Weights and Tires January 23, 2015, 09:33:23 am Yahoo Message Number: 150503In message #150486, Larry posted this accurate information: "A higher weight rated tire will not increase the GVW by a single pound, the GVW is engineered into the total chassis and cannot be increased."The GVWR of any vehicle is a finite number; no suspension add-ons , no "bigger tires", no thinking that the chassis manufacturer built in a little "tolerance" in the numbers, no rationalizing that all those compartments wouldn't be there if they weren't meant to be crammed full, and no closing one's eyes and clicking one's heels three times will change this fact.If one doesn't choose to live within the parameters of an LD built on Ford's E450 chassis (currently 14500 pounds with 16" rims designed for 225/75R/16E light truck tires) and wants an RV with a higher GVWR and larger/higher load range tires, get a "super C" built on a Navistar or a Ford F550 or a class A; there are many gassers and/or A class DPs available with much higher GVWRs than the E450 and 19" and 22" tires.Weight caveats still apply; depending on the "box build", even a big C and/or an A may offer limited CCC.YMMV!Joan
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #1 – January 23, 2015, 10:21:27 am Yahoo Message Number: 150504I like the 31' IB floorplan the best and LD's legendary quality build (and reasonably used value). I can live with it's limited CCC for time being. However it would be great news if CCC can be increased while retaining the same floor plan and quality build some point in the future. I have seen so many 30+ feet Class C RV's on E-450 (even E-350) chassis out there (of different makes) and I would suppose they have little CCC as well.Jamie
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #2 – January 23, 2015, 06:37:35 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150510The GVWR of any vehicle is a finite number; no suspension add-ons , no "bigger tires", no thinking that the chassis manufacturer built in a little "tolerance" in the numbers, no rationalizing that all those compartments wouldn't be there if they weren't meant to be crammed full, and no closing one's eyes and clicking one's heels three times will change this fact.Contrary to what some think not all the parts that are related to the GVWR have the same weight rating. They are all different. I just did some number crunching. In the case of the Ford 450 The tires are not the weak link in the chain. For the rear axle the rating is 9450. The tires are rated at 9880 @ 80 PSI. The tires can carry 430# more than the GVW. If you drop the air pressure to 75 PSI the tires would be rated at 9320. So the weak link is either the springs, axle or frame. When I checked the front axle it is rated at 4600. That is with the tires at 65 PSI. And if the tires are inflated to 80 PSI they could carry 5360 so the front tires are not the weak part here either. They can carry 760# more than the GVWR. But if you only inflate the tires to 60 PSI the tires are only rated at 4380. So the tires need to have a minimum of 65 PSI to acheave the 4600 GVW. Once again the spring, axle or frame is the weak link.So to answer Jamie's question the tires are already rated to carry more than the MH's GVW. If the F350 has the same tires as the F450 The tires would be way over kill.I bought a new 98 Dodge cumming diesel Crew cab with the highest GVW that they had which was 8800 lb for a 3/4 ton; single rear tires. When I checked there large sales book I found that it said that if the truck is equipped with a V10 or diesel the truck would be equipped with all 1 ton running gear. (Not due-lies but single rear tires.) The truck weight was 7000# empty. (State scales) That left me 1800# pay load. With me at the drivers seat I had 1600# left to carry a slide in camper. Even a pop up campers weight more than that. If you think the MHs in the longer length have a problem try the trucks with slide in campers. I'm willing to bet that most that you find on the road are will over weight. I did go to LT265/85R16 tires rather than the LT245/85 tires to get the GVW up to 10,000. And still the rest of the running gear had room to spare.GeorgeRetired plumber
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #3 – January 23, 2015, 06:58:23 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150511I'm curious about this: how did you determine it wasn't the brakes, power train, or stability considerations?Eric Greenwell [lifewithalazydazerv] wrote on 1/23/2015 4:37 PM:
