent many years driving heavy trucks,the perceived lack of comfort is of little concern to me.

In the bush I'd much prefer to travel in a 79 and at least reach my destination than set out in a nice, comfortable buzz-box that is out of its depth and doesn't complete the journey. Horses for courses.

When I was searching for a suitable tow vehicle I spent much time trying the various twin-cab buzz-boxes, LC200, Ram 1500 and various other wannabe tow cars until I settled on the 79.

Nothing compares or competes if you wish to safely and legally tow a 3500kg caravan.Cheers.

P.S Any interest yet in your property?



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Gundog wrote:
 So this is a case of your physics v WDH designers physics, secondarly you introduce towball overhang why, almost every different  model, manufacture has a different distance from the rear axle to the towball, I have yet to see any manufacture use towball overhang  as a calculation.

So if towball overhang is an important calculation, why is the drawbar length or rear overhang of a caravan an included calculation in setting up a caravan ?

You charge to measurement method used in setting up a WDH before you consider other factors like, if the manufacture requires the use of such a device or initial setup of a caravan and tow vehicle.

When connecting the two components a number actions must occur before it is completed, first with the caravan level you must establish the height of the towball now with the tow vehicle on a level surface you need to check the height of the towball coupling, with the coupling at the correct heights its ok to connect the components together, before doing so now is the time to take your measurements.

Measuring. Pick 2 points on the tow vehicle wheel arches are good starting points use masking tape as a good position refrence point, likewise with the caravan a point near the front and one at the rear. Record these heights and the connect the 2 parts together and then record the numbers, if there is only small changes then the use of a wdh is not requires unless it is mandated by the manufacture.

Setting up a WDH follow the manufacturers instructions, after that is complete you can now safely travel to a weighbridge to check everything is ok or make adjustments to make them ok.


 Graham, you have either failed to read, failed to absorb, or are very conveniently forgetting, all the relevant information that I have supplied over many months relating to the use of a WDH, and the reasons that manufacturers may suggest or insist on their usage.

All the provided information is relevant, and is posted in an effort to help  buyers understand that,in most cases, a WDH is used only  in an effort to make a car do things for which it never was designed.

                          Get a BIGGER car or a smaller van.

However, your last sentence shows that at last you've realised the stupidity of using a tape measure to set up a WDH. Well done!

There are waaay too many variables for this method to be even remotely useful.

As I said earler, such techniques are likely promoted by manufacturers to cater to the lowest common denominator, those people with ZERO understanding of weights and dynamics. Your previous posts suggest that you are not one of those people?

But thanks for your thoughts. Cheers.



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2807
Date:

 


 Hi Bob, you could well be right with your comment, but having learned to drive, and done many hours on that exact same model of tractor, the venerable Fergy 35, and having subsequently spent many years driving heavy trucks,the perceived lack of comfort is of little concern to me.

In the bush I'd much prefer to travel in a 79 and at least reach my destination than set out in a nice, comfortable buzz-box that is out of its depth and doesn't complete the journey. Horses for courses.

When I was searching for a suitable tow vehicle I spent much time trying the various twin-cab buzz-boxes, LC200, Ram 1500 and various other wannabe tow cars until I settled on the 79.

Nothing compares or competes if you wish to safely and legally tow a 3500kg caravan.Cheers.

P.S Any interest yet in your property?


 Yobarr, would rather drive my ride-on-mower than your ute, would not have one even if you gave me one and heaven forbid that I would put Eddie in the back either.

 Still in Mount Barker at the moment. cheers Merry Xmas

IMG_5180.JPG 

 



Attachments
__________________

Make it Snappy......Bob

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

Bobdown wrote:

 Yobarr, would rather drive my ride-on-mower than your ute, would not have one even if you gave me one and heaven forbid that I would put Eddie in the back either.

