| Author |
Message |
Sean Mormelo (Sventvkg)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 12:24 am: | |
Hi all...Looking for advice as far as best bang for the buck for a Toad breaking system..I really can't afford to buy something too expensive as the towbar, baseplate, wiring installations are taking most of my budget but am interested in some ideas for a Toad Breaking system. Any Advice or recommendations would be most welcome! Thanks! |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 2:35 am: | |
what are you towing? |
Sean Mormelo (Sventvkg)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 3:04 am: | |
sorry....Towing an 03 Blazer 2WD with an MC5C...So far what this is costing me for all the gear is about as much as I could get a decent little around town car for...and a Braking system is that much more to add onto it..It's all expensive up here in Alaska. |
Bill Gerrie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:30 am: | |
Sean
I know it is a lot of money to do it right but the law in a lot of states and provinces says you have to have brakes on the towed vehicle if it is over 1000 to 1500 lbs. Higher in some places but you get the idea. I have used the M&G system for 20 years and it is good for me. It costs about $600 but if you change vehicles they will give you a portion of the cost towards a new one when you return the old one. You have good brakes on an MCI but untill you are in an accident you might get away without them. A lot of guys say you don't need them, which is probably true, but think of the laws of physics at 60 MPH. The problems just start to arise after you have an accident. Food for thought. Bill |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:38 am: | |
Some of the commercial motorhome manufacturers sent out letters
telling their clients that they will not be responsible for brake failure
if a vehicle is being towed without it's own braking system (that was
my condensed version of their long-winded CMA). There aren't
too many states that have laws for RVs that require brakes on their
towed automobile to, the best of my knowledge.
There's a system called the "brake buddy" that requires almost no
intrusive re-wiring of tow or towed. It's a box that sits between the
towed vehicle's driver's seat and the brake pedal. The box contains
the apparatus that will push against the box (and seat), to be able to
push the brake pedal down. Even the brake and parking lights require
no re-wiring. (it's about a grand $)
http://www.brakebuddy.com/index.shtml
A tow dolly that uses momentum actuated brakes, is about the
least expensive route. But towing "four down" would be my choice,
with or without towed braking. |
Philris
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:16 am: | |
In New York it has nothing to do with the RV. DOT and DMV consider it a trailer when it is being towed. New York requires trailer brakes on any trailer with an empty weight over 1000 pounds and if newer than 1971, a gross weight rating or actual weight of over 3000 pounds. Vehicle and Traffic Law 375(1). |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:36 am: | |
Philris-
The words to pay attention to are as follows:
"Trailer.
Any vehicle not propelled by its own power drawn on the public
highways by a motor vehicle as defined in this section, except
motorcycle sidecars, vehicles being towed by a nonrigid support and
vehicles designed and primarily used for other purposes and only
occasionally drawn by such a motor vehicle "
http://www.hudsonvalleytraveler.com/perl/ParkwaysDefinitions.pl
You are driving a motorhome towing a motor vehicle attached by
a non-rigid support, on it's own wheels. There is no law in NY
that requires -that- towed vehicle to have it's own brakes.
We've gone through this legal debacle numerous times and the myth
continues. Laws for commercial vehicles do not apply to recreational
vehicles. It is not to imply that "some officer in some locality" will not
issue a citation based on his own "opinion". And that's why we have
courts and attorneys. |
Philris
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 9:32 am: | |
Call it myth if you would like. I work for DMV and have gone through this with the New York State Department of Transportation in my official duties. Apparently you are going to tow with a rope or chain as the term non-rigid device does not include a tow bar. The "and vehicles designed and primarily............." is in reference to items such as cement mixers, etc. that do not carry a load as these items do not require registration.
There is no mention of commercial/non-commercial. But, what do I know, its only my job. As you said "some officer in some locality" etc. but there are tickets being written in New York by State authorities.
