Tongue weight and truck carrying capacity
Since we’re both retired now, and looking at doing more traveling and camping, I’m considering the possibilities of trading for a bigger TT. With the current truck the max towable weight is a gen...
Forum Discussion
When unnecessary conservatism is added on top of unnecessary conservatism, the end result likely will be the purchase of a trailer which will weigh considerably less than the TV is capable of towing safely.
Assuming that 100% of the tongue weight will be carried by the TV when using a WDH is unnecessarily conservative.
This assumption can unnecessarily reduce the allowable TW by 20% or more.
Assuming that the TT will be loaded to 100% of its GVWR might be (usually is) unnecessarily conservative.
If you purchase a TT which has less than, say, 1400# of CCC, it might be prudent to assume it will be loaded to its GVWR.
If you purchase a TT which has 2000# or more of CCC, it is not likely it will be loaded to its GVWR.
If you assume a TT's TW must be limited to 800# when it could be 1000#, and
if you assume a TT's GVWR must not exceed 6150# when its GVW could be 7700#,
you'll have to settle for much less TT.
Using the doubly-conservative approach is likely to result in something like getting a TT with 4800# dry weight and 1350# CCC and then loading it close to its GVWR.
Using the approach of properly considering transfer of tongue weight to the TT's axles and properly considering the difference between GVW and GVWR might result in getting a TT with, say, 6000# dry weight, 7300# GVW, 9000# GVWR, and 1700# of unused CCC.
The advantages of intentionally planning for unused TT CCC are well explained in this post.
Your choice of TT should be based on how much it is likely to weigh rather than on is GVWR.
Your TV only cares about how much the TT does weigh -- it doesn't care about how much your TT can weigh.
Unused TT CCC doesn't impose any burden on your TV.
Ron
Assuming that 100% of the tongue weight will be carried by the TV when using a WDH is unnecessarily conservative.
This assumption can unnecessarily reduce the allowable TW by 20% or more.
Assuming that the TT will be loaded to 100% of its GVWR might be (usually is) unnecessarily conservative.
If you purchase a TT which has less than, say, 1400# of CCC, it might be prudent to assume it will be loaded to its GVWR.
If you purchase a TT which has 2000# or more of CCC, it is not likely it will be loaded to its GVWR.
If you assume a TT's TW must be limited to 800# when it could be 1000#, and
if you assume a TT's GVWR must not exceed 6150# when its GVW could be 7700#,
you'll have to settle for much less TT.
Using the doubly-conservative approach is likely to result in something like getting a TT with 4800# dry weight and 1350# CCC and then loading it close to its GVWR.
Using the approach of properly considering transfer of tongue weight to the TT's axles and properly considering the difference between GVW and GVWR might result in getting a TT with, say, 6000# dry weight, 7300# GVW, 9000# GVWR, and 1700# of unused CCC.
The advantages of intentionally planning for unused TT CCC are well explained in this post.
Your choice of TT should be based on how much it is likely to weigh rather than on is GVWR.
Your TV only cares about how much the TT does weigh -- it doesn't care about how much your TT can weigh.
Unused TT CCC doesn't impose any burden on your TV.
Ron
