Supplemental Brake... Necessity or Preference

[JohnnyT]

We seem to have a good number of discussions on the issue of the need for supplemental brakes... Unfortunately many of the discussions are not very productive in terms of giving those who have an open mind and who are genuinely trying to gather information useful information. Nor is there much value in trying to get those that have their minds made up to change or even consider another point of view...

As is often the case when the subject of supplemental brakes comes up some opinions offered are based on their own choices... Which may or many not fit your situation. In some instances these opinions offered are not constructive but lapse into you are wrong and I am right...

Area's to do your own assessment as to need or desirability;

State Law's
Weight of towed vehicle in relation to motorhome
Amount of rear overhang
Rated capacity of motorhome service Brakes
Chassis/Motorhome Manufacturers recommendations
Reduction of braking force required of motorhome service brakes..
Ability to have Break Away braking
Motorhome brake wear
Operational Reliability of the Supplemental Brake

State Law
The reality is that almost all states do have laws requiring supplemental brakes for trailers and most states do not have any stated requirements for supplemental brakes for motor vehicles in tow... However many states do have laws specific to motor vehicles being towed, in some instances those laws require the ability to stop within a specified distance at a specific speed. There are also a number of states that have a weight limitation on the weight that can be towed without a supplemental brake. There are a good number of states that require a supplemental brake system. The link previously posted appears to give an accurate summary of the specific requirements by state.
Towing Laws By State I would review the information in the link provided and reach your own judgment as to the legal requirement...

Rather than any legal requirement or wear issue to the service brakes on the motorhome, the issue I would be considering first is safety margin. I would want to be in compliance with the legal requirements where ever I towed, but my issue is safety margin. I would start with understanding the;

Rated capacity of motorhome service Brakes
Some chassis manufacturers will specify that the use of a supplemental brake is required after some minimal weight usually around 1500 pounds. Other Manufacturers will state that the service brakes are only rated for GVWR not GCWR... So I would consult your owners manual or call the chassis manufacturer.

A supplemental brake ought to lessen the braking force required by the motorhome service brakes. This would be of particular note on long down hill descents since the added braking force will lessen the amount of braking force needed by the motorhome service brakes. Which should lessen the potential for brake fade due to overheating of the brakes. I personally do not put much faith in advertising claims in terms of stopping distances but I have done a bit of non scientific testing to the point that I am certain that when using the same amount of pedal pressure I am able to stop in a shorter distance with the dinghy in tow with the supplemental brake activated than without...

The other issue is that the weight of the towed vehicle will be pushing its full weight on the back of the motorhome which would exacerbate any handling issues during hard braking if the towed vehicle and the motorhome are not in alignment. If the motorhome happened to have a long overhang and the weight of the towed vehicle is any significant percentage of the motorhome the more likely that the weight of the towed vehicle pushing on the back of the motorhome will be a factor relative to handling in a hard braking situation.

One last area...If you decide you want a supplemental brake system... Then pick the one that best maps to your requirements... For those brake systems that have user adjustments invest the time to calibrate your brake so that it will provide the braking force intended. Here is an excellent description of the various Supplemental Brake Systems.

For those that are only interested in having a supplemental system that only provides braking in the event of a break away here is one such system Break Away only option

As you work through the decision process of whether or not making the investment for a supplemental brake system is warranted...There are a myriad of variant opinions... With justifications for supplemental brake system or rationales against... Unfortunately many of the discussions are predicated based on extremes some of which are uncommonly unlikely or have the potential to be avoided; Brake fade, a dinghy that breaks away, an accident where braking ability was a factor or becomes a factor in litigation. Any of which are either rare or unlikely. The odds of any can be reduced by adjusting ones driving strategy or going the route of investing in a suitable supplemental braking system or both... In my case both. In addition our coach is also equipped with a 2 stage engine brake.

The reality is that beyond any legal requirement which is not commonly going to be an issue in terms of enforcement or liability. The issue of brake fade can be avoided by altering driving style to reduce the factors that cause brake fade... Stopping distance can be taken into account by increasing the distance between the vehicle in front and driving a lower speeds. The potential for a break away can be lessoned with preventive care of towing apparatus and the proper use of safety chains/cables. The added braking force of a supplemental brake system can be an added safety margin for those un predictable situations... Its up to each individual to reach their own conclusions.