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #4 – January 23, 2015, 08:59:55 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150516Joan and George nailed it. A vehicle's GVWR is determined by a limiting factor somewhere in the system and for us, that is NOT the tires. It could be the strength of the frame, of the suspension, the differential, the bearings, the axles, the drive shaft, the brakes, the transmission, etc., etc.. Even if you knew what the limiting part was and replaced it, that might simply make another part the limiting one, gaining no significant benefit. The various components are designed and intended to work together, all having a capacity somewhere near the GVWR. If you beef up the springs and shocks, but not the bearings, the bearings may fail, prematurely and/or suddenly. Do the springs, shocks and bearings but not the brakes, the axles, the differential... well, you get it. It is a package. To safely increase the GVWR, you would need to identify and replace many components. I feel sure that that would include the springs, shocks, brakes and steering components. Most likely, the engine settings would need to be changed. The transmission shift points would have to change, assuming you could keep the same transmission. The frame would probably be ok, but you should look carefully at the cooling system. You might need heavier axles and bearings. At that point, you might need to change the tires. There is no simple way to increase your CCC. I suppose you could purchase a E550 chassis, unbolt the body, bolt it onto the E550, and do your best to match all the stuff that doesn't quite fit. That might work...No good or easy answers here...Ken F in NM
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #5 – January 23, 2015, 09:05:53 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150517Easy answer is just to abide by the "rules".JudieNon-typical brevity because this is being . ;->
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #6 – January 23, 2015, 09:48:17 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150523"There is no simple way to increase your CCC. I suppose you could purchase a E550 chassis, unbolt the body, bolt it onto the E550, and do your best to match all the stuff that doesn't quite fit. That might work... No good or easy answers here...Ken Good explanation why you cannot increase the GVW of any chassis.There is a definite need for 31' model with significantly more GVW, a fact that Lazy Daze has acknowledged three times, spending a small fortune in development costs, only to have ta HD chassis go out of production.LD sure wishes it could purchase E550s, they spent a bunch of cash developing a 31' E550, only to have Ford drop production the first year. I'm not sure if any were produce other than the prototype. It doesn't show up in the "Changes through the years" file. I have never seen it since it left the showroom. Ed said it rode like a dump truck.The Kodiak was their big loss, rumor has it that LD spent almost a million dollars on development, only to produce 3 or 4 of them before the GM dropped the Kodiak's production, during their downsizing. That seem to have broken Steve's desire to attempt it again. Hope that changes someday, there is market.Larry
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #7 – January 24, 2015, 12:43:14 am Yahoo Message Number: 150524I'm curious about this: how did you determine it wasn't the brakes, power train, or stability considerations?Eric GreenwellEric good question. I would not say that I ruled these out 100%Lets take them one at a time: Stability: In Jamie's case we would only be raising the center of gravity .6" of an inch. I have owned a Big Foot slide in camper for over 12 years and a friend owns a Big Foot 24' MH on the same Ford 450 chassis. Ive examined that MH very closely. I well know the workmen ship of both. The BF MH has a basement which raised the floor about a foot. The walls are Styrofoam not fiberglass and it has a slider. All tanks are 12" higher than those in our 24' LD so they are inclosed and heated. So the BF has more weight and higher center of gravity. The BF does not have a stability problem. Many times we drive one in front of the other with the same wind conditions and they preform very much the same. Power Train. With the larger tires this will change the shift pattern for the transmision. The speed will be higher than shown on the dash by 4 MPH +or-. Not a big deal unless you are running in high altitude and steep up and down hill grades I went through this with my Dodge when I changed tire size and it is not a big deal to cope with. Besides the Ford engine and transmission are one of the best out they off the assembly line. They put my old Dodge /cumin's to shame. The diesel may have more tork but that only maters if you have to be the first to the top of the mountain. 