Go Back   Montana Owners Club - Keystone Montana 5th Wheel Forum > GENERAL DISCUSSIONS > General Discussions about our Montanas
Click Here to Login

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-23-2006, 05:10 PM   #121
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Many of the Montana's - essentially all of the larger models - have been designed with a considerable amount of trailer and load behind the axles. This was clearly to transfer load "off" of the pin to enable 3/4 and 1 tons to be able to support the pin weight. Per Montana's 2006 brochures, the 3600RL pin weight is 15.6%, the 3500RL is 15.9%, the 3400RL is 16.9%, and your 05 3475 was 19.9%. If numbers in this range are good enough for Montana and Lippert, they are good enough for me!

As the Chevy truck brochure clearly states, as well as many other written materials on the subject, 5th wheel trailers should maintain at least 15% of its load on the pin to maintain adequate stability.

The stability of the trailer is based upon weight, not what makes up that weight - pots and pans, water, or whatever - including lead.

I've read it, heard it, tested it, etc. many times. There are a lot of 1 ton TV's out there that are overloaded - just like a lot of 3/4 tons. And its because too many drivers don't understand or don't care. It's been said many times, "load the heavy cargo low and as close to the axles as possible. Load lighter cargo higher and further away from the axles". This is what improves stability!

And by the way, all the holes I drilled in the frame, I also filled with bolts of harder material. So I must be OK there also.

And don't forget, it was you who referred to towing a trailer (which is significantly different than a MC carrier) as a kludge. I differ in my opinion on that issue also.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 05:20 PM   #122
Montana_1240
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairbanks
Posts: 650
M.O.C. #1240
Rick,

Iím sorry to see you still seem intent upon taking offense personally. My choice in what words I use to describe something I find incorrect, (regardless the weights stated, I was talking about strain on the frame that wasnít designed to have a trailer hitch, according to the quoted manufacturer's own FAQ on the matter,) is just thatÖMy choice. I didnít ask you if youíd like the word. It was mine, not yours, so I figured you had no say in it. It isn't all that important. I can choose any number of similar words, but that one suited my thoughts on bastardizing a DOT-certified construct.

I had actually thought that maybe youíd come out with a simple apology for disrupting an otherwise intelligent exchange of ideas and opinions. I was wrong.

Iím just going to let it pass.

I hope that you will, now.

Iíll leave the rest to Don. Heís entertained by that sort of thing. Iím just tired of it killing another thread for no real reason.

Steve

Montana_1240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 05:39 PM   #123
Montana_1240
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairbanks
Posts: 650
M.O.C. #1240
FYI:

I've just sent the follwing to Keystone. I think it's about time to clear the matter off the table.

I'm prepared to let it drop if I am proven wrong.

Quote:
quote:Dear Keystone,

Iím over a year into our second Montana Fifth-Wheel, and truly love it.

Iím writing to clear up something thatís been a point of contention on the Montana Owners Club Forum, recently. That is: Can someone add a hitch to the rear of the Montana?

I know what the FAQs say about it, and I wouldnít ever modify the frame to do it. But others think that they can, and that it wonít affect their trailerís certification, handling, or legality. (I know some states allow for two towed vehicles, but Iím interested in something else about this issue.)

Wonít such modifications void the Keystone DOT Certification, or leave the customer out on a limb if expectable frame problems, or even handling troubles, (possibly causing an accident,) erupt?

What is the legal issue at stake, here? What are the warranty issues that might come up? And canít the FAQs make a stronger admonishment about doing it, if it is either illegal, or outside of warranty coverage?

Iíd appreciate your most direct and expeditious response.

Thank You,
Steve Gyuricsko
Montana_1240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 05:40 PM   #124
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 19,841
M.O.C. #2839
Everyone has a opinion..Would it not be a dull place if everyone agreed on everything.This is a great thread and I learn from evey post even If I completely disagree with it. Disagreement promotes discussion.Everyone take a deep breath, take a break then continue with offering your objective, unbiased opinions.......Politely...
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 05:42 PM   #125
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Wrenchtraveller,

The specs on the 2005 2955RL put the empty pin weight at 21.1%. The 2006 pin weight is advertized at 18.4%. Using your logic, the 2005 model should be more "stable" than the 2006 model since it was designed to carry more weight on the pin. My question is why did you not purchase the 2005 model instead?

