Towing a 30' 5th wheel with a Toyota Tundra?
Joshua McGee
Pardon me for barging in.
I would like to tow a 29.5' Fleetwood Savannah 5th wheel. I would
ideally like to do so with a Toyota pickup. Does anyone have a sense
of whether the 2002 Tundra, with either the V6 or V8 engine, would be
beefy enough? The truck has stellar reviews on ConsumerReports --
hence the question.
In my research, there seems to be a suggestion that towing a 5th wheel
should be easier than towing a travel trailer, due to weight
distribution. How much easier? I don't know. Maybe this group does.
Cordially,
--
Joshua McGee
http://www.mcgees.org
Steve Barker
Not NO but HELL NO.. Get a real (american built) truck. At least a 3/4 ton
if not a one ton dually.
s
"Joshua McGee" <joshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5dcaaa9-7a12-41bc...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
Joshua McGee
wrote:
> Provided you're not a troll.... Here's your answer...
>
> Not NO but HELL NO.. Get a real (american built) truck. At least a 3/4 ton
> if not a one ton dually.
No, no trolling intended. I honestly didn't know it was a stupid
question.
Would you be so kind as to recommend makes and models?
- Joshua McGee
http://www.mcgees.org
Steve
Check http://www.trailerlife.com/images/downloads/02towingguide.pdf for
vehicle tow ratings. Then, take the listed weight of the 5th wheel and add
15%. If 80% of the tow rating isn't larger than weight+15%, don't be
surprised if your first time towing doesn't end up on YouTube.
Steve
"Joshua McGee" <joshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f5dcaaa9-7a12-41bc...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
RAMł
news:f5dcaaa9-7a12-41bc...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
First things first:
1. When considering a tow vehicle, first find the GVWR [Gross Vehicle Weight
Rating] of the intended trailer. Use this number for the weight to be towed.
2. Find the GAWR [Gross Axle Weight Rating] for the trailer's axles. This
may be rated per axle or for all axles. Use the combined total (ie. 2 axles
@ 6,000 pounds/axle = 12,000 pounds) to determine the GAWR if the
manufacturer doesn't list one.
3. For a Fifth-Wheel, subtract the GAWR from the GVWR to determine the
probable Pin Weight. The Pin Weight is the amount of the trailer's GVWR that
the tow vehicle is expected to support and is usually - but not allways -
25% of the trailer's GVWR.
4. Multiply each of these numbers by 1.2 to provide a "safety margin".
These numbers are necessary *before* looking for the vehicle if the trailer
is already owned.
Tow vehicle selection:
5. Look for a vehicle that is rated to provide
a. Adequate load carrying capacity to support the adjusted Pin Weight
plus 1,000 pounds of people, cargo, etc.
b. Has a Tow Rating that exceeds the adjusted GVWR of the trailer. [Tow
Ratings are available both from the
manufacturer and on the Trailer Life website.
http://www.trailerlife.com
6. Verify that the tow vehicle's RAWR [Rear Axle Weight Rating] will not be
exceeded by the adjusted Pin Weight.
7. Always keep in mind that the ratings are optimistic propaganda supplied
by the manufacturers' PR departments.
8. Verify that the tow vehicle's GCWR [Gross Combined Weight Rating] is not
exceeded by the sum of the two
vehicles' GVWRs. [Note: Check with your state's Motor Vehicle
enforcers to see if you may require a
license upgrade for the combination.]
9. Select a Fifth-Wheel hitch that is rated for a higher weight than the
adjusted GVWR of the trailer. (You don't want it to break if you're "a tad"
overloaded.) If the tow vehicle does not have an 8' bed then a sliding hitch
mount should be selected.
Hopefully, following these steps may help you avoid several common problems.
10. When considering a used vehicle (either a tow or a towed vehicle), be
prepared to replace the tires.
Steve Barker
FORD
DODGE
CHEVY / GMC
no particular order.
depends on if you don't care about resale value, creature comforts, or just
a good all around workhorse.
you have to decide for yourself which one is which.
"Joshua McGee" <joshu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cedd503d-f5a9-4526...@g3g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
nada
look at what they are pulling with. Talk with a couple of the folks.
You will be most happy with a Dualie Diesel Pickup. It will track like a
train on tracks pulling a fifth wheel. You can put it on cruise and keep
on trucking up most grades. My last Dualie was an 05 Ford pulling a 32
ft Alumiscape.
Joshua McGee
> "Joshua McGee" <joshuamc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f5dcaaa9-7a12-41bc...@g39g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Hello,
>
> > Pardon me for barging in.
>
> > I would like to tow a 29.5' Fleetwood Savannah 5th wheel.
> 1. When considering a tow vehicle, first find the GVWR [Gross Vehicle Weight
> Rating] of the intended trailer. Use this number for the weight to be towed.
This is all *exceedingly* helpful. Thank you. I feel somewhat
foolish now as this seems like the sort of question I could have
answered online / at a library. Problem was, as is frequent in these
cases, that I didn't know what questions to ask to get a technical
answer. Thank you.
Thank you also to nada, both for the specific recommendation and the
recommendation of how to get further advice.
Regards,
Steve Barker
opinion. You'd have to tow a half million miles to ever make it pay off for
the price of the option to begin with, the extra fuel cost and the higher
maintainence costs.
steve
"nada" <@wild.il> wrote in message news:ycW5l.3122$u17....@newsfe20.iad...
nada
Gas engine pullers lack a lot. The power and reliability isn't there.
It cost more now especially with the rigged price of diesel. There's
reasons why most, of the pullers, at campgrounds are diesel as well
pulling Semis. I've owned both and wouldn't go back.I've got a dp now. I
don't believe I want a gas engine trying to push 60,000 lbs. I've got a
gas p/u now and have had quite a few visits to the Dealer. Son as I find
the right deal I'm getting another diesel country Cadillac even if I
don't pull a thing.
Dave D
Regards,
Don't feel bad. There is no such thing as a foolish or dumb question. In
addition to the good responses you have gotten I would like to add this -
towing weight and pulling power are important considerations but of equal
importance is the ability to stop your rig. Consider not just the stopping
distance but what effect is the towed vehicle going to have on your towing
vehicle.
Dave D
Steven Vaughan
> Don't feel bad. There is no such thing as a foolish or dumb question. In
> addition to the good responses you have gotten I would like to add this -
> towing weight and pulling power are important considerations but of equal
> importance is the ability to stop your rig. Consider not just the stopping
> distance but what effect is the towed vehicle going to have on your towing
> vehicle.
>
> Dave D
Great point, Dave. We tow a ~5000 lb (loaded) ultralight 24.5 ft TT with our
1/2 ton Suburban, and even though we are well under our capacity with room
to spare, I couldn't imagine towing anything larger without a
long-wheelbase, heavy, and powerful vehicle. The braking system on most of
the "standard" 1/2 ton vehicles just isn't up to the task of safely &
reliably stopping a towed combo. My next tow vehicle will be 3/4 ton
minimum, long-wheelbase, and preferably a diesel for torque and longevity.
