Liability and overweight towing (split from Towing 13' Scamp...)

[RogerDat]

Originally Posted by Bob Miller

"Exceptions don't make the rule"

Originally Posted by Bob Miller

Disclaimers are pretty much boiler plate, manufacturers don't want dealers, or anyone else for that matter, increasing their liability level. .....

I also did a search of the PDF version of your 2003 manual and did not find the boiler plate text you have quoted in several posts. Same as I did not find it in my manual. Unless you can find and provide a way for me to confirm I remain skeptical.

I did find in your manual where the owner is directed to the Dealer for advice and information on towing. Which is exactly the suggestion I made to the OP as her best choice. Threads full of posts that deteriorate into debate do not help them, better to follow the manual advice to consult the dealer.

Originally Posted by Bob Miller

A maximum trailer weight chart on age 4-53 of my 2003 Blazer manual lists 10 different combinations of Blazer chassis, drive lines and trim options and shows maximum trailer weights from 2000 lbs to 5,700 lbs. ....

It also says on page 4-53 a lot of other factors go into it. Including any special equipment. I think the dealer might consider a WD hitch special equipment and I would feel comfortable giving or following the advice in your manual to seek advice from the dealer on what "special equipment" options are possible to safely tow. Now you might take that to only mean the original special equipment, which is your right. Despite them using the term "optional equipment" to describe factory options. Others have a right to form their own equally valid conclusion.

Originally Posted by Bob Miller

If you look up Subaru I believe that I recently saw the "When Properly Equipped" disclaimer used on that site. But again, boiler plate..... To even suggest that the opposite is true, is beyond the pale of reason.

Not finding the boiler plate you claim is there, not being provided with examples by yourself. I think my suggestion that there is not the industry wide "boiler plate" you claim is a well reasoned and not beyond the pale of reason.

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Carol H

Your very correct that Scamps towing guidelines suggest 10% of the total weight as a good number to start with to achieve a nice solid tow, which is exactly as I have indicated more than once now, why I routinely added the extra 40 to 50lbs to the tongue. ;-)

That's not a "guideline": or even a suggestion; it's a specification imposed by the manufacturer of the trailer for stable towing of the unit. Trailer maker specs are the ones that count in this department. Improper tongue-to-total ratio is the number one cause of trailer sway, the most common and dangerous safety issue associated with towing. One can compensate for such unbalanced loading by various means, especially speed reduction; but to simply dismiss it as insignificant is against not just the laws of physics, but the ideal of "protecting everyone else on the road" from one's folly.

Originally Posted by Carol H

As far as an increase in the odds of hurting another party by going over the vehicle manufactures tongue weight rating by 40 to 50 lbs while staying under the total towing capacity and well under the GVWR goes I will let you do your creative math to do the calculation on that risk.

250 pounds is 25% more hitch weight than the very strictly stated capacity of the Outback's hitching point. For the "creative math" you require I suggest you refer to Subaru's engineering department since those are the folks that arrived at that number. Without knowing all of their reasons, still I'd hazard a guess that danger of over/understeering due to front end unloading is likely one- certainly a very serious safety hazard for everyone on the road including Grandma, Grandpa, and all the little kiddies.

I'm frankly puzzled that you seem to have so much trouble grasping this concept, especially given your rabidity per one "mfr. limit"; which number is only a maximum; actual final weights depending on compliance with all other stated limits however "low" they may be.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by Francesca Knowles

I'm frankly puzzled that you seem to have so much trouble grasping this concept, especially given your rabidity per one "mfr. limit"; which number is only a maximum; actual final weights depending on compliance with all other stated limits however "low" they may be.

As I said Francesca Never give up

Now how about that Kia Sportage & Trillium combo you have

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Glenn Baglo

Pistols at twenty paces, I say.

Now that would be more fun to watch than this thread!
Apparently, there would be little danger (except to bystanders!)

But then there's that whole thing of getting some bureaucrat to issue permits and proper training for the pistols!

You're right though, it was time for a little levity... the "tongue" weight was getting a bit above capacity!

[NEWFISHER]

my $.02





























.















.











.

[Bob Miller]

[QUOTE- (IN PART)=RogerDat;453216]I also did a search of the PDF version of your 2003 manual and did not find the boiler plate text you have quoted in several posts. Same as I did not find it in my manual. Unless you can find and provide a way for me to confirm I remain skeptical. clip

It also says on page 4-53 a lot of other factors go into it. Including any special equipment. I think the dealer might consider a WD hitch special equipment.

Others have a right to form their own equally valid conclusion.

Not finding the boiler plate you claim is there, not being provided with examples by yourself. I think my suggestion that there is not the industry wide "boiler plate" you claim is a well reasoned and not beyond the pale of reason


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Several points about reposting of the Owners Manual for 2003 Blazer.....

To even suggest that a company as big as General Motors would let someone as far down the liability food chain as a dealers service manager over-ride printed corporate specifications is not in the realm of possibility, not at least since the 60's.

While the specific statement that might satisfy some may not be in ALL Owners Manuals, it is in some and is certainly in other corporate publications such as the original warrantee etc. To suggest that it doesn't exist is a non-starter.