Perhaps those darn Montana designers slipped one by you when they redesigned their product line for lighter pin weights by moving more of the trailer weight behind the axle. That's a novel idea! I guess their logic must be as warped as mine!

And, who said anything about being over gross combined weight?

I stand by my previous statements. Drivers should know about and understand cargo loading and weight distribution. Managing the load to remain within specifications is the logical and intelligent thing to do. People who view that as "warped logic" need to get educated.

The Montaineer is currently manufactured with a rear receiver hitch. Keystone/Lippert has offerd to install a hitch on a Montana. I predict a hitch will be available as on option on the Montana in the future.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 06:14 PM   #126
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
I am willing to let things pass, but wish to explain my concerns.

Steve, I did not originally attack you or your opinion. It was you who sited my thoughts, and the statements of MIMF as a kludge, concerning the installation of a receiver. You are correct, I took offense. You have the right to use whatever word you wish. I have the right to respond.

With respect to Cat320 and Don, I think they have made it clear they did not think I knew much about weight distribution and was only trying to defend the use of a 3/4 ton TV. You're right, they have a right to their opinions, and again I have the right to say they are wrong. With respect to the weight distribution issue, it can not be denied that Montana, and many other manufacturers are redesigning their products to shift more weight behind the axles thus reducing pin weights. This is not a foreign concept and is certainly not "warped" logic.

On we go. And Steve, don't forget that you can receive many different answers to a single question when you ask it of Montana. Just ask Rich. How many times were we told that hi-gloss weighed an additinal 600#? I wouldn't expect anything but a CYA answer from Montana on your request.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2006, 06:26 PM   #127
David and Jo-Anna
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Green Valley
Posts: 1,618
M.O.C. #6022
Hey guys, let's all take a deep breath. I've been pleased with the way this thread I initiated has evolved, and I'm sure there is lots more here we can share and benefit from. Discussion is good--and discussion with respect for differing opinions is, IMHO, even better. Have a good night's sleep, and chat withyou tomorrow.
David and Jo-Anna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 04:01 AM   #128
Wrenchtraveller
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,568
M.O.C. #4890
Why am I not surprized that rickfox now suggests time travel as a way of getting a more stable RV.
It must be funny to watch rick pack his unit. Never mind where the cupbourds are, we will keep the pots in a box over the axles. For travelling we will take the 160 pound Splendide washer dryer out of the front closet and move it over the axles.

The whole point of RV ownership is to relax and enjoy life. I load up my Montana usung the storage space provided by Montana. Do you think it is wrong that the front storage and basement and waste holding tanks all load the pin heavily. We all try to start our travel days with empty holding tanks and in a perfect world we would, but most of us who have RVed for 30 years like myself have had to travel with our holding tanks full. I have a truck heavy enough to take the extra pin weight of full holding tanks. I sure hope the light duty guys would not dump thier crap alongside the road so they could travel lighter.

An experienced weight packer like rick probably has another tank at the rear of his unit that he can pump his wastes to from the front tank. Yes, I am sure rick has a plan to keep his pin light and I am sure common sense is not part of it.
Wrenchtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 04:36 AM   #129
Driftwoodgal
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Driftwood
Posts: 1,376
M.O.C. #5446
Send a message via AIM to Driftwoodgal
Wrenchtraveller,

I would just like to ask a question to educate myself a little more on this topic. The question is asked for information only not to stir the pot.

Apparently your Monty has the WD connction in the front of it? The 3400 has it in the kitchen area before the axles. Why does Montana place them in different areas?

Second question do you think Montana leaves out the WD out of the rigs so they don't have to answer for the extra weight we put into the rigs?

I am very concerened about the weight issue and am trying to learn from the thread. If we have to take out chairs and couches to be legal we will do so. The main reason we got the 3400 was so we could have an office in the living room. When and if the time ever gets here that we will be traveling extensively we might look at a bigger truck if it is needed. Right now I as well as others are trying to learn from this thread. It helps me if you don't get to technical beyond my RV days which isn't alot. If this isn't the right forum then please tell me where I can find out information.

I am sure there are others that are trying to take all of this information in and decipher it. IMHO it helps if people can have an open discussion about a topic where newbies like myself can ask questions from people who have different point of views on the same subject. Once facts and opinions from both points of view are posted than a reader can form their own opinion whether it be good or bad.

