Not sure upper stableloads are right for me (UPDATED)

[Sliding-into-ho]

(UPDATE 10/23/2019 here: http://www.rv.net/forum/index.cfm/fuseaction/thread/tid/29794168/gotomsg/29988533.cfm#29988533 Safe to say the upper stableloads were NOT causing any issues that I didn't have already, but the stock shocks very likely were. Upgrades continue! Big thanks to the massive wealth of knowledge on this board. In the first page of responses alone, pretty much all the relevant considerations were addressed. You Rock! Thanks also to Torklift who reached out and went the extra mile to help me get dialed in.)

Rig: 2017 F350, SRW, FX4.
Tire sticker 3243lb
Rear GAWR: 7230lb
TC: NL 9-6, 2600 Dry, 2900 Wet

The only suspension mod the dealer installed is upper stable loads. I wanted the lowers, but they said they don't install them because they don't want to deal with the drilling.

I've never hauled a TC before, but plenty of heavy trailers. The stable loads don't feel quite right. If you've ever ridden in a New York taxi cab in the 80's or 90's (you know... the Ford Tauruses and Lincoln Town Cars with shot suspensions), that's sort of the sensation: floaty, bouncy, vague, disconnected.

I wouldn't say there's a lot of sway in terms of magnitude of movement, but when it does sway, it bounces back and forth from side to side.

My hunch is simple: my rig may not be quite heavy enough to warrant full size stable loads, which engage too much of the upper overload spring (lower spring rate) and not enough of the higher spring-rate lower overload. I suspect this is why Torklift unequivocally recommends lower stable loads first. But to be clear, I don't have any experience with this and these are just guesses.

The rear fender is 1-2 inches higher than the front fender, depending on the load, for what it's worth.

Here are a few things that I would try next, but if you feel like you know a more ideal solution, please let me know:

1. Remove stable loads and get a baseline for how the truck handles fully stock. After all, I'm under my door sticker weight (I've removed a propane tank and the heavy rear patio).

2. Shave an inch or two off the stable load blocks

3. Uninstall stable loads and, assuming too much sag/roll, upgrade shocks to rancho adjustable and add Hellwig Big Wig.

4. Last option would be air bags, which would probably only need minimal inflation.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts!

[Sliding-into-ho]

Sorry it took so long to get an update on this. After reading this post, Torklift reached out to me and helped me get set up with some lower stableloads. I drilled half of one of the holes and then shelved the project for last year's ski season. With this year's ski season rapidly approaching and every little trip in the truck reminding me how much the suspension sucks, I figure I better get on this.

I've read lots of opinions on drilling the new 2017+ leaf springs (not sure if they're any different than previous generations), but none of them have really laid it out as plainly as I'm about to:

1. No lubrication or cutting fluid is needed.

2. Slow speed + high pressure (thinking I was about 300-500RPMs with the 7/16th bit)

3. I didn't rent torklift's tool, but probably should have. Instead, I used a DeWalt trigger clamp, which worked surprisingly well once I stopped trying to pause every 5-10 seconds and relubricate as the instructions suggested.

4. Having a bench grinder on hand was very useful for re-profiling and resharpening the drill bits. My last spring only took me 15 minutes and I used the same bit for the last 3 springs.

As for the ride? It's better, for sure, but not what I would consider "night and day." I want to be VERY clear about something though... I took some time to do a side by side comparison between the stock suspension and only the UPPER stableloads, and to my surprise, the upper stableloads were a big improvement. All of the bounciness I was complaining about was a factor of the crappy stock suspension which is 110% absolutely not up to the job of hauling around a 3500lb camper (fully loaded, 2630lb dry weight).

The counterpoint there is that I drove up and down the mountain all winter with just the upper stableloads and never felt unsafe or out of control. It just didn't feel right. It felt even less right when I took the stableloads off. It feels another degree better with the lower stableloads. Sway is noticeably reduced in the corners and my fully loaded ride height is now perfectly level whereas I was maybe 0.5" low in the back with upper stableloads only and maybe 1.25" with the stock suspension. The ride is a bit firmer, as would be expected, but not in a bad way.

The persistent problem is the porpoising, bounciness, etc. while traveling in a straight line over uneven surfaces. RV.net and other resources have me convinced this is a factor of the stock F-350 shocks. This is logical considering it wouldn't make sense for F-350s to be mass produced with shocks designed for the specific benefit of truck campers.

While the sway control is nice, I feel that it could be even better (Caveat: I haven't tried to adjust the number of plates in the stableload yet. Tweaking those may offer some additional benefit. I also haven't removed the upper stableloads yet, and might try that as well.) I plan to augment this with the Big Wig sway bar that's been sitting in my garage for however long it's been (I really wanted to just do one thing at a time).

