Can CCC be increased by making alterations to a Cameo 5er?

[janegowest]

I really like the floor plan of a 2009 Carriage Cameo 36FWS, but it only has a CCC of 951!!! I can't believe that a quality company like that would turn out such a rig! This was their first year with this model, so it looks like they goofed up, but you would think that they would have caught this before it left the factory! :h

In 2010, they got it right and have the proper CCC allowance, so it really DOES look like a mistake.

I was wondering if anything could be done to increase its carrying capacity, such as changing out the axles, springs, tires, etc. to enable it to carry more weight?? Or is the frame not strong enough in the first place, so that nothing can be done.... 😞

I am also wondering if their CCC does NOT include the weight of all the tanks full?

[Sport45]

janegowest wrote:

Dandy Dan wrote:

janegowest wrote:
Yes, I have had the brochure printed out. The salesman read the yellow sticker inside the coach and that is what was printed on there. It has a generator already installed, 2 A/Cs, etc. Even the brochure stated 1,749 is pretty low. The 2010 allows 2,749 CCC, so something went whacko in 2009, it appears.

With the numbers being equal except the first, How about considering it a typo?

I believe that the CA law requirement is what caused them to alter the numbers to underrate the GVWR, and thus the CCC to match...intentional, rather than a typo.

BTW...does law enforcement stop 5ers on the road to check their GVWR to see if they have exceeded the yellow sticker limits?

Travelnutz is correct with all the calculations he's posted. The CCC of that trailer is higher than you now think. That said, I don't think it would hurt to have the salesman look at the yellow sticker again to see if it was misread or if there's a faint 1 or 2 in front of what he said before.

There's nothing hinky about underrating the GVWR to allow more people to purchase without special licenses, extra registration fees, etc. It's been done in the truck business for as long as there have been GVWR's.

[SDcampowneroper]

janegowest wrote:
I am going by Travelnutz calculations. What he said makes a lot of sense. Surely, Carriage would not have put out a product that could not handle the rigors of fulltiming, since they were specifically geared for that purpose. Otherwise, there would have been a lot of reports about the unit's frames cracking, etc.

We have had one guest whose Carrilite was totaled with a bent frame. Now, Carrilites are heavier than a Cameo, and built on the same frame. They were fully loaded with water and supplies for a dry camp stay. A rough frost heave was too much. We chose to ensure it wouldnt happen to us so thats why we upgraded axles and strengthened the frame. With the second trailer, we are adding a lot of torque to the frame.
The tire wear is much better too!

[Busdriver]

Has to be wrong!

[SabreCanuck]

janegowest wrote:
I am going by Travelnutz calculations. What he said makes a lot of sense. Surely, Carriage would not have put out a product that could not handle the rigors of fulltiming, since they were specifically geared for that purpose. Otherwise, there would have been a lot of reports about the unit's frames cracking, etc.

I'm not sure who you are agreeing or arguing with as we are all saying the exact same thing. GVW - UVW = CCC.. Use whatever recommendation you want but without knowing the empty weight of that ACTUAL trailer nobody can accurately answer your question.

Sounds like you have made up your mind on the trailer so congrats.

[janegowest]

I am going by Travelnutz calculations. What he said makes a lot of sense. Surely, Carriage would not have put out a product that could not handle the rigors of fulltiming, since they were specifically geared for that purpose. Otherwise, there would have been a lot of reports about the unit's frames cracking, etc.

[SabreCanuck]

janegowest wrote:

SabreCanuck wrote:

janegowest wrote:
Thank you, Travelnutz, those figures are pretty obvious, and everything adds up, as the brochure gives the correct GVWR. I always thought that this is how you come up with the CCC...GVWR-UVW.

That is exactly how you come up with CCC. If the GVW of your trailer is 15000# and the UVW is 14049 then the CCC of the trailer is 951#. Simple. And probably printed on the yellow sticker of the trailer itself.

Yes..logistically, yes. But, in this case, they manipulated the numbers...particularly the GVWR to stay under 15K in order to meet CA requirements. Did you read that thread that I had posted a page back? That should help explain this insanity!

Yep, read it. That thread has two users mentioning the possibility that a manufacturer may have fudged the numbers to get under a CA law... I would consider hearsay.