I feel badly that I asked the question about the weight in the back of the 3400. I didn't inted to start a heated discussion.
Driftwoodgal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 05:15 AM   #130
Wrenchtraveller
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location:
Posts: 1,568
M.O.C. #4890
Never feel bad to ask questions. The reason the washer/dryer is in the front closet on a 2955RL is because it is a smaller unit and that was the only place they could fit it in.
No question, the location of the washer-dryer on a 3400 is a much nicer place for convenience and weight distribution. Many of us have found the posted pin weight on the Montana charts are very low. Industry wide , it is accepted that up to 25% of a fifth wheel's pin weight can go on the pin. My Ford specs say to stay between 15-25%
When you load and use a fifth wheel, pin weight increases and get's closer to the 25% mark.
Look at where the storage is, up front, basement. Do any of the Montanas have outside storage behind the axles because everything ahead of the axles will add weight to the pin.
A 14000 pound unit , the pin can go as high as 3500 pounds. A full timer would be hard pressed to keep his pin weight under that. We all need "stuff" to live. The full timer has to take all his stuff with him. I beleive the only reason that the 3/4 tons and the 1 tons have the same combined rating is for people who want to tow a conventional trailer that should only put 10% on the ball. No RV maker is going to come out and suggest that their larger models were built for 1 ton duallies. That would be shooting themselves in the foot as far as sales but in reality, units like the 3400 are much too heavy for SRW pickups. I am sorry if this offends people. Look at people like Rich who researched his 3400 purchase. He states all the time he would not pull a 3400 with a SRW. I have an 05 F350 SRW with an 11200 pound GVWR but because the truck weighs 7800 pounds, I only have a 3400 pound payload. Because I travel with a tool box, auxilary fuel tank, two large dogs , my wife and I are not light people, I could not pull a large Montana, but my 2955RL puts my GVR at 11080, just under my max rating.

If I ever decide to go with a 3400 , I will have to get a bigger truck. So far we are happy with the 2955RL but I just love that 3400. Take care and remember the truth can set you free but not on an RV website.
Wrenchtraveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 07:23 AM   #131
richfaa
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: North Ridgeville
Posts: 19,841
M.O.C. #2839
WT is correct in what ole Rich said.We researched the truck spec's and Camper specs and came to the conclusion that if we were to purchase one of the larger Montanas or other brand we would need the 1 ton Dually.That was our conclusion and has nothing at all to do with anyone elses conclusions. We also stated that IF we had a smaller truck we would have a smaller camper. We stand by "our" conclusions as each of you will stand by yours.It is my opinion that the Rv and Truck manufactures do cover their butt in their stated spec's and their legal staff feels confident that they will be Ok in court should the case arise.So my, perhaps twisted logic, is..if the manufactures feel their stated spec's will cover their butt then I fell that staying within them covers mine. If the manufacturer says I can drill a hole or pull a trailer and states size of hole and where I can drill the hole and what kind and weight of trailer I can pull..I will do it. Just for the record I would love to be able to pull my Honda Civic behind the 3400 when we go south and I did research the issue sand asked the questions..and I have seen folks and talked to folks pulling that and larger behind their 5th wheels and all of them said..."been doing it for XXXX amount of time and never had a problem". Having had perhaps way to much exposer to the legal system and how it works in my previous life We are highly trained it covering ones butt.Just my opinion and observations.
richfaa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 07:39 AM   #132
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
It's quite apparent that Wrenchtraveller is not willing to let things be! Thus far he has made the following statements:

1) You people with light tow vehicles will go to any lengths to justify your short comings . . .
2) Another big hole in your warped logic . . .
3) Stupid engineers . . .
4) Why am I not surprized that rickfox now suggests time travel as a way of getting a more stable RV.

Although these types of statements may quite well describe his opinions, I believe they are also quite excellent examples of how far off the mark of reality those opinions are - by the way, this is my opinion! I will let those who are reading this thread come to their own cocludsions on this matter.

Steve,
In trying to better understand your concerns about making changes to a "DOT certified frame", I had a 20 minute discussion with a Lippert engineer (who certainly did not seem stupid to me). Lippert supplies frames as components to trailer manufacturers. Their frames do not meet any specific types of DOT certification, and they do not advertise them to do so.

