Supplemental Braking Question

[DanLee]

I'm getting ready to move from a Tundra with a 8,500 lb GVWR tag-along TT, to a 40 ft DP towing a Honda CRV. I read the supplemental braking Sticky until my head hurt. My question is pretty basic. A 31,000 lb Coach towing a 3,500 CRV represents roughly a 9/1 ratio of tow-er versus tow-ee. If I used the same 9/1 ratio, imagine my 5,500 lb Tundra tow-er pulling a trailer weighing roughly 600 lbs. I certainly wouldn't use supplemental braking pulling a 600 lb, therefore, why would I need one with my Coach pulling a CRV? Seems like I should have plenty of braking engineering margin towing the CRV without supplemental braking? Welcome thoughts.

[Off_Pavement]

mowermech wrote:


I edited the post to eliminate the objectionable possibilities.
So, would you care to answer the question as stated without adding anything?

In my opinion, if I was following a trailer that broke loose and was rolling freely, my attention would be riveted to that trailer and I would suddenly become a distracted driver. I don't find changing the scenario like that to be any improvement, but here is an example of what you bring up...

Loose Trailer Video on Youtube

Here is another loose trailer NBC news piece... Loose Trailers - NBC News

Mowermech brought up the scenario about loosing the entire hitch, and the results are pretty obvious to me.

[mowermech]

2gypsies wrote:
Here's a good article on the 'whys' of braking systems (pg 26)

http://www.royrobinsonrv.com/images/pdf/DinghyGuide2013.pdf

I was quite favorably impressed by the article until I got to the "State By State Towing Laws" page.
It is WRONG! Of course, I am most familiar with Montana. That page says auxiliary brakes are required on towed vehicles in Montana. That is NOT true! While brakes and a breakaway system are required on TRAILERS over 3000 lbs GROSS WEIGHT, a towed motor vehicle does not meet the legal definition of a "trailer"!
However, there IS a braking performance law that DOES apply to ANY combination of vehicles.

Yes, a braking system is a GOOD IDEA!
I find it incredibly annoying, though, that the manufacturers of such units feel they have to LIE about the legal requirements!

[2gypsies1]

Here's a good article on the 'whys' of braking systems (pg 26)

http://www.royrobinsonrv.com/images/pdf/DinghyGuide2013.pdf

[rhagfo]

mowermech wrote:

Off Pavement wrote:

mowermech wrote:
...
In the event of a total hitch failure, resulting in complete separation from the towing unit, which would you rather be immediately behind?
The one that has no brakes, and runs off the road, or the one that comes to a screeching halt right in front of you when you are going 60 MPH!
Think about it.

I try and stay out of Mowermech's arguments... I've been reading the same things from him for years but this one is ridiculous.

How about the guy in the oncoming left lane, or the kids at the school bus stop on the right when your towed equipment breaks loose? I personally would rather have a braking loose vehicle in front of me than watching that towed equipment rolling down the highway totally out of control free to hit whatever is finds in it's way.

His argument shows poor decision making and lack of respect for others safety in my opinion.

I edited the post to eliminate the objectionable possibilities.
So, would you care to answer the question as stated without adding anything?

Well assuming that one is allowing correct following distance I would prefer the Toad that is self braking!
The thought of a 3,500# CRV running down the road uncontrolled is a very scary thought!
Loose trailers have have caused death before a toad is no different!

[Tinyandthegang]

Don't care what your coach weighs, the laws of physics can't be ignored. In a panic stop your vehicle combination will stop in a shorter distance if the towed vehicle is braking and not pushing.

[mowermech]

Off Pavement wrote:

mowermech wrote:
...
In the event of a total hitch failure, resulting in complete separation from the towing unit, which would you rather be immediately behind?
The one that has no brakes, and runs off the road, or the one that comes to a screeching halt right in front of you when you are going 60 MPH!
Think about it.

I try and stay out of Mowermech's arguments... I've been reading the same things from him for years but this one is ridiculous.

How about the guy in the oncoming left lane, or the kids at the school bus stop on the right when your towed equipment breaks loose? I personally would rather have a braking loose vehicle in front of me than watching that towed equipment rolling down the highway totally out of control free to hit whatever is finds in it's way.

His argument shows poor decision making and lack of respect for others safety in my opinion.

I edited the post to eliminate the objectionable possibilities.
So, would you care to answer the question as stated without adding anything?

[Off_Pavement]

mowermech wrote:
...
In the event of a total hitch failure, resulting in complete separation from the towing unit, which would you rather be immediately behind?
The one that has no brakes, and runs off the road, or the one that comes to a screeching halt right in front of you when you are going 60 MPH!
Think about it.

I try and stay out of Mowermech's arguments... I've been reading the same things from him for years but this one is ridiculous.

How about the guy in the oncoming left lane, or the kids at the school bus stop on the right when your towed equipment breaks loose? I personally would rather have a braking loose vehicle in front of me than watching that towed equipment rolling down the highway totally out of control free to hit whatever is finds in it's way.

His argument shows poor decision making and lack of respect for others safety in my opinion.