I was just trying to give out accurate information, not my opinion. |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:11 am: | |
JTNG,
I read the statute you reference as excepting only motorcycle sidecars. I feel it may be interpreted to include other vehicles . . .
I also do not find the relevant California statute to support your interpretation and/or apply only to commercial vehicles.
26311. (a) Every motor vehicle shall be equipped with service brakes on all wheels, except as follows:
(1) Trucks and truck tractors manufactured before January 1, 1982, having three or more axles need not have brakes on the front wheels, except when such vehicles are equipped with at least two steerable axles, the wheels of one such axle need not be equipped with brakes.
(2) Any vehicle being towed in a driveaway-towaway operation.
"Every motor vehicle" means just that and a Towd is a motor-vehicle. All combination vehicles must have the ability to stop from 20 mph within a specified distance per the following:
26454. (a) The service brakes of every motor vehicle or combination
of vehicles shall be adequate to control the movement of and to stop
and hold such vehicle or combination of vehicles under all
conditions of loading on any grade on which it is operated.
(b) Every motor vehicle or combination of vehicles, at any time
and under all conditions of loading, shall, upon application of the
service brake, be capable of stopping from an initial speed of 20
miles per hour according to the following requirements:
Maximum Stopping Distance (feet)
(1) Any passenger vehicle ........................... 25
(2) Any single motor vehicle with a manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight rating of less than 10,000
lbs. ............................................ 30
(3) Any combination of vehicles consisting of a pas-
senger vehicle or any motor vehicle with a manu-
facturer's gross vehicle weight rating of less
than 10,000 lbs. in combination with any trailer,
semitrailer or trailer coach .................... 40
(4) Any single motor vehicle with a manufacturer's
gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 lbs. or
more or any bus ................................. 40
(5) All other combinations of vehicles .............. 50
Seems us Californians are on a 40' limit even if a bus now registered as a RV is now considered a passenger vehicle (still 40' stopping distance). California usually mirrors and/or reflects the FMVSS.
As for safety brakes, my Dad used to tow a Chevy Van 30 and the top plate to the tow bar failed. He was lucky to get notice from a frantically pointing car passenger before the Van departed the Bus to work its mischief elsewhere. Safety brakes appear to be a good idea.
In closing, I'm not saying you're wrong -just advocating a higher standard. If I'm a typical full-timer, I doubt the retirement budget will withstand such an event. I'd feel bad living with the possible consequeces to others.
Onward and Upward
Marc Bourget |
Bill Gerrie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 12:43 pm: | |
Marc
Well put in that last paragraph. Nobody wants to be in an accident but they do happen. I wouldn't want to be responsible for the death of somebody just because I didn't do all I could have to prevent it. A vehicle travelling at 60mph pulling a car, trailer etc will get an extra push from the load behind in a panic stop situation. We are all good drivers but you can't drive for the other guy. A site with the brake laws shown is www.roadkingtrailers.com/brakelaws.htm and although they talk trailers your towed vehicle is a trailer when it is behind your bus. Bill |
Jack Gregg (Jackinkc)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 3:48 pm: | |
According to a map in the RVView that I received today from Camping World, only Missouri & Kentucky do not require auxiliary brakes.
Most states, over 3000 pounds
Del & RI, 4000
TX 4500
AK 5000
MA 10000
FWIW, they said it, I didn’t. |
Richard Bowyer (Drivingmisslazy)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 4:39 pm: | |
I had to make an emergency stop on the Interstate in Florida while towing my Tahoe at about 70 mph. . I am sure that if I had not had brakes for the toad, I would have rammed the dump truck that stopped in the traffic lane with no brake lights.
Richard |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 5:06 pm: | |
I did some quick calcs (with a bunch of assumptions but the basic premise is sound).
If a bus weighing 28000# and can legally stop in required 40' distance, engages in a panic stop while towing a 7000# suv with no brake assist, the stop length will extend approx 13 feet for a total of 53 feet or a 32.5% increase in stopping distance.
