RMacKillop

Moisheh, Really, the ratio does apply to all the tag axles on the road. In that the manufacturer screwed up their engineering and have to lighten the tag to try to keep the unit safe (ie not overloaded on the most critical axle) is a serious shortcoming. If you read the CCC of these coaches, it includes the rated capacity of the tag so obviously to get to that tag loading , the owner would have to put most of the weight on or behind the drive axle.- good luck. Note that the maximum allowed load for any axle (DOT ) is 20,000 and for a tandem (drive plus tag) the max is 34,000. Therefore the ratio is approx 60:40 to get full use of the combination. Also see the great specs of the new Foretravel. Approx 4200 capacity without taking the drive over 20,000 ( rating is 23,000)

General tag principles: Drive :tag ratio is usually ~60:40 eg 20,000:14,000 (which gives 34,000 combination max) For a 45 ft coach adding 1000 lbs to the tag, removes 750-800 from the drive axle and adds 200-250 to the steer axle. The DOT rules are -for RV's 20,000 maximum load on any axle. and 34,000 total for the drive + tag combo. . Having a rating over 20,000 is fine, just more robust and may be a result of using the same chassis for Transit buses (eg Prevost)which have some different limits. Also , having a higher capacity Drive is reasonable since the tag is often lifted resulting in more drive loading. Ross

To Foretravel, for there new IH Series motorhomes. A new motorhome that doesn't need to hide it's axle weight ratings and that has some reserve capacity. 20,000 front (max allowed by DOT) , Drive 23,000, tag 14,000. (The tandem max is 34,000 but having a more robust drive is good as it picks up extra weight from the tag when it is lifted.) The Foretravel in this test should have the tag load increased, which would reduce the drive load to legal (often, drive tag ratio is 60:40. Let the tag go to 14,000 the the rest goes to the drive). To FMCA for using the CCC and OCCC ratings . -OCCC is occupant and cargo capacity, which is done without water --- a questionable NHTSA decision possibly affected by the industries desire to show more capacity. While NHTSA requires OCCC, it is important to (as FMCA did) to also weigh the RV with full water, because this weight can be more toward one axle and overload it (often). FMCA does play a role as a consumer advocate ,although that is not it's mandate. Even in conflict with income (advertisements), I believe that FMCA should continue with clear, safety-related test reports like this one. Thank you, Ross All owners must weigh their RVs with full fuel and water.

Hi, Tireman posted the following earlier in the thread. It is really to the point. FMCA is the only consumer group that can have some impact on the manufacturers. Posting actual weights in the magazine articles is essential. In spite of, or in addition to, the new OCCC standard, the INDIVIDUAL axle loading effects of full water and 4 people should be noted. Omitting all reference to weights as in the recent Astoria article in the magazine is not of service to the FMCA members. Now that Blue Bird has been found guilty of fraud, other manufacturers may take notice. FMCA can join in and educate owners. Ross from a press release: .............. On November 18, 2010, an Ottawa County Michigan jury rendered a verdict that Blue Bird Corporation committed fraud, among other things, in that it knowingly manufactured 57 overweight and dangerous motor homes and for three years, between 2004-2007, sold them to unsuspecting customers Blue Bird manufactured and sold these coaches, designated Blue Bird “Wanderlodge M450LXiâ€, at prices starting in the $700,000s and reaching over one million dollars . The jury verdict stated that Blue Bird made the fraudulent statements with the intent that the statements be relied upon by it customer and that Blue Bird intentionally created a false impression about its product intending that its customer would rely upon it..................................... post from "tireman" Might this thread point out the need for FMCA coach reviews to include actual corner weights? We need to do as much as possible to educate owners of the importance and Safety improvement if they know their real loads. We might also see some improvements from manufacturers if they see their real weights posted where MFG A has good balance side to side as well as appropriate reserve spread across all axles when MFG B doesn't. -------------------- Retired Tire Design and Quality Engineer (40 years experience). Retired Professional race car driver. Retired Police Driving Instructor. Give seminars at FMCA and other Rallys on Tires and also on Genealogy.

