Frontal Sq'

Ralph Cramden wrote:


I suppose since you have now qouted multiple times how the Ranger is at 80% of "published figures" in addition to posting........


You may want to review the published figure HERE It's on page 18. Based on your post above you're at 109% of that published figure. I'd also add that Coachmen is low on that 56 sq ft, It's 64 at a minimum.

All of that said, it's always good practice to pick and choose. Just use the ones that work and ignore the ones that don't.

Touche.

By page 18 that trailer surpasses every vehicles frontal sq' allowance in Ford's line soooooo.

It also says " The chart shows the limitations that must be considered in selecting a vehicle/trailer combination. Exceeding these limitations may significantly reduce the performance of your towing vehicle. Selecting a trailer with a low-drag, rounded front design will help optimize performance and fuel economy." There purely talking about air drag on the vehicle's performance. Ford used to publish "max tow" figures when the suggested frontal sq' was exceeded and would show a reduced GCWR. For the life of me I can't find that page again, but based on the "chart" that I found with the reductions I should be still within its abilities. If I find it again I'll post it.

drsteve wrote:
That's not really a good benchmark to use here... A dually with a fiver in tow is going to be stable at full rated load and beyond, because it's a dually, specifically designed for hauling and towing heavy loads, and it's pulling a fiver. A Ranger, like any shorter wheelbase, midsize truck or SUV, is basically a compromise, because the manufacturers know they are going to be used mostly as daily drivers and grocery getters, with only occasional forays into the world of towing significant loads. Once you hitch up and tow with the Ranger, you will probably be much less impressed with it's capabilities than the manufacturer's numbers suggest. You won't be unsafe, but it's not going to be as carefree as using your F-250. JMHO, based on having towed with a midsized vehicle. Wheelbase makes a significant difference.

YMMV. Enjoy your new camper.

Haven't bought anything yet and I never said that the Ranger wouldn't be working its arse off.

mountainkowboy wrote:

Ralph Cramden wrote:


And there you have it. No need for any questions, discussions, or requests for advice from anyone who just so happens to own the same exact rig, Coachmans statements are golden and the manufacturer is always dead on target.....drop it on the ball and head on out, all is pussygood.

So tell me how my truck at 80% of published figures is any less capable than a 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, or 1 ton in the same situation, it has nothing to do with what Coachmen says?

THE WEIGHTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE STATED THAT ACTUALLY OWN A 192RBS READY TO CAMP ARE WELL WITHIN MY RATINGS.

I suppose since you have now qouted multiple times how the Ranger is at 80% of "published figures" in addition to posting........

mountainkowboy wrote:
Is there a formula for calculating it for a curved front TT? I called Coachmen to get the frontal sq' of the 192RBS during my researching and they don't have any idea. All they could tell me is "if it was flat it would be 56sq'" Well it isnt flat, in fact it's only flat to the end of the diamond plate then takes a curve to meet the roof. Anyone know???

You may want to review the published figure HERE It's on page 18. Based on your post above you're at 109% of that published figure. I'd also add that Coachmen is low on that 56 sq ft, It's 64 at a minimum.

All of that said, it's always good practice to pick and choose. Just use the ones that work and ignore the ones that don't.

Touche.

That's not really a good benchmark to use here... A dually with a fiver in tow is going to be stable at full rated load and beyond, because it's a dually, specifically designed for hauling and towing heavy loads, and it's pulling a fiver. A Ranger, like any shorter wheelbase, midsize truck or SUV, is basically a compromise, because the manufacturers know they are going to be used mostly as daily drivers and grocery getters, with only occasional forays into the world of towing significant loads. Once you hitch up and tow with the Ranger, you will probably be much less impressed with it's capabilities than the manufacturer's numbers suggest. You won't be unsafe, but it's not going to be as carefree as using your F-250. JMHO, based on having towed with a midsized vehicle. Wheelbase makes a significant difference.

YMMV. Enjoy your new camper.

Slowmover wrote:

And a Ranger is a poor choice.

As compared to what? Why make lite weight trailers if you have to pull them with a vehicle that's designed for twice that weight? One of the reasons I like this unit is cause a lot of the units in this weight class are single axle and this has 2 axles (more stable). By the "standards" that some are touting here, my 1990 F350 Dually towing my 32' Alpinelite shouldn't even be on the road. I was 300lbs from max tow figures of 12K (OH MY!!), when loaded and ready to camp! I towed that for 17,000 miles, and the setup never missed a beat.

