Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum - Reply to Topic
 
Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum  

Go Back   Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum > General Tech > Tow Rigs and Trailers > SAE Tow Rating Standards
Notices

Thread: SAE Tow Rating Standards Reply to Thread
Title:
  
Message:
Trackback:
Send Trackbacks to (Separate multiple URLs with spaces) :
Post Icons
You may choose an icon for your message from the following list:
 

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Pirate4x4.Com : 4x4 and Off-Road Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

** A VERIFICATION EMAIL IS SENT TO THIS ADDRESS TO COMPLETE REGISTRATION!! **

Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

Topic Review (Newest First)
04-14-2012 02:49 PM
gavan
Quote:
Originally Posted by #rawkon View Post
Touche.


I think the SAE rating should be real simple.

Park the truck at the top of whatever pass they decide is the "test grade".

Park said truck pointed down hill.

Attach trailer with no trailer brakes.

Seat head engineer of truck in drivers seat.

Add weight to the trailer until head engineer gets real nervous about being able to control his decent.



WHAM! Tow rating.

Bet it would be about half of what it is now
04-14-2012 02:31 PM
#rawkon
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavan View Post
Only child, so I guess no.

Your parents have any children with a sense of humor?
Touche.
04-14-2012 12:11 PM
gavan
Quote:
Originally Posted by #rawkon View Post
Did your parents have any children that werent born with severe brain damage?
Only child, so I guess no.

Your parents have any children with a sense of humor?
04-14-2012 11:56 AM
#rawkon
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavan View Post
[me2]Finally! All those crappy MDTs with no power will now be rated to to what they can really tow, which is nothing, because they are not a 1 ton truck with a Cummins.[/me2]



Did your parents have any children that werent born with severe brain damage?
04-14-2012 10:52 AM
jasonmt
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoosterBooster View Post
yeah, i was always kinda a ford guy , but brakes seems to be a issue with ford lately
242 feet !!! (70-0 unloaded) .... you gota be kidding
thats 42 (!) feet longer then a Chebby or Ram

349 feet with trailer .... many loaded Bigrigs brake quicker then that
Having both 2011 F-350's and 2011 GMC 3500's that are very similar in specifications in our fleet (SRW, CC, SWB, 4x4 etc.) all I can say is that the Car and Driver Ford they had for a test must have had some sort of issues as I would say both the Ford's and GM's we have are pretty close in braking both loaded and unloaded with the caveat that Ford's engineers have made the exhaust brake too unobtrusive.

Pickuptrucks.com has done multiple tests with multiple examples of these chassis and the results usually look something like this:





Then again I also find it pretty funny how the 800ft-lb Ram with 4.10 gears and ~31.6" tall tyres gets easily outperformed by trucks with taller tyres and numerically lower gears (3.55/~34" tall for the Ford, 3.73/~32.5" tall for the GM).
04-14-2012 10:36 AM
Machinos Yeah, but like I said before, with such an official body as the SAE implementing this it's not unlikely that it will be incorporated into things other than people's purchase critera, like insurance or laws.
04-14-2012 10:11 AM
87manche
Quote:
Originally Posted by SLOWMOVER View Post
And so forth. Just expect that the days of a 1T yanking a 24k trailer are getting dim. MPG concerns. The "choice" will be to move to an MDT in all those cases where today one needn't.


.
it's not like these tow ratings mean anything to the law. You can still do all of the things you menoned, as long as it's legal and your license allows you to operate a vehicle with that much GCVW.

the standard is simply to put all of the manufacturers claimed towing ratings on the same playing field. Nothing more.
04-14-2012 09:56 AM
SLOWMOVER SAE J2807 was developed by captive engineers. It's political and meant to keep USDOT from actually doing their job. Moreover it's designed to ignore the mass of cars out there that could tow quite well in favor of high profit trucks by using fairly unrealistic criteria. The best one can say about it is that for some trailers under some conditions the following Tow Vehicle Ratings apply.