Most folks concentrate on the ability to "go" via horsepower & torque, while
not factoring in the ability to "stop" & "manuever" via oversized braking
system, long wheelbase, HD suspension, and TV weight & capacity. The first
time they are caught on a rainy, windy day being passed by a semi coming
over the line they will have a moment of clarity. Just because the ratings
say you "can" doesn't necessarily mean you "should".
Steve Barker
really shouldn't notice any difference in braking with the trailer as
without. My truck/trailer combo actually stops better than the truck does
by itself.
s
"Steven Vaughan" <s...@doubletrouble.net> wrote in message
news:E777l.16550$ZP4....@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
Will
<railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>as for the braking, the trailer brakes should take care of the trailer. You
>really shouldn't notice any difference in braking with the trailer as
>without. My truck/trailer combo actually stops better than the truck does
>by itself.
I have seen this claim made repeatedly, and though I think it is made
in good faith, it simply can't be objectively true. It is nearly
impossible with known technology to get precisely balanced braking
force between tow vehicle and trailer - and without near-perfect
balance one can't even show _equal_ stopping distance.
Brakes are fine on trailers, and do in fact drmatically reduce
stopping distance compared to no trailer brakes. But they will NOT
improve compared to the same vehicle not towing.
Will Sill - think about this:
The veracity of an idea is not determined by how many
people agree with it - but by truth.
Steve Barker
"Will" <wi...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:8vjql4t8v6o4vnaug...@4ax.com...
Dave D
"Steve Barker" <railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:yLmdnTzfforYp8DU...@giganews.com...
> as for the braking, the trailer brakes should take care of the trailer.
> You really shouldn't notice any difference in braking with the trailer as
> without. My truck/trailer combo actually stops better than the truck does
> by itself.
Actually, this is true only in a perfect world, not in reality. If your
combo stops better than the truck alone, you are using your towed vehicle's
brakes to stop the whole rig not what they were intended to do. This may
work fine now but trailer brakes are not the most reliable and have a
propensity for fading. However, if you feel comfortable with the situation -
gopher it!!! I still maintain that braking control is just as important as
power and weight considerations but more often ignored.
DaveD
Steve Barker
manifests itself with the gear heads with the 400+ horsepower cars with 4
drum brakes.
seen it a hundred times. car can run 11 second quarter miles, but takes
another half mile to stop.
s
"Dave D" <dtdo...@acsalaska.net> wrote in message
news:495d8373$1...@news.acsalaska.net...
JD
>Brakes are fine on trailers, and do in fact drmatically reduce
>stopping distance compared to no trailer brakes. But they will NOT
>improve compared to the same vehicle not towing.
I can't agree, Will. If you have more braking power (pad surface) per
weight unit with the trailer, then you might see a small improvement
is stopping power. After all, isn't braking force is a function or,
among others, braking surface area/mass velocity of package
(momentum)?
In physics terms, MV vs. Friction (MV = Mass times Velocity).
--
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
Will
Will:
>>Brakes are fine on trailers, and do in fact drmatically reduce
>>stopping distance compared to no trailer brakes. But they will NOT
>>improve compared to the same vehicle not towing.
JD:
>I can't agree, Will. If you have more braking power (pad surface) per
>weight unit with the trailer, then you might see a small improvement
>is stopping power. After all, isn't braking force is a function or,
>among others, braking surface area/mass velocity of package
>(momentum)?
>
>In physics terms, MV vs. Friction (MV = Mass times Velocity).
Pad surface area is only one of dozens of factors affecting stopping
ability. If you're talking about theory, we can argue all day and at
the end know nothing. But under _real world conditions_ trailer
brakes are almost never perfectly balanced vs the tow vehicle. Even
if they were perfect under a specific narrow set of circumstances,
you're simply not going to get predictably SHORTER stopping distance
hauling any practical trailer.
I suppose it might be possible to engineer a special trailer whose
stopping capability vs it's own weight was actually superior to a
given tow vehicle. But in the rv world trailer brakes and
controllers simply ain't that good.
JD
>>
>>In physics terms, MV vs. Friction (MV = Mass times Velocity).
>
>Pad surface area is only one of dozens of factors affecting stopping
>ability. If you're talking about theory, we can argue all day and at
>the end know nothing. But under _real world conditions_ trailer
>brakes are almost never perfectly balanced vs the tow vehicle. Even
>if they were perfect under a specific narrow set of circumstances,
>you're simply not going to get predictably SHORTER stopping distance
>hauling any practical trailer.
>
>I suppose it might be possible to engineer a special trailer whose
>stopping capability vs it's own weight was actually superior to a
>given tow vehicle. But in the rv world trailer brakes and
>controllers simply ain't that good.
>
>Will Sill - think about this:
>The veracity of an idea is not determined by how many
>people agree with it - but by truth.
>
>
Ok, let's try this. If the trailer brakes are gripping and actually
causing slowing to the entire system tow (vehicle + toad) then when
the tow vehicle brakes are applied, that frictional force is added to
the toad braaking force. IF, the total braking force is > than that
needed to stop each individually, then the stopping force is greater
than each. It really has nothing to do with balance as I see it. You
actually don't want the trailer brakes to stop just the trailer, but
up want it to cause drag (braking force) to the tow vehicle as well.
That braking force of the tow vehicle plus the drag caused by the toad
brakes will slow the tow vehicle faster than it could on its own? The
toad is, at that point, not pushing on the tow vehicle, right?
Where am I wrong in my thinking?
RAMł
news:ar6tl4pe6i579onvm...@4ax.com...
You're assuming a non-existant situation - ie., that the trailer's brakes
are adequate to do more than just slow down the trailer itself under
fully-loaded conditions. [IOW, at the trailer's GVW.]
While OTR trailers *may* be equipped with such brakes, RV towables simply
don't come that way from the factory. Instead, they come with narrow-shoe
drum brakes that are highly limited in the amount of force that can be
applied to the skinny shoes by wimpy electromagnets.
Air/Hydraulic and Electric/Hydraulic systems can do what you propose as can
a pure Hydraulic system *So Long As* adequate drums/discs and shoes/pads are
configured and installed.
That's where you went wrong in your thinking. <G>
Dave D
> Ok, let's try this. If the trailer brakes are gripping and actually
> causing slowing to the entire system tow (vehicle + toad) then when
> the tow vehicle brakes are applied, that frictional force is added to
> the toad braaking force. IF, the total braking force is > than that
> needed to stop each individually, then the stopping force is greater
> than each. It really has nothing to do with balance as I see it. You
> actually don't want the trailer brakes to stop just the trailer, but
> up want it to cause drag (braking force) to the tow vehicle as well.
> That braking force of the tow vehicle plus the drag caused by the toad
> brakes will slow the tow vehicle faster than it could on its own? The
> toad is, at that point, not pushing on the tow vehicle, right?
>
> Where am I wrong in my thinking?