Quick way to make a 35' Bus out of a 40'er!
Onward and Upward |
Jim and Myrna Lawrence (Daffycanuck)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 5:21 pm: | |
I know I'll get some negative feedback on this one.....but, I was on a budget as well and couldn't see paying $600 - 1000 for something I could build for less than $200.00.....so I did!!
I didn't come up with this idea....borrowed it from a friend....this is for a unit with air brakes only.
Mount a small air pod securely, but in a adjustable manner, to the steering column/firewall/dash. Connect to the brake pedal using a large clevis without the pin. Run an air line to the back of the bus and connect with a disconnect. Tie a pressure line into the feed side (brakes applied) of the bus rear brakes and run it to a regular air governor and then to an adjustable air regulator then to the disconnect.
This is a very general description. Modify the air governor so it pops off at your desired application pressure. (Disregard governor if you want brakes to actuate always). Regulate the 'popped off' air pressure by adjusting the air regulator so the brakes don't lock up.....
Voila....a toad braking system. Have been using mine now for three years now without a hitch.
It would be real easy to add an air tank and a release pin for an emergency disconnect.
I realize this setup won't work with all vehicles, but with some imagination it could. My friend just modified his to work with a 2003 Dodge truck that has the adjustable steering and brake combination....it works real good.
Sean....if you would like photos, e-mail me privately.... |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:21 pm: | |
Philris-
The wording:
"except" and
"vehicles designed and primarily used for other purposes
and only occasionally drawn by such a motor vehicle"
Is taken literally, meaning that the vehicle being towed should
not be something that is designed to be only towed (a trailer).
It is that wording, that excludes automobiles behind RVs.
Marc-
Did I miss something? Or did that say: "except as follows: "
Proceeded with a number (2) "Any vehicle being towed in a
driveaway-towaway operation."
And.... that to be fully precedent with #26454. (a), that explains
that the towing vehicle may bear the responsibility of stopping the
towed vehicle as well....?
Ok.... I donna' wanna' do this anymore. If you guys "feel "it's illegal
and/or don't want to tow your car behind the bus without spending
a ton of bread for a special braking system.... go for it.
Keep in mind, that it may or may not fail to operate after you have
been become accustomed to having that benefit of extra braking.
I personally would rather learn (as I had to) to compensate for the
extra distance needed to stop. And, a mis-set system will wear
your car brakes down pretty quick...
But there's nothing wrong with having extra..... I'd go for that
"Brake Buddy" if I really wanted "extra"... |
Jim (Jim_in_california)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 7:54 pm: | |
If you try and use a warty green amphibian as a brake pad, it's gonna get messy in those hubs in short order.
Sorry, I just can't agree with this "toad braking" concept. |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:17 pm: | |
For what it's worth to those that give a crabt:
http://www.rvsafety.com/StateBrakeLaw.htm
(Damn, but you guys are a tough crew to please...) |
Richard Bowyer (Drivingmisslazy)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 8:45 pm: | |
jtng, like you, I also try and leave enough distance to comfortably stop and I do not think that is the problem. The problem is when an emergency arises. Regardless of the precautions you take, there will always be circumstances that you can not anticipate. Otherwise, the number of accidents would be far fewer.
Richard |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 9:04 pm: | |
Additional to the Canadian tailer brake laws in the last link listted above, in British Columbia surge brakes are not legal. I think that was true in one other province on the east coast. |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 9:09 pm: | |
Richard-
I agree with you 100%.
(now I'm gonna' pee you off)
But buses loaded with 56 skiers fully outfitted, luggage racks
and bays completely filled with ski gear and supplies.... do not
have "extra brakes".. The driver carries the full responsibility
to drive that vehicle safely, regardless of road or traffic conditions.
If the road is iced, snow covered or rain soaked; if traffic is at
a total standstill around that blind turn, the driver is responsible.