We also discussed other parts of their frames that are often modified such as change out of hitch pins, installation of generators, drilling of holes in the I-beams, change out of landing gear etc. To all these, he stated that there were no specific warranty issues against doing these things. He did state that connecting something to the frame that might result in a heavy stress to the frame was not recommended and could jeopardize any warranty. He cited the installation of a generator as a significant concern, but that if installed by the "trailer manufacturer" he would assume no problem.

He also stated that connection of a hitch to the rear of their frame was technically not an issue - doing so would not jeopardize the integity of the frame, but could well be a smoking gun. The concern is what might be connected to that hitch. Connecting a load of more than "several hundred pounds" (quotes are his specific words) would definitedly push the situation into a warranty issue discussion!

Although I have not talked with Montana, I assume their trailers meet DOT requirements and are in fact "certified". In researching DOT requirements, it is clear that DOT is primarily focused on various safety issues such as structural dimensions, lighting, braking, tires, and to a lesser degree about components. I found nothing related to frame capacity, structure, materials used, or construction - and no mention about voiding of a certification if modifications were made. The closest thing I could find that perhaps relates to our discussion deals with rear end safety in case of a crash. DOT does have requirements concerning crash bumpers, but the requirement states that at the time of manufacturer, the trailer must meet such requirements.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 08:13 AM   #133
Dean A Van Peursem
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Snohomish
Posts: 575
M.O.C. #5583
I have a suggestion to keep this thread on-topic and try to to avoid personal attacks. Many of us participating on this topic are trying to learn. The range of RV experience here varies from 30 or more years to none. I don't think it helps aid this discussion to get into a situation where we are attacking one an other. In my obervation if we just stated our opinion, what the basis is for our contribution and then simply state our position we would avoid the tension.

In reading all the responses it appears to me that very little of this can be considered right and wrong or black and white. What I have heard in here is why certain decisions were made. That I respect. However, others may come to a different conclusion for equally valid reasons. I think it would be fair to respect all conclusions and only point out a disagreement if the basis used for that conclusion may be using faulty known published data.

We are all struggling with this because there is an inadequate amount of solid data. Sharing our cummulative knowledge is the real benefit of these kinds of discussions. Why a truck or RV manufacturer has speced their unit a certain way may be speculation w/o hard facts to back them up and may get shaded by personal opinion. Also what may be appropriate for one RV owner may not be appropriate for another. I very much respect knowing why certain people have made the choices they have made. I learn from that. But just because another RV owner may come to a different conclusion that doesn't necessarily make them wrong. I don't see this as all black and white since we are dealing with inadequate published information. There are lots of grey areas here and therefore there are not clear right and wrong answers. There are many other independent variables that come into play as well.

So I'm going to try to respect all contributions here and try to learn from them and avoid personal attacks. I hope and would appreciate that we can all do that. Thanks.
Dean A Van Peursem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 08:25 AM   #134
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
To all on the forum,

I'm sure you will find that I have made no statements concerning whether or not a 3/4 ton or 1 ton truck was more or less capable or acceptable for towing a 3400. What I said was that the pin weight of a 5th wheel trailer depended significantly on how much cargo was loaded and how it was loaded - and that this load could be managed. The empty pin weight on my 3400RL was 1960#. The GVWR of my 3/4 ton Chevy allows me to carry an additional 430# of pin weight. When loaded to this limit of 2380#, my trailer axle weight is 11267# and GVW of the trailer is 13,657. Since my dry weight was 11860#, my cargo weighs 1797#.

When doing so, we are legal in all respects! Nothing that Don thinks or says will change these facts! And it just happens to be done with a 3/4 ton truck! No I can not carry the full weight capacity (14150# and be legal) but I've been on a number of 3-4 week trips (no I do not fulltime) and have never carrried more than 1500#.

It's just plain rubbish to say it can't be done with a 3/4 ton truck. And yes, I do a good job of managing my weights - a place for everything, and everything in its place. I like it that way and so does my wife.

If I have gone to excessive lengths to justify my shortcomings, show me where! If any of the above is "warped logic", please show me where I'm wrong! Show me where I'm stupid (I happen to be an engineer)! Show me how any of this in any relates to any reference to time travel!

Again I say, the facts are the facts, regardless of whether or not they fit into the world made by Don and "his 30 years of RVing".
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 08:55 AM   #135
Montana_1240
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairbanks
Posts: 650
M.O.C. #1240
Rick,

I hate to step back into this. But you asked, so I will respond.

