horton333 wrote:westend wrote:
Are you now saying that in all instances (proved by these slalom exercises), a small SUV will be superior to a truck in stability pulling a trailer?
Of course not and I have been careful to limit the scope of my comments to one's I know something about .so I wonder where that comes from?
The ones Canam setup will be and there are lots nore possible. BTW, The SUVs tend to not be as stable as the cars and these tend to be mid sized SUVs not "small" ones.
These tests are all at maximum speed, that's the point of doing them. The trucks have to back off at slower speeds or they go unstable. That's important in evaluating relative stability, the trucks are worse measured against these setups.
horton333 wrote:Hannibal wrote:
All these videos are biased for advertising hype. Just a touch more whip to the wheel puts a lot more whip to the trailer. If the car or crossover TV has one advantage, it's that the distance from rear wheel to hitch ball distance is much shorter. Just the same, here's a video pushing it to the limit with a GM SUV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz-rgndtVbw
And a biased Airstream video going easy on the AS and pushing it beyond the limits of the stick and tin TT. I remember whipping our old utility trailer for fun when we were young. It doesn't take much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMg42sW6NU
These tests are all at maximum speed, that's the point of doing them. The trucks have to back off at slower speeds or they go unstable. That's important in evaluating relative stability, the trucks are worse measured against these setups.
Of course an Airstream will look like it's not pushed as hard, Those quality torsion axies and better geometry do result in superior handling. What's wrong with marketing that given they sell those trailers at a premium price partly on that superior handling?
It's unfortunite many videos seem to be missing now, the most useful ones are the a to b comparisons with multiple vehicles towing identical trailers. Most of what they try to sell are matched pairs, so I can understand them marketing that but I consider it most unfair fpr you to characterize a valid engineering test as "advertising hype" simply based on not understanding what the tests are testing.
horton333 wrote:Hannibal wrote:
All these videos are biased for advertising hype. Just a touch more whip to the wheel puts a lot more whip to the trailer. If the car or crossover TV has one advantage, it's that the distance from rear wheel to hitch ball distance is much shorter. Just the same, here's a video pushing it to the limit with a GM SUV.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jz-rgndtVbw
And a biased Airstream video going easy on the AS and pushing it beyond the limits of the stick and tin TT. I remember whipping our old utility trailer for fun when we were young. It doesn't take much.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7cMg42sW6NU
These tests are all at maximum speed, that's the point of doing them. The trucks have to back off at slower speeds or they go unstable. That's important in evaluating relative stability, the trucks are worse measured against these setups.
Of course an Airstream will look like it's not pushed as hard, Those quality torsion axies and better geometry do result in superior handling. What's wrong with marketing that given they sell those trailers at a premium price partly on that superior handling?
It's unfortunite many videos seem to be missing now, the most useful ones are the a to b comparisons with multiple vehicles towing identical trailers. Most of what they try to sell are matched pairs, so I can understand them marketing that but I consider it most unfair fpr you to characterize a valid engineering test as "advertising hype" simply based on not understanding what the tests are testing.
westend wrote:
Are you now saying that in all instances (proved by these slalom exercises), a small SUV will be superior to a truck in stability pulling a trailer?
