Apr-07-2022 09:46 AM
Mar-02-2023 12:52 PM
Mar-02-2023 12:08 PM
Mar-02-2023 11:04 AM
Mar-02-2023 10:46 AM
AH_AK wrote:Photomike wrote:
If I bought a truck for a camper I would go with a DRW just to be safe.
Problem that I have is that a DRW would not go down many of the trails / roads that I like to drive on. That was the reason I got rid of my little class C. Was just to wide.
This thread has jumped all over, but the original question had to do with safety. Are DRW safer in terms of maintaining stability in a blowout situation? The answer…probably. The thing is that if the probability of a blowout is low (with quality tires) to begin with and then the DRW advantage in terms of avoiding a subsequent loss-of-control accident is relatively small, then do you care enough to upgrade your truck on these grounds? I was simply trying to get a better feel for how often accidents (loss-of-control) result from a blowout on a truck with a camper and to see if there were more SRW accidents than DRW accidents. Right now, not enough data to say. If fact, no firsthand data of an accident and only one secondhand account. The lack of data tells a story.
Maybe all the SRW folks that had accidents died in the resulting rollover, but it is starting to feel like the actual risk associated with a SRW blowout-induced accident is pretty darn low. In my case, probably low enough that I won’t consider the safety advantage in my decision to upgrade to DRW or stay with my built out SRW. There are other, non safety-related aspects that I will still consider though. Of course, to each their own.
Mar-02-2023 10:19 AM
Mar-02-2023 08:20 AM
Mar-01-2023 10:52 AM
Mar-01-2023 08:59 AM
jimh406 wrote:Grit dog wrote:
the ONLY time a comparable dually is putting more rear braking force into the pavement is once a srw would lose traction, assuming the dually wont.
Of course, there is no SRW that is comparable to a DRW. You can try to cherry pick some spec to make them seem the same.
If you want to play the rotational mass game, go find the actual numbers. The front tires/wheels of typical F350 DRW that are small 17s are much lighter than the typical F350 SRW running stock 35s and 18s or 20s. I think it's likely that there is little difference in the entire rotational mass, but wouldn't be surprised if the 6 DRW stock tires don't weigh less than SRW.
You have to ignore every person who's driven both SRWs and DRWs with the same TC to believe DRW/SRWs are equivalent with the exception of two less wheels and tires. You can do that, but don't kid a kidder.
Mar-01-2023 05:28 AM
AH_AK wrote:mbloof wrote:Lantley wrote:
There is always friction between road and tire.
One of the reason cars cannot stop on ice is there is no friction between tire and ice.
Sure the brake pads stop the wheel but on ice the wheel does not stop the vehicle.
Eliminate the ice and the vehicle is able to stop.
Forgetting for the moment that it is the friction between pads+rotor that ought to be slowing/stopping rather then the tires themselves here's what I had exception with:
"My dually also has more braking power, it certainly stops my trailer much faster the my SRW trucks. Again this is determined from the drivers seat not from the text book."
I'm simply pointing out that for 1T trucks the SRW and DRW have the same pads and rotors IE: SAME BREAKS.
Any implied or imagined extra stopping "power" is NOT from the breaks.
- Mark0.
Calipers and master cylinder.
Mar-01-2023 03:45 AM
Grit dog wrote:
the ONLY time a comparable dually is putting more rear braking force into the pavement is once a srw would lose traction, assuming the dually wont.
Mar-01-2023 03:03 AM
Lantley wrote:mbloof wrote:Lantley wrote:
There is always friction between road and tire.
One of the reason cars cannot stop on ice is there is no friction between tire and ice.
Sure the brake pads stop the wheel but on ice the wheel does not stop the vehicle.
Eliminate the ice and the vehicle is able to stop.
Forgetting for the moment that it is the friction between pads+rotor that ought to be slowing/stopping rather then the tires themselves here's what I had exception with:
"My dually also has more braking power, it certainly stops my trailer much faster the my SRW trucks. Again this is determined from the drivers seat not from the text book."
I'm simply pointing out that for 1T trucks the SRW and DRW have the same pads and rotors IE: SAME BREAKS.
Any implied or imagined extra stopping "power" is NOT from the breaks.
- Mark0.
Your catching on. I never said it was due to the brakes. As you claim the brakes are the same.
It's do to the fact it is a DRW truck that has 2 extra wheels that gives it additional tire surface that contacts the ground!
Feb-28-2023 03:05 PM
mbloof wrote:Lantley wrote:
There is always friction between road and tire.
One of the reason cars cannot stop on ice is there is no friction between tire and ice.
Sure the brake pads stop the wheel but on ice the wheel does not stop the vehicle.
Eliminate the ice and the vehicle is able to stop.
Forgetting for the moment that it is the friction between pads+rotor that ought to be slowing/stopping rather then the tires themselves here's what I had exception with:
"My dually also has more braking power, it certainly stops my trailer much faster the my SRW trucks. Again this is determined from the drivers seat not from the text book."
I'm simply pointing out that for 1T trucks the SRW and DRW have the same pads and rotors IE: SAME BREAKS.
Any implied or imagined extra stopping "power" is NOT from the breaks.
- Mark0.
Feb-28-2023 02:26 PM
Photomike wrote:
If I bought a truck for a camper I would go with a DRW just to be safe.
Problem that I have is that a DRW would not go down many of the trails / roads that I like to drive on. That was the reason I got rid of my little class C. Was just to wide.
Feb-28-2023 01:34 PM