The one area that is the most difficult take preventative measure for is the weight of the dinghy pushing against the back of the motorhome in a emergency braking situation where the dinghy is not in direct alignment with the motorhome... In those instances where the motorhome has a long overhang will exacerbate the potential problem which will be amplified as the weight of the dinghy increases as a percentage of the motorhome weight.

While I have invested in a supplemental brake system, that is my personal choice... I fully subscribe that the likelihood that the absolute need beyond conformance with legal requirements would fall into the very low percentile... Which is comforting..unless you are in the small percentile group.

JohnnyT Moderator

[lkentn]

I have used the Blue Ox Auto Stop direct cable around the brake pedal on our Jeep and while driving into Yellowstone NP the cable actually broke so I abandoned that system. I went to the Brake Buddy system which I had to set up every time I towed. Since I tow a Jeep Liberty and it is recommended that I disconnect the battery while towing, I had to go to a direct from the battery connection to my brake buddy. After my most recent trip, I noticed a strange smell in my Jeep not a brake smell. I pushed the button to release the air from the BB tank and it contained no air. The Brake Buddy had failed me again and likely for the last time. It had failed me so many times previously that it probably wasn't working properly more of my driving time than it ever did working properly. I am now giving up on my second auxiliary braking system and am in a quandary as to which system to try next. Since I have probably driven as many miles without my braking system working as I have with it working, I have not noticed any advantage of my 25,000+ lb Diesel Pusher towing my Jeep with any of my auxiliary braking systems i have used. What do next?

[MPond]

lanerd wrote:
Well, I just gotta disagree with you here on this statement. Surely you know that any "individual" coach will stop quicker with toad brakes. I don't care what coach you have, it will stop quicker. Period. I just don't see how you can refute that and how anyone would not want this to happen.

I'm not trying to refute that supplemental brakes might make a coach stop quicker (though I'm yet to be convinced on how effective they are in some cases). I'm only refuting whether that additional braking is necessary in every case to be considered 'safe'.

lanerd wrote:

So it seems we're at an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that. You're not going to convince me and obviously I'm not going to convince you.

Ron

You're right - we're probably not going to convince each other, so better to part ways on a positive note. It's been a fun mental exercise debating with you. 🙂 Thank you for keeping it friendly.

Safe travels to you and yours.

[lanerd]

MPond wrote:


My only point all throughout this discussion is that the blanket statement that all toads should have supplemental brakes is incorrect. You have to consider each rig individually, based on it's own handling and braking capacities.

Well, I just gotta disagree with you here on this statement. Surely you know that any "individual" coach will stop quicker with toad brakes. I don't care what coach you have, it will stop quicker. Period. I just don't see how you can refute that and how anyone would not want this to happen.

So it seems we're at an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that. You're not going to convince me and obviously I'm not going to convince you.

Ron

[MPond]

lanerd wrote:
Abstract and without substance....??? You gotta be kidding me.

Ok, I guess I am simplifying it. It is a simple and logical statement

A motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system. That's all I'm saying.

Ron

Nope - not kidding you at all. Your point is abstract, and without substance unless you look at the individual rig. That part that you left off is the point I've been trying to make all along.

Yes - it is a simple and logical statement to say that a motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system.

It would be just as simple and logical to propose a 45 MPH speed limit for RVs with toads. After all, it is logical that driving an RV with a toad at 45 MPH will stop shorter and quicker than driving at 55 or 65 MPH.

Both statements are simple and logical, but neither one is necessary for every RV or in every case. What is relevant in every case is the ability to stop in a reasonable distance to avoid an accident, and there are accepted standards for that. If you want to go beyond that accepted standard to be more "safe", then that is your choice. But that can be a slippery slope - where does it end? My sports car stops far faster than any RV & toad with supplemental brakes. Should we hold RVs to that standard?

Ultimately we have to define a standard, which is what our state (California) has done. And if an RV with a toad meets that standard, then supplemental brakes are not necessary, and not considered by the state to be a "safety concern".

My only point all throughout this discussion is that the blanket statement that all toads should have supplemental brakes is incorrect. You have to consider each rig individually, based on it's own handling and braking capacities.

[lanerd]

Abstract and without substance....??? You gotta be kidding me.

Ok, I guess I am simplifying it. It is a simple and logical statement

A motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system. That's all I'm saying.

