Length to weight

[RACarvalho]

There is way more to the sway dynamics than just weight distribution and wheel base.
Weight distribution improves the dynamics of the steering and the result of the forces on the hitch (leveling the trailer) but suspension design of the TV, chassis/body design, traction( front / rear, 4x4), etc everything working together will bring a result that may or may not be good.
As an example, attached is a picture of a X5 towing a 8300lbs Airstream with a 1000lbs tongue weight. When this picture was taken, the guy had already towed for 20K miles with no problem. His hitch? A Hensley which eliminates (way better than control) sway...
So to me, discuss TV model, wheel base, etc is worthless without evaluating the dynamics of the set up.
The British have a nice testing were TTs are set up on cars (yes cars) and they go to a racing track and measure how the set up performs when doing sharp lane changes in high speed using cones ... that is, in my understanding, a better way to evaluate this matter.
In lack of that, I would look for how many G's a TV can sustain in a curve...

That being said, "be good" in sway control is irrelevant when the right situation happens... you had a condition were the highway was going down (hitch lower than the normal compared to the TT CG), freezing temperatures, 60MPH (at freezing temperatures???) and a passing semi.... It's possible that the guy that was following with the Dodge didn't experienced the same problem just because he had time to slow down a bit when he reached the frozen spot and the semi "got him" before he reached the spot...

[Scoutr2]

My opinion - the TT was too long and too heavy for the truck. Cargo capacity determines the max tongue weight - along with the GVWR for axles. Most 1/2-tons are capable of pulling that much weight, but their suspensions are not built to control it in an emergency situation. And the longer the tail, the more it wags the dog.

I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules for 1/2-ton tow vehicles, but if anyone were to ask me "how big a trailer can I tow with my 1/2-ton truck," my answer would be, "Nothing longer than 21-24 feet, and nothing heavier than the GVWR specs allow."

Most folks look at that "towing capacity" number, then the weight of their trailer, and think the two are related. They are not. The numbers to compare are the GVWR and its cargo/payload capacity of the tow vehicle , and the maximum GVWR and max tongue weight of the trailer being towed.

Most trailers have a sticker that states the max GVWR, but only lists the tongue weight for the unloaded dry weight - which is not a realistic number. To calculate the tongue weight, figure 13-15 percent of the max GVWR for the trailer. Example - my Jayco 32RLDS has a max GVWR of 10,250#, so my max tongue weight could be as high as 1537#. There is no 1/2-ton made that could safely handle that load. In fact, that trailer is pushing the limits of my 2500HD pickup!

There is a reason that 3/4-ton trucks are more expensive than 1/2-ton trucks - they have heavier suspensions, HD brakes, HD transmissions, and a higher cargo capacity - resulting in a higher rated towing ability. If you want more, ya gotta pay for it - or you might end up paying for it.

Again - this is my experienced opinion.

[Filthy-Beast]

Originally Posted by Scoutr2

My opinion - the TT was too long and too heavy for the truck. Cargo capacity determines the max tongue weight - along with the GVWR for axles. Most 1/2-tons are capable of pulling that much weight, but their suspensions are not built to control it in an emergency situation. And the longer the tail, the more it wags the dog.

I don't know if there are any hard and fast rules for 1/2-ton tow vehicles, but if anyone were to ask me "how big a trailer can I tow with my 1/2-ton truck," my answer would be, "Nothing longer than 21-24 feet, and nothing heavier than the GVWR specs allow."

Most folks look at that "towing capacity" number, then the weight of their trailer, and think the two are related. They are not. The numbers to compare are the GVWR and its cargo/payload capacity of the tow vehicle , and the maximum GVWR and max tongue weight of the trailer being towed.

Most trailers have a sticker that states the max GVWR, but only lists the tongue weight for the unloaded dry weight - which is not a realistic number. To calculate the tongue weight, figure 13-15 percent of the max GVWR for the trailer. Example - my Jayco 32RLDS has a max GVWR of 10,250#, so my max tongue weight could be as high as 1537#. There is no 1/2-ton made that could safely handle that load. In fact, that trailer is pushing the limits of my 2500HD pickup!

There is a reason that 3/4-ton trucks are more expensive than 1/2-ton trucks - they have heavier suspensions, HD brakes, HD transmissions, and a higher cargo capacity - resulting in a higher rated towing ability. If you want more, ya gotta pay for it - or you might end up paying for it.

Again - this is my experienced opinion.