> --
>
> $$$$$$$$$%%
> Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
One flaw in the logic. When the towed brakes only are stopping the whole
combination a certain drag is applied to the towing vehicle - you are
correct to this point. However, when the towing vehicle's brakes are
applied, the braking force of the towed vehicle on the towing vehicle is
reduced by n amount. Therefore, the total braking force is somewhat less
than the total of the braking force of the two vehicles. I think???
DaveD
Will
Will:
>>I suppose it might be possible to engineer a special trailer whose
>>stopping capability vs it's own weight was actually superior to a
>>given tow vehicle. But in the rv world trailer brakes and
>>controllers simply ain't that good.
JD:
>Ok, let's try this. If the trailer brakes are gripping and actually
>causing slowing to the entire system tow (vehicle + toad) then when
>the tow vehicle brakes are applied, that frictional force is added to
>the toad braaking force. IF, the total braking force is > than that
>needed to stop each individually, then the stopping force is greater
>than each. It really has nothing to do with balance as I see it. You
>actually don't want the trailer brakes to stop just the trailer, but
>up want it to cause drag (braking force) to the tow vehicle as well.
>That braking force of the tow vehicle plus the drag caused by the toad
>brakes will slow the tow vehicle faster than it could on its own? The
>toad is, at that point, not pushing on the tow vehicle, right?
>
>Where am I wrong in my thinking?
You've identified the problem yourself, no doubt unintentonally.
:You actually don't want the trailer brakes to stop just the trailer, but
:(you) want it to cause drag (braking force) to the tow vehicle as well.
What you "want" isn't available in the real world. If a typical rv
trailer had MORE braking ability (pound for pound) than your tow
vehicle (good luck on that) then all you'd know from that is that your
tow vehicle brakes are lousy.
Stopping distance is affected by many factors, NOT just weight (mass)
and braking surface. A key issue is traction, and virtually all
trailer tires will deliver less braking traction (friction) than your
tow vehicle - not to mention the inability of brake controllers to
_exactly_ match tow vehicle brake application. Too little trailer
brake means the trailers is pushing; too much means the tires are
sliding and she's pushing you. Either way you're screwed.
I have yet to see credible test results demonstrating a combination
being able to stop _faster_ than a solo tow vehicle with correctly
functioning brakes.
Will Sill sez:
Bailout w/o oversight = Insanity
Bailout + oversight = seizure
Seizure = Nationalizing = Communism
JD
wrote:
>
>You're assuming a non-existant situation - ie., that the trailer's brakes
>are adequate to do more than just slow down the trailer itself under
>fully-loaded conditions. [IOW, at the trailer's GVW.]
>
>While OTR trailers *may* be equipped with such brakes, RV towables simply
>don't come that way from the factory. Instead, they come with narrow-shoe
>drum brakes that are highly limited in the amount of force that can be
>applied to the skinny shoes by wimpy electromagnets.
>
>Air/Hydraulic and Electric/Hydraulic systems can do what you propose as can
>a pure Hydraulic system *So Long As* adequate drums/discs and shoes/pads are
>configured and installed.
>
>That's where you went wrong in your thinking. <G>
Well, When I had my 5er, if I manually applied the trailer brakes, I
noticed a substantial drag on the pickup. When My SIL applies the
trailer brakes on his toy hauler, he says he notices a dramatic drag
on his truck. When I had my old (1982) Apache tent trailer, I
couldn't tell any difference when I manually applied the trailer
brakes. That was then, this is now.
The first two tests indicate the brakes are able to provide drag
which, I take to mean they are more than adequate. In fact, one time
I used my 5er brakes to stop the combo (from about 20MPH to 0). Of
course, it took a long distance but it did stop me. Therefore, the
trailer brakes MUST be able to contribute to the total braking
friction.
JD
wrote:
>
>One flaw in the logic. When the towed brakes only are stopping the whole
>combination a certain drag is applied to the towing vehicle - you are
>correct to this point. However, when the towing vehicle's brakes are
>applied, the braking force of the towed vehicle on the towing vehicle is
>reduced by n amount. Therefore, the total braking force is somewhat less
>than the total of the braking force of the two vehicles. I think???
>
>DaveD
>
Tell me, if, when you apply brakes, both tow veh and toad, if properly
adjusted, the toad does NOT bump up against the TV (push). Each unit
is breaking independently until the toad actually begins pulling
against the hitch. That indicates additional braking power from the
toad. I think??? 8^,
JD
>too much means the tires are
>sliding and she's pushing you.
If that were the case, then the trailer would be pressing against the
hitch. Such is not the case. When the trailer brakes are locked on a
frictional surface, it still provides drag to the tow veh. All of
this presumes a friction surface, not glare ice.
By the way, braking is all friction, friction against the brake pads,
friction from tires to road. wind friction, etc.
I don't want the brakes TV-Toad balanced. I want the toad brakes
causing as much drag on the TV as possible, within reason, of course.
I don't want to burn flat spots on the toad tires every time I hit the
brakes.
Will
>I don't want the brakes TV-Toad balanced. I want the toad brakes
>causing as much drag on the TV as possible, within reason, of course.
>I don't want to burn flat spots on the toad tires every time I hit the
>brakes.
Your trailer brakes can and indeed should produce drag on the tow
vehicle when applied without hitting the tow vehicle brakes. But when
you DO hit the TV brakes, the trailer brakes ain't slowing you
faster/quicker unless they are MUCH more effective pound for pound
than your TV brakes. Trust me that yer truck can stop faster with no
trailer back there.
But since you are not convinced by mere words, I urge you to conduct a
simple experiment to settle the question in your mind.
Take your tow vehicle (solo) to a convenient place and _accurately_
measure the stopping distance from a given speed. Go back and hook up
any trailer of your choice. Now at the same location at the same
speed, measure stopping distance again.
Trust me, if the combination truly stops shorter, your tow vehicle
brakes are not doing the job.
Will - The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
RAMł
> Well, When I had my 5er, if I manually applied the trailer brakes, I
> noticed a substantial drag on the pickup. When My SIL applies the
> trailer brakes on his toy hauler, he says he notices a dramatic drag
> on his truck. When I had my old (1982) Apache tent trailer, I
> couldn't tell any difference when I manually applied the trailer
> brakes. That was then, this is now.
>
> The first two tests indicate the brakes are able to provide drag
> which, I take to mean they are more than adequate. In fact, one time
> I used my 5er brakes to stop the combo (from about 20MPH to 0). Of
> course, it took a long distance but it did stop me. Therefore, the
> trailer brakes MUST be able to contribute to the total braking
> friction.
If the combined rig isn't capable of being stopped within the same distance
that the unladen tow vehicle can be stopped *under full braking* -
including the use of engine/Jake brake (if so equipped) - then the
trailer's brakes are not up to the standard of the tow vehicle's brakes.
Just slowing the combination isn't enough - a large drag 'chute can do
*that* - to validate the claim that today's trailer brakes are adequate.