The “frontal area” of mine is different than a flat front although ostensibly the same size. It comes down to HP demand. In which case mine is 20% lower (as this also involves other aero qualities included).

It’s crosswinds that matter. And a Ranger is a poor choice. I’m in no way an advocate of pickup trucks —that’s for all the Johnny come latelys around here, I spent the first twenty using cars — it’s that it’s a really unstable vehicle. Almost at the top of the list for rollovers and single vehicle fatalities. Obvious problems with staying planted.

Better Aero is much more than frontal area. That figure won’t yield desired result.

Those who believe trailer weight the problem to be solved, well, . . . .

Ralph Cramden wrote:


And there you have it. No need for any questions, discussions, or requests for advice from anyone who just so happens to own the same exact rig, Coachmans statements are golden and the manufacturer is always dead on target.....drop it on the ball and head on out, all is pussygood.

So tell me how my truck at 80% of published figures is any less capable than a 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, or 1 ton in the same situation, it has nothing to do with what Coachmen says?

THE WEIGHTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE STATED THAT ACTUALLY OWN A 192RBS READY TO CAMP ARE WELL WITHIN MY RATINGS.

mountainkowboy wrote:

SoundGuy wrote:


I suspect what the OP is trying to justify is towing a 192RBS like mine with his V6 Ranger rather than his F250, which I've suggested (having tried a similar setup myself years ago) may not be the best idea. His response has been a categorical "no worries" (my words) but I'll bet he's asking this question because he's given it some thought and may realize this just isn't the best idea. In another discussion about the 192RBS I asked owner Last Train about his Honda Ridgeline V6's fuel mileage returns when towing his own 192RBS and his numbers which are noticeably worse than my 5.3L Silverado's when towing my own 192RBS support the argument that when towing the same load, with the same frontal area, a smaller V6 is going to be working a lot harder than a larger V8. Big surprise, there's no magic to any of this, and no amount of complicated calculations are going to change it. :R

Actually I was just wondering if it would make a significant difference and kcfissel sent me the formula, and it doesn't. I'm not second guessing the towing abilities of the Ranger cause once again THE 192RBS WAS DESIGNED TO BE TOWED BY SUV'S AND MIDSIZE TRUCKS. The fact that you and others think a vehicle needs to have twice the towing capacity for the said TT doesn't negate the fact that these vehicles are able to tow it safely.

And there you have it. No need for any questions, discussions, or requests for advice from anyone who just so happens to own the same exact rig, Coachmans statements are golden and the manufacturer is always dead on target.....drop it on the ball and head on out, all is pussygood.

I did not read all the posts, so no clue how this discussion evolved (yet). If you want to find the actual square footage, then use a flexible tape measure. Simply lay it over the front end cap, from the bottom all the way to the top. The curved surface will be longer than the flat straight line distance from absolute top to absolute bottom.

Once you have that measurement, just multiply it by the width. Is the width slightly curved too? Mine is. Well, simply measure the entire distance with that same tape measure, letting the tape measure cure on the surface. This will be the actual size. Now, multiply the 2 figures together and there is your (surface) square measurement (inches, foot, yard, meters, whatever measurement you are using).

Now, if you are not in possession of the camper and can't do this, then I have no clue how to find your answer.

SoundGuy wrote:


I suspect what the OP is trying to justify is towing a 192RBS like mine with his V6 Ranger rather than his F250, which I've suggested (having tried a similar setup myself years ago) may not be the best idea. His response has been a categorical "no worries" (my words) but I'll bet he's asking this question because he's given it some thought and may realize this just isn't the best idea. In another discussion about the 192RBS I asked owner Last Train about his Honda Ridgeline V6's fuel mileage returns when towing his own 192RBS and his numbers which are noticeably worse than my 5.3L Silverado's when towing my own 192RBS support the argument that when towing the same load, with the same frontal area, a smaller V6 is going to be working a lot harder than a larger V8. Big surprise, there's no magic to any of this, and no amount of complicated calculations are going to change it. :R

Actually I was just wondering if it would make a significant difference and kcfissel sent me the formula, and it doesn't. I'm not second guessing the towing abilities of the Ranger cause once again THE 192RBS WAS DESIGNED TO BE TOWED BY SUV'S AND MIDSIZE TRUCKS. The fact that you and others think a vehicle needs to have twice the towing capacity for the said TT doesn't negate the fact that these vehicles are able to tow it safely.