Ron

[MPond]

lanerd wrote:
You are sill not getting it and are totally missing the point.

I don't care if it is a rig 30 years old or one right off the show room floor. It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system and that shorter distance can make a huge difference. Period.

I'm not over simplifying this at all. It is simple logic.

And Paul, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Who said ANYTHING about outlawing??? Sheesh!

Ron

It's not that I don't get your point, I do - I understand exactly what you are trying to say. It's just that your point is abstract, and without substance unless you look at the individual rig and decide whether or not that rig needs supplemental brakes in order to be able to travel down the highway in a manner that doesn't impose unneccesary risk on everyone else.

To use your exact words: "It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system." It's also going to shop quicker and shorter if the owner upgrades the brakes on the RV to a newer, higher performance setup. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we limit toads to vehicles under 2500 lbs. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we reduce the speed limit for RV's pulling toads to 45 MPH. Each of these statements is technically correct and logically true. That doesn't make them reasonable or rational, even though each one would reduce stopping distance by inches or feet, and potentially avoid an accident. Each one would be summarily dismissed as unnecessary or unreasonable.

Your "simple logic" is flawed in that, while it is technically correct, it doesn't justify anything and is without merit unless you look at the individual rig. Yes - you are oversimplifying it.

[lanerd]

You are sill not getting it and are totally missing the point.

I don't care if it is a rig 30 years old or one right off the show room floor. It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system and that shorter distance can make a huge difference. Period.

I'm not over simplifying this at all. It is simple logic.

And Paul, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Who said ANYTHING about outlawing??? Sheesh!

Ron

[paulcardoza]

Using that logic Ron, towing should just be outlawed altogether. :R

lanerd wrote:
Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?

Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".

I just don't understand why other don't get this.

Ron

[MPond]

lanerd wrote:
Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?

Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".

I just don't understand why other don't get this.

Ron

It isn't that we don't get it. It's that you're oversimplifying it. Braking distance is the result of a combination of factors, two of which are speed and tow vehicle braking capacity, and you're completely ignoring that each RV pulling a toad is different and has a different braking capacity.

I can choose to purchase an RV that is older, has a lower-end chassis, an older brake design, etc... and for any number of reasons it would have less braking capacity. I can then hitch up my Jeep, add supplemental brakes, and by your definition it would be safe because I've gained those few inches or feet that might just avoid an accident.

Or I can purchase an RV with a better chassis, a newer brake design, etc... that can stop itself and the same toad faster without supplemental brakes than the first example with supplemental brakes. By choosing this second RV, although it may cost more, I can stop significantly shorter than the first example.

The second option without the supplemental brakes is the 'safer' rig because it can stop several feet shorter, regardless of the fact that it doesn't have supplemental brakes.

You're arguing that every rig should have supplemental brakes because that extra inch or 1 foot or 10 feet might make a difference in preventing an injury. But if one rig will stop shorter without supplemental brakes on the toad than another rig with supplemental brakes, then it's already stopping that extra inch or 1 foot or 10 feet shorter. At what point is it enough? Where do we draw the line? The answer is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, and there never will be.

Sure, you could argue that any rig with a toad can be improved by adding supplemental brakes. But I could also argue that any rig could be improved by upgrading to the latest, greatest braking system to improve stopping distance. Where does it end? How do you define what's enough?

[lanerd]

Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?

Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".

I just don't understand why other don't get this.

Ron

[MPond]

paulcardoza wrote:
Well stated Mpond! When we moved up to our Executive from the W22 Pace Arrow, towing our Jeep became nearly invisible while driving. If I weren't so hell-bent about having the braking system in place just for the highly unlikely event that hey toad breaks away from the rig, I would have ditched the brake-buddy long ago. We're ~~45,000lbs without the toad.........

Thanks.

My biggest concern with supplemental brakes is having them fail and ending up dragging the Jeep without knowing it, ultimately ruining the brakes.

We once had our enclosed cargo trailer repaired and the mechanic mis-wired the trailer plug so that the brakes were wired hot all the time. We towed about 40 miles without any noticable drag on the DP. We stopped for fuel and could smell the burned brakes. They were completely ruined and had to be replaced.

That same trailer has great brakes - when towing it behind my truck you can definitely feel them helping. But behind the DP we didn't even notice they were full on.