I guess my point is.... Most RVrs seem to think that extra brakes,
or fatter tires, or steer-safe units... extra lights or a bigger horn,
will save the day. Cameras here and there and extra monitors
to focus upon, instead of mirrors alone... all in the name of safety.
Most RVrs move to big rigs and simply do not take the time to
learn to drive it as it should be driven and how professional drivers
have been driving them.... safely and without incident.
Yeah, towing a vehicle adds to the problem of stopping, but
not any more than the bus had before it was stripped, and
back when it carried a full load of passengers, with luggage
and carry-on.
I'd wouldn't mind having brakes on the towed vehicle just as
an added measure, but I can live without it. If a guy can afford
it... great. |
truthhunter@shaw.ca
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 9:38 pm: | |
What was it Mr. Goodwrench always said-"pay me know or pay me latter". As all professional driver should know (if they just step out of the cab once in awhile) that it is more than your deficent toad getting towed to a impound until and getting a large ticket and license insurance premium increases in return. When that inevitable incident does happen (even if you insist it was not your fualt) any faulty and/or saftey deficent equipment not only lets the insurance company off the hook but you also may end up with serious criminal charges (such as criminal neglagence causing death if some dies) to go with the law suit you will be paying. I remember more than one former fellow road slave (professional driver) that delt with all these issues after they "just came up" and still had to live with the "what if's" haunting that place in their minds where blissfull ignorance use to reside. Do it your way as long as your not doing it to someone else (like me in the opposite lane when you toad jumps in my lap) Not to lecture you or anything responsible like that, just sharing what I have wiltness far too many times. |
Chuck Newman (Chuck_newman)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:36 pm: | |
Bill,
I was beginning to think I was the only person using the M&G system. What a great design. The only thing I had to do other than attach tow bar and safety cables was to quick connect a 1/4" coiled air line between Bronco and MH. And with the crap air over hydraulic brakes on the Patriot, it actually stopped faster with a 5000 lb truck behind it using the M&G system. I didn't kill a drunk stepping off the sidewalk because of it. I'm exchanging the cylinder for one designed for the van towed. It scaled at 5600 lbs. Even with much better brakes on my MCI, towed brakes are necessary. It dosen't make any difference whether is a 5000 lb "trailer" or a "motorized vehicle". Mass is mass. Period. |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Monday, February 07, 2005 - 11:38 pm: | |
JTNG,
I'm going to jump to a conclusion that you haven't factored into your evaluation a non-obvious feature of the dynamics of vehicle braking.
Adding extra load (passengers, carry-ons, etc.) to the braked wheels has little if any affect on stopping distance because the added weight to the braked wheels increases the total friction available for stopping.
With an un-braked towd, you increase mass that needs to be stopped but you don't increase total friction, thus extending the braking distance, regardless of whether the braked wheels are at the operating capacity for the brakes or not.
You could have brakes large enough to stop a 747 mounted on a Honda Civic and still experience an extension of stopping distance, IYKWIM.
Many people don't have braked Towd's, including my father. Still it's worthwhile to put the information out there for consideration by those who were unaware of this "factor". Ya makes your choice and pays your price"
Onward and Upward
Marc Bourget |
Bill Gerrie
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:12 am: | |
Chuck
This topic has created all kinds of flac every time it comes up. I agree about the M & G system. The best. Not the cheapest but simplest to work. I guess everybody has to make up his or her own mind as to the liability in the event of an accident. Bill |
Craig Craddock (Gs4)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 12:58 am: | |
Build one for less then $200.00
Try this site http://users.cwnet.com/~thall/fredhobe.htm
Bottom of page 3 on the site |
Vin (Billybonz)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 2:18 am: | |
Question: Is there any indication of increased brake wear on the coach when towing without a toad braking system?
I can see where it would be hard to regulate the brakes on the toad so they can provide braking without over doing it. I can almost smell the smoking rotors.
