Handling comparison: SRW vs DRW at GVW

[FireGuard]

I don’t think anyone would argue that a DRW is more stable at carrying a TC but let’s hear some thoughts when comparing “apples to apples”
For example let’s assume trucks are both new Ram 3500 4x4 diesels.
1) Ram SRW SB with a payload off approx 3800 lbs carrying a Lance 855 S which is 8’11” with a slide and a wet weight of 3800-4000 lbs. and approx 2’ of overhang.

2) Ram LB DRW with a payload of approx 5000 lbs carrying a Lance 1172. 11’11” and wet weight of at least 5000-5500 lbs. and almost 4’ of overhang.
Both trucks will be at or slightly over GVW rating but assume within axle and tire limits.

I’m sure if you wanted to get scientific and calculate wheeelbase, cog, weight, overhang, roll moments etc you would get a scientific answer, but what do you think seat of the pants feel would be?
Would a SB truck at its GVW be as stable as a DRW at its GVW?

To add more thought, add a few hundred lbs of hitch weight for towing.

[JIMNLIN]

OP comments and asked several questions...so there is no one answer
...Handling comparison: SRW vs DRW at GVW.

...A 3500 srw with 2' of overhang.

...A 3500 DRW with 4' of overhang

...I’m sure if you wanted to get scientific and calculate wheeelbase, cog, weight, overhang, roll moments etc you would get a scientific answer, but what do you think seat of the pants feel would be?

...Would a SB truck at its GVW be as stable as a DRW at its GVW?

...To add more thought, add a few hundred lbs of hitch weight for towing.
*******************************************

My only comment would be the SRW will be just as stable at its 7000 rawr as the drw at its 9750 rawr including a trailers hitch weight.
Now if were talking a drw size tc on a srw then the answer would be a bit different.

[towpro]

your looking at the wrong kind of tire. They do make a single that replaces a dually "Super Single"

[Kayteg1]

I think the main advantage of dually in handling comes from doubling sidewalls, what lowers the side flex.
This is the best picture I could google, but even F1 wide tire deforms pretty bad on turns, so imagine how SRW will do at its max weight capacity, or overloaded :E

[burningman]

You guys are forgetting that test would have all the weight down low in the box.
Campers are tall and that’s part of why wider dually pickups handle campers better.

[Kayteg1]

Yeah. Too many showmen on the forum.
But COG topics are getting routinely closed on this forum, while I consider the subject crucial to TC safety.
So my impression is that forum administrators don't want us to be safe, while not finish subject keeps on coming back?

[Grit_dog]

Gents
The center of gravity thread is one thread down..... but hurry, it’s turning into a ____ show too.

[Kayteg1]

mkirsch wrote:


Why "most of it behind the axle?" The load should be centered over the rear axle, within the camper COG range.

There is no 5500lb TC that would have COG in front of the axle, while that is also questionable with 3800 lb TC.

[mkirsch]

Kayteg1 wrote:

mkirsch wrote:
If you want apples to apples, use bagged concrete for the weight instead of campers.

43 90lb bags of Sakrete in the SRW
62 90lb bags of Sakrete in the DRW

Then take them both on the Nurburgring.

That's only 3870 lb on SRW.
Using my F250 I scaled 4300lb of gravel on it more than once, not mentioning that flatbed add some weight too.
But I was always carrying shovel with me and after gravel drop, I shovel it into pile behind the cab. This way 1/4 to 1/3 of the load went on front axle and handling was just fine.
Something impossible to manage with TC.
So for fair comparison, the 43 bags of Sakrete should be loaded with most of it behind the axle.

Your point being? The weight is as close as you can get to the OP's original specified weights using 90lb bags of Sakrete, without "shorting" the load any.

3800lbs in the SRW. 43 x 90lb is 3870lbs.
5500lbs in the DRW. 62 x 90lb is 5580lbs.

Why "most of it behind the axle?" The load should be centered over the rear axle, within the camper COG range.

[burningman]

Even this thread is better with bacon

[work2much]

Technically the most overloaded truck I ever had was my 1994 Dodge Ram CTD std cab 2500 4x4 with our Bigfoot 10.6. I was over double the sticker payload capacity. The truck had low pressure 35" BF Goodrich AT tires. It handled it's respective weight better than my more current dually trucks and campers that are closer to their manufacturer payload capacities.

[Grit_dog]

On second thought, I re-read Fireguards original question and while it seemed like the typical dually question, the question was actually not that at all.
Apples to apples IS what he was comparing. Like I mistakenly scoffed at. Little camper little truck compared to big camper big truck essentially.
Considering that, I'd say both would handle fine but a bit differently for the same reasons I mentioned before. Dually can or does have a lot more tire capacity and also less rollover in the tires due to twice as many sidewalls taking the load and greater moment arm from the springs.
I haven't drove a dually with a camper on it in a long time and it was a big camper and it was still a bit top heavy. But idk what it weighed or anything about the setup. Didn't care as long as we got our snomachines to the Mountian and it wasn't my truck. I only provided some gas money and beer!
Bottom line though the nod goes to the dually.

[Reality_Check]

Grit dog wrote:
^ Never would have guessed that this tread would have gotten off topic.
The OP didn’t even ask a well thought out question. “How does the handling of a little truck with a little camper compare to the handling of a big truck with a big camper?”
That’s like asking which is better, bacon or sausage with pancakes.....sort of relavent because they’re both breakfast meats that come from a pig, but not directly comparable.

lol.... "Whack...!"

-funny, and relevant, and pointed.

[Grit_dog]

HarmsWay wrote:
Everything is better with bacon.

You're right! I missed the obvious answer here! Bad comparison.
Although not everything is better with more bacon, well it is to some people, but alot prefer their women with less back bacon!

[Kayteg1]

mkirsch wrote:
If you want apples to apples, use bagged concrete for the weight instead of campers.

43 90lb bags of Sakrete in the SRW
62 90lb bags of Sakrete in the DRW

Then take them both on the Nurburgring.

That's only 3870 lb on SRW.
Using my F250 I scaled 4300lb of gravel on it more than once, not mentioning that flatbed add some weight too.
But I was always carrying shovel with me and after gravel drop, I shovel it into pile behind the cab. This way 1/4 to 1/3 of the load went on front axle and handling was just fine.
Something impossible to manage with TC.
So for fair comparison, the 43 bags of Sakrete should be loaded with most of it behind the axle.