And Yes, GM suggests asking your dealer about towing, but no matter who you ask, it may be subject to further verification, especially if they contradict what is in the Owners Manual. I, for one, would want any "out of specification" deviations to be presented in writing, not just as an Okey-Dokey.

And YES, a lot of other factors are included in the towing ability limits, but in my own simple way I see those underlined words as suggesting that it may LOWER the towing limit. The MAXIMUM weight is clearly posted on the chart.

And the issue of using a WD hitch is already discussed in the same section, with the recommendation that it be used with trailers over 3500 lbs. But it doesn't suggest that it increases the total allowable trailer weight even 1 oz.

"Others have a right to form their own equally valid conclusion."

In regards to maximum trailer weights, I think that "equally valid" implies a lot of qualifications that few, if any, on this site have the skill sets to make.

And about reading fortune cookies and posted information:

Just as it is suggested that the words "In Bed" can always be added to any Chinese fortune cookie message, the words "In MY Opinion" should always be added to any posts found on the internet.

And as Carol mentioned, this discussion has now gone full circle.....

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by floyd

Now that would be more fun to watch than this thread!
Apparently, there would be little danger (except to bystanders!)

But then there's that whole thing of getting some bureaucrat to issue permits and proper training for the pistols!

You're right though, it was time for a little levity... the "tongue" weight was getting a bit above capacity!

It would be fun!
Except I would be at a little disadvantage being a Canadian Ah. We don't own no pistols. Now Hockey sticks.. yup we know something about them as weapons....

[Francesca Knowles]

Originally Posted by Carol H

Now how about the Kia Sportage & Trillium combo you have

What about it?

I'm not the one maintaining that "towing beyond specs" is legally actionable, grounds for losing one's insurance and probably one's hair to boot, if not tantamount to Premeditated Murder. That, my dear, would be you. Much surprised by your position on that notion I only point out its obvious flaws by way of reminding you that you've been a poster child for, shall we say "pushing the edges of the envelope" for years, what with your disregard of that most basic mfr. limit per hitch weight. Come to think of it, I believe I even remember you gleefully telling someone some time back that you've even towed beyond Subaru's "above 104 degrees in the mountains" limit of what- 1400 pounds?
Hang on- I s'pose I have to prove that....wait....wait....O.K.- found it!
Post # 16 here.

I certainly didn't mean to offend you by linking you with an activity certain other practitioners of which you may not approve of- but, really - your position now is inconsistent with that of only a few months ago.

Since you ask about my setup:

As I've said many times, it's a constant struggle to keep the 1400 lb. dry trailer at the 2000 pound total/200 pound tongue limits of the Kia. I've had to jettison more than one "good idea" because of those limits and even then I probably have overtowed by a hundred pounds or so now and then. But certainly not as a matter of course; and always soon corrected.

This due to the practical limits of the equipment, by the way, and not due to any fear of litigation for "exceeding mfr. tow limits". I continue to maintain that dark warnings of dire legal consequences y'all predict attached solely thereto are apocryphal nonsense.

[RogerDat]

Participants are we having fun yet? Feel like we are being helpful to fellow members?
Guess what this behavior is NOT fun or helpful for most members. Moderators get PM's from people saying they are just tired of the bullying and arguing and not going to post. We see posts where people say "I'm getting nothing but hassled, I'm done" This thread is a poster child for that sort of activity.

Anyone that comes to this forum seeking legal advice should take note that the only member who will not give legal advice on liability while towing is an actual lawyer. Won't stop any of us from arguing law like we are in front of the Supreme Court. No We take that back. In that forum decorum is required or they escort you out.

One useful item and a bunch of unpleasant argument does not a good post make. Folks with strong feelings on the subject could have used most of their post content as PM's and by doing so made this forum a better place. As can anyone else that wants to have a private debate. However the community rules also apply in PM’s so name calling and rudeness can be reported same as a post.

Normally the unacceptable posts are manually cleaned up by the helpful unpaid moderators who attempt to leave any information of value in the post. How many posts in this 6 page thread should have received that treatment? How much of the content is of actual value to the FGRV community?

We think it would be an interesting exercise for people to look over this thread and spot the name calling, rude, critical, snarky and argumentative content for themselves. Including my own posts, I skated right up to the line as far as content, but would have personally advocated that much of the content I posted be deleted as argumentative. Along with much of the post content I was disagreeing with.

I would normally refrain from posting verbose rebuttals or even sanction posts that were mostly argumentative (such as many of mine) and have advocated for them being deleted. In this case someone had to take one for the "team" so I went the extra mile.

Those of you that shared a view point, opinion and moved on, thank you

We decided that the thread be allowed to run along, at least until we had enough material to use it as an example of the type of behavior that will lead to infractions being issued, infractions that if accumulate past three (3) in a 120 day period will lead to a temporary ban. Warnings don't apply toward a temporary ban but if you get a warning it means stop now or you will get infractions for repeat of that behavior.

People that come to the forum and see threads with this kind of argumentative unpleasant content have no reason to join or participate. That is why moderators clean them up. Cleaning up after grown adults should not be part of the moderator job description.

Many of the people participating in this thread have contributed much to this forum, including great ideas, helpful advice or support to members in general.

We all need to refrain from posting this sort of critical and argumentative stuff. Self moderation is going to be a requirement for participation. It is really that simple.

This thread is now closed.