 Still in Mount Barker at the moment. cheers Merry Xmas


Bob, having driven both cars I can agree that the LC200 is a big, powerful, luxurious car that holds its value well, but when it comes to towing ability the LC79 stands alone. I'd rather be safe, legal and insured than be caught in an over-rated show pony!

Trying to safely tow 3500kg with an LC200 is LaLa Land stuff, despite that model being held in cult status by those who have only limited understanding of weights, and may have been influenced by the spiel of some mealy-mouthed salesman whose only real interest is flogging a vehicle to anyone who'll buy it. Unconscionable conduct, or merely ignorance on their part? I'm not sure. 

Anyway, enough of that. Merry Xmas to you, Jayne and Eddie. Cheers



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2807
Date:

yobarr wrote:

Bob, having driven both cars I can agree that the LC200 is a big, powerful, luxurious car that holds its value well, but when it comes to towing ability the LC79 stands alone. I'd rather be safe, legal and insured than be caught in an over-rated show pony!

Trying to safely tow 3500kg with an LC200 is LaLa Land stuff, despite that model being held in cult status by those who have only limited understanding of weights, and may have been influenced by the spiel of some mealy-mouthed salesman whose only real interest is flogging a vehicle to anyone who'll buy it. Unconscionable conduct, or merely ignorance on their part? I'm not sure. 

Anyway, enough of that. Merry Xmas to you, Jayne and Eddie. Cheers


 Never have towed 3500kg, never want to.     So for towing 3000kg, what would you choose, comfort or a bad back?

Not everyone has a stupidly heavy van, although they are over the top with Off-road models, there are plenty of good vans under 3,000kg and plenty of experienced Nomads that have driven 000's of k's with their choice of vehicle safely. 

You don't have to be at your GCM when travelling and not be able to fill your water tanks for fear of being overweight.

So stop trying to preach the 3500kg safely as a pig trailer all the time. Try to advise someone who tows in the 2800 -3000kg range.

Enough from me also..cheers



__________________

Make it Snappy......Bob

 



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1210
Date:

Bobdown wrote:
yobarr wrote:

Bob, having driven both cars I can agree that the LC200 is a big, powerful, luxurious car that holds its value well, but when it comes to towing ability the LC79 stands alone. I'd rather be safe, legal and insured than be caught in an over-rated show pony!

Trying to safely tow 3500kg with an LC200 is LaLa Land stuff, despite that model being held in cult status by those who have only limited understanding of weights, and may have been influenced by the spiel of some mealy-mouthed salesman whose only real interest is flogging a vehicle to anyone who'll buy it. Unconscionable conduct, or merely ignorance on their part? I'm not sure. 

Anyway, enough of that. Merry Xmas to you, Jayne and Eddie. Cheers


 Never have towed 3500kg, never want to.     So for towing 3000kg, what would you choose, comfort or a bad back?

Not everyone has a stupidly heavy van, although they are over the top with Off-road models, there are plenty of good vans under 3,000kg and plenty of experienced Nomads that have driven 000's of k's with their choice of vehicle safely. 

You don't have to be at your GCM when travelling and not be able to fill your water tanks for fear of being overweight.

So stop trying to preach the 3500kg safely as a pig trailer all the time. Try to advise someone who tows in the 2800 -3000kg range.

Enough from me also..cheers


A very fair and reasonable comment. The big vans are out there, but far more people tow in the range from 2200kg(larger pop top) to the 2900/3000 range and information about that would be more useful for more people, based on my years of observation around the country.



__________________

Regards Ian

 

Chaos, mayhem, confusion. Good my job here is done



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5417
Date:

TheHeaths wrote:
Bobdown wrote:
yobarr wrote:

Bob, having driven both cars I can agree that the LC200 is a big, powerful, luxurious car that holds its value well, but when it comes to towing ability the LC79 stands alone. I'd rather be safe, legal and insured than be caught in an over-rated show pony!

