Please tell us your Motivation

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Carol H

Sorry Ed I know you indicated at the start of this topic that you only wanted to hear from those who are towing over their vehicles specs but curiosity got the better of me.

Daniel raises a good point.

What would be the big difference between a test done by unbiased engineers vs a test done by the engineers who built the vehicle? other than as someone has already pointed out here that some vehicles that have been tested so far have been found to not be up to the tow rating set by the manufactures. Which funny enough fly's in the face of the argument put forward here so often for towing over the manufactures tow cap that the tow ratings in NA are set far to low.

It would be interested to hear from those who currently tow over their vehicle specs if a standardized test really would make any difference to their decision to tow over the manufactures published cap. What would be the game changer that would make you take notice more of one tow rating test vs the other?

I suspect that as a result of some of the accidents that have taken place on the main highway on Vancouver Island involving over loaded pick ups (mostly truck camper & boat combos) that we will continue to see weight safety checks - standardized tow rating tests or not.

As a side note I think in keeping with the bases for starting this thread it may also be equally as interesting and educational to start another thread having folks state their reasons for not towing over their vehicles tow cap.

You(and others) have obfuscated the question by using the terms... rating,capacity,and specifications, as if they were interchangable.
I think the question refered to "a vehicles rated towing numbers" which are immutable and often subject to caveats.
Specificatons are merely technical data... generally without admonition.
Capacity refers to the maximum suitability or capability... and is obviously subject to change due to competent aftermarket modification, that which may be averred here from either side notwithstanding.
I apologize for failing miserably in my attempt to stay out of this discussion since it is inevitably fraught with innuendo, inferrence and implication.

[melissab]

Sheesh Floyd, I have to go dig out my dictionary again, LOL. Seriously though I love reading your posts, they are always educational and informative. If I want to learn a new word a day all I have to do is find your posts, lol.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by floyd

You(and others) have obfuscated the question by using the terms... rating,capacity,and specifications, as if they were interchangable.
I think the question refered to "a vehicles rated towing numbers" which are immutable and often subject to caveats.
Specificatons are merely technical data... generally without admonition.
Capacity refers to the maximum suitability or capability... and is obviously subject to change due to competent aftermarket modification, that which may be averred here from either side notwithstanding.
I apologize for failing miserably in my attempt to stay out of this discussion since it is inevitably fraught with innuendo, inferrence and implication.

Sorry Floyd I will try and go back and correct my post to read as you suggest "vehicles rated towing numbers" to avoid any confusion as there was no innuendo, inference and implications intended by my question.

[Donna D.]

I'm so tired of this worn out topic I could scream. The members I feel sorry for are the newbies who've never towed a trailer and are looking for answers.

In Oregon, Norm is correct... there aren't any laws regarding a vehicle with low or no tow rating, except commercial vehicles.

In OREGON, all the responsibility falls on the driver. Remember these words:

"Knowingly," "Substantial and "Unjustifiable Risk," "Reasonable Person," and lastly "Ignorance is not a Defense."

So, while in Oregon there isn't any absolute laws regarding vehicles with tow ratings (non-commercial)... I hope you NEVER find yourself in a position to be charged with any of these types of penalties.

If you care to argue with these Oregon definitions, fine. Just remember, law enforcement has far more tools at their disposal for finding information about manufactured vehicles than you do. If you care enough to spend the time, I respectfully submit you should thoroughly check out the towing and driving laws in your state. Laws go far beyond what you learned in your states handbook when you took your driving test.

Lastly, I'd suggest you never stand before a judge and try to explain that they "do it in Europe," and use that as a defense.

811.140 Reckless driving; penalty.
(1) A person commits the offense of reckless driving if the person recklessly drives a vehicle upon a highway or other premises described in this section in a manner that endangers the safety of persons or property.
(2) The use of the term “recklessly” in this section is as defined in ORS 161.085.
(3) The offense described in this section, reckless driving, is a Class A misdemeanor and is applicable upon any premises open to the public.

OREGON:
CRIMINAL LIABILITY - 161.085 Definitions with respect to culpability.
(8) “Knowingly” or “with knowledge,” when used with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person acts with an awareness that the conduct of the person is of a nature so described or that a circumstance so described exists.

(9) “Recklessly,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

(10) “Criminal negligence” or “criminally negligent,” when used with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense, means that a person fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to be aware of it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.

[MC1]

Originally Posted by honda03842

It irks me to no end that Honda North America treats North Americans like children and gives us a dramatically lower rating than the UK and Germany.

Agree Norm but the word that comes to my mind is offensive. The auto makers play with the numbers. There's huge profits in those big, heavy pickups and SUV's with the big tow ratings.

This quote I read a while ago really stuck in my mind and sums it up....

QUOTE:

"I'm a ME working under Daimler. Let me tell you, a MAJORITY of the design specifications are not finalized by the engineering department. We can go through rigorous testing to prove the safe limit of a component, and marketing or the lawyers can slap on their veto stamp due to customer demand, perception, and other stupid reasons.