This is exactly why we traded in our F150 for an F250 to pull our 31 RLDS with, TT has the same 10,250 GVWR as yours. On paper the F150 Ecoboost with HD towing could handle it, but would have been right at it's limits. I did not want to test the edge of the envelop in an emergency.

[BJR]

Originally Posted by mike837go

Semi-trailers are usually 40' long (many exceptions apply).

They gain a HUGE advantage in stability by having the trailer's axles near the rear of the trailer and put over 50% of the trailer's (and cargo's) weight on the tow vehicle.

Then we can start discussing the fact that the tow's hitch is slightly AHEAD of the rear axle.

You can't compare a purpose-built rig with close to 100 years of improvements to the built-in compromises of a tow vehicle that has to do more than tow.

Next, we can discuss closer coupling of the two braking systems.

I totally agree - I disagree with the semi driver stating so simply that it was just the trailer length that was an issue. Fact is unless he was an engineer trained in transportation his opinion is not reliable.

[Camper_bob]

Originally Posted by BJR

I totally agree - I disagree with the semi driver stating so simply that it was just the trailer length that was an issue. Fact is unless he was an engineer trained in transportation his opinion is not reliable.

I agree with this. I've been following this thread for a while (I'm trying to understand if the driver was found culpable at all), and I keep thinking back to what the Semi driver said. What does he know about it? And why should anyone care what he has to say about it?

The simple fact is that there are WAY too many factors in play, and for some old trucker to lean back on his hips and say "well, I reckon that wee little truck just waddn't 'nuff for that long ol' trailer" is just inappropriate to be included in anything having to do with this incident.

The setup could have been perfectly safe and totally acceptable, but just got caught in a whirlwind of circumstances that all added up to a real bad day. There are many people who are of the opinion that you should over-spec your rig (and I'm one of them now). But I'm not going to fault someone for operating a rig that is within spec just because I would be more comfortable with something else.

So, did the insurance cover the accident? Did they take into consideration the trucker's opinion? (they should not have if they did) Was an investigation conducted to determine if the driver was negligent in some way?

[RACarvalho]

Originally Posted by Camper_bob

Was an investigation conducted to determine if the driver was negligent in some way?

Can 60 MPH towing a trailer in freezing temperatures be considered negligency?

Just trying to learn here...

[Scoutr2]

Originally Posted by RACarvalho

Can 60 MPH towing a trailer in freezing temperatures be considered negligency?

Just trying to learn here...

I don't think the topic starter said this happened in freezing weather. I live in the mid-west and there are many freeze/thaw cycles during a winter, which create what we call "frost heaves." Frost heaves cause the joints between pavement slabs to become uneven. Sometimes they can be quite abrupt.

Unless I am mistaken, that was what he was talking about.

[mike837go]

Originally Posted by Scoutr2

I live in the mid-west and there are many freeze/thaw cycles during a winter, which create what we call "frost heaves." Frost heaves cause the joints between pavement slabs to become uneven. Sometimes they can be quite abrupt.

They are part of driving in the Northeast too!

With potholes being more frequent, but no less dangerous.

[RedHorse1]

Originally Posted by Scoutr2

Most folks look at that "towing capacity" number, then the weight of their trailer, and think the two are related. They are not. The numbers to compare are the GVWR and its cargo/payload capacity of the tow vehicle , and the maximum GVWR and max tongue weight of the trailer being towed.

110%!
Even more important (IMHO) are the individual axle ratings. A GVWR or "Payload" number includes both axles. If your payload is 1500# that doesn't mean you should pull a TT with a 1500# tongue, only part of that 1500# payload can (should) be put on the rear axle.

The CAT Scale is your friend.

[Nighthawk 96]

On my Tundra both axles are rated at #4100 but payload is #6900 which is #1300 less than the combined axle weight rating.

My trailer loaded is #6800 with around #900 on the tongue. This is right at my max payload, but #400 less than rear axle weight rating.

I believe in the 80% rule. I am right at it with a total combined weight of #12800 with a total combined vehicle weight rating of #16000.

These are CAT scale weights. The CAT scale is your friend.

The GVWR of my trailer is #7500. That is all I would care to pull with this truck, despite its over #10000 tow rating.

We are really happy with the trailer and truck and the towing experience.
We are sticking with both of them for the long haul. Almost paid for as well!