17 years ago when I had the dodge cumin's it was fun racing other cars to the top of the pass with my 16,000#+ load. Now I'm older and more sense. Brakes: Have you ever looked at the brakes on the ford 450; they are disk all the way round. Far better than drum front and rear or just rear. They do not leave much to be desired. They dissipate heat the best and the transmission helps the brakes greatly. Where the brakes come in the most is that with the added weight in the longer MH because Jamie wants to add more weight. So this will subtract from the weight of a toed trailer or auto. The brakes were rated for the GVWRso with the added weight you would need brakes on ever thing you toe. If you had a 50# trailer to be legal you would need brakes on the trailer. The brakes govern how much weight they will stop. Take a close look at the sticker on the door frame. Look at the front and rear axle GVW. The front axle had a GVW of 4600 but the tires can carry 5360 at 85#. They rate the front axle at 760# lower than the tire max weight. In fact they rate the front axle at 4600 with the tire inflated to 65#. Had they said the front tires should have 60#; and that was the max air pressure for the tires they would have had to reduce the front axle to 4380 since that is what the tires could now carry at 60 PSI. The same goes for the rear axle. At 80# PSI the tires can carry 9880# but the GVW is 9450. So the tires can carry 430# more weigh than the axle. Had they said tires at 75# they could carry 9320# and the sticker would have to then read 9320 not 9450#. A lose of 560# because the tire pressure was dropped 5#. Had they said tires at 80 PSI and that number was the same as the GVW then the tires are most likely the problem and you would need to find the max weight of all the other links in the chain. Then you could change tires to a higher rating. That tire rating could be 20,000# but the GVW would only be that of the next weakest link. Had the springs been 16,000# your new GVW would be 16,000 not the 20,000# of the tires.GeorgeRetired Plumber
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #8 – January 24, 2015, 10:49:57 am Yahoo Message Number: 150534George wrote:"The BF does not have a stability problem. Many times we drive one in front of the other with the same wind conditions and they preform very much the same."Well, you are entitled you your opinion, of course, but that is NOT my experience. I have a friend who lives in Cameron Park, CA who I camp with fairly often. He has an '05 Big Foot class A with one slide the same size as my '05 Mid-Bath. The MB has stock suspension (and a bit of added weight down low - hydraulic levelers and an extra battery bank between the chassis frame rails), the BF has after market sway bars and rear air bags.Side by side handling is not even close to comparable. Especially with full water, the BF feels like it's light on the front end, steering is vague and doesn't "track" well. The BF sways more, top sway is obvious when cornering. The BFresponds poorly to cross winds compared to the MB. When we "hot swap" drivers back and forth to compare, he gets a big grin when driving the MB and exclaims it has "MUCH better road manners".My MB has the full "Banks Power Pack" also, so I can stomp him in a motorhome drag race . . . okay, I briskly walk away from him on a side by side rolling start. Other drivers probably thought we were nuts.bumper "Yonder"
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #9 – January 24, 2015, 11:22:32 am Yahoo Message Number: 150537The difference here is that you are comparing a Big Foot class A to a LD class C. I did not even know that BF built a class A. Both my LD and his BF are Class C. And that may be the difference in the handling.GeorgeRetired PlumberGeorge wrote:"The BF does not have a stability problem. Many times we drive one in front of the other with the same wind conditions and they preform very much the same."Well, you are entitled you your opinion, of course, but that is NOT my experience. I have a friend who lives in Cameron Park, CA who I camp with fairly often. He has an '05 Big Foot class A with one slide the same size as my '05 Mid-Bath. The MB has stock suspension (and a bit of added weight down low - hydraulic levelers and an extra battery bank between the chassis frame rails), the BF has after market sway bars and rear air bags.Side by side handling is not even close to comparable. Especially with full water, the BF feels like it's light on the front end, steering is vague and doesn't "track" well. The BF sways more, top sway is obvious when cornering. The BFresponds poorly to cross winds compared to the MB. When we "hot swap" drivers back and forth to compare, he gets a big grin when driving the MB and exclaims it has "MUCH better road manners".My MB has the full "Banks Power Pack" also, so I can stomp him in a motorhome drag race . . . okay, I briskly walk away from him on a side by side rolling start. Other drivers probably thought we were nuts.bumper "Yonder"