While I have never worked on design for towing, I can almost guarantee that most sedans and minivans are under-rated for marketing reasons. Simple law of physics tell you that the power-weight ratio, handling dynamics, and stopping power of a 3300 lbs, 270hp Altima + 5000 lbs trailer is superior to a 300hp F150 + 11000 lbs trailer.

Tow rig to trailer weight ratio is also largely irrelevant with proper design. Proof: commercial rigs tow trailers weighting many times heavier than the rig itself."

[Carol H]

Just because you may not be found guilty under criminal law in the event you kill or serious hurt someone does not mean you will get away without paying any damages. OJ Simpson is a good example of that situation. He was found not guilty under criminal law twice but the families of his 2 victims went after him in a personal injury civil lawsuit & won a $33.5 million civil injury settlement. As said here many times what will be considered in a civil cases as to your quilt or innocence is very different from a criminal case.

[Mike Magee]

I think maybe we're mixing apples and oranges. There's 'breaking the law' or doing things specifically prohibited, things for which specific penalties are codified. Then there's doing things that violate no written law but might incur liability if an incident occurs in which injuries or damages result. I think maybe some folks are referring to the latter things. I think Norm is justified in taking exception to such loose and inaccurate usage of the term, "breaking the law," because it implies that anyone who tows over the recommended limits is a lawbreaker, and this isn't really true. A person may feel that a particular action is dangerous, and that's fine. But let's not call it "breaking the law" when it is not.

Legal activities, whether seemingly dangerous or not, are completely within the actor's discretion (we are free people, more or less). I note that driving at highway speed is an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself, but we do not criticize people for driving because it's their business and they assume the risks of injuring themselves or others with a hurtling mass of steel.

If, however, a particular state or province does have specific towing laws, they should be followed just like speed laws should be followed.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Carol H

Sorry Floyd I will try and go back and correct my post to read as you suggest "vehicles rated towing numbers" to avoid any confusion as there was no innuendo, inference and implications intended by my question.

Then you must not have inferred that I implied any personal offense! [I didn't]

My son and I have often discussed philosophically ... whether "Words have meaning", or "Meaning has words"! A fine point which becomes magnified with written language.
Where punctuation must take the place of facial expression, body language and inflection, communication can be frustrated, often even exacerbated.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by Mike Magee

I think maybe we're mixing apples and oranges. There's 'breaking the law' or doing things specifically prohibited, things for which specific penalties are codified. Then there's doing things that violate no written law but might incur liability if an incident occurs in which injuries or damages result. I think maybe some folks are referring to the latter things. I think Norm is justified in taking exception to such loose and inaccurate usage of the term, "breaking the law," because it implies that anyone who tows over the recommended limits is a lawbreaker, and this isn't really true. A person may feel that a particular action is dangerous, and that's fine. But let's not call it "breaking the law" when it is not.

Legal activities, whether seemingly dangerous or not, are completely within the actor's discretion (we are free people, more or less). I note that driving at highway speed is an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself, but we do not criticize people for driving because it's their business and they assume the risks of injuring themselves or others with a hurtling mass of steel.

If, however, a particular state or province does have specific towing laws, they should be followed just like speed laws should be followed.

Mike;
Well written!
I love that last sentence!

[Thomas G.]

Originally Posted by Donna D.

I'm so tired of this worn out topic I could scream. .............

Yup, I think this summarizes it nicely.




.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by MC1

Agree Norm but the word that comes to my mind is offensive. The auto makers play with the numbers. There's huge profits in those big, heavy pickups and SUV's with the big tow ratings.[/COLOR]

Got to love the ever popular conspiracy theory If this theory is to be taken seriously how does one explain away the simple fact that there are vehicles that a lot of folks on this list like to tow fiberglass trailers with that the manufacture does not make a bigger heavy pick up or SUV to sell us instead - even though some of us wish they did. Yet the vehicles they do sell here in NA do in fact have lower tow ratings than those they sell in other countries. Does it not make more sense that the reason for the different tow ratings is as given by the manufacture themselves in at least one case that the components in the car sold in NA are not the same as what is in the one sold in another country?

[honda03842]

This month I saw a Scamp 13 being towed by a 6 cylinder Toyota 4Runner. The relative newbie had been told that a 4Runner is adequate to tow his Scamp 13.

He asked me if my anti-sway bar helped prevent sway. I told him probably but my trailer had never swayed, nor had I ever had a fiberglass trailer sway.

He said his Scamp 13 did so I reveiwed his set up.

Both vehicle and trailer tire pressures were too low. Two heavy steel bikes hanging off the rear of the trailer on a 3 or 4 footlong steel bike rack. The front of his tow vehicle pointed to the heavens, partially due to two batteries and two propane tanks, I did not check the internal loading of the trailer.

Simply buying a tow vehicle designed to tow a certain load is no guarantee.

