Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Pod People
Senior Member
Joined: 22 Sep 2011
Location: Chapel Hill,NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1081
|
Topic: Actual Weights as measured Posted: 02 Oct 2019 at 8:03pm |
We recently returned from a 2 week
trip with our 179. Before we left, I went to our local county dump and
recycle center and weighed our rig.
We have a 2012 Ford Expedion EL tow
vehicle with a full tank of gas, 2 people, a canoe on the roof and
"stuff". the Rpod is a 2015 179 and stocked with normal food,
clothes and gear as usual for a 2 week trip. The tongue has a single full
propane tank, 2 GC-2 batteries, the spare tire and a manual tongue jack. There
are 2 bikes on a bike rack (total of 86 #) at the rear of the pod and 15 gallons
(120#) in the fresh water tank at the front of the pod. Here are the actual weights:
1-Truck with 179 RPod
attached, weight distribution engaged but Rpod not on scales(so I think
this includes the actual tongue weight as well as the truck weight)
7340#
2-truck and RPod on scales together
w/ WD engaged 10820#
3-truck only (we disconnected the RPod
and left it on street) includes wd hitch weight 6800#
4- tongue weight
(#1-#3) 540#
5- Trailer weight (#2-#3)
4020#
6- trailer axle weight (#5-#4)
3480#
per factory sticker affixed to
RPod
RPod weight 2785#
RPod carrying capacity 983#
Total maximum weight 3768#
So, obviously I am overweight in the
RPod by 4020-3768=252#
I can easily leave the 120# water
out, but still 130# overweight.
I also realize that we have a 3000#
axle, so I am also overweight on the axle by 480#
This is interesting and I would
like to hear how other podders interpret these actual weights. Perhaps I am
wrong. Does this seem right? I did not think to weigh the rig without wd
engaged, but I’m not really sure how that would affect the weights.
Thanks for your insights and
thoughts.
Vann
|
Vann & Laura 2015 RPod 179
|
|
offgrid
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
|
Posted: 03 Oct 2019 at 4:30am |
I think your measurements 2 and 3 (and calculation 5) are correct, but I think you probably need to redo measurement 1 without the wdh tensioned. By leaving it tensioned there is extra weight moved to the trailer axle so your tongue weight might possibly be even higher. The other thing that happens is that unless your scales are perfectly level with the pavement on each end the wdh will throw off the measurements a little when part of the rig is on the scales and part isn't because it is trying to level up the rig.
I've found the best way is to leave the wdh untensioned and add each axle onto the scales one at a time, that way you can directly get the load on each axle, which is in the end what you need to limit and balance out anyway.
That being said, none of your trailer numbers are a whole lot different for mine (also 2015 179 with 2 GC2's and one propane). I have no bike rack but I regularly completely fill my fresh water tank, and minimize any other stuff in the trailer that I can. IIRC I was about 3850 on the trailer, 3300 on the trailer axle, and 550 on the tongue. The axles are nominally good for 3500 (not 3000) but I reinforced mine anyway. The wdh increases the trailer axle load on my rig by about 120 lbs, so I'm really close with it tensioned.
|
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
|
|
Olddawgsrule
Senior Member
Joined: 20 Sep 2017
Location: New Hampshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1014
|
Posted: 03 Oct 2019 at 6:51am |
Originally posted by Pod People
We recently returned from a 2 week
trip with our 179. Before we left, I went to our local county dump and
recycle center and weighed our rig.
We have a 2012 Ford Expedion EL tow
vehicle with a full tank of gas, 2 people, a canoe on the roof and
"stuff". the Rpod is a 2015 179 and stocked with normal food,
clothes and gear as usual for a 2 week trip. The tongue has a single full
propane tank, 2 GC-2 batteries, the spare tire and a manual tongue jack. There
are 2 bikes on a bike rack (total of 86 #) at the rear of the pod and 15 gallons
(120#) in the fresh water tank at the front of the pod. Here are the actual weights:
1-Truck with 179 RPod
attached, weight distribution engaged but Rpod not on scales(so I think
this includes the actual tongue weight as well as the truck weight)
7340#
2-truck and RPod on scales together
w/ WD engaged 10820#
3-truck only (we disconnected the RPod
and left it on street) includes wd hitch weight 6800#
4- tongue weight
(#1-#3) 540#
5- Trailer weight (#2-#3)
4020#
6- trailer axle weight (#5-#4)
3480#
per factory sticker affixed to
RPod
RPod weight 2785#
RPod carrying capacity 983#
Total maximum weight 3768#
So, obviously I am overweight in the
RPod by 4020-3768=252#
I can easily leave the 120# water
out, but still 130# overweight.