[paulcardoza]

Well stated Mpond! When we moved up to our Executive from the W22 Pace Arrow, towing our Jeep became nearly invisible while driving. If I weren't so hell-bent about having the braking system in place just for the highly unlikely event that hey toad breaks away from the rig, I would have ditched the brake-buddy long ago. We're ~~45,000lbs without the toad.........

[MPond]

lanerd wrote:
Are you trying to tell me that a 35000 lb DP with a 3000 lb toad will NOT stop any quicker or in a shorter distance with or without supplemental braking on the toad?

Who cares if it's legal or not...braking, regardless of what it's on has always been and always will be a safety concern. You can't stop...you're in trouble. Think of yours and others welfare here, not your pocket book.

Ron

No, I'm not trying to tell you that a 35,000 lb DP would not stop quicker with supplemental brakes, though I'm not convinced it makes a significant difference.

What I'm saying is that it's relative, and a toad will have a less significant effect on a heavier RV. That is to say, the same toad will affect the braking of a 18,000 lb class C much more than a 35,000 lb DP. The larger, heavier RV has brakes designed for a much larger load, and the effect of the toad is relative to that weight and braking capacity.

Consider this example: RV chassis, weights, and braking systems vary significantly. I've had several, and my current DP stops far faster than my last gas class A did. The DP & toad without supplemental brakes stops faster than the Gas class A & toad with supplemental brakes. If both have break-away systems, then which one would be considered safer?

The one without supplemental brakes stops quicker even though it doesn’t have brakes on the toad. But nobody is claiming that the gas coach is unsafe, since it has supplemental brakes on the toad. I would argue that the rig that stops faster is "safer", whether or not it has supplemental brakes.

The pocket book is not the concern. It's that what is "safe" is open to different interpretations. If my newer rig stops more quickly without supplemental brakes than my old rig did with them, and my old rig was considered safe, then I don't agree with the arguement that people make that every toad should have supplemental brakes. There are many other things I could do to save a few feet of braking distnace.

To be clear, I'm not objecting to Supplemental Brakes; I'm objecting to the blanket statement that they're required in every case. RVs vary widely, and there is no one-size-fits-all answer.

I also think that's why a number of states have adopted performance standards for braking - it's easier to define and codify a set of performance standards than it is to come up with a blanket rule that fits all the different types of RVs, trucks, trailers, etc...

[lanerd]

MPond wrote:

lanerd wrote:
You know, it seems more people here are more interested in the "legality" of having supplemental braking system.

Having a supplemental braking system installed on my rig was done with "safety" in mind way before I even thought of the legal aspect.

It stands to reason that during an emergency situation, a mh with a toad will stop quicker and in a shorter distance with a supplemental braking system than without.

It may only be a few feet, but that few feet may save a life, maybe even mine. To me, the choice is obvious. I don't understand why it's not to others.

Ron

It really is two different discussions - legality vs. safety.

Legality is (somewhat) more clearly defined, in that it is codified and less open to people's own opinions.

While we might agree that a relatively light weight (5000 lb) pickup truck towing a 4500 lb toad needs supplemental brakes to be "safe", we may not agree if it's a 35,000 lb DP towing a 3,000 lb toad. "Safe" is relative to individual's opinions, and each rig is different. It is easier to define what is and what is not legal.

We all have to decide what level of braking performance we're comfortable with (assuming we're legal and meet the codified performance standards). If a supplemental braking system saves a few feet, what else might save a few more feet? A lighter RV? Upgraded brakes? A lower speed limit? The arguments are endless, and I'm not looking to argue - only to say that if you're "legal" then "safe" becomes a more abstract concept.

Except that "legal" varies from state to state...

Are you trying to tell me that a 35000 lb DP with a 3000 lb toad will NOT stop any quicker or in a shorter distance with or without supplemental braking on the toad?

Who cares if it's legal or not...braking, regardless of what it's on has always been and always will be a safety concern. You can't stop...you're in trouble. Think of yours and others welfare here, not your pocket book.

Ron

[MPond]

gotsmart wrote:
... Given California's dire financial health, it would not surprise me if a judge allows one without air brakes on the tow vehicle and toad to be cited in violation of 26508 - using the argument that non-air brake systems are implied or should have been included in section 26508. I'm glad I do very little driving in California.

Very true... But I live here, so it's harder to avoid driving in California. :B