To truly know the answer you should scale the trailer completely empty and you will know DEFINITIVELY how much stuff you can pack based on axle ratings and actual weight. But would be best to have YOUR (or similar) tow vehicle pulling it. The easier way of knowing that would be to go by the numbers on the yellow sticker on the trailer as a good baseline.

[SabreCanuck]

janegowest wrote:
Then how do they determine an overweight vehicle? Or do they ever stop anyone?

They only care about TOTAL weight and AXLE weight. If your axles are 6000# axles and you are carrying 6500# on that axle then you will have to deal with it. Same as the truck axles.

But, rarely do they stop an RV and ask unless you look REALLY overloaded.

[janegowest]

SabreCanuck wrote:

janegowest wrote:
Thank you, Travelnutz, those figures are pretty obvious, and everything adds up, as the brochure gives the correct GVWR. I always thought that this is how you come up with the CCC...GVWR-UVW.

That is exactly how you come up with CCC. If the GVW of your trailer is 15000# and the UVW is 14049 then the CCC of the trailer is 951#. Simple. And probably printed on the yellow sticker of the trailer itself.

Yes..logistically, yes. But, in this case, they manipulated the numbers...particularly the GVWR to stay under 15K in order to meet CA requirements. Did you read that thread that I had posted a page back? That should help explain this insanity!

[SabreCanuck]

janegowest wrote:
Thank you, Travelnutz, those figures are pretty obvious, and everything adds up, as the brochure gives the correct GVWR. I always thought that this is how you come up with the CCC...GVWR-UVW.

That is exactly how you come up with CCC. If the GVW of your trailer is 15000# and the UVW is 14049 then the CCC of the trailer is 951#. Simple. And probably printed on the yellow sticker of the trailer itself.

[janegowest]

Then how do they determine an overweight vehicle? Or do they ever stop anyone?

[JIMNLIN]

No.
Law enforcement (anywhere) doesn't use the vehicles GVWR nor the yellow payload sticker to determine a over weight vehicle.

The yellow payload sticker became mandatory on vehicles in the '06 era. Vehicles like my '03 and '98 trucks nor my '97 5th wheel trailer have no yellow payload sticker.

[janegowest]

Dandy Dan wrote:

janegowest wrote:
Yes, I have had the brochure printed out. The salesman read the yellow sticker inside the coach and that is what was printed on there. It has a generator already installed, 2 A/Cs, etc. Even the brochure stated 1,749 is pretty low. The 2010 allows 2,749 CCC, so something went whacko in 2009, it appears.

With the numbers being equal except the first, How about considering it a typo?

I believe that the CA law requirement is what caused them to alter the numbers to underrate the GVWR, and thus the CCC to match...intentional, rather than a typo.

BTW...does law enforcement stop 5ers on the road to check their GVWR to see if they have exceeded the yellow sticker limits?

[Dandy_Dan]

janegowest wrote:
Yes, I have had the brochure printed out. The salesman read the yellow sticker inside the coach and that is what was printed on there. It has a generator already installed, 2 A/Cs, etc. Even the brochure stated 1,749 is pretty low. The 2010 allows 2,749 CCC, so something went whacko in 2009, it appears.

With the numbers being equal except the first, How about considering it a typo?

[janegowest]

Allworth wrote:
Jane,

Look back at some of your (many) questions...

Can you change tank sizes?

Can you change CCC?

Can you change kitchen layout?

I know you are trying to figure all of this out, but I really think you should worry less about changing things and look harder for a unit that you can accept as it is.

Compromises are necessary, but the right unit for you is out there somewhere.

A

Thank you. One correction....I don't recall asking about changing kitchen layout...as that is set in stone. It was the furniture layout in the LR.

One has to consider changes when one is limited to used units that don't smell and we can't travel far and wide to locate one.

I have read about people changing out axles to be heavier duty, so I don't believe that was an unreasonable quest. Nor is rearranging the furniture. I actually came up with a plan for the smaller rig that would work quite well. Possibilities of changes create more options.

I always look at every situation with the mind set of, "Can there be improvements made? What can I do to make it better?" this is my personality, as was confirmed by the Meyers-Briggs personality profile. I am an ENFP. We think very deeply into "possibilities" and I have to explore every possibility! That is just how I am wired!

Everyone should take the test! It's quite interesting! And fun! It has helped us understand one another better!

TEST 1