I also realize that we have a 3000#
axle, so I am also overweight on the axle by 480#
This is interesting and I would
like to hear how other podders interpret these actual weights. Perhaps I am
wrong. Does this seem right? I did not think to weigh the rig without wd
engaged, but I’m not really sure how that would affect the weights.
Thanks for your insights and
thoughts.
Vann |
1-Truck with 179 RPod attached, weight distribution engaged but Rpod not on scales(so I think this includes the actual tongue weight as well as the truck weight) 7340# I caught this as well. Dis-engage the WDH, you have additional distributed weigh read. 4- tongue weight (#1-#3) 540# So that makes this number also high. I'm 3200#'s on my axle and 385#'s on my tongue. Puts me at 3350#'s (aprox IIRC) with WDH on the axle. I carry only a few gallons of fresh and empty black/gray when traveling to keep the weight down. What year is your trailer? I didn't know any had a 3000# axle..
|
|
|
offgrid
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 7:38am |
Originally posted by Olddawgsrule
4- tongue weight (#1-#3) 540# So that makes this number also high. I'm 3200#'s on my axle and 385#'s on my tongue. Puts me at 3350#'s (aprox IIRC) with WDH on the axle. I carry only a few gallons of fresh and empty black/gray when traveling to keep the weight down. What year is your trailer? I didn't know any had a 3000# axle.. |
Since tongue weight is being calculated by subtracting the truck weight without the pod attached (#3) from the truck weight with it attached (#1) having the wdh engaged for #1 (which moves some weight to the trailer axle) should make the tongue weight reading appear too low, not too high.
Reducing the "average" effective tongue weight by moving some to the trailer axle and some to the front axle is after all the point of having a wdh. It is hard to get an accurate measurement of the effect of the wdh directly on scales though because its action depends on having all three axles on an exactly flat surface. Any bump, berm or swale will effect the measurement. Which is why a wdh isn't really considered to reduce tongue weight, the TV still has to be able to handle the full tongue weight when the TV rear axle is sitting a bit high and the tension on the WDH bars is reduced or eliminated completely.
I have the same year 179 as Pod People and it has a 3500 lb rated axle, as do all the heavier rPods. The lighter ones have axles rated at 3000 lb, but it appears to me that this is because FR has had 3500 lbs axles derated to 3000 lbs on those so that they can claim a lower gross trailer weight for the lighter pods. As near as I can tell they are physically the same 3500lb axles.
|
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
|
|
Happy Tripping
Senior Member
Joined: 27 May 2014
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 473
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 9:35am |
[/QUOTE] I have the same year 179 as Pod People and it has a 3500 lb rated axle, as do all the heavier rPods. The lighter ones have axles rated at 3000 lb, but it appears to me that this is because FR has had 3500 lbs axles derated to 3000 lbs on those so that they can claim a lower gross trailer weight for the lighter pods. As near as I can tell they are physically the same 3500lb axles. [/QUOTE]
Perhaps the one thing that most upsets me about Forest River is their 'Heads I win, tails you lose' attitude, exemplified by their response to possible damage from someone standing on the roof of the trailer and their response to me when my axle fell off.
If I understand the issue, and I am not an expert, the 3500# and 3000# axles are indeed physically the same. The difference is in the rubber gizmos that connect the axles to the frame, do the actual work, and that therefore define the rating, the result - the 3000# limit being indeed lighter.