My bigger worry is if the toad get disconnected. I almost lost a 2 horse trailer once...."is the trailer hooked up?"...."yeah, all set." I'll never do that again. At least he rememebred the safety chains.
I had read a story, maybe here, about someone losing a break away cable on his toad and dragging his toad nearly to it's death. Since then the author had installed an alarm light to alert him of such an event. |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 6:16 am: | |
Headed South to pick up a Corvette, I lost an auto trailer while going downhill into Los Angeles when a "fellow traveller" decided he needed the "R" clip holding the hitch-ball insert into the receiver more than I did. It didn't fall out, I needed to tap it in with a hammer it was that tight a fit.
The pin secured by the "R" clip worked its way out about 30 miles later. I had 5000# safety chains and a brake lanyard for the surge brakes, to little avail. The empty trailer occillated so violently - the safety chains both failed, the surge brakes didn't apply and I watched the trailer first pass me up until it drifted to the center concrete divider and, upon contact, made a hard right all the way across 4 lanes of the 8:30AM (just post-rush hour) traffic until it buried the receiver insert and tongue into a bank on the right side.
The empty aluminum car trailer ripped the safety chains so easily that I doubt any chain short of a ship's anchor chain would have held the trailer to the Dually if the Corvette would have been up. The bumper is a custom, made from 4"x6"x.250 square tube and welded stoutly.
Like losing a child or parent, you don't REALLY understand death or errant trailers until you've lost your first. I consider both equal in significance as far as indelible memeories are concerned.
I can think of only one thing I've stated over the years on the BB with equal conviction!
Onward and Upward |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 8:40 am: | |
Marc-
"the added weight to the braked wheels increases the total
friction available for stopping. "
Only if skidding, or to prevent skidding.
A guy at the park had the brakes on his Buick somehow get
locked "on" by his automatic system while towing it through
Georgia on his way to Florida. Nasty....! He had one of those
cable systems that were deemed "foolproof". I guess the cable
or actuating mechanism got stuck.
I'm more concerned about the condition of my towed vehicle,
the tires, the hitch.... anything that might be happening to it while
I'm sailing down the highway. I'd prefer to spend a few bucks
on alarm systems, than to spend it on an elaborate braking system
that will never take the place of conscientious, alert driving.
I worked for a guy once, that said that if you needed a horn,
you shouldn't be driving a big rig..
Like someone here always claims: "works for me". Me too. |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:16 am: | |
JTNG,
I disagree with your "skidding" comment. Your driving comment is insightful, mature and correct, insofar as we have total control over our circumstances, an inconsistent assumption, at best.
Back to tires.
Tires have a coefficient of friction (Cf) typically ranging from .8 to 1.1, which means if a 1000# weigh is bearing down on the tire, it will take from 800# to 1100# to drag it sideways.
This is the maximum force available to the brake/tire combination, since, if the tire is skidding, the "Cf" is reduced due to mechanical means, generally attributed to shearing of the rubber from the tire which reduces braking performance by interfering with tire/road contact. (The reason behind ABS systems) I'm informed that most busses won't skid the tires, but I'm lucky enough never to have been forced to test that statement.
You only get as much friction as there is weight bearing down on the tire(s) being asked to slow the beast down. Extra weight that isn't "yours" (i.e. Towd weight) is like a friend pushing you from behind while you're trying to stop running.
Weight added to the vehicle that doesn't bear on the stopping wheels simply overcomes the tires or the brake's capacity to convert momentum into heat. If the brakes are "strong" enough, the tires skid and the stopping distance is increased from the effects noted above. If the tires are "strong" enough, the vehicle combination simply rolls farther before halting - the basis for my 53' vs. 40' figures above.
This stuff is pretty cut and dried if you consider all the dynamic factors.