Since the sway bar will obviously not have any bearing on the bouncy bouncy issues, I also plan on upgrading at least to rancho 9000xl adjustables, but might get a little crazy and spring for the Fox adjustables. Then again, I might also sell the Northern Lite/SRW F-350 combo and go DRW + Host. Don't get me wrong, the NL/SRW has been amazing, and even my wife doesn't mind the space with all 3 of us camped out on the mountain, but I personally wouldn't mind spreading out a bit more with a Mammoth or Cascade. It's all about the recliner!

[Grit_dog]

Back to the OPs concerns. There is Moreno than enough truck to handle the camper, period, end of story, not debateable.
The OPs concern, I infer, is due to inexperience hauling a camper or heavy loads and trying to achieve an “unloaded” state of handling and stability.
Everyone is comfortable with different levels of perceived risk. Some are good with whatever and some will exhaust all means to “perfect” something to where they’re trying to turn an apple into an orange because orange is their favorite fruit.
Nothing wrong with that, free country. Just maybe a lot of effort expended for little gain.

[Bedlam]

I added my own inflation table and load data to my F250 door jam when I upgraded to 19.5" wheels. Maybe it was not official, but it was my reference to keeping things safe. I did not remove or alter the original label, I just added a supplemental one like an upfitter would do to an incomplete chassis cab.

[emcvay]

Not trying to educate, just hear the same old stuff so often that I couldn't help myself but look up the law (which I'd ready previously a few times) and post.

But yes, semantics -- one cannot change the sticker itself other than, perhaps to remove it 😉

[jimh406]

emcvay wrote:
Semantics. You're assuming the sticker is finite and nothing can change it.

Correct, I was making it clear that payload is a number. In any case, nothing changes the sticker. That’s on a manufacturer decal.

You seem to be assuming I’m new to carrying TCs ... :D. I’m not the weight police either. I carried the same TC I have for 8 1/2 years on a SRW when it was my daily driver. I know “something” about being over payload. Thanks for trying to educate me, but you are over a decade late. 😉

[Sliding-into-ho]

"The tires not the door sticker"

I can only speak for myself, but when I reference the "door sticker," I'm talking about the "Tire and Loading Information" sticker in the door, which is the one that spells out the actual payload capacity of passengers plus cargo.

In other words, the door sticker that matters is the same thing as "the tires."

That said, if I wanted to make a case for a higher cargo capacity, I'd point to the fact that the sum of the axle weight ratings is higher than the GVWR (likely to account for uneven loading, or perhaps for braking performance).

[emcvay]

RCW 46.44.041
Maximum gross weights—Wheelbase and axle factors.
No vehicle or combination of vehicles shall operate upon the public highways of this state with a gross load on any single axle in excess of twenty thousand pounds, or upon any group of axles in excess of that set forth in the following table, except that two consecutive sets of tandem axles may carry a gross load of thirty-four thousand pounds each, if the overall distance between the first and last axles of such consecutive sets of tandem axles is thirty-six feet or more.

Just for a point, WA State is pretty clear here. The tires are what matters to them LEGALLY.

[emcvay]

RCW 46.44.042
Maximum gross weights—Axle and tire factors.
Subject to the maximum gross weights specified in RCW 46.44.041, it is unlawful to operate any vehicle upon the public highways with a gross weight, including load, upon any tire concentrated upon the surface of the highway in excess of six hundred pounds per inch width of such tire. An axle manufactured after July 31, 1993, carrying more than ten thousand pounds gross weight must be equipped with four or more tires. An axle carrying more than ten thousand pounds gross weight must have four or more tires, regardless of date of manufacture. Instead of the four or more tires per axle requirements of this section, an axle may be equipped with two tires limited to five hundred pounds per inch width of tire. This section does not apply to vehicles operating under oversize or overweight permits, or both, issued under RCW 46.44.090, while carrying a nonreducible load.
The following equipment may operate at six hundred pounds per inch width of tire: (1) A nonliftable steering axle or axles on the power unit; (2) a tiller axle on firefighting apparatus; (3) a rear booster trailing axle equipped with two tires on a ready-mix concrete transit truck; and (4) a straddle trailer manufactured before January 1, 1996, equipped with single-tire axles or a single axle using a walking beam supported by two in-line single tires and used exclusively for the transport of fruit bins between field, storage, and processing. A straddle trailer manufactured after January 1, 1996, meeting this use criteria may carry five hundred fifteen pounds per inch width of tire on sixteen and one-half inch wide tires.
For the purpose of this section, the width of tire in case of solid rubber or hollow center cushion tires, so long as the use thereof may be permitted by the law, shall be measured between the flanges of the rim. For the purpose of this section, the width of tires in case of pneumatic tires shall be the maximum overall normal inflated width as stipulated by the manufacturer when inflated to the pressure specified and without load thereon.
The department of transportation, by rule with respect to state highways, and a local authority, with respect to a public highway under its jurisdiction, may extend the weight table in RCW 46.44.041 to one hundred fifteen thousand pounds. However, the extension must be in compliance with federal law, and vehicles operating under the extension must be in full compliance with the 1997 axle and tire requirements under this section.