I donít really care what Lippert says. I didnít buy my Monty from them. I didnít buy my extended warranty from them. And, for all I know, that Lippert statement is equivalent to the things weíve heard from TV and RV salesmen, about how no matter what we have, weíre good to go, despite the contrary figures printed plainly for inquiring minds to peruse and digest. If you think that a frame problem will only involve Lippert, then by all means, press on and alter your frame. But if it bends, and cracks a wall, floor, cabinetry, glass, or whatever, Lippert will likely tell you to speak to Keystone. I donít know. I would just feel uncomfortable leaving that vast gray area open.

You actually said that the Lippert guy admitted that connecting more than ďseveral hundred pounds would definitely push the situation into a warranty issue discussion!Ē Can I rest my case? The ďRunning WeightĒ on, say a Harley Soft Tail is 680 pounds. The figure of ďseveral hundred poundsĒ is supposed to only mean ďhitch weight?Ē How about the INERTIAL MASS of about 800 or more pounds of mass on the rear of a fifth-wheel, driving down a highway at 65 mph? It is that issue that scares the hell outta me. I wouldnít want to be behind that kluge, no matter what hitch weight itís got. And I dare say that the makers of ĺ ton pick-ups wouldnít want to be quoted about the vehicleís ability to stop, and maybe even handle such a mass. But thatís just me.

Perhaps my use of the term ďDOT-CertifiedĒ isnít correct. But the product that Keystone makes is something Iím guessing is registered or licensed with whatever agency or agencies there are to govern who gets to exercise the privilege of driving a vehicle upon the public thoroughfares. Altering that vehicle voluntarily assumes some liability that may make the Keystone ďacceptanceĒ null and void. That is what Iím getting at.

I bought this rig from Keystone. And Keystoneís made it abundantly clear, (for those who may have MISSED the absence of a bumper of any sort on the rear of a Monty,) that hitches, (not even for a bicycle, mind you,) go on these things, by design.

And I truly donít care what Mountaineers have, (no offense to Mounty owners,) since I own a Monty. And I presently canít look into the future for what may be like so many mid-model features/specs changes that still havenít happened to the Monty I own. Iím sticking with what the company I bought this from says in the heretofore-public list of FAQs, as quoted.

If Keystone responds to my question, and turns it around, saying that such modifications are fine with them, (provided theyíre within the TVís weight limits, Iím sure,) then Iíll admit that my opinion was incorrect. And I donít believe that thatís ďself-serving,Ē because I asked the people who will be the ones that will determine the coverage for possible future troubles.

We have people with frame problems who are totally innocent of fiddling in any way with the stress and strain on their Monties. Personally, I wouldnít wish to place myself in what I sincerely feel is the jeopardy of straining the frame to a point where it could simply let goÖPossibly in front of other innocent travelers.

And when I see someone headed to what I feel is a dangerous situation, or doing something that my own common sense tells me can place others in a dangerous situation, I just have to do something. In this forum, I posted my concerns. And, like you seem to feel, I now to have to defend them against what is obviously an unreasonable amount of resistance. Why you are so upset over others openly not wishing to step into that zone, Iíll never knowÖIíll leave that mystery to Wrenchtraveller. Heís enjoying delving into it, way too much. I just donít know why you canít just take othersí concerns with a grain of salt, as I do, because you seem readily prepared to defend your choice. People who come out of nowhere and claim to have been ďattackedĒ make me sick.

But, as Iíve saidÖthatís just me.

And Iím with the sensible others. I WAS enjoying the original exchange of ideas. I stated my opinion, just as others had done. And looked forward to hearing more. Because I will admit to not knowing it all. And I leave myself open to learning things that could even prove a deeply held belief to be untrue. Itís one reason I donít feel the need to defend my opinions, until someone comes out to whine about my having stated them freely.

If someone canít stay away from trying to silence othersí opinions, I suggest they simply disregard the thread.

I still donít really CARE what you do with your own Monty. And whether you appreciate the fact that I personally wouldnít do it, or not. I just hope youíll be fine.

Steve







Montana_1240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 09:41 AM   #136
rickfox
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Royse City
Posts: 520
M.O.C. #2959
Steve,

As you are aware, unfortunately there is a name calling issue going on between Don and myself. If you subscribe to his line of thinking on that matter rather than mine, so be it. I'm a big boy.