[mowermech]

I have two trailers. One (a 5X8 flatbed) to carry ONE ATV, and one (a 7X14 enclosed trailer) that carries TWO ATVs.
They are both legal according to all MT laws.
The smaller one has NO brakes, nor does it have a breakaway system (obviously). Neither are required by law for a trailer of this size.
The larger has brakes on all four wheels, and a breakaway system, as required by law for a trailer of that size.
One has a 1 7/8 ball hitch, the other has a 2 5/16 ball hitch.
In the event of a total hitch failure, resulting in complete separation from the towing unit, which would you rather be immediately behind?
The one that has no brakes, and runs off the road, winding up in the barrow pit or median WITHOUT HITTING ANYBODY OR ANYTHING, or the one that comes to a screeching halt, AGAIN WITHOUT HITTING ANYBODY OR ANYTHING, right in front of you when you are going 60 MPH!
Think about it.

Edited to restrict and clarify the "what if" scenario.

[webslave]

My very first travel trailer weighed in at roughly the same weight as my Jeep; approximately 4200 lbs and it came with brakes. I towed it with a RAM 2500 CTD that could certainly handle that weight without using the trailer's brakes. The reason it had brakes? In PA, anything over 3000 lbs being towed has to have them. Yes, you can probably bring up the motorized vs non-motorized argument, but, over 3000 lbs of dead weight is over 3000 lbs whether the motor is installed in said towed or a motor laying in the bed of a flat bed trailer. That same truck a few years later was dutifully pulling my new tt, a loaded for travel unit, weighing in at over 10,500 lbs. The trailer umbilical failed and my brake controller promptly informed me that it had lost communication with the trailer... Drove and handled, including stopping, with no noticeable difference. I did, however, pull off at the nearest rest area to remedy the situation. Could I have continued on? Apparently, from a driveable standpoint, I could have, but, my logic told me to fix the darn thing ASAP. The same logic that tells me, for the reasons in my post, that for the small price of the brake actuator (Craigslist has them at dirt cheap prices) I should have one in my towed.

Again, use what ever logic you care to. Not using one, given their cost, benefits, and safety, no matter the convoluted legal wrangling, is not logical to me since the final arbiter of the legality probably doesn't read this forum and is not going to be swayed by any statement by a defendant that starts with "I interpreted that law, code ,etc., as meaning...". I worked hard for the things I have and would prefer not to have them taken away by a civil court.

[nevadanick]

Alot of DP's have the capacity to carry the 3500lb toad, wouldnt need or have supplemental brakes then, so why when towing it ?

[Trackrig]

webslave wrote:
Did you have supplemental brakes in your travel trailer?

This is not a good comparison at all. I also happen to own a TT. It weighs about 2.5 to 3 times as much as my toad does. And I tow it with an 8,000 truck that weighs about a third of my DP which is 30,000#+ and the DP has air brakes and a very nice retarder.

Bill

[webslave]

Did you have supplemental brakes in your travel trailer? They all do for both added efficiency in stopping and in case of accidental break away from the towing vehicle. Why should I treat my towed any differently? You can justify whatever you want to; brakes or no brakes, up to you. You can interpret most laws any way you want to...until you wind up in court in which case you may find that the armchair legal minds on the internet may not have it exactly right. I, however, sleep much better knowing that my motor home's brakes aren't carrying any extra load, even if said load is within the maximum capacity. The brakes will last longer, run cooler and suffer less mechanical stress if the load is shared by the towed's brakes which are already there just waiting for a means of actuation. For what I spent on the motor home, the base plate, arms and light wiring, the brake actuator was a pittance. Should the unthinkable / impossible happen (you learn with age to never say never) and my towed breaks away, the safety cables will / should keep it attached, but, my supplemental braking unit will keep it out of my expensive diesel engine. The potential repair cost, even for the body work would pay for a supplemental braking unit many times over. As you can tell, I have a supplemental braking unit, an RVibrake 2, for the peace of mind and the 2 minutes it takes to put it on the floor and plug it in, it is priceless and for me a no brained purchase.

As I said, to each their own and you will probably do just fine without one until you don't, but, at that time it will be too late. For me the cost was easier to swallow than the gamble...the same reason I carry insurance on everything; to date, knock on wood, I've never filed a claim, but, you never know what the next few minutes may bring.

[SoCalDesertRid1]

Is your coach's GVWR 3500 lbs more than it's actual weight of 31,000 lbs?

If it's GVWR is 34,500 lbs or more, your coach is fully capable of stopping itself and the 3500 lb CRV. Therefore, no brakes needed.

If you don't have 3500 lbs spare GVWR left on your coach, then use brakes on the CRV.

[mowermech]

There is no definitive answer. Many of the laws commonly referenced apply only to "trailers". What is the legal definition of a "trailer" in YOUR jurisdiction? Here in Montana it is contained in MCA 61-1-101.
In many areas the definition clearly excludes towed motor vehicles(such as, a "trailer" does not have motive power, or is used to carry property but not people). (MCA 61-1-101 (82) (a))
However, many states have a "Braking Performance Law", where your rig must be able to stop within a certain distance (usually 40 or 45 feet) from a certain speed (usually 20 MPH) on a level, clean, dry, hard surface. Here in Montana, that law is MCA 61-9-312 (4). FMVSS also has that standard.
Many people cite ethical or moral issues, or the potential for civil lawsuits.
Since braking equipment is usually not included in any "Reciprocity Agreements", it behooves anyone who is towing a motor vehicle behind a RV to know the laws in EVERY state you enter!
I'm not sure that is practical!