[emcvay]

jimh425 wrote:

mk10108 wrote:
Can you handle the truth? ... Only adding springs will increase your payload.

Can you? Nope, they don't increase payload. That's a fixed number. GVWR-GVW.

Semantics. You're assuming the sticker is finite and nothing can change it. You're assuming it's a legal and binding document. You're assuming the law only goes by that sticker and no amount of upgrade to the vehicle can change that.

Which is silly because truck manufacturers have different stickers for different flavors of truck packages. All F350's are no created equally. In fact, sometimes the stickers change and the components do not.

There are, for all intents and purposes TWO GVWR's -- the one on the sticker and the actual physical ability of the vehicle itself. That sticker is a sum of the vehicles components with some safety and liability factors built in. The manufacture knows the axle is rated a certain way, as are the brakes, the frame, etc etc and chooses to set the sticker weight to match the least common denominator for safety and liability reasons. That 'sticker' number may well be far below the trucks actual capability.

For example, at one time (anyway) the F250 PS trucks had the same brakes, springs, shocks and even rear ends as the F350's (SRW's). Basically the same trucks with a few cosmetic differences and not much else but they had a lower GVWR. Savvy truck buyings figured it out and bought the cheaper F250's and used them.

Not so different from F250 owners (of different years when things were indeed different) who replace the components to 'upgrade' their 250's to 350's physically. They are then, physically the same. Sure the sticker isn't the same but in reality they are.

As for the law? I've yet, after years of asking, had anyone actually post case-law to prove that someone was actually sued for being overweight ()of gvwr) in an accident or otherwise. Not saying it hasn't happened, but I've yet to see it.

Finally, a poster here, I think even in this thread pointed out that at least in one, if not two NW States the law goes by tire rating now the door sticker. Having been to traffic court I can attest, at least in my case (and in a car not a truck) that the physical changes to the car did in fact sway the courts decision. What the manufacturer says the car can or cannot do is not relevant when someone improves it because physically it has changed.

So, can replacing springs change what the truck is safely capable of carrying? I suggest one simply look at the thousands and thousands of 'overloaded' trucks out there putting thousands upon thousands of miles on the road. Sure, it can be done and maybe the springs are your weak link (maybe it's tires or brakes or shocks etc).

It won't change the sticker but it will physically change the truck.

[mountainkowboy]

Sliding-into-home wrote:

That said, I'm right at the upper gvwr limit and would like to see if stable loads would improve the handling vs stock.

With Red and the S&S I sit just over GVWR fully loaded, at least according to the door sticker, everything else I can find on my truck says my GVWR is 1,000lbs more than my sticker but thats another matter. Either way without the upper stableloads Red sat level with the TC and sat on the overloads. With the upper stableloads I gain 1.75" more suspension travel since they engage the overloads after a 1" drop in bed height. As for the handling...the stableloads gave me more suspension travel in the rear so it has more articulation and compliance to road conditions. So yes, it did improve the overall handling

[jimh406]

mk10108 wrote:
Can you handle the truth? ... Only adding springs will increase your payload.

Can you? Nope, they don't increase payload. That's a fixed number. GVWR-GVW.

[Sliding-into-ho]

Not sure if you're talking to me, but I'm not overloaded. Stable loads were offered for free with my camper and I'm not sure I need them.

That said, I'm right at the upper gvwr limit and would like to see if stable loads would improve the handling vs stock.

[mk10108]

Can you handle the truth?

Stable loads only manage an overload condition and do nothing to increase your payload. Only adding springs will increase your payload.

[otrfun]

Sliding-into-home wrote:
I don't think it's the truck/camper combo. I think the camper is simply too light for upper stable loads. I've been working with torklift (who has been very helpful) to get a better solution in place and will report back when I finally get around to installing.

Anyway, I doubt you can go wrong, plus you get the built in generator space with the short bed. I use my generator every weekend and taking it in and out in the snow is mildly annoying.

If it is the upper stable loads, I'm guessing this issue won't crop up on our Ram 3500 SRW since it doesn't have overload springs. Hope Torklift gets you all squared away.

If we do incur any instability I'll probably install a set of Timbrens.

If we can work the right deal we should be picking up our new 8-11 SE this week. Not thrilled about paying a $10k premium for a NL, but that's the price you pay to play sometimes 🙂

[Sliding-into-ho]

I don't think it's the truck/camper combo. I think the camper is simply too light for upper stable loads. I've been working with torklift (who has been very helpful) to get a better solution in place and will report back when I finally get around to installing.

Anyway, I doubt you can go wrong, plus you get the built in generator space with the short bed. I use my generator every weekend and taking it in and out in the snow is mildly annoying.