For example, many of today's trucks *can* stop the entire combo *if given
enough room* and many of today's trailers *can* stop the entire combo *if
given enough room* but neither *alone* can do the job within a short enough
distance to avoid an accident.
Many, if not most, towable RVs do not have sufficient braking power to keep
the brakes locked when at their GVW: my truck, for example, will maintain
25 mph with the breakaway engaged. [DAMHIKT!]
JD
wrote:
>
>If the combined rig isn't capable of being stopped within the same distance
>that the unladen tow vehicle can be stopped *under full braking* -
>including the use of engine/Jake brake (if so equipped) - then the
>trailer's brakes are not up to the standard of the tow vehicle's brakes.
>
>Just slowing the combination isn't enough - a large drag 'chute can do
>*that* - to validate the claim that today's trailer brakes are adequate.
>
>For example, many of today's trucks *can* stop the entire combo *if given
>enough room* and many of today's trailers *can* stop the entire combo *if
>given enough room* but neither *alone* can do the job within a short enough
>distance to avoid an accident.
>
>Many, if not most, towable RVs do not have sufficient braking power to keep
>the brakes locked when at their GVW: my truck, for example, will maintain
>25 mph with the breakaway engaged. [DAMHIKT!]
I look at it as simple vector analysis. If the toad brakes apply drag
to the TV then they have >f1 (friction=drag) than needed to stop the
toad alone. Add to that the vector force, f2 of the TV which is
admitted to be enough to stop the TV, then the total f is greater than
each individual piece and they stop, certainly in the same distance as
the TV alone.
Since, the trailer is never pushing the TV, its drag MUST assist in
stopping the total package. Or using MV (momentum) if the MV of the
TV can be stopped by the TV brakes, and the Toad doesn't ever push the
TV, the worst you have is the same as the individuals.
I can't explain it using physics in many more ways. Now give me your
physics analysis which disproves mine. I may be wrong and will gladly
say so if you can show me the science.
JD
Darn, I have a Cl. A. But I do tow a car on a rigid (Blue-Ox) hitch.
Not enough mass to tell.
Steve Barker
s
"JD" <h...@123.net> wrote in message
news:pe4vl495cgmqbr9ts...@4ax.com...
RAMł
4ax.com:
> I look at it as simple vector analysis. If the toad brakes apply drag
> to the TV then they have >f1 (friction=drag) than needed to stop the
> toad alone. Add to that the vector force, f2 of the TV which is
> admitted to be enough to stop the TV, then the total f is greater than
> each individual piece and they stop, certainly in the same distance as
> the TV alone.
>
> Since, the trailer is never pushing the TV, its drag MUST assist in
> stopping the total package. Or using MV (momentum) if the MV of the
> TV can be stopped by the TV brakes, and the Toad doesn't ever push the
> TV, the worst you have is the same as the individuals.
>
> I can't explain it using physics in many more ways. Now give me your
> physics analysis which disproves mine. I may be wrong and will gladly
> say so if you can show me the science.
>
If braking force "F1" is required to stop the trailer's mass "M1" from
velocity "V1" then F1=(M1*(V1*V1))/2.
Still with me?
In order to stop within a given distance then V2=D2/T2 where D2 is the
distance in which the trailer is to be stopped and T2 is the time needed
to stop it.
Alright so far?
Since V2=V1 for both towing and towed vehicles, if the tow vehicle masses
"M2" and requires distance D2 to stop from a given velocity and
accomplishes that within T2, then its equation will be
F2=(M2*((D2*D2)/(T2*T2))/2
and
F1=(M1*((D2*d2)/T2*t2))/2
Postulating a moderate-sized mid-range FW (14,000 pounds) being towed by
an average tow vehicle (9,000 pounds) on flat terrain at 68 mph (100 FPS)
then the tow vehicle will require
F2=(9000*((300*300)/(10*10))/2 or
F2=(9000*(9000/100))/2 or
F2=810,000/2 or
F2=405,000 pounds of braking force to stop that tow vehicle within 10
seconds in 100 yards from 68 mph.
This *is* within the capability of most tow vehicles with good brakes.
Now look at the same equation for the towed vehicle:
F1=(14000*(9000/100))/2 or
F1=1,260,000/2 or
F1=630,000 pounds of braking force to stop just the towed vehicle within
the same time and distance.
To stop the entire combination, then, will require
F3=((14,000+9000)*(9000/100))/2 or
F3= (23,000*90)/2 or
F3=2,070,000/2 or
F3=1,035,000 pounds of braking force needed to stop the entire
combination within that same time and distance.
BTW, you'll find that the F3=F1+F2.
The "catch" is that the wimpy magnets and springs in RV trailer brakes
are totally incapable of providing anything like the amount of braking
force that the tow vehicle's brakes can.
Now, if someone will just come up with the kind of brakes used on OTR
trailers that would let us lock up the brakes at 68 MPH... <G>
Will
Will:
>>But since you are not convinced by mere words, I urge you to conduct a
>>simple experiment to settle the question in your mind.
>>
>>Take your tow vehicle (solo) to a convenient place and _accurately_
>>measure the stopping distance from a given speed. Go back and hook up
>>any trailer of your choice. Now at the same location at the same
>>speed, measure stopping distance again.
>>
>>Trust me, if the combination truly stops shorter, your tow vehicle
>>brakes are not doing the job.
JD:
>Darn, I have a Cl. A. But I do tow a car on a rigid (Blue-Ox) hitch.
>Not enough mass to tell.
Why not try it? Unless your toad is a King Midget you almost certainly
DO have enough mass to make a measurable difference. Unless, of
course, you are one of those whose preconceived notions cancel out
exculpatory evidence. But you don't appear to be that type.
RAMł
eSXYcLUnZ2d...@giganews.com:
> That's the way mine works. Stops shorter with the trailer than without.
Take out your tow vehicle and "dynamite" the brakes at 60 MPH and see just
how far it takes you to stop the vehicle.
Try it again with the FW trailer attached, then report back.
Steve Barker
the floor.
but we'll see. maybe this spring when we clean it out (after living in it
for 2.5 years)
right now, i couldn't get it out of the yard if my life depended on it.
(mud)
s
"RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B88BE364BC47...@74.209.131.10...
JD
wrote:
At some point, the trailer is stopped wrt the ground. That is when
the brakes are locked and at that at point, its mass can be added to
that of the TV less the drag weight presented by the friction of the
toad to the surface. I have my Sears and Zymansky PH101 text here in
front of my eyes and I will study it. Something doesn't ring with
your assumptions.
F=MA = mass times deceleration = f = M * dv/dt. Gonna have to ponder
how to set up the formula to satisfy my tiny brain. Hmmmm.
I will try to get back to you on this. 8^,
JD
>
>Why not try it? Unless your toad is a King Midget you almost certainly
>DO have enough mass to make a measurable difference. Unless, of
>course, you are one of those whose preconceived notions cancel out
>exculpatory evidence. But you don't appear to be that type.
>
>
Nope, I am willing to accept if my concept is wrong. But I really
hesitate to take the chance of damaging anything in the RV for an
experiment. Lemme think abt it.