With respect to you, I originally took exception to the term kludge, which I thought we had already discussed and put to bed.

My last post to you, as I think you would agree, only provided what seemed to be factual information that I have found, and was not presented in an offensive manner. Just info that I obtained. I really don't see why you should be upset about what I wrote to you.

As has been said in many different ways during this thread, good and accurate information is sometimes hard to get. Uncovering info from alternate sources and putting the pieces together many times will ultimately get to the truth. As I mentioned previously during the hi-gloss weight debate. It was only after others started making calculations on hi-gloss materials that sufficient info was collected and brought to the attention of Montana that the correct numbers began to surface.

With respect to the base topic of this thread, many people think there is something not quite right with the weight numbers presented by Montana. Perhaps so, perhaps not. But taking a look at the situation from different angles and obtaining info from other sources hopefully will bring favorable results.
rickfox is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 10:24 AM   #137
Montana_1240
Montana Master
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Fairbanks
Posts: 650
M.O.C. #1240
Rick,

What you and Don do is your business.

The fact that Don and I have similar thoughts on stated specs that donít seem to go along with what youíve been saying is not meant as any sort of slight to you. Itís just a statement that doesnít agree with what youíve said.

I took your facts and sent them back to you. I thought that was only fair. And I had to go on and on about why I was saying what I was saying, because you seem intent upon taking things personally, and without regard to whatís stated, as long as whatís stated doesnít agree with you.

The fact that the only ďgood and accurate infoĒ we have about adding even something as slight as a bicycle holder hitch to a Monty is that itís not what Keystone had in mind when they omitted a bumper from the Monties. Anything beyond that is, well, ďself-serving,Ē and from sources that arenít Keystone.

Sure. It would be great to know all the calculations and engineering that went into arriving at the various printed stats on all the RVs sold by every company. (Are other RV companies more forthcoming with their stats and how theyíre computed? I donít know.) But absent the information, Iím not quite prepared to make things up, ask third parties, and then go about reconfiguring something that could very well end up destroying itself, or people in the process. Iíll just go with the figures I have, and base decisions upon them, knowing that the company that provides them will have to stand by them. And if at some future date, those stats cause me to ponder whether I can add another feature to my RV, Iíll have to ask someone who will then be responsible for my having added it. (I wonít go to a washer/dryer maker to ask if heíd be OK if I installed one in my Monty.)

And, please. I wasnít upset over what you wrote. You are upset that I still donít fall in line with it. I said over and over again, that whatever you wish to do with your Monty is your business. And, (further exercising my freedom of expression,) I did go on to state that I wouldnít want to be traveling around you after you do it.

If THAT offends you, then deal with it. Itís not meant to. But it is the last thing I want to say on the matter. Even if you dredge it up another time, Iím not coming back. You donít need to show anyone that you canít accept that someone else doesnít agree with you.

So please let things drop, and let people get on with exchanging ideas, rather than attempting to force people to go outside of acceptable channels to create a situation where anything can happen, but no one will ultimately be held responsible, other than the people that do such things.

Sorry folks. Move along. Thereís nothing here.

Steve
Montana_1240 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2006, 10:26 AM   #138
Cat320
Montana Master
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location:
Posts: 1,439
M.O.C. #5751
Damn fellas...I go to bed, get up and run some errands and we are four more pages in this thread. I'm just getting around to answering rickfox's first post:

"If what you say is true that loading to the rear to reduce pin weight is bad, then you shouldn't have purchased a Montana 5th wheel! That is exactly what Montana has done to reduce their pin weights. And, don't forget that it was Montana that placed the fresh water tank at the rear of many of the Montana models. Are you suggesting that it should not be used for fear that it will upset the balance of the trailer? Please explain to me why you apparently profess to know more than Montana or Lippert about this matter!"

- Of course they're trying to keep the pw down...they want all us good customers to think we can pull them with 3/4s. However, virtually all cargo goes partially on the pin in the storage compartment forward of the axles...which offsets the water tank, which most of us (those not trying to reduce pw) keep only partially filled. Don't claim to know more than Montana/Lippert, just have a good grasp of the obvious and 35 years of towing experience.