[wags999]

I also like to add braking from the trailer when going downhill. It allows the trailer to straighten itself out and doesn't cause the tt to push the tv. The tendency is to hit the truck brakes and have the trailer grab a moment later, I will use the tt braking lightly and then apply the tv brakes...works for me.

[NVGun40]

I want to thank everyone for their input and opinions. Most is just what I believe. I also want to address a couple of points I picked up from this thread.

First, the insurance is covering both the TV and TT in this situation. They did not find the driver culpable. IMO, lucky for him.

Second, the trucker's comment to the troopers in the accident report was actually asked for by the trooper because it was believed (and often times is in almost any situation) that a CDL driver who tows for a living would have a sort of professional knowledge input, if something were to end up in court for this matter. My friend did not think much of it at the time but upon reflection is a bit in sensed at the trooper for asking for any advice or opinion from witnesses at the scene of the accident. They should have just been concerned with obtaining the facts of what happened.

For anyone else, please feel free to offer any more comments and advice on this topic, as I believe it could help others from encountering a similar situation. Also, I am sharing this information with my friend and with a couple of other people who are looking into purchasing a TT.

Thanks again.

[Camper_bob]

Originally Posted by NVGun40

I want to thank everyone for their input and opinions. Most is just what I believe. I also want to address a couple of points I picked up from this thread.

First, the insurance is covering both the TV and TT in this situation. They did not find the driver culpable. IMO, lucky for him.

Second, the trucker's comment to the troopers in the accident report was actually asked for by the trooper because it was believed (and often times is in almost any situation) that a CDL driver who tows for a living would have a sort of professional knowledge input, if something were to end up in court for this matter. My friend did not think much of it at the time but upon reflection is a bit in sensed at the trooper for asking for any advice or opinion from witnesses at the scene of the accident. They should have just been concerned with obtaining the facts of what happened.

For anyone else, please feel free to offer any more comments and advice on this topic, as I believe it could help others from encountering a similar situation. Also, I am sharing this information with my friend and with a couple of other people who are looking into purchasing a TT.

Thanks again.

Thanks for updating. I was really curious about the insurance coverage. I'm glad they're doing the right thing, and I agree, your friend is pretty lucky.

I would be absolutely furious about the inclusion of the trucker's opinion. Did the trucker look at the weight plates of any of the vehicles involved? Did he weigh the truck or the trailer before or after the incident? Does he know anything at all about the specific WDH employed? Just because he has a CDL doesn't mean he knows how much those things weigh or weighed at the time of the incident or what they're capable of. And why should wheelbase come into play at all? My current truck (Ram 2500) has almost the same wheelbase and overall length (certainly within 12" at most) of my old truck (GMC Sierra 1500) and the RAM tows a far sight better than the GMC, but not at all because of the wheelbase.

Sorry, it just absolutely slays me that the trucker was essentially asked to give "expert testimony" on the roadside with little to no knowledge of the vehicles other than what he saw whizzing by or from his rear view mirror. And that his comments were even acknowledged by the officers on scene or the insurance company just completely floors me.

Again, my apologies, rant over.

[cekkk]

Originally Posted by NVGun40

Second, the trucker's comment to the troopers in the accident report was actually asked for by the trooper because it was believed (and often times is in almost any situation) that a CDL driver who tows for a living would have a sort of professional knowledge input, if something were to end up in court for this matter. My friend did not think much of it at the time but upon reflection is a bit in sensed at the trooper for asking for any advice or opinion from witnesses at the scene of the accident. They should have just been concerned with obtaining the facts of what happened.

Your friend is absolutely wrong. Police routinely interview witnesses. Suppose you friend was leaning out the window waving a liquor bottle at passing traffic. Good chance he wouldn't volunteer that, but the truck driver would. So incensed as he may be, the trooper probably has a better handle on what his duties are than does your friend.

[jamaddox]

Police do routinely interview witnesses. I am not sure they should be asking opinion questions though. There is a difference in someone seeing a liquor bottle being waved out a window and some thinking someone was drunk

[Camper_bob]

Originally Posted by cekkk

Your friend is absolutely wrong. Police routinely interview witnesses. Suppose you friend was leaning out the window waving a liquor bottle at passing traffic. Good chance he wouldn't volunteer that, but the truck driver would. So incensed as he may be, the trooper probably has a better handle on what his duties are than does your friend.