I would rather do it with nice clean equasions, HIHI
Dean
RAMł
Get a set of MatTracks for both your tow vehicle and your trailer.
You'll never get stuck again.
JD
>
>At some point, the trailer is stopped wrt the ground. That is when
>the brakes are locked and at that at point, its mass can be added to
>that of the TV less the drag weight presented by the friction of the
>toad to the surface. I have my Sears and Zymansky PH101 text here in
>front of my eyes and I will study it. Something doesn't ring with
>your assumptions.
>
>F=MA = mass times deceleration = f = M * dv/dt. Gonna have to ponder
>how to set up the formula to satisfy my tiny brain. Hmmmm.
>
>I will try to get back to you on this. 8^,
Question, if a vehicle will stop in a certain distance when the brakes
are applied, will it be a longer or shorter distance to stop when
dragging 2000 lbs of dead weight drag?
Isn't that what a drogue chute does to the shuttle?
From the free dictionary-
drogue chute - a parachute used to decelerate an object that is moving
rapidly
Is not the toad the same in principle?
Miles
> drogue chute - a parachute used to decelerate an object that is moving
> rapidly
>
> Is not the toad the same in principle?
A parachute has little mass and high drag. A toad has considerable mass
and far less drag. The toad (or trailer) will push your TV, not drag it.
Will
>A parachute has little mass and high drag. A toad has considerable mass
>and far less drag. The toad (or trailer) will push your TV, not drag it.
That's an excellent short summary of all that is wrong with the theory
that you can stop faster when towing a braked vehicle. Unforunately,
it will take a hands-on test to convince skeptics.
Steve Barker
local lake. Took 4 hours to get out of the yard and 55 minutes to drive
there. Finally had the neighbor come down with his fairly large farm
tractor with gooseneck ball on the three point, (my trailer is converted to
gooseneck type) and pull it out on to the road where i re-hitched and went
on our way. Tell me about these mat tracks.
s
"RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B894A6C886Fs...@74.209.131.10...
JD
YOu really shouldn't comment on subjects to which you have no
knowledge.
JD
How can the damn trailer be pushing when is is dragging on the hitch?
Answer that, please.
Sheeesh
Steve Barker
pushing on you unless it has brakes, in which case it should be pulling on
you and helping you to stop shorter than you could with just the tow vehicle
alone.
s
"JD" <h...@123.net> wrote in message
news:2992m4dtcartpiruh...@4ax.com...
RAMł
4ax.com:
The addition of more braking force than supplied by the vehicle's brakes
will shorten the distance covered within the same time period.
The issue, here, is whether or not the requisite braking force can be
supplied by the towed vehicle's brakes that will enable the towed vehicle
to come to a dead stop in the same distance and time as the towing
vehicle's brakes will bring the towing vehicle to a dead stop.
Even with the aerodynamic drag of a high FW's nose, the brakes on an
average FW's axles are inadequate to the task. This can easily be seen
when the brake shoe/pad areas and pressures are compared.
While some manufacturers (Newmar, Teton, SpaceCraft?) have offered
electric/hydraulic and/or air/hydraulic brakes, these are not "average"
RV brakes.
As to the query concerning a drag/drogue 'chute being equivalent to a
towed vehicle insofar as braking is concerned, they are only vaguely
related at best.
1. A drag/drogue 'chute is extremely light weight and does not contribute
significantly to the mass to be stopped.
2. A drag/drogue 'chute is *not* intended to *stop* anything. (A Navy
carrier's barricade may look like a horizontal drogue but isn't.)
3. A towed vehicle's brakes *are* intended to *stop* the mass of the
trailer *eventually*.
Does this address your queries?
RAMł
JD
In fact, Will, I did perform a sort of experiment 2 years ago in the
Yukon. We had just left Teslin YT, when I heard noise and felt drag.
I looked in the rear camera screen and saw my toad swerving back and
forth. As soon as I let my foot off the gas, the car immediately came
forward and jammed under the rear end of my RV (at this point it was
pushing).
When I applied the brakes, the car moved back a bit since the brakes
in the toad were set to engage before the RV as was suggested by the
Brake Buddy manual. When I finally got stoped, the car was at the
extreme of the hitch. I had to have DW get in and move the car
forward to enable me to unhook.
I will call Brake Buddy tomorrow and ask their opinion.
BTW, since the two bodies are freely disassociated (coupled, they do
have freedom to go from pushing, pulling or neutral in the hitch, they
are NOT hard coupled) their individual masses are unimportant.
BTW, why do we bother to install a Brake Buddy in the toad if it
doesn't do anything to assist?
Steve Barker
s
"RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9B899D65097F9...@74.209.131.10...
>>
>>
>
> <http://www.mattracks.com/>
Steve Barker
or their applications.
steve
"JD" <h...@123.net> wrote in message
news:4e92m49loiaqk5nmd...@4ax.com...
JD
From the Brake Buddy web site-
Q. Is the BrakeBuddy a proportional system?
A. The BrakeBuddy is an inertia-activated system designed for on/off
applications, taking the entire weight of the towed vehicle off your
motorhome every time it activates.
What more can I say?
JD
<railph...@always.hotmail.com> wrote:
>when you are braking or otherwise slowing down, the fukkin thing WILL be
>pushing on you unless it has brakes, in which case it should be pulling on
>you and helping you to stop shorter than you could with just the tow vehicle
>alone.
>
>s
As posted to will,
from the brake buddy page-
Q. Is the BrakeBuddy a proportional system?
A. The BrakeBuddy is an inertia-activated system designed for on/off
applications, taking the entire weight of the towed vehicle off your
motorhome every time it activates.
I hope everyone understands I have been talking about a TowVeh/Toad
where the toad has a required form of braking system. In my case it
is a Brake Buddy.
Of course, without sepaarate brakes, everything I have said is moot.
RAMł
news:jje2m498o4hpi58lj...@4ax.com:
Since the issue is brakes on a FW trailer and *not* on a motor vehicle
that is equipped with *hydraulic* brakes, the quoted material is
irrelavent.
Given the effectiveness of your MH's brakes - unlikely to be able to be
locked up under heavy braking - then the added braking of your towed
motor vehicle may very well help shorten the stopping distance since it
may well be able to lock *its* brakes to help you stop more quickly.
Keep in mind that the brakes on most towable RVs provide noticeably less
braking power than that of a '57 Chevy but weigh considerably more.
RAMł
The topic is trailer brakes, Steve, *not* car brakes.
Juanito Pesito is just trying to "stir the pot" by introducing an
extraneous issue. <G>
RAMł
news:she2m491e2078nh1l...@4ax.com:
Brake Buddies don't work on trailers, Juanito! <G>
Will
Miles:
>>>A parachute has little mass and high drag. A toad has considerable mass
>>>and far less drag. The toad (or trailer) will push your TV, not drag it.