As noted above, an ultra-low COG 20' flatbed trailer with concrete or steel plates behind a "wall" to simulate frontal area resistance is not at all the same as a high COG 35' 5'er. Tons of exceptions that don't make for consistency.

So, if we limit the vehicle type and never have take into account trailer configuration we can keep the "discussion" about Towing Ratings to pre-determined lines of argument.

Hell, a Honda Odyssey minivan can tow a big AIRSTREAM trailer when properly equipped (and so can many other vehicles) as weight is not a determining factor in towing over aerodynamic resistance. But one would never know this from SAE J2807.

The best argument pointed out above concerns acceleration. Pure D bullshit that it matters, or that I crest a ridge at 60 mph or 38 mph. That only means that the biggest motor/radiator wins. What crap.

It's a cynical move to try and preclude liability on the one hand while controlling choices to ensure that only high profit trucks/SUV's on the other are chosen to tow. No third party input. No disinterested advocate of the citizenry either. A fixed, rigged game.

Yes, it's okay for "comparing" between various pickup trucks and only then in hauling some bumper-pull and GN flatbeds. But that's it.

Most of the argument, even then, falls apart on cooling system capacity. If I'm not running the Laughlin grade in August, gee, guess what . . my XYZ-mobile is just fine in towing a given trailer. Means I can cover 90+% of the USA with a given rig on almost any day. What "standard" is this?

Again -- as above -- trailer brakes and their controls are almost ignored. Acceleration tests, speed tests, are almost without validity. Hype. Let's see one of these DRW pickups with a given travel trailer outperform any number of sedans towing the same trailer in a braking test. Won't happen as SAE has been told to disallow it.

Control the arguments admitted as evidence and you've won the case before trial begins.

And so forth. Just expect that the days of a 1T yanking a 24k trailer are getting dim. MPG concerns. The "choice" will be to move to an MDT in all those cases where today one needn't.


.
04-14-2012 09:03 AM
87manche
Quote:
Originally Posted by gavan View Post
Since your only MDT option is a sub 200hp spring suspension rusted out dayton wheel worn out juice braked pile of shit, a F350 looks pretty good, I guess...
that pretty much describes my pile of junk, it's still more capable than a one ton.
and I got air ride

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rayjon View Post
MDT's aren't bad just have to be spec'd properly..
back to common sense use the right truck for the job..
whooooooosh.

none of the last 5 posts were serious.
04-13-2012 10:04 PM
Rayjon MDT's aren't bad just have to be spec'd properly..

ford f650's come with a cummins and can be ordered with just about any transmission you want... Same with freightshaker, peterbuilt ...etc..

My neighbor hauls cars and had a mtd international once the motor was upgraded and the rear gear changed he had a great truck, most MDT's are spec'd to be delivery/ city trucks with low gears and low horse motors. If they are spec'd for hot freight with higher hp motors highway gears and the right transmission they work really well for towing... and air ride was an option on MDT's , international has a great one that is easy to retrofit...it all bolts on...

my 95 3500hd is rated for 18k gross on the truck (its a p30 type chassis) and with the 300hp cummins that is in it, it will pull and stop a bigger gooseneck than I want... Stock it had a 150hp motor with a 4.63 rearend. swap a 300hp cummins and a 3.54 rear and its great... spec the truck for what you are doing...

most 3/4--1 tons are not spec'd for heavy towing or are a compromise in what will sell and is cheep to produce..

back to common sense use the right truck for the job..
04-13-2012 09:16 PM
gavan
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoosterBooster View Post
btw
now picture that "Superduddy" with a bad electric connection in the trailer plug

70-0 in 1000 feet ?!?

that is exactly the reason why i like M/HDT`s
Sigh. When will you ever learn. Trailer brakes never fail, and all MDTs are spring suspension IDI powered no power suckbags with allison 545s.