Considering heating - The Blue Bird 450 LXI uses a Webasto system (designed by Blue Bird). It uses the engine /rad antifreeze and runs a 20 amp (12V) pump continuously even when the coach is not "calling " for heat. The engine and rad are continually held at 160- 180 degrees as a "Heat sink". The 450 therefore cannot go from 10 pm to 7 am (required by no noise rules) without running the genset if the heat is on. Even without the Webasto, all unnecessary loads and inverters must be switched off(It has 10 x 8D s) Ross

Back to " LACK OF STANDARDS" FMCA October magazine has an interesting article on the Born Free 22 foot Class C. Aside from there being an addition error with Wet weight as tested, it shows the the lack of standards for weighing RVs. I believe that this is dangerous. As the first post in this topic: "Until 2008 there was a simple definition of Cargo carrying capacity, CCC. It was the GVWR minus the weight of the coach with full water, full fuel and 4 passengers at 154 lbs each. In their wisdom (and perhaps pressure by the RV industry), NHTSA changed the system to make the cargo capacity seem greater. It now is the GVWR minus the coach with full fuel. The placards indicate that the owner must allow for the weight of occupants and water. One of the problems here is that the weight of the water affects the front and rear axle differently and most owners don't realize that the weight of the passengers is almost entirely on the front axle (in theory, 4 X 154= 616 lbs). In this article OCCC is not correct, as the weight of the water is not included in this number. OCCC here would be 12500 - 10520 + 180 (water weight) = 2260, not 2556. Not a big deal here, but shows the lack of standards. CCC would be 12500 - 10520 -616 = 1464 Even for this Class C, there is a large difference between CCC and OCCC. In this case, there appears to be no concern as there are only 24 gallons of water and the GAWR's seem capable. I edited this post as Brett corrected me that GVWR is sometimes less then the sum of the GAWR ... 12500 is the GVWR, which is less then the GAWR.

OK sorry, that shows as Aug 10,2010 1:37 AM on our screens. Also , that does not show Winnebagos actual weight numbers but "Based on the Winnebago/Frieghtliner numbers" are your reserve numbers. These "reserve capacities" that you suggest show the problem. Lack of Standards-- To cut and paste the earlier post: Hi Brett, Your suggestion of reserve is exclusive of passengers. This is part of the problem-- There is no ACCEPTED standard. The definition of CCC in the past has been GVWR minus (full fuel, +propane, +potable water+ scwr ) = CCC scwr sleeping capacity weight rating- usually considered at 4 -- 154 lbs each) In this case the cargo that can be carried on the front axle is 466. (That is 233 per side- If the driver is 204 lbs, not 154, then one side has the capacity of 183 lbs-- a little side to side discrepancy is overweight-- No cargo) The tires must be exactly 120 psi. There is no reserve capacity. Michelin suggests increasing the air pressure to allow a 500 lb reserve. This is not possible here. Grey and black must always be empty. The new OCCC standard(NHTSA) excludes the water and passengers and includes them in the cargo capacity. If you use this system the cargo (including water and passengers) is well over 1000 lbs. The problem in this sytem is that a potential owner has no idea as to the load split of the water. For Winnebago to weigh with partial fuel is of no value to a prospective buyer for the same reason and that it follows NO standard

Hi, I do not see a post from you dated Aug 9th. Nor do I see the weights from Winnebago. Ross

Hi, I think that the deletion of Winnebago's reply Aug 9th is unfortunate as it breaks the discussion and makes my relies Aug 10 appear disjointed. The weights that Winnebago gave confirmed the 2000 lb weight shift effect. Also, the editing of the heading confirms the point suggested by the original heading. Manufacturers are now obliged to each unit and dealers must show changes if they change the load with options (before the sale) Ross MacKillop 2006 Blue Bird 450 LXi