It seems to me that the discussion is always over some 'marketing' number' rather than the importance of tires, trailer loading, and tow vehicle loading.

What I like about Can AM RV is they set up the vehicle to tow the load and test their setups. They are clearly professionals.

Lastly any one can be sued no matter what they are driving or how careful they are. Afterall, MacDonalds has been sued because it's coffee was hot.....

[gmw photos]

quote: I think maybe we're mixing apples and oranges. There's 'breaking the law' or doing things specifically prohibited, things for which specific penalties are codified. Then there's doing things that violate no written law but might incur liability if an incident occurs in which injuries or damages result.
===============

Probably a more relevant concern would be how will your insurance company look at the whole issue ??

[841K9]

Originally Posted by honda03842

Lastly any one can be sued no matter what they are driving or how careful they are. Afterall, MacDonalds has been sued because it's coffee was hot.....

I was just thinking about the woman who sued Ford.
Her car caught fire after a wreck and she chose to stay in the driver's seat. Obviously, she was burned. Her lawyer argued that the "firewall" didn't protect her from the fire. Now, we're forced to call it the bulkhead.

Sadly, our courts often side with the stupid.

[MC1]

Originally Posted by honda03842

This month I saw a Scamp 13 being towed by a 6 cylinder Toyota 4Runner. The relative newbie had been told that a 4Runner is adequate to tow his Scamp 13.

What I like about Can AM RV is they set up the vehicle to tow the load and test their setups. They are clearly professionals.

Speaking of Can AM....... it is ironic.

A few years ago at the Hamilton RV show I attended a towing seminar that was hosted by Andy Thomson from Can Am. He used the Toyota 4 Runner as an example of "How not to design and build at TV". He explained that it was reliable and was a great off road vehicle but when used as a TV every aspect of the design was wrong.

[Carol H]

Originally Posted by floyd

Then you must not have inferred that I implied any personal offense! [I didn't]

My son and I have often discussed philosophically ... whether "Words have meaning", or "Meaning has words"! A fine point which becomes magnified with written language.
Where punctuation must take the place of facial expression, body language and inflection, communication can be frustrated, often even exacerbated.

You mean

like this

[jen b]

Question: has anybody here actually towed both in europe and in north america? Wondering whether there are any hands-on impressions of tow vehicle differences. (I've hauled horses in both places but not FGRVs)

And a vague thought: if an accident is so catastrophic that the other person's insurance company is digging into your car/truck manufacturer's tow rating, your problems are profound enough that the two rating question is the least of your worries.

But, I have no dog in the fight really.

[melissab]

Honest Question from a towing Greenhorn. This is something I have always wondered, how come pickup trucks can tow trailers twice their weight (or more) when properly set up with brakes, sway control etc yet SUVs, minivan and cars can not tow anywhere near their equal weight much less more than their weight when properly equipped also with brakes, sway control etc? My folks have a 40 ft 5th wheel with 3 slideouts, a fireplace, 3 A/Cs basement storage, cherry cabinets, kitchen island, full size fridge, stove etc etc. They live in this full time so it doesnt move much but when it does need to go in for service/repair or when they took delivery of it they used their F350 to tow it. That monster probably weighs 3 times what the truck weighs. So are the lower tow standards due to components such as tranny, rearend etc are not up for the job more than the overall weight of the vehicle? I understand the unibody issues so lets use a non unibody example like the Ford Explorer (previous generation as now they are unibody) or any other vehicle which is rear wheel drive and has a frame excluding pickups. So if we put heavy duty truck components in full framed vehicles could they then to tow more than their own curb weight like the trucks do? I'm just trying to figure out the physics difference between trucks towing massive enormous trailers that outweigh them by a landslide and other vehicles being limited to roughly half to 2/3 their overall weight generally. Hope I asked this right, lol.

[Mike Magee]

Melissa, great topic for a new thread.

[gmw photos]

quote: Honest Question from a towing Greenhorn. This is something I have always wondered, how come pickup trucks can tow trailers twice their weight (or more).....
================

Melissa, look under your car. Pay attention to springs, and steering parts, the size of the transmission housing, etc.
Next time you see your dad's F350, lay down under it and look at the "pieces and parts". Then, next time you see an 18 wheeler tractor in a parking lot, do the same.....look under it. Figure a typical class eight truck ( like an 18 wheeler tractor ) weighs about 18,000 pounds by itself. Most states have a maximum load of 80,000 pounds, so you can see that the Kenworth can easily pull over 60,000 pounds.

Books could be ( and have been ) written to answer your question in depth, but just looking at the size/strength of the parts will tell you a lot.

Wanna zoom around the sports car course ? Buy a sporty car.

Need to haul a few people around in comfort in an affordable vehicle ( or if you're just pulling a little trailer ) ? Buy a car or small van.

But if you need to haul a big load, reliably and safely....buy a truck of the appropriate rating.

EDIT: something else to consider also is that a truck like a Kenworth is designed to have a useful life of at least a million miles. All of it "towing".