Since your only MDT option is a sub 200hp spring suspension rusted out dayton wheel worn out juice braked pile of shit, a F350 looks pretty good, I guess...
04-13-2012 09:01 PM
RoosterBooster
Quote:
Originally Posted by 87manche View Post
[me2] I can stop anything with a one ton and trailer brakes[/me2]
btw
now picture that "Superduddy" with a bad electric connection in the trailer plug

70-0 in 1000 feet ?!?

that is exactly the reason why i like M/HDT`s
04-13-2012 08:53 PM
RoosterBooster

you guys are too much .... good thing i`m drinking longnecks today ... or my computer would be full of beer now
04-13-2012 08:48 PM
gavan
Quote:
Originally Posted by 87manche View Post
[me2] I can stop anything with a one ton and trailer brakes[/me2]
[me2]Finally! All those crappy MDTs with no power will now be rated to to what they can really tow, which is nothing, because they are not a 1 ton truck with a Cummins.[/me2]

04-13-2012 08:19 PM
87manche
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoosterBooster View Post
yeah, i was always kinda a ford guy , but brakes seems to be a issue with ford lately
242 feet !!! (70-0 unloaded) .... you gota be kidding
thats 42 (!) feet longer then a Chebby or Ram

349 feet with trailer .... many loaded Bigrigs brake quicker then that
[me2] I can stop anything with a one ton and trailer brakes[/me2]
04-13-2012 07:51 PM
RoosterBooster
Quote:
Originally Posted by CowboyKyle View Post
The lack of braking on Ford's part has been showcased in a few other similar tests. It's my biggest gripe with their new diesel.
yeah, i was always kinda a ford guy , but brakes seems to be a issue with ford lately
242 feet !!! (70-0 unloaded) .... you gota be kidding
thats 42 (!) feet longer then a Chebby or Ram

349 feet with trailer .... many loaded Bigrigs brake quicker then that
04-13-2012 07:08 PM
CowboyKyle
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoosterBooster View Post
"Motor Trend" and "Car and Driver" are already testing/ comparing trucks at the Laughlin/ Davis Dam grade.
pick up the May 2012 issue of C&D for a Ram 2500/ Silverado 2500/ F250 Superduddy shootout.
test includes dragging a 12000lbs gravel trailers up and down the Laughlin grade.

what got my attention was the Ford braking performance (or lack of it)
The lack of braking on Ford's part has been showcased in a few other similar tests. It's my biggest gripe with their new diesel.
04-13-2012 06:42 PM
RoosterBooster
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockcrawln View Post
Has anyone heard anything about them testing new trucks to these standards yet or seen any results?
"Motor Trend" and "Car and Driver" are already testing/ comparing trucks at the Laughlin/ Davis Dam grade.
pick up the May 2012 issue of C&D for a Ram 2500/ Silverado 2500/ F250 Superduddy shootout.
test includes dragging a 12000lbs gravel trailers up and down the Laughlin grade.

what got my attention was the Ford braking performance (or lack of it)
04-13-2012 05:34 PM
Rayjon many good quotes in this and ideas,

I totally agree on the braking side, not on the HP side.. ( I work for the Railroad and we haul stuff at 1hp per trailing ton..on the flat 2-3hp per ton in the mountains... so in our world 300hp is good for 300tons or 600,000lbs.. on flat ground and yes it takes a while to get up to speed but it will move it at 50mph no problem,)

Personally I recently went from a 92 1 ton dodge to a 95 3500hd with 14" brake rotors all around and 19.5 tires.. stopping with a trailer is a lot better .. and a lot safer... especially coming off Donner pass with a loaded trailer, where I live, and wheel out here and the grades we deal with the bigger the better.. Now down in Texas or Oklahoma more weight and less brakes isn't a problem..

I think where most people get into trouble is they don't use common sense just because the factory says a half ton pickup with a semi float axle is good to tow 10k lbs I still don't want to do it... especially with the tires they equip them with that are only good for 2500lbs each... not safe in my book.. broken too much stuff and seen too many people get into trouble by not having a safe margin of error in what they are doing....

To me this is another example of regulation to protect people who don't know any better... be responsible for your actions and know what your equipment is safe for...