Will:
>>That's an excellent short summary of all that is wrong with the theory
>>that you can stop faster when towing a braked vehicle. Unforunately,
>>it will take a hands-on test to convince skeptics.
JD:
>How can the damn trailer be pushing when is is dragging on the hitch?
>Answer that, please.
JD, I think you misunderstood Miles. IMO he is saying that UNLESS the
vehicle in tow is capable of stopping FASTER than the tow vehicle
alone, it will in fact be pushing you. This discussion (as often
happens) has departed from the original issue of towing an RV trailer.
And I submit that no commercial rv trailer has brakes that good, and
no known controller is predictably good enough to make it happen
anyway.
Will Sill - think about this:
The veracity of an idea is not determined by how many
people agree with it - but by truth. In the context of this
discussion, opinions, calculations and theories mean nothing.
I've made my POV clear (I think), and it remains for you or other
skeptics to test whether my advice is valid.
Will
>In fact, Will, I did perform a sort of experiment 2 years ago in the
>Yukon. We had just left Teslin YT, when I heard noise and felt drag.
>I looked in the rear camera screen and saw my toad swerving back and
>forth. As soon as I let my foot off the gas, the car immediately came
>forward and jammed under the rear end of my RV (at this point it was
>pushing).
>
>When I applied the brakes, the car moved back a bit since the brakes
>in the toad were set to engage before the RV as was suggested by the
>Brake Buddy manual. When I finally got stoped, the car was at the
>extreme of the hitch. I had to have DW get in and move the car
>forward to enable me to unhook.
>
>I will call Brake Buddy tomorrow and ask their opinion.
>
>BTW, since the two bodies are freely disassociated (coupled, they do
>have freedom to go from pushing, pulling or neutral in the hitch, they
>are NOT hard coupled) their individual masses are unimportant.
>
>BTW, why do we bother to install a Brake Buddy in the toad if it
>doesn't do anything to assist?
My answer: your test proved only that your particular toad stopped a
LITTLE faster than your TV under that particular circumstance - which
I believe you've describe truthfully but failed to say you jammed the
brakes full on. Which would have been dumb, BTW)
I have NEVER claimed that trailer or toad brakes do nothing to assist.
I've said they will NOT improve the stopping distance vs the TV
running solo (assuming of course that said TV's brakes are correctly
set up).
(BTW, this is far afield from the question of an RV trailer helping
you stop shorter.)
JD
wrote:
>
>Since the issue is brakes on a FW trailer and *not* on a motor vehicle
>that is equipped with *hydraulic* brakes, the quoted material is
>irrelavent.
The OP was on the issue of a 5er, but is morphed into a general
trailer/toaad/any towed load braking discussion.
>
>Given the effectiveness of your MH's brakes - unlikely to be able to be
>locked up under heavy braking - then the added braking of your towed
>motor vehicle may very well help shorten the stopping distance since it
>may well be able to lock *its* brakes to help you stop more quickly.
>
>Keep in mind that the brakes on most towable RVs provide noticeably less
>braking power than that of a '57 Chevy but weigh considerably more.
JD
wrote:
>
>The topic is trailer brakes, Steve, *not* car brakes.
A 'towed load' is a towed load. And get over your self. I posed a
technical question springing from the OP and we have been having a
rational, honest discussion. Seems YOU are the turd in the punch
bowl.
>Juanito Pesito is just trying to "stir the pot" by introducing an
>extraneous issue. <G>
JD
wrote:
>
>Brake Buddies don't work on trailers, Juanito! <G>
You are really, really trying to pick a fight. Brakes is brakes. They
provide frictional force to slow/stop a moving object. You have not
offered one iota of scientific informattion relating to the subject,
rather you make vague irrelevant comments.
You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
one of your blatherings.
Will
"RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net>wrote:
>>Brake Buddies don't work on trailers, Juanito! <G>
JD:
>You are really, really trying to pick a fight. Brakes is brakes. They
>provide frictional force to slow/stop a moving object. You have not
>offered one iota of scientific informattion relating to the subject,
>rather you make vague irrelevant comments.
>
>You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
>one of your blatherings.
I suppose I am next to be plonked, because I too do not agree with
your theoretical calculations as meaningful. But I will add insult to
injury by saying I don't think "Brake Buddy" is either applicable to
the issue in question (combinations stopping faster than a solo TV) or
(especially) to the original issue of an rv _trailer_. Reviewing the
thread, IMO RAM has been both thorough and helpful. Plonking him is
your loss.
JD
I have no reason to plonk you, Will. You, at least, provide rational
input. But RAM just makes baseless comments about issues not in
question. As to the issue of Brake Buddy. I stand by my comment that
all braking methods are the same, friction applied to the mass in
question. The BB is nothing more than a mechanical application of the
toad brakes when it senses the TV is braking.
I sense a notion that some people are beginning to agree with me that
the application of trailer brakes does, indeed, assist in slowing the
combination more than just the TV brakes alone.
Your original statement to which I took exception was -
>Brakes are fine on trailers, and do in fact drmatically reduce
>stopping distance compared to no trailer brakes. But they will NOT
>improve compared to the same vehicle not towing.
I believe I have offered evidence that trailer brakes (including Brake
Buddy) DO 'improve stopping distance compared to the same vehicle not
towing'!
I just talked to a fellow at Brake Buddy and he said I was to adjust
the BB so it never would push or pull the TV. I can see no way that
would be possible but I will take his word. I still don't agree but
it is time to let it go.
Thanks to all for the input.
RAMł
4ax.com:
The Brake Buddy can only be used on a *motor vehicle* since its function
is to depress the motor vehicle's brake pedal, thus irrelavant to the
OP's original query from which neither of us has deviated. <g>
Now, if JD wants to discuss braking systems in general, all he has to do
is to start *his own* thread on the topic. <G>
As you well know, Will, it's only been in the last few years that the
manufacturers have started putting adequate brakes on pickups and the
heavier enclosed vehicles often used to tow towable RVs. [Dodge's
transition to bigger brake disks, for example, required them to increase
their wheel diameter from 16" to 17" so that the wheels would fit over
the disks.] Unfortunately, the manufacturers of "average" (low- to mid-
price) towable RVs haven't followed the "high-end" manufacturers in the
offering of effective braking systems even as options.
BTW, Will, JD's efforts to morph the thread is just another example of
one of the oldest "problems" that we all face in our "Virtual Campfire":
the difference in perspectives between the owners/users/afficianados of
different types of RVs. <G>
R.A.M.ł
>
> You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
> one of your blatherings.
>
<YAWN!>
Will
>As you well know, Will, it's only been in the last few years that the
>manufacturers have started putting adequate brakes on pickups and the
>heavier enclosed vehicles often used to tow towable RVs. [Dodge's
>transition to bigger brake disks, for example, required them to increase
>their wheel diameter from 16" to 17" so that the wheels would fit over
>the disks.] Unfortunately, the manufacturers of "average" (low- to mid-
>price) towable RVs haven't followed the "high-end" manufacturers in the
>offering of effective braking systems even as options.