Onward and Upward |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Tuesday, February 08, 2005 - 11:23 pm: | |
I'm sorry..... were you talking to me...? |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 2:34 am: | |
I believe I was talking to you. If I was "telling" you, rather than "talking" to you, I would have said you were wrong rather than "I disagree".
I speak rather postively on the subject but my driver instructor at SCCA driving school is a high level accident reconstruction specialist that flies all over the country. I'm not the authority, he is, but, I've discussed this stuff with him at length. If I overlooked something, speak up. I'll accept correction and thank you for the additional information.
Onward and Upward |
t gojenola
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 5:31 am: | |
There's nothing to correct here. What is involved is the principle of tractability which comes into play in both driving wheel function and braking wheel function. To illustrate, take your bus loaded with skiers and factor in the likelihood it will travel over snowy and icy roads. Put all those skiers and their gear in a trailer with no brakes and leave the bus empty. an extreme example yes, but you get the picture.
I'm not an engineering expert on this, but after herding trucks in Alaska for 20+ years I think I have learned a few things. If you live and drive in winter conditions for five or six months each year as I do, you may understand this better.
Consider the vastly greater driving traction of a front wheel drive car. Or better yet, the superior driving traction of an old VW bug. The improved traction is measurable as a function of the percentage of the overall weight being carried by the driving wheels. The same principle applies to braking action. If you have ever had to investigate a trucking accident involving a vehicle combination that jack-knifed on dry pavement you could not possibly disagree.
mein zwei pfennig.
tg |
Sean Mormelo (Sventvkg)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 7:06 am: | |
looks like my thread has been hijacked into something else...Why debate this? To each his own. I felt as per many laws, I wanted to investigate if I wanted to comply with some, and got some great advice. Debating on technical issues in regard to stopping, physics or even if you NEED a braking system is not what I started the thread for and frankly, seems a bit moot here.
Anyway, thanks to those of you who helped. I purchased the Baseplate for my Blazer but for this trip we opted to rent a UHAUL car trailer for $550 instead of incuring the costs associated with getting completely set up ourselves for the Toad. It seems I'll save literally more then the cost of renting the UHaul, if I buy everything I need and get set up in the lower 48 anyway, and we have until June or so till we need to be set up for towing. Cheers! We leave here in just over 3 weeks. Driving a Bus pulling a trailer from Alaska to TN in Early March, Still Winter essentially, is NOT for the faint of Heart! |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 9:12 am: | |
Sean-
Great on that U-Haul decision.
It'd be less expensive to buy a used (or new?) tow dolly that's
equipped with surge brakes, however.
In most states, a tow dolly is considered to be a trailer and some
states require trailers to have brakes. Towing "four flat" usually
avoids that restriction, since you're towing a vehicle and not
a trailer.
I'm trying to understand this.... If you plan to hook a car trailer
to the back of the bus, you're going to need one hell of a hitch
assembly. There's going to be a bit of tongue weight involved.
Using a tow dolly would eliminate the tongue weight... Isn't
the cost to set the bus up for heavy trailer towing, plus the
cost to rent a trailer, going to greatly exceed what a tow dolly
and hookup would cost?
Back to the hiyjacking:
Marc-
The most interesting illustration of what causes a vehicle to
go "out of control" on a slippery surface, was the little
toy car the instructor used, that had it's two wheels locked.
-When the fronts are locked, you lose the ability to steer it.
-When the rears are locked, the car spins out of control.
-Now imagine the brakes on that towed vehicle locking up...
....that aside... The legal process...
Trailers that are designed to have brakes, are made to regulated
specifications. The type of brakes and how they can be applied,
are outlined in the legislation that had been written to require them.
Automobiles that are being towed, that have had external brake
application devices added....?
There are no government specifications for those devices, and/or
to the vehicles they are being installed. It is to that effect, that no
"law" can apply as to the requirement of having such a device.
It would be akin to a law stating that a "vehicle must have lights",
but not specifying exactly what type of lights (color, brightness, etc),
and where they must be located (front, rear, sides, roof, undercarriage).