It would be nice if Lippert/Dexter/Forest River would address this but I am afraid that their lawyers don't permit this.
|
|
offgrid
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 10:21am |
Originally posted by Happy Tripping
If I understand the issue, and I am not an expert, the 3500# and 3000# axles are indeed physically the same. The difference is in the rubber gizmos that connect the axles to the frame, do the actual work, and that therefore define the rating, the result - the 3000# limit being indeed lighter.
|
From comparing model numbers I personally doubt that there is any physical difference at all between the two axles. It is most likely simply specsmanship in the form of a label change. While overrating an axle has consequences for a manufacturer, there is no rule that says that a manufacturer can't derate an axle. Since the gross trailer weight is defined by the DOT to be no higher than the lowest listed tongue weight plus the rated trailer axle weight, derating the axle to 3000 lbs on some models creates a marketing advantage by lowering the GTW to within the limits of some smaller SUV's.
Manufacturers of all kinds of stuff do this kind of thing all the time. Its cheaper to make all the products the same and adjust the specs downward on some products to differentiate models within product lines. That way they save cost overall by streamlining the manufacturing process while still being able to get better margins from folks who want the "high end" model. That's why it can often be a great deal to buy a cheaper, lower spec'd model rather than the top end. You often get the exact same product at a lower price that way. Misleading? Yes. Unlawful? Not at all, the manufacturer isn't exaggerating the capabilities of the product, quite the contrary.
|
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
|
|
Olddawgsrule
Senior Member
Joined: 20 Sep 2017
Location: New Hampshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1014
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 3:11pm |
Originally posted by Happy Tripping
If I understand the issue, and I am not an expert, the 3500# and 3000# axles are indeed physically the same. The difference is in the rubber gizmos that connect the axles to the frame, do the actual work, and that therefore define the rating, the result - the 3000# limit being indeed lighter.
|
My mind goes to what the sticker on the axle states. It comes down to that and not to exceed.
|
|
|
Olddawgsrule
Senior Member
Joined: 20 Sep 2017
Location: New Hampshire
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1014
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 3:22pm |
Originally posted by offgrid
Since tongue weight is being calculated by subtracting the truck weight without the pod attached (#3) from the truck weight with it attached (#1) having the wdh engaged for #1 (which moves some weight to the trailer axle) should make the tongue weight reading appear too low, not too high.
Reducing the "average" effective tongue weight by moving some to the trailer axle and some to the front axle is after all the point of having a wdh. It is hard to get an accurate measurement of the effect of the wdh directly on scales though because its action depends on having all three axles on an exactly flat surface. Any bump, berm or swale will effect the measurement. Which is why a wdh isn't really considered to reduce tongue weight, the TV still has to be able to handle the full tongue weight when the TV rear axle is sitting a bit high and the tension on the WDH bars is reduced or eliminated completely.
|
I understand what your saying. The whole idea and physic's about weight distribution is still something I'm learning about and wether or not it's better than re-enforcing your TV is better, if your TV is capable.
For some, there's no choice. For some, even WDH will not work. I jumped pretty quick due to costs and not understanding. I wanted sway control and cost of a WDH with sway made sense at the time. I'm debating that decision now.
|
|
|
offgrid
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 5:05pm |
I’m right at the upper limit for tongue weight on my TV, so a wdh is for me pretty much essential. I’m looking forward to removing the dual lead acid batteries and placing a lithium battery further aft, thereby reducing tongue weight. After your frame issues, I’m also thinking about frame reinforcement as well. I think an rpod with a 2x4 tube in the axle area, plus a 5200 lb rated axle, and some additional frame reinforcement under the A frame extending from in front of the wdh attachment to a couple of feet aft of the front of the trailer box would make for a pretty robust boondocking trailer at a relatively low cost. The area around the wdh attachment and the front of the box also theoretically gets some high frame loads.
|
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
|
|
Jeepinator
Groupie
Joined: 08 Sep 2017
Location: Seacoast NH
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 72
|
Posted: 05 Oct 2019 at 6:50pm |
Given all the smart people on this thread, I’d like to add another element. What is the underlying risk of exceeding tongue weight and will air bags reduce it? I’ve not determined my exact tongue weight yet but I suspect I exceed the 350# even with the WDH.
I am aware that sway and receiver/coupler damage are potential risk factors but I assume there are others.
The TV and trailer are level when the WDH is engaged.
|
2018 Jeep Wrangler Willys
2017 179
|
|