Yes, I realize tow vehicle braking effectiveness is one of the many
variables one must consider - and certainly newer tow vehicles do
better.
But the point I tried to make (which seems not to have penetrated) is
that in the real world a normal RV trailer will NOT contribute enough
drag to offset it's contribution to the total mass of the combination.
There are several reasons. Brake size and efficiency are only a small
part of the equation. Even the best brake controllers do not
perfectly balance braking force, and anything less than perfect
balance will result in a longer stopping distance.
I probably assumed too much: that everyone knows a sliding (locked up)
tire doesn't provide nearly as much braking force; and that
less-than-optimum braking force means a longer stopping distance. It
may also not be well known that most rv trailer brakes are never
properly adjusted. Together, these and other factors pretty much
guarantee that a combination won't stop as short as a solo tow
vehicle.
As to the side issue of how a Brake-Buddy-equipped toad affects
stopping distance, I am still dubious of claims about stopping faster
with the toad. Certainly it is theoretically possible to have a MH
with poor (or poorly balanced*) brakes stop faster when hooked to a
toad with excellent and well-balanced brakes. But such combinations
are going to be as rare as an honest politician.
*[One example: the legendary GMC motorhome rear suspension guarantees
poor braking efficiency because the front tandems are on a leading
arm, the rears on a trailing arm.]
Bottom line: it is foolhardy to assume that brakes on a towed vehicle
(whether 5th wheel, TT, pop-up, or Corvette) will stop you faster.
Readers who wonder if this really really applies to their setup need
only to do what I've done in the past: try it. I was never able to
get ANY trailer brake setup that could match solo stopping distance.
But then, maybe I don't have a high enough IQ!
Will - The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
RAMł
4ax.com:
> On 05 Jan 2009 23:31:08 GMT, "RAMł" wrote in part:
>
>>As you well know, Will, it's only been in the last few years that the
>>manufacturers have started putting adequate brakes on pickups and the
>>heavier enclosed vehicles often used to tow towable RVs. [Dodge's
>>transition to bigger brake disks, for example, required them to
increase
>>their wheel diameter from 16" to 17" so that the wheels would fit over
>>the disks.] Unfortunately, the manufacturers of "average" (low- to mid-
>>price) towable RVs haven't followed the "high-end" manufacturers in the
>>offering of effective braking systems even as options.
>
> Yes, I realize tow vehicle braking effectiveness is one of the many
> variables one must consider - and certainly newer tow vehicles do
> better.
>
> But the point I tried to make (which seems not to have penetrated) is
> that in the real world a normal RV trailer will NOT contribute enough
> drag to offset it's contribution to the total mass of the combination.
> There are several reasons. Brake size and efficiency are only a small
> part of the equation. Even the best brake controllers do not
> perfectly balance braking force, and anything less than perfect
> balance will result in a longer stopping distance.
The size & efficiency are an important factor in the respect that - with
few, if any, exceptions - those on towable RVs are much less capable than
those on the tow vehicles that pull them and, thus, are incapable of
providing the same stopping distance that the towing vehicles' brakes
can.
Self-propelled RVs do not have the same stopping ability that a towed
motor vehicle has. In this specific case, the added braking force could,
indeed, shorten the stopping distance somewhat if only because the towing
RV's brakes are inadequate to their task.
>
> I probably assumed too much: that everyone knows a sliding (locked up)
> tire doesn't provide nearly as much braking force; and that
> less-than-optimum braking force means a longer stopping distance. It
> may also not be well known that most rv trailer brakes are never
> properly adjusted. Together, these and other factors pretty much
> guarantee that a combination won't stop as short as a solo tow
> vehicle.
True.
>
> As to the side issue of how a Brake-Buddy-equipped toad affects
> stopping distance, I am still dubious of claims about stopping faster
> with the toad. Certainly it is theoretically possible to have a MH
> with poor (or poorly balanced*) brakes stop faster when hooked to a
> toad with excellent and well-balanced brakes. But such combinations
> are going to be as rare as an honest politician.
Perhaps not quite *that* rare. <G>
Consider this: most newer cars/light trucks (normal towed-vehicles) are
equipped with braking systems that let them stop quickly from highway
speeds while motorized RVs - even the Prevost-based units - actually
weigh more than their braking systems were originally designed to handle
and, indeed, were never intended to be stopped quickly from highway
speeds while carrying the amount of weight with which they are
custommarily loaded.
This means that the units rolled out of the factory with inadequate
brakes and any added braking assistance that the towed vehicle might
provide would be a "plus" that *might* provide a shortened stopping
distance since the towed vehicles' braking system - the more effective of
the two - would, indeed, provide assistance.
After all, RVs are *not* built to the same standards as OTR truck-
tractors and trailers when it comes to braking systems. Even those built
upon passenger-carrying bus platforms (Prevost, Eagle, etc.) have braking
systems engineered to enable the passengers to remain seated *without*
using seat belts while maximum braking force is being applied. [They
don't want the passengers to sue for being thrown out of their seats.]
This, then, means that an RV built on such a platform with all the
tankage, slides, plumbing, furniture, etc., will have more mass to stop
with brakes that were not intended to stop as quickly as a car to begin
with.
>
> *[One example: the legendary GMC motorhome rear suspension guarantees
> poor braking efficiency because the front tandems are on a leading
> arm, the rears on a trailing arm.]
>
> Bottom line: it is foolhardy to assume that brakes on a towed vehicle
> (whether 5th wheel, TT, pop-up, or Corvette) will stop you faster.
> Readers who wonder if this really really applies to their setup need
> only to do what I've done in the past: try it. I was never able to
> get ANY trailer brake setup that could match solo stopping distance.
>
> But then, maybe I don't have a high enough IQ!
>
> Will - The self-appointed Curmudgeon of Sill Hill
>
The difference in situations is the reason that I stuck to the case of
the towed RV in spite of JD's attempts to lump the two together: it's a
case of "apples and horseapples".
Eregon
news:Xns9B8BC57AC442F...@74.209.131.10:
Amen, Bro'!
--
I used to be an anarchist but had to give it up: _far_ too many rules.
Eregon
news:Xns9B8AB217B2F5B...@74.209.131.10:
> The Brake Buddy can only be used on a *motor vehicle* since its function
> is to depress the motor vehicle's brake pedal, thus irrelavant to the
> OP's original query from which neither of us has deviated. <g>
>
> Now, if JD wants to discuss braking systems in general, all he has to do
> is to start *his own* thread on the topic. <G>
>
> As you well know, Will, it's only been in the last few years that the
> manufacturers have started putting adequate brakes on pickups and the
> heavier enclosed vehicles often used to tow towable RVs. [Dodge's
> transition to bigger brake disks, for example, required them to increase
> their wheel diameter from 16" to 17" so that the wheels would fit over
> the disks.] Unfortunately, the manufacturers of "average" (low- to mid-
> price) towable RVs haven't followed the "high-end" manufacturers in the
> offering of effective braking systems even as options.