BTW the semi truck is a different animal in many ways than a regular pickup, even a MDT the components are so over sized and designed to be abused by different drivers and a lot of different enviroments.. and even a dodge cummins will not go 1.5 million miles without a rebuild like most semi's (pre emission motors, I know the new ones suck and dont last so do the drivers and companies using them, you will see the cost in everyting here soon when they have to buy new truck and cant rebuild the old ones, thanks again EPA.. )
sorry for the rant...
04-12-2012 01:31 PM
zukota
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockcrawln View Post
Has anyone heard anything about them testing new trucks to these standards yet or seen any results?

A few weeks ago, we mentioned that the 2011 Tundra was going to adopt the new SAE J2807 towing rating standards. This new standard – which likely won’t be adopted by most manufacturers until 2013 – will force all manufacturers to use the exact same tests and criteria to come up with an official tow rating.

Last Friday, PickupTrucks.com published the new Tundra tow ratings. As you can see in the table below, they’ve dropped as much as 11% on some configurations:

http://www.tundraheadquarters.com/bl...a-tow-ratings/


In 2010, GCW was a uniform 16,000 pounds across the Tundra lineup. Now, a model like the CrewMax, which had the largest drop in towing, has a max GCW of 15,300 pounds while other Tundras have higher GCWs.

That’s because the new SAE rating stipulates measuring the trucks with higher curb weights than manufacturers may have used in the past, said David Williams, Toyota’s product marketing planner for Tundra and Tacoma pickups.

“J2807 measures [max trailering] using a curb weight that includes two 150-pound people, fuel and fluids, and reflects greater options content,” Williams said.

Curb weight must be measured using a truck equipped with options that have at least 33 percent sales penetration, according to SAE. Those options could include heavier power seats instead of manual adjusted, a sunroof and power windows.


http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2010/08...edibility.html
04-12-2012 09:27 AM
rockcrawln Has anyone heard anything about them testing new trucks to these standards yet or seen any results?
04-12-2012 05:53 AM
metalmacguyver Duallys will probably be tested with 4.10s in the axle (probably the most common and lowest ratio found in DRWs?) instead of 3.27s or 3.55s which might be the lowest numerical gear ratio found in SRW trucks.
04-11-2012 07:27 AM
Machinos Yeah, exactly... why are they separating duallies so much in these tests?
04-11-2012 06:04 AM
SilverZuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Machinos View Post
Also, what the hell does the number of rear wheels have to do with anything besides weigh capacity?
Each tire is rated to carry a set load. More tires, more weight capacity.
Each axle has its own weight rating (independent of the tires). More axles, more weight capacity.
04-11-2012 02:53 AM
Brutpwr I think that the SAE Tow Rating Standards are a step in the right direction but I do agree that some of the standards need to be "rethought". A little more direction should be put towards some type of standard that measures brake fade resistance or even brake warpage etc. On most of my trucks I can smell smoke coming off my pads and feel my steering start to shake (sometimes violently with increased braking) and as it gets worse the whole vehicle will shake long before the brakes even loose all effectiveness (little fade). And trailer brakes...well most are gone after one panic stop or are of very little use 1/2 way down a short grade so you really have to start down at the top from a low speed and not let things get out of control! And what is the reasoning of a lower understeer limit for a weight distributing hitch. Cornering limits should be the same with or without a weight distributing hitch. If the truck can't pass the test then the load is too much. The way I read the standard now it seems as though if .3 understeer achieved the truck passes the standart at that weight rating...I'm sorry but I don't want the truck to go into oversteer at .31g which is what happens with a lot of unladden empty bed trucks towing to much weight. Its almost like the manufactures have set up this standard so they can overinflate their tow rating with a weight distributing hitch! This will take some fancy suspension tuning and/or some fancy electronic braking/trailer sway control tuning of the ABS system. Alot of this is just common sense--what may be safe when things are dry could be dangerous if wet or with snow/ice on the road.

Jason
This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 ©2011, Crawlability, Inc.