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #10 – January 24, 2015, 08:41:35 pm Yahoo Message Number: 150544Sorry my mistake. I did post that his BF is a class A. That is in error, it's a Class C, just like my Lazy Daze MB.bumper
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #11 – December 24, 2015, 10:12:09 am Yahoo Message Number: 157720Love my 2003 LD 30 IB, but the weight is really tight esp full timer. I cannot bring extra fresh water and I would love to have leveling jacks. Besides Foretravel (found some good well maintained mid 90s Foretravels that sells under $40k), what other Class A coaches that have similar build quality as Lazy Daze/Foretravel?Thanks!Happy Holidays!Jamie
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #12 – December 24, 2015, 11:42:00 am Yahoo Message Number: 157722Newmar and Tiffin have a pretty good reputation AFAIK. One of our frequent posters and long time members, Art, just gave up his LD for a Tiffin. Perhaps if he sees this message he will tell us why he went with this brand.Chrisyui-cursor">
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #13 – December 24, 2015, 01:23:34 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157723Tiz probably one of the most often discussed topics on several Class A forums. The discussions usually break the above question down to at least four (4) categories. That is, Gas vs Diesel and in business or out of business. There is considerable consensus that all versions of the Prevost are at the top of the best built list of Class A diesel and in business and then of course Newell RVs. The list of quality built Class A RV's not in business includes Alpine, Beaver, and Travel Supreme among others. There is a much longer list of decent Class A MHs in the next lower tiers. And that is my half-baked Christmas Eve opinion that is not worth that much! Take care.Ed & Margee Fort Worth
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #14 – December 24, 2015, 01:57:32 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157724We've owned a 32' 2003 Tiffin Allegro in the not too distant past.Great product for a Class A rig with excellent support from the Alabama based mfr. However, rig doesn't handle anywhere close to our 2007 26.5' LD. Different engineered vehicles for sure but we feel much safer in the LD. Also, a lot of the older Tiffins had a Workhorse chassis which was discontinued.John
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #15 – December 24, 2015, 04:45:15 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157725Similar build quality compared to Foretravel/Lazy Daze? 2003 and earlier Country Coach (but not the short period of time Bob Lee wasn't involved with the company) Newell (but watch the net CCC weight and front axle weight, those coaches are HEAVY)Prevost conversionsIn 2003 when we started looking to replace our '99 30IB with something larger, it was Foretravel or Country Coach for us, nothing else. We're both engineers and researched the heck out of all the brands. We''ve owned the same Foretravel (a 2003) since 2004 (and we run Foreforums, the replacement for the old Foretravel Yahoo Group).Michelle
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #16 – December 24, 2015, 06:00:56 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157726Nice to see you posting again after all these years, Michelle. It appears you are still following this forum. It's hard to let go of those Lazy Daze feelings, eh? That said, Foretravels are marvelous coaches.Chris
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #17 – December 24, 2015, 06:10:49 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157727LD sighting in Scottsdale this am about 9:30am. Red White with a white tow at 6201 E Exeter. I was making deliveries when I spotted it.Jan/Scottsdale AZ.
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #18 – December 24, 2015, 06:33:34 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157728Leveling jacks are nice sometimes. My LD came with them and one day a leveler decided not to come up. I was stuck. Eventually help came along and the 2 brothers were able to raise it. Realizing that next time it happened I might be alone in a remote setting I had them removed. It's really not hard or time consuming to use wood blocks or LYNX levelors instead. Little chance of getting stuck that way.Bobmoore14 Happy Holidays to all!