Hi Brett, Your suggestion of reserve is exclusive of passengers. This is part of the problem-- There is no ACCEPTED standard. The definition of CCC in the past has been GVWR minus (full fuel, +propane, +potable water+ scwr ) = CCC scwr sleeping capacity weight rating- usually considered at 4 -- 154 lbs each) In this case the cargo that can be carried on the front axle is 466. (That is 233 per side- If the driver is 204 lbs, not 154, then one side has the capacity of 183 lbs-- a little side to side discrepancy is overweight-- No cargo) The tires must be exactly 120 psi. There is no reserve capacity. Grey and black must always be empty. The new OCCC standard(NHTSA) excludes the water and passengers and includes them in the cargo capacity. If you use this system the cargo (including water and passengers) is well over 1000 lbs. The problem in this sytem is that a potential owner has no idea as to the load split of the water. For Winnebago to weigh with partial fuel is of no value to a prospective buyer for the same reason and that it follows NO standard

It is great that Winnebago has responded to the query from FMCA. Obviously, it is important to show the weights and safety features with accuracy and perhaps this exercise will help. Unfortunately the buyer usually does not interpret the weights properly, (nor do they get even occasional corner weights of their vehicle) The potential buyer puts far too much faith in the manufacturer. I believe that most owners of a vehicle with these adjusted weights will often travel with one front wheel dangerously overweight/underinflated. With the Drive :tag ratio adjusted to a common 60:40, the front axle is 13,344 (180 lbs less then tested). Add 4 light passengers at 154 lbs adds 510 lbs to the front axle. (2 in front of the steer axle and 2 at 60% on the front axle). The front axle now is loaded at 13,854. leaving a reserve of 466. The tires must be maxed to 120 psi even for this. The pantry weight is entirely on the front axle and the large fridge contents will be 80% on the front. The front bays aren't much use. It can be managed IF the side to side balance is perfect (unlikely as 5 % variance is often "allowed") and the tires are never below 120 psi. Why would a knowledgeable buyer bother risking this? Why did not the manufacturer design in SOME margin of safety for the axle and tires ? Ross

True, but moving 2000 lbs from the tag to the drive may lighten the steer by 300 lbs. Not enough to be reasonable. Fridge and pantry location - probably 80 % front axle load. Overweight tires is simply unsafe. These tires would be overloaded at 115 psi. and keeping them at exactly 120 is almost impossible. Tire pressure monitors don't have that accuracy. The point remains - why manufacture it like that? Honest disclosure is usually not the case when a sale is possible.

Hi. Until 2008 there was a simple definition of Cargo carrying capacity, CCC. It was the GVWR minus the weight of the coach with full water, full fuel and 4 passengers at 154 lbs each. In their wisdom (and perhaps pressure by the RV industry), NHTSA changed the system to make the cargo capacity seem greater. It now is the GVWR minus the coach with full fuel. The placards indicate that the owner must allow for the weight of occupants and water. One of the problems here is that the weight of the water affects the front and rear axle differently and most owners don't realize that the weight of the passengers is almost entirely on the front axle (in theory, 4 X 154= 616 lbs). Manufacturers are obliged to placard the coaches this way and now any additional changes done by the dealer must be placed on that placard. An example of the problem and risk is in the August 2010 FMC magazine feature article on the 2010 Itasca Ellipse 42AD. The front axle as tested was 13,520 with only full fuel and water The axle rating is 14,320. The carrying capacity of that axle is only 800 lbs while the coach has a capacity of almost 10,000 lbs. If 4 small adults ride in the motorhome, the front axle reserve capacity is now under 150 to 200 lbs. The owner will be overweight by filling the fridge! As for the tires, 275/80R 22.5. - 120 psi must be maintained to carry the load of 14,320lbs. At 115 psi, they are overloaded with just the 4 passengers. Michelin states that there should be a reserve. The above is with the premise that the right and left front wheels have exactly the same loading. Unlikely. All owners should weigh individual wheels in the motorhome. http://www.rvsafety.com/ FMCA should standardize their reports. There should be a watchdog group taking some responsibility. NHTSA? RIVA? I think that this motorhome should not be offered for sale as is. Ross