Posted 2005-06-24 4:30 PM (#27062 - in reply to #26999) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 2689
Let me try it again - hopefully in a more positive tone.
There is a WEALTH of knowledge in this forum, I have certainly learned a lot here and I try to pass on (give back) as much as I can, as do many others.
There is FAR TOO MUCH knowledge in this forum for us (the collective "us") to gather up and regurgitate in response to any particular question that arises EVERY TIME that question arises.
I earnestly suggest/recommend that new readers take the time to compose searhes for existing topics that might address their questions, this has several advantages;
1) It will lead you to questions and answers that are related - that you may not have thought to ask.
2) You will see the replies within seconds instead of having to wait days for our replies.
3) You will get to see several versions of what is essentially the same question asked and answered in different ways. From this you can PROBABLY get more perspective if it isn't a yes/no or black/white answer.
4) You will practice and improve your search engine skills, useful in lots of places, not just here.
5) I won't fly off the handle at Ya (-:
- and I shouldn't anyway. -
Sorry for the outburst (did I say that already ?)
=========================
If it don't run - Chrome it.
Posted 2005-06-25 9:07 AM (#27079 - in reply to #27072) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 1719 Location: PA
Offended? No, not the correct terminology. Disgusted and tired of your smart a$$ remarks is more like it. FYI, according to "The Dictionary of American Slang", a smart a$$ is "a person who has too much self-confidence; one who thinks he knows everything; an obnoxious extovert". Try voicing your opinions in more of an adult, respectful manner. Oh, and BTW, the 4H BPs that I see, and I do see quite a few, are all being pulled behind 36 -40' motorhomes. Are they being idiotic too because they are "overtrucked"? (A rhetorical question. Don't bother commenting.)
Posted 2005-06-25 11:59 AM (#27089 - in reply to #26999) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Elite Veteran
Posts: 736 Location: Western WA
Seems to me those of us who are allegedly over-trucked just like to have a wider margin of safety than those who are comfortable pulling a trailer of the maximum recommended weight recommended by the manufacturer. I think where the over-trucked / under trucked line gets drawn, is those of us that don't believe and don't recommend you pull a horsetrailer at the maximum recommended weight, take into consideration we are hauling a live load that moves. Horses are also one of the worst possible weight/height configurations for a load - topheavy. So while a 1/2 ton or a small SUV may be able to haul the weight, you still need to take into consideration what type of load. A 3000 lb load of bricks sure hauls alot different than three horses. Which is easier, carrying a 50 lb backpack or giving a piggyback ride to a squirmy 50 lb child?
I don't think anybody from the so-called over-trucked club is disputing what the manufacturer says. I think it comes down to "just because you can doesn't mean you should".
Posted 2005-06-25 3:10 PM (#27094 - in reply to #26999) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 1416 Location: sc
yes, yes youre "Disgusted and tired " of how i state my facts and im "Disgusted and tired " of how you state your opinion as fact. thats all well and good, but to those who "feel" being overtrucked is safer i would say prove it, but it cant be quantified. all im saying is, stop telling people hauling at the GCWR is dangerous.....not recommend, MAYBE. towing is dangerous period, it does not matter what youre towing with. any time the trailer approaches the weight of the tow vehicle you had damn well better know what youre doing. no amout of so called overtrucked saftey margin is going to make up for lack of skill/training/experiance for the novice, or experianced for that matter.
ive got nothing against bigger trucks, a 1 ton is in my near future. but it is not because im looking for a "saftey margin", im just getting tired of vaccuming hay and feed out of the back of the suv.
Posted 2005-06-25 6:41 PM (#27103 - in reply to #27094) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Elite Veteran
Posts: 736 Location: Western WA
So why upgrade to a 1 ton? If you are currently pulling with a Trailblazer, why not just get an S-10 or Ranger? How are you justifying the bigger truck if the smaller tow vehicle is doing the job?
Originally written by chadsalt on 2005-06-25 1:10 PM
ive got nothing against bigger trucks, a 1 ton is in my near future. but it is not because im looking for a "saftey margin", im just getting tired of vaccuming hay and feed out of the back of the suv.
Posted 2005-06-25 7:02 PM (#27104 - in reply to #27103) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 1416 Location: sc
Originally written by headhunter on 2005-06-25 7:41 PM
So why upgrade to a 1 ton? If you are currently pulling with a Trailblazer, why not just get an S-10 or Ranger? How are you justifying the bigger truck if the smaller tow vehicle is doing the job?
Originally written by chadsalt on 2005-06-25 1:10 PM ive got nothing against bigger trucks, a 1 ton is in my near future. but it is not because im looking for a "saftey margin", im just getting tired of vaccuming hay and feed out of the back of the suv.
neither is rated to tow 6000#, but it would save alot of money. the ranger is close, could just tow a little over though hmm........wheres my calculator? good grief.
reg,
youll just have to get your priorities in line, beer needs to be in there somewhere.
Posted 2005-06-26 9:01 AM (#27118 - in reply to #27094) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 1719 Location: PA
Where is your proof that hauling at the GCWR is just as safe as being over trucked? Most of the trailering accidents I know of involved rigs that were at or over the limits. Also, with 27 years of HORSE hauling experience, towing with the large Jeep Wagoneers (2H BPs), 1500 & 2500 Suburbans (2 & 3H BPs), and 350's and now a 450 (29' & 37' LQ GN), I have learned that towing at or near the limit compromises the safety of the rig in emergency situations. Sometimes experience is more important than manufacturers ratings. It is much more responsible to answer the "truck ratings" questions with the fact that, while the manufacturers say that at truck is rated to a certain weight, it is better to be far enough under that rating to increase the safety of the rig in certain situations.
Posted 2005-06-26 8:04 PM (#27158 - in reply to #27118) Subject: RE: Another Hauling Question!
Expert
Posts: 1416 Location: sc
Originally written by hav2ride on 2005-06-26 10:01 AM
Where is your proof that hauling at the GCWR is just as safe as being over trucked? Most of the trailering accidents I know of involved rigs that were at or over the limits. Also, with 27 years of HORSE hauling experience, towing with the large Jeep Wagoneers (2H BPs), 1500 & 2500 Suburbans (2 & 3H BPs), and 350's and now a 450 (29' & 37' LQ GN), I have learned that towing at or near the limit compromises the safety of the rig in emergency situations. Sometimes experience is more important than manufacturers ratings. It is much more responsible to answer the "truck ratings" questions with the fact that, while the manufacturers say that at truck is rated to a certain weight, it is better to be far enough under that rating to increase the safety of the rig in certain situations.
you may have noticed in my post i said it cant be quantified one way or the other. for every wreck you know of with the smaller rigs, im sure i could find a matching wreck with a larger rig.
we all learn differently from those "emergency situations". i prefer to wonder why i didnt see that coming, not blame the fact i now have to change my pants on the rig. no one is telling you not to give your advice, just i dont agree with it. i really think youre just trying to pick a fight.
looks like there is still one thing we agree on, you dont like my style and i dont like yours.
Another Hauling Question!