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #19 – December 24, 2015, 06:56:35 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157729We were happy with our 40-foot Newmar Mountain Aire for the eight years we spent fulltiming between Lazy Daze units. Have never seen a more accommodating floorplan, the storage space was more than adequate, and OCC capacity was great at 4850 pounds. It got about the same MPG on diesel as we got in our 1985 TK, but at the time, diesel was more expensive than unleaded.We would still be in it if it were not for the illness which forced us off the road in 2007.Virtual hugs,Judie http://dorrieanne.wordpress.com
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #20 – December 25, 2015, 03:43:03 am Yahoo Message Number: 157731I can second that, Michelle. Our 2004 40-foot tag-axle Country Coach Allure Newport was recommended by a well-known RV advisor for full-time safe travel at the time we were looking to purchase a diesel pusher in 2006. He specifically recommended that year and model because of its distribution and solid components and did not recommend newer and larger more expensive Country Coach models. It likely had been manufactured in 2003. We knew another owner of a similar coach and he had lots of problems with it, but we had to consider his treatment of it versus our's. We never had a moment's problem until the Norcold took it out in a fire. Really miss it. s/Terry Apple-Similar build quality compared to Foretravel/Lazy Daze? -2003 and earlier Country Coach (but not the short period of time Bob Lee wasn't involved with the company) -Newell (but watch the net CCC weight and front axle weight, those coaches are HEAVY) -Prevost conversions -In 2003 when we started looking to replace our '99 30IB with something larger, it was Foretravel or Country Coach for us, nothing else. We're both engineers and researched the heck out of all the brands. We''ve owned the same Foretravel (a 2003) since 2004 (and we run Foreforums, the replacement for the old Foretravel Yahoo Group). Michelle
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #21 – December 25, 2015, 08:41:40 am Yahoo Message Number: 157733Chris - yes, I still follow the group. If our needs change and we opt to downsize, I'm pretty sure it would be another LD so I like to keep current with what the brand is doing (and see what my LD group friends are up to ;-) ) Regarding the topic at hand (high quality class A's), I wanted to address the leveling jacks question. Foretravels on a FT-built chassis have outboard air bags that are both for travel and for leveling. No jacks to deploy (some older models from the 80's into the very early 90's do have jacks, I believe those are only the ones on an Oshkosh chassis, and the new Realm on the Spartan K3GT chassis has jacks).Michelle
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #22 – December 25, 2015, 10:35:02 am Yahoo Message Number: 157735Merry Christmas!Many thanks for the great replies to my posting.I do see Tiffin and Newmar for sale under $40k at PPL in Texas. But I believe I would need to set like $10K or so aside for new tires, air bags etc. Seems odd to see Tiffin DP with only 17k miles selling for $30k (around that), somethings up. Anyway I would prefer Foretravel first and I did find one very nice well maintained U225 in Dallas area and a U295 at MOT (Texas) that I plan to look at. I will want to trade in my two LD coaches (2003 30' IB and 2004 24' FD) with goal of break even trade or around that.Would be nice to switch Lazy Daze forum via Yahoo into one similar to ForeForum which is a nice forum system.Jamie
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #23 – December 25, 2015, 11:52:35 am Yahoo Message Number: 157736I don't think I could do you a 31 foot LD. Not enough cargo capacity. We are pushing the rear axle weight limit on the 26.5'. I was thinking I could have got stuck up on my levelers when a hydraulic hose not well secured sprung a leak a few months ago rubbing on a thin metal area. But I use the leveling at most camps and I think it is way easier than boards etc. We had the inside passenger side rear tire go flat a few days ago. It took almost two hours to get the spare on. Tires were a bit over seven years old. I would have replaced them at about six years if I had it to do over.Happy holidaze!Jay Carlson
Re: Weights and Tires Reply #24 – December 26, 2015, 10:12:46 am Yahoo Message Number: 157740After 26 years of owning four LD motorhomes we gave our last one (31" 2008) up for a Tiffin Allegro 34' (gas). I agree that the LD quality is the best, but after getting many Tiffin recommendations from other RVers on caravan trips, we made the change. We have reached an age where we want to spend a lot more time on the road and wanted more room inside the RV. In speaking with Steve at the mothership he said there was "no way" LD would ever add slideouts. We have been driving the Allegro for two years with only a couple of minor warranty issues. While on a trip along the east coast we stopped at the Tiffin factory and was very much impressed about how the take care of their customers. Maybe the best service there is. The CCC is greater and the comfort inside the RV is 100% better. We're not sorry we made the move and, if we ever downsize, will definitely go back to the Lazy Daze. Gale PS: When we traded our LD in it was sold in one week!
Topic: Weights and Tires (Read 38 times)
previous topic - next topic
Topic: Weights and Tires (Read 38 times)
previous topic - next topic