A trailer can be manufactured to have it's brakes applied by either
the towing vehicle or a surge system. A car or motor vehicle that
has it's own braking system is not designed to have it's brakes
applied by some external applying system. Adding such a device
is to the owner/operators own risk and peril.
Now.... I'd love to know how the government agency of any state
would tackle the problem of a lawsuit against the city for requiring
a totally unspecified, non-specific, and unregulated device that had
failed to perform properly, causing an accident?
"After all your Honor, it -was- required by law".. |
Sean Mormelo (Sventvkg)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:16 pm: | |
john, I can't use a Tow dolly becaues the vehical is rear wheel 2 wheel drive so it's needs a trailer. As far as the hitch on the Bus it has the biggest, most heavy duty hitch I have ever seen already on it. The piece of steel that is reinforcing has to be 4 feet long and it's thick...It's at least 5 times more heavy duty then the biggest class III hitch I have ever seen on a truck but since i'm sure it's been fabricated and welded onto the bus custom, there really is no way of knowing just how heavy duty it is. It looks like it weighs a few hundred lbs though... |
niles steckbauer (Niles500)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 3:19 pm: | |
...... uhh ....... Jtng ....... I used that defense before ....... it worked too .......
Niles |
H3 (Ace)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 8:19 pm: | |
Yea Niles but you were probably intoxicated at the time... or something similar! LOL
Ace |
John that newguy
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 8:31 pm: | |
Sean-
We've noticed quite a few campers towing their car backwards
on their tow dolly. I'd figure that the front wheel caster would play
hell with it, but they said they didn't have a problem.. I'd like to
tow the wife's 190e rear wheel drive and may do so, using either
a Remco drive shaft disconnect, their transmission pump, or...
a tow dolly and pull it backwards.
I would much prefer to tow four down. The time and aggravation
it saves is worth the money and initial trouble it takes to install it.
The trailer? That to me, is the only thing worse than a tow dolly.
You'll have some major headaches the first time you have to
disconnect it and turn it all around unexpectedly. Finding a
campground that will accept it, with or without extra charge,
also adds to the headaches. Most KOAs (I'm told) charge
extra for a tow dolly.... But even without charge, you'll have
to remove it to park in a normal spot.. And the place to leave it
may not be so easy to back into... (put a hitch on the car, too)
I don't know nuttin' about hitches, but there's guys here that
can give you some insight to what that frame can take... The
hitch may be capable of 4k, but the frame may quit at 200lbs..
That didn't cheer you up, did it. Four down's best! |
Sean Mormelo (Sventvkg)
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 10:53 pm: | |
John as far as my perminent tow set up it's going to be a Towbar, remco drive shaft, 4 down...There will be no camping, KOA's etc...This is just for the move and the Uhaul will have to do..Tow dolly towing the blazer backwards isn't something I want to try!...The UHaul is only $550 for the trip down so it's not a problem..I'll be set up with a nice Roadmaster Falcon 2 towbar, a Toad Braking system, and all the connections for my Summertime recreational trip use! |
Marc Bourget
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Wednesday, February 09, 2005 - 11:03 pm: | |
JTNG,
I feel we're on the same page but mixing apples with oranges by tossing in a new point.
The efficiancy of the towd braking system is a new point. That aside, in a "failure to stop soon enough situation", the absence or lack of brake application on a (for instance) 4300# car when the local jurisdiction requires brakes on trailers over 1500# generates a possible punitive damages situation, and those damages ain't covered by insurance. They comes right out of your pocket. It's much more difficult, if there were "working brakes" to establish that the bus/towd combination would have stopped 6" shorter, thus avoiding a collision if/when the brakes were servicable. The simple fact that the accident report established that the Towd had working brakes would kill the punitive damages issue and that "benefit" more that makes up for the cost of the add-on system. Unless testing shows that your bus/with the towd will stop, say in 25 ft rather than the 40' allowed.