Trying to safely tow 3500kg with an LC200 is LaLa Land stuff, despite that model being held in cult status by those who have only limited understanding of weights, and may have been influenced by the spiel of some mealy-mouthed salesman whose only real interest is flogging a vehicle to anyone who'll buy it. Unconscionable conduct, or merely ignorance on their part? I'm not sure. 

Anyway, enough of that. Merry Xmas to you, Jayne and Eddie. Cheers


 Never have towed 3500kg, never want to.     So for towing 3000kg, what would you choose, comfort or a bad back?

Not everyone has a stupidly heavy van, although they are over the top with Off-road models, there are plenty of good vans under 3,000kg and plenty of experienced Nomads that have driven 000's of k's with their choice of vehicle safely. 

You don't have to be at your GCM when travelling and not be able to fill your water tanks for fear of being overweight.

So stop trying to preach the 3500kg safely as a pig trailer all the time. Try to advise someone who tows in the 2800 -3000kg range.

Enough from me also..cheers


A very fair and reasonable comment. The big vans are out there, but far more people tow in the range from 2200kg(larger pop top) to the 2900/3000 range and information about that would be more useful for more people, based on my years of observation around the country.


 While your comments are acknowledged, along with those made by Bob, it would be impossible for me to give towing advice for every possible towing combination, in isolation.

This is why I centre my advice around the 3500kg Claimed Maximum towing capacity of the majority of vehicles that I encounter on my travels, but ALWAYS I am happy to offer advice and assistance to any member who asks about any vehicle, or any circumstance.

You no doubt understand that it would take me years to supply accurate figures for EVERY combination?

Happy to supply help to those who tow vans in the 2200 to 2800-3000kg range, but generally people towing these sizes have not been subjected to the "Smoke and mirrors" sales tactics employed by many sales people, and are not so likely to have trouble with their weights.,

Contrary to your observations my experience is that vast numbers of caravanners are towing BIG vans that are way beyond the safe  towing capacity of their cars, particularly the GCM and the rear-axle capacity. 

And don't these people get indignant, and sometimes aggressive, when their weights are questioned in general conversation.

"Done a million klicks round the country Mate. No worries. Just gotta drive to the conditions Mate". Yeah, right. Cheers

Here is an example of a seriously overloaded car whose owner didn't give two hoots.

We can help only those who want to be helped.

E2B1BF81-1BD6-411A-A76A-C392C2CA7FFA.png



-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 29th of November 2023 09:56:07 PM

Attachments
__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1335
Date:

Aaaagh...the kitchen sink camper, to be avoided at all costs. Saw quite a few of those around Denmark last summer, most of the towing vehicles being lightweight twin cabs with the long TBO.

__________________

I reserve the right to arm bears :)



Newbie

Status: Offline
Posts: 2
Date:

It worries me when people start looking for legality by playing with a few kilos here and there. Worries because I may be the one coming the other way when it goes pear-shaped.

I'm on the side of the Caravan Association, a vehicle should be significantly heavier than the unit being towed(amongst other pertinent issues). Period. Being close to the legal limit doesn't take into account the myriad things that can go wrong... poor conditions, bad roads (lucky we have none of them in Australia!), other people being idiots etc...

The other part is the nature of people to underestimate or ignore. A few more items won't make much difference, We need spotlights. Maybe a winch is a good idea. Bikes on the back of the van? Everything was weighed (before the fishing, camping, playing paraphernalia was added).

I'd look very carefully at the van accidents around the sites. It doesn't have to be you who behaves like an idiot for your trip to end up badly.

Peace of mind comes from having options. Being close to the limits reduces or even removes them.

Cheers,

Mark

__________________

  Mark  



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 8415
Date:

Welcome to the Forum Anthony. A lot of wise words.

__________________

Possum; AKA:- Ali El-Aziz Mohamed Gundawiathan

Sent from my imperial66 typewriter using carrier pigeon, message sticks and smoke signals.

«First  <  1 2 | Page of 2  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
Purchase Grey Nomad bumper stickers Read our daily column, the Nomad News The Grey Nomad's Guidebook