>
> BTW, Will, JD's efforts to morph the thread is just another example of
> one of the oldest "problems" that we all face in our "Virtual Campfire":
> the difference in perspectives between the owners/users/afficianados of
> different types of RVs. <G>
Too bad he'll never read what you've written. <G>
Will
wrote:
Will:
>> But the point I tried to make (which seems not to have penetrated) is
>> that in the real world a normal RV trailer will NOT contribute enough
>> drag to offset it's contribution to the total mass of the combination.
RAMł:
>The size & efficiency are an important factor in the respect that - with
>few, if any, exceptions - those on towable RVs are much less capable than
>those on the tow vehicles that pull them and, thus, are incapable of
>providing the same stopping distance that the towing vehicles' brakes
>can.
On that issue, I think we are on the same page.
RAMł:
>Self-propelled RVs do not have the same stopping ability that a towed
>motor vehicle has. In this specific case, the added braking force could,
>indeed, shorten the stopping distance somewhat if only because the towing
>RV's brakes are inadequate to their task.
I'll concede that's possibly correct in some cases (as I've admitted
before) but IMO it remains true that:
>> As to the side issue of how a Brake-Buddy-equipped toad affects
>> stopping distance, I am still dubious of claims about stopping faster
>> with the toad.
RAMł:
>The difference in situations is the reason that I stuck to the case of
>the towed RV in spite of JD's attempts to lump the two together: it's a
>case of "apples and horseapples".
You're right: The two questions have different answers.
But I remain skeptical of all "I stop faster towing" claims, even
though it is theoretically somewhat more likely when towing a car with
good brakes behind a MH with poor brakes. But given the inability of
all brake controllers to exactly match braking force, and the
inability or unwillingness of the driver/owner to correctly adjust
said devices, it's going to be a rare combination that ACTUALLY stops
faster than the TV. IMO.
JD
Why won't I?
Eregon
news:vhk9m4tk8j8ffoimc...@4ax.com:
> On 07 Jan 2009 08:40:35 GMT, Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.ørg> wrote:
>
>>"RAM³" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in
You "plonked" him, didn't you? <G>
Joshua McGee
> Hello,
>
> Pardon me for barging in.
Yeah, indeed. Yikes. Trolls eat your hearts out, I created a
monster. Sorry about that.
Hope this is putting out some light as well as heat.
BTW: I'm buying a domestic diesel this weekend, if anyone cares.
--
Joshua McGee
http://www.mcgees.org
nada
outside.
Enjoy your new toy. All that matters is it's what you want. Our opinions
are just that.
Domestic? Who's making an American p/u? It must be a few years old.
JD
>JD <h...@123.net> wrote in
>news:vhk9m4tk8j8ffoimc...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 07 Jan 2009 08:40:35 GMT, Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.řrg> wrote:
>>
>>>"RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in
Heavens no. Why would I?
Owen McKenzie
> On 09 Jan 2009 03:12:04 GMT, Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.ørg> wrote:
>
>> JD <h...@123.net> wrote in
>> news:vhk9m4tk8j8ffoimc...@4ax.com:
>>
>>>
>>>> "RAM³" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in
On 05 Jan 2009 01:50:03 GMT, "RAM³" <s31924...@netscape.net>
wrote:
>
> Brake Buddies don't work on trailers, Juanito! <G>
You are really, really trying to pick a fight. Brakes is brakes. They
provide frictional force to slow/stop a moving object. You have not
offered one iota of scientific informattion relating to the subject,
rather you make vague irrelevant comments.
You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
one of your blatherings.
--
$$$$$$$$$%%
Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
Putting someone in your kill file as you stated that you did above is
"plonking" them. That's why the question.
--
Owen McKenzie
Posting from Mesa, AZ
All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under
a desk. - Ronald Reagan
Eregon
Your last response to him ended with this sentence:
"You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
one of your blatherings."
Do you remember, now? <G>
JD
<jomck...@escapees.com> wrote:
>JD wrote:
>> On 09 Jan 2009 03:12:04 GMT, Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.řrg> wrote:
>>
>>> JD <h...@123.net> wrote in
>>> news:vhk9m4tk8j8ffoimc...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On 07 Jan 2009 08:40:35 GMT, Eregon <Eregon@Saphira.řrg> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net> wrote in
>On 05 Jan 2009 01:50:03 GMT, "RAMł" <s31924...@netscape.net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>> Brake Buddies don't work on trailers, Juanito! <G>
>
>You are really, really trying to pick a fight. Brakes is brakes. They
>provide frictional force to slow/stop a moving object. You have not
>offered one iota of scientific informattion relating to the subject,
>rather you make vague irrelevant comments.
>
>You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
>one of your blatherings.
>
>--
>
>$$$$$$$$$%%
>Yours truly, Johnny Dollar!
>
>Putting someone in your kill file as you stated that you did above is
>"plonking" them. That's why the question.
I thought he was referring to Will. Yes, I did put ram in my kill
file but i do read some of his posts. I can set Agent to delete or
show as read. He is in the later.
dean
JD
>
>Your last response to him ended with this sentence:
>
>"You are now in my kill file so Agent will not automatically stop oin
>one of your blatherings."
>
>Do you remember, now? <G>
I thought you were referring to Will. I did put ram in my kill file.
Agent can either delete posts from selected idiots of merely show them
as read but still available. I put him in the later. As I said, I
did not want to have Agent stop on his posts sutomatically. This way
I can selectively read his posts.
dean
Eregon
JD
>>
>
>IOW, the "RORT Sieve" filter. <eg>
Yup.
I have a number in the 'sieve' and only 6 in the delete filter. I
think 3 of the 6 no longer post here either.
Miles
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2009 09:43:28 -0700, Miles <no...@nopers.com> wrote:
>
>> JD wrote:
>>
>>> drogue chute - a parachute used to decelerate an object that is moving
>>> rapidly
>>>
>>> Is not the toad the same in principle?
>> A parachute has little mass and high drag. A toad has considerable mass
>> and far less drag. The toad (or trailer) will push your TV, not drag it.
>
>
> knowledge.
Ya, manufactures of trailer brakes are just in it for the money!
Miles
> How can the damn trailer be pushing when is is dragging on the hitch?
> Answer that, please.
>
> Sheeesh
Its a rolling mass and not a drag. Sheesh!
joshuamcgee
> > Pardon me for barging in.
>
> Yeah, indeed. Yikes. Trolls eat your hearts out, I created a
> monster. Sorry about that.
>
> Hope this is putting out some light as well as heat.
>
> BTW: I'm buying a domestic diesel this weekend, if anyone cares.
As an endnote (??? -- I *really* hope I don't get another flame war
started) I bought a '96 F-250 and it handled the job very well. The
difference in gas mileage was nowhere near what I thought it would be,
with and without trailer.
Thank you to the exceedingly small but exceedingly helpful subset of
commentators on this group.
With your kind permission, I now take my leave,
Joshua McGee
http://www.mcgees.org
Frog Britches
to fault you on your own taste.