Tongue Weight Rating
Hello, We are buying a trailer for our daughter and son-in-law. They now have a Ford Expedition with 8,900# tow rating. 80% of that is 7,120#, but they should stay below 7,000# loaded (5,500 to 6...
Forum Discussion
Ron,
I guess you like I can read and interpret VESC-5 our own way, but I still and probably can't be convinced since it was written a VERY LONG TIME ago and had in my view an extremely limited applicability in assisting states in establishing minimum standards to improve safety of vehicles and their highways. You believe I think that tongue wt. is limited to that exerted by the trailer tongue on the ball and only consists of what we would normally measure by something like the Sherline scale inserted into the trailer tongue coupler. That might be fine for testing purposes such as VESC-5,however, I think when in real world applications it is any vertical force exerted at the point of the ball and both weight from above (i.e. the tongue of the trailer) or any other force primarily down at that point like the wt. components of a WDH/SWAY system for both a WC/WDH receiver mode or cargo behind the rear axle (in WDH mode) should count as tongue wt against the receiver tongue wt. ratings. I guess what I'm saying is that the trying to equate tongue wt. as used in a "TESTING DOCUMENT/SPECIFICTION" such as VESC-5 might not be directly applicable to real world conditions. I guess about the only argument I have for this is what e-trailer says about the wt. of the bike rack which is what should be considered as tongue wt. in the actual use of a system. You don't think that is a good analogy, but I do since as I previously stated I view that bike rack as all the extra wt of a WDH/SWAY system is analogus to the bike rack and the tongue wt from the trailer itself is analogus to the bikes ... i.e. the "LOAD". Thus my view of what we should think of tongue wt is more like I think what VESC-5 comment in their testing specs in Table 2 where they define "X" in their calculation as Hitch Rating for Maximum Vertical load on Hitch (lbs.)(Tongue Weight) This Vertical Load can also come from cargo wt. behind the rear axle whose component acts vertically in the plane thru the ball on the hitch. This force in addition to the WDH/SWAY system wt. and the Trailer tongue wt. are the three forces that the WDH system has to act upon and redistribute to the various axles. I just simply can't accept that things like all the variability of the different wts. of the WDH/SWAY systems and Cargo variability behind the rear axle like I showed in my case are basically "FREEBIES" when it comes to the tongue wt. ratings of my receiver and can be ignored ... that just doesn't pass the smell or gut test for me. I guess I've convinced myself that this view is sound and unfortunately as best as I can have listened to your views, but they haven't changed mine and probably never will.
I guess I will just have to leave it there and as I said will simply stand by my position and try to remember to put a caveat on it that there are other views and reference this thread for information.
Larry
I guess you like I can read and interpret VESC-5 our own way, but I still and probably can't be convinced since it was written a VERY LONG TIME ago and had in my view an extremely limited applicability in assisting states in establishing minimum standards to improve safety of vehicles and their highways. You believe I think that tongue wt. is limited to that exerted by the trailer tongue on the ball and only consists of what we would normally measure by something like the Sherline scale inserted into the trailer tongue coupler. That might be fine for testing purposes such as VESC-5,however, I think when in real world applications it is any vertical force exerted at the point of the ball and both weight from above (i.e. the tongue of the trailer) or any other force primarily down at that point like the wt. components of a WDH/SWAY system for both a WC/WDH receiver mode or cargo behind the rear axle (in WDH mode) should count as tongue wt against the receiver tongue wt. ratings. I guess what I'm saying is that the trying to equate tongue wt. as used in a "TESTING DOCUMENT/SPECIFICTION" such as VESC-5 might not be directly applicable to real world conditions. I guess about the only argument I have for this is what e-trailer says about the wt. of the bike rack which is what should be considered as tongue wt. in the actual use of a system. You don't think that is a good analogy, but I do since as I previously stated I view that bike rack as all the extra wt of a WDH/SWAY system is analogus to the bike rack and the tongue wt from the trailer itself is analogus to the bikes ... i.e. the "LOAD". Thus my view of what we should think of tongue wt is more like I think what VESC-5 comment in their testing specs in Table 2 where they define "X" in their calculation as Hitch Rating for Maximum Vertical load on Hitch (lbs.)(Tongue Weight) This Vertical Load can also come from cargo wt. behind the rear axle whose component acts vertically in the plane thru the ball on the hitch. This force in addition to the WDH/SWAY system wt. and the Trailer tongue wt. are the three forces that the WDH system has to act upon and redistribute to the various axles. I just simply can't accept that things like all the variability of the different wts. of the WDH/SWAY systems and Cargo variability behind the rear axle like I showed in my case are basically "FREEBIES" when it comes to the tongue wt. ratings of my receiver and can be ignored ... that just doesn't pass the smell or gut test for me. I guess I've convinced myself that this view is sound and unfortunately as best as I can have listened to your views, but they haven't changed mine and probably never will.
I guess I will just have to leave it there and as I said will simply stand by my position and try to remember to put a caveat on it that there are other views and reference this thread for information.
Larry