Pity the poor converter who scrimps and saves to pay for a $7000 paint job and then gets into an accident. The nice paint job gives the greedy "victim" the impression that Reba's driver just committed vehicular sodomy and generates the vision of ($$) dancing in their heads. It costs more than the $600 quoted for the brake system for an attorney to open a new case.
Pennywise and pound foolish is my conclusion. I agree with your approach but this is an "external" factor that should be evaluated. The decision is truly yours and I'd be tempted to avoid the expense, so long as my coach stopped significantly shorter than 40' with the towd attached.
My agenda was really directed in getting a full discussion out there for others to evaluate, not to "win" this discussion. FWIW. You're a good "intelligent" straight guy, IYKWIM.
Onward and Upward |
Jtng
Rating: N/A
Votes: 0 (Vote!) | | Posted on Thursday, February 10, 2005 - 10:15 am: | |
Apples and oranges, Marc. Liability falls with the one deemed
"at fault" in whatever incident... All legislation for "towed vehicle
braking" I've read thus far, pertain to trailers, not a motor vehicle
under tow.
A trailer is in every instance, an object that has wheels, but is
not self powered. You simply cannot register or title in any
state, a trailer as a motor vehicle.You would have all laws and
regulations that pertain to a motor vehicle to contend with.
Likewise, you can't register or title a motor vehicle as a trailer
for the same reasons.
The NY law posted here says quite clearly (among other
defining instances): "except ...vehicles designed and primarily
used for other purposes and only occasionally drawn by such
a motor vehicle".
I'm dropping the "laws" argument; this has been a lesson in futility.
Inasmuch as a liability factor of being involved in an accident
while towing another motor vehicle without benefit of a braking
system on the vehicle under tow?
It is very simple Marc.. If the total weight of the combined
package exceeds the capacity of the towed vehicle's braking
system -and- it can possibly prove that it was -that alone-
that was the cause of the accident -and if they can prove-
that is was an act of negligence for not providing better braking
capacity for that package... they -may have- something to add
to the overall suit. But why? I seriously doubt any attorney in
his right mind would be bothered to go that route.
The injured party is always better off not questioning the
vehicle's condition at all, since that would be opening doors
to sustained investigations and testing, etc, that can add to
the expense of litigation and the amount of time it takes to
settle the case. No attorney wants to wait to settle a case, or
even to have to go to court, contrary to popular opinion. The
party takes you to court only when there is no other recourse
or means of resolve. Going to court is always a gamble; ask
any attorney if he'd prefer to settle out of court.
If you ran your bus into someone that was in and had, the
right of way, you are at fault. Period.
Who cares "why" you managed to not stop in time? The
answer to "why" has and always been the same as far as the
courts are concerned.... You weren't paying attention; You
were going too fast for road conditions, traffic conditions and
the stopping distance of your own vehicle (sound of gavel).
All this commotion over these petty frikkin details and how
it might cause you to end up in court are getting sillier and sillier.
The day that anyone is so unfortunate to run their 11 ton vehicle
into some poor slob, they will wish they had more insurance to
cover the poor slob's bills and they'll wish they were paying better
attention to conditions at hand.
If anyone wants brakes on a car they're towing, great! If the
brakes fail to operate as planned and -that- causes an accident,
they may have some legal problems. But they'd have the same
legal problems if the tow bar broke, if a wheel came off, if
whatever happened, caused injury to another party. If it's
your vehicle and/or under your operation and it's caused injury
or loss, you are held responsible for it's actions. Brakes; no
brakes; in absence of steering.... It doesn't matter. (It -may-
matter to you alone, if you plan to attempt to collect from the
manufacturer that made it). The injured will try to be reimbursed
from you. You can try to subrogate (be reimbursed) from
someone else..
That's it. We've hijacked this thread and totally wrecked it.
Seeya' in court. |
|