I disagree. The trucker saw a truck with a trailer lose control while passing in his rear-view mirror, then he pulled over to offer assistance. That is pretty much the end of his contribution. If the driver was weaving around out of control or whatever, before the incident, or the driver was behaving erratically afterwards (like he may have been physically impaired before the incident) that may provide some valuable insight to the investigation. When asked about what the trucker thought about the driver's setup, his response should have been "I don't know, I have no idea what those items weigh". If the trooper pressed the issue, the trucker could have offered general guidance on what information the trooper needed to collect to make some kind of assessment and that may have contributed to the investigation. But to offer up his opinion as expert testimony that the rig was somehow unsafe without a thorough collection of information and evidence is just not right.

Example: I was once part of a serious accident investigation. A girl driving a mustang lost control of her vehicle while changing lanes in front of me and went nose-to-nose with a Lincoln Town Car coming the other way at about 50 mph. When the investigating officer asked me what happened, I told him exactly what I saw. It looked like she had tried to change lanes and make a correction and began to swerve, then repeatedly overcorrected until she had swerved far enough over to get into oncomming traffic. He asked if she could have been intoxicated or impaired in some way, and I stated I had no way of knowing that, and that's the truth. Any number of factors could have caused that incident from a bug hitting her windshield to a blown tire to a faulty power steering pump to a health issue (think diabetic shock). It could have been ANYTHING that caused that accident. As a witness, that is NOT for me to investigate; it's my job to tell the officer what I saw, plain and simple. My opinion has nothing to do with it. Full disclosure: my opinion is that she was a young driver and didn't know how to handle it when she began the downward spiral of overcorrecting an out of control vehicle. But I don't know that to be TRUE, and I did not investigate the accident.

To ask a witness what they think may have contributed to or caused an accident (or whatever) is to invite speculation and conjecture; neither of which have any place in an investigation.

[cekkk]

I respect your opinions, but offer these comments:

Originally Posted by Camper_bob

...When asked about what the trucker thought about the driver's setup, his response should have been "I don't know, I have no idea what those items weigh". The trucker answered in his way, not the way someone thinks he should answer.

If the trooper pressed the issue, the trucker could have offered general guidance on what information the trooper needed to collect to make some kind of assessment and that may have contributed to the investigation. It's seldom taken well when one offers guidance to a LEO on what his job is.

But to offer up his opinion as expert testimony that the rig was somehow unsafe without a thorough collection of information and evidence is just not right.Your arguments may be accorded some validity in a court of law, but not at the scene.

To ask a witness what they think may have contributed to or caused an accident (or whatever) is to invite speculation and conjecture; neither of which have any place in an investigation.

Again, that's courtroom business. The object at the scene is to get people to talk. Inadmissible statements can be determined after the fact.

I've attended hundreds of TA depositions and trials over a 40-year career. These matters are messy. Cops are trained in many areas, as a rule they are not lawyers. Lawyers themselves often ask for opinion, speculation and conjecture, ergo, objections as to questions calling for opinion, speculation and conjecture!

[BJR]

Originally Posted by cekkk

I respect your opinions, but offer these comments:Again, that's courtroom business. The object at the scene is to get people to talk. Inadmissible statements can be determined after the fact.

I've attended hundreds of TA depositions and trials over a 40-year career. These matters are messy. Cops are trained in many areas, as a rule they are not lawyers. Lawyers themselves often ask for opinion, speculation and conjecture, ergo, objections as to questions calling for opinion, speculation and conjecture!

Tend to agree - my concern is before it reaches the courtroom. I could just hear an insurance person saying "It says in the police report the trailer was too long for the truck..." as if it was fact because it's written down. I, like most of us, want to avoid the courtroom!

[cekkk]

B J's are, let me try to do this using the microphone on this cell phone. I see the B and the J and the letter R are already screwed up. Anyhow, me insurance people generally have ceded the case to the lawyers by the time it gets to court. And as for speculation rumor and innuendo, police conducting investigations will usually follow up on rumor etc. I think I will go back to typing out my response but it was fun.

[alaskahofferts]

I would just like to add that these frost heaves that we have up here are absolutely no joke. They sneak up on you and appear today where they weren't yesterday and could be gone tomorrow, this is exaggerated during break-up. GVWR, GCWR, GAWR, TT weight, all these aside, the Alaskan roads will test the equipment to the point of failing and beyond. When/if you travel up here please be careful and remember.....The Milepost that everyone relies on when they travel up here (including me everytrip) is only as good as when it was editted, the previous summer.

NVGun40--I'm glad everyone is ok and all is working out.