"If reducing the pin weight to a more manageable number is bad design then perhaps you need to follow your convictions - and knowledge - or lack thereof, and get rid of these badly designed trailers."

- We don't need to reduce the pw, our one ton trucks can handle it. Also, I would suggest you not make comments about a posters knowledge or lack of knowledge. You have no idea what knowledge/training/experience the rest of us have. I have been teaching this subject (with an FAA license) since 1980, and know a bit about weight, balance and what can happen when basic principals are not incompliance with the laws of physics.

"The truth is that maintaining a minimum of 15% of the total weight is good engineering, and good loading practice. The more balanced the overall unit, the better, as long as it has the above mentioned load percentage toward the pin. Too heavy a pin weight is just as bad as too light a load. If I were to believe you - which I don't because I know better - I would carry the whole trailer on the back of my truck."

- 15% is the minimum on the pin...20% would be ideal...half way between the recommeded guidelines of 15 and 25. However, that position cannot be supported by 3/4 owners...they would be way over weight.

"By the way, I wonder how many holes Montana drills in the I-beams of those "certified" frames during the manufacture of a 5th wheeler. I'll bet there are 50 holes just to hold up the bottom insulation. Guess that means none of us have "certified" frames, and the warranties are void on all of them!"

- Sorry, don't follow this theme, who said anything about frames and I beams?

"My point here is that the objective of this site should be to meaningfully discuss issues, and pass along worthwhile information, and not for people to simply pass judgement on things they know very little about.

It is just flat wrong to not know your weights, and to properly manage them. And piling more weight onto the pin without regard to proper weight management is just poor judgement!"

- Agree that the purpose of this site is to have meaningful discussions of issues and to pass on worthwhile information. Unfortunately, what they turn into is people with under sized vehicles trying to justify their under sized trucks. Can't afford a new one, can't use it as a daily driver, won't fit in the garage, this one pulls fine, never had a problem, ad neauseam. We have several posters on the site who proudly tell us they have 2800 and 3100 lb pin weight. Anybody, who knows anything about towing, knows that these two vehicles are over weight before even the driver gets in the truck to add his weight. Then there's my favorite...the guy who says he has no clue what his rig weighs, but the truck pulls it fine, therefore he's happy! When your vehicle does not have the capacity to do what you want it to, you cannot have any 'proper weight management.' The comment about 'piling more weight on the pin' makes no sense at all.

"And one more little comment. When large flatbed trucks pass by, take a look at many of the main I-beams that support the entire structure of the flat bed trailers. You will see that many of them have hugh holes in those beams. This is in part to reduce weight. These holes have very little effect on the strength of the I-beam. Ask any knowledgeable mechanical engineer, and you will find that I'm correct!"

- Sorry, don't follow this thread, nobody said anything about flatbeds or I beams.

And one from the latest post above:

"The empty pin weight on my 3400RL was 1960#. The GVWR of my 3/4 ton Chevy allows me to carry an additional 430# of pin weight. When loaded to this limit of 2380#, my trailer axle weight is 11267# and GVW of the trailer is 13,657. Since my dry weight was 11860#, my cargo weighs 1797#."

I read this to mean the total cargo capacity of your 2500HD (the data from the rear door) is 2380, and that your actual pw is 1960, the same as the empty pw. If this is true, how did our fellow posters come up with pws of nearly 3000? Empty vs actual is usually different. However, for discussion purposes, we'll assume that your pw is 1960, that means you have 420 (2380 - 1960) for all the weight you will put in the truck (driver, passengers, hitch weight, tools, fuel, cargo, etc)...NOT extra pw as you stated. No way the GVWR is under 9200...unless you are the only RVer around that has an actual pw and empty pw that are the same, and travels with an empty truck.


Cat320 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Towing and personal liability. Artemus Gordon Sitting around the Campfire 19 08-08-2014 11:57 AM
Full Timer's Liability vs. Home Owner's Liability pbahlin Insurance 3 07-09-2010 06:38 PM
Liability & Content Insurance for 5ers Jim n Vicki Insurance 6 06-10-2009 09:03 PM
How big a liability is the spare tire holder Wrenchtraveller Montana Problems, Problem Solving & Technical Help 24 08-23-2006 06:30 AM
GVWR and NCC for the 3400 David and Jo-Anna General Discussions about our Montanas 84 08-03-2006 04:45 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Montana RV, Keystone RV Company or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×