Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33K October 02, 2007, 10:38:34 pm Yahoo Message Number: 135Well, I made it to the Flying J south of Kansas City despite some heavy storms, and scaled out the Dutchmen.I filled the black and gray tanks to capacity to see what the weights would be in a typical scenario when we are dry camping and traveling.... the fresh was about 1/2 full. Coach was empty except for a few dishes and towels.The front axle weighed 5740, and the rear weighed 13180.... the toad, a 2006 Tahoe, weighed 5560, for a total of 24,480 lbs vs. 26,000 total allowable GCWR.Filling the fresh tank would have added another 250#, for a total maximum weight with fluids full and 1 driver of 19,170 vs. 19,500 GVWR.With the black and gray empty, and the fresh, fuel, and propane full, the RV scaled at 5960 front, 12500 rear, for a total of 18400#. Without the water, driver, etc., the UVW would have been about 18,300#, or 1300# more than the published UVW of 17,000#.What does all of the above mean?? All of my interior and exterior compartments were empty, except for the kitchen cabinet. I did not have a spare tire mounted on the rear yet, which I had planned to do. I was alone in the coach. If I pack the coach and add the spare, I will be way over on the GVWR, so my wife and grandkids will have to ride in the toad. Of course, that will put me over on the GCWR, so I will have to keep the gray and black tanks open going down the highway so they don't fill up....just kiddin!!!How can an RV company like Thor Industries build an RV you can't legally use??Since the coach leans 3" on the driver's side, I can assume the driver's side tires are way over-loaded since all the tanks and bedroom slide are on that side.Anyone have any ideas??? they would be appreciated!!!Oh, and by the way, I am sitting tonight at the GMC dealer in KC, where I have been told that GM has not yet assigned a part number to the lower radiator hose assembly, so they have to order it from some vendor that provides the plant with the part.... could take another couple weeks....grrrr!!!!Denny MyhreSee what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Selected
Re: Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33K Reply #1 – October 03, 2007, 03:48:00 am Yahoo Message Number: 137From: KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dmyhre943@...Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:38 PMTo: KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.comSubject: [KodiakChassisClassC] Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33KWell, I made it to the Flying J south of Kansas City despite some heavy storms, and scaled out the Dutchmen.I filled the black and gray tanks to capacity to see what the weights would be in a typical scenario when we are dry camping and traveling.... the fresh was about 1/2 full. Coach was empty except for a few dishes and towels.The front axle weighed 5740, and the rear weighed 13180.... the toad, a 2006 Tahoe, weighed 5560, for a total of 24,480 lbs vs. 26,000 total allowable GCWR.Filling the fresh tank would have added another 250#, for a total maximum weight with fluids full and 1 driver of 19,170 vs. 19,500 GVWR.With the black and gray empty, and the fresh, fuel, and propane full, the RV scaled at 5960 front, 12500 rear, for a total of 18400#. Without the water, driver, etc., the UVW would have been about 18,300#, or 1300# more than the published UVW of 17,000#.What does all of the above mean?? All of my interior and exterior compartments were empty, except for the kitchen cabinet. I did not have a spare tire mounted on the rear yet, which I had planned to do. I was alone in the coach. If I pack the coach and add the spare, I will be way over on the GVWR, so my wife and grandkids will have to ride in the toad. Of course, that will put me over on the GCWR, so I will have to keep the gray and black tanks open going down the highway so they don't fill up....just kiddin!!!How can an RV company like Thor Industries build an RV you can't legally use?? Denny, that's the very reason many manufactures have moved to the 22,000 LB.GVWR Kodiak chassis. My Seneca 34SS offers nearly 2,000 LBS. CCC. If I had only 330 pounds as you do, I would be equally disturbed. Caveat emptor ~Since the coach leans 3" on the driver's side, I can assume the driver's side tires are way over-loaded since all the tanks and bedroom slide are on that side.Anyone have any ideas??? they would be appreciated!!!Oh, and by the way, I am sitting tonight at the GMC dealer in KC, where I have been told that GM has not yet assigned a part number to the lower radiator hose assembly, so they have to order it from some vendor that provides the plant with the part.... could take another couple weeks....grrrr!!!!Denny Myhre centerSee what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Selected
Re: Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33K Reply #2 – October 03, 2007, 09:54:46 am Yahoo Message Number: 142 Quote Selected
Re: Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33K Reply #3 – October 03, 2007, 10:21:24 am Yahoo Message Number: 143 Denny, I agree with many of your views on the problems in this industry.We've been involved with it for just over 4 years now and one aspect has amazed me. Owners can find themselves with the biggest piece of junk imaginable and yet they will rave about the manufacturer and buy another from them. They seem to put up with situations they would never tolerate if it were their car or truck.I have a classic example I saved from the Monaco Owners Forum I was on when we had our Ambassador. I found it almost impossible to believe. I'm going to post it in a new message.Don Quote Selected
Re: Weight distribution for Dutchmen model 33K Reply #4 – October 03, 2007, 10:19:13 pm Yahoo Message Number: 154 Quote Selected
weight distribution Reply #5 – October 04, 2007, 12:19:05 pm Yahoo Message Number: 157Here is another interesting and informative link....http://www.rversonline.org/ArtWtandBal.htmlDennySee what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. Quote Selected
weight distribution Reply #6 – January 14, 2008, 11:33:50 am Yahoo Message Number: 395I just had my Dutchmen model 33K re-weighed with cargo yesterday by the RVSEF team in Indio, CA during the FMCA rally. Unfortunately, it confirmed what I already knew.On my 213.5" wheelbase (no w/b extension), with the frame rails extended almost 3 feet by Four Winds, GM's formula shows that all the "stuff" I put in my coach loads the rear axle only. Unfortunately, the only cargo that will load the front axle would have to be placed in the "overhead" area above the cab, or in the cab itself. This means that the 1300 lb of CCC left on the front axle will go unused, except for the passenger weights. Since my rear axle carries 13,500 lb, and is 11,900 empty, I can only add 1600 lbs of cargo, including my spare tire, to the rear axle.It becomes a problem when I consider the individual corners on the rear. Because my left rear is within 50 lbs of limit when empty, it is virtually impossible to add 1600 lbs of cargo to the rear axle without loading the left rear to several hundred lbs over limits, which is my present condition as well. I suspect this is the reason that Jayco and other extended the wheelbase. As the wheelbase lengthens, more cargo weight transfers to the front axle. In addition, as the wheelbase shortens, there is an "unloading" effect on the front axle as weight is added behind the rear axle.I plan to pursue an Implied Warranty of Fitness claim against Four Winds for this problem, as this coach fails to meet safely the purpose intended. I can add all the suspension upgrades, etc., and none of that will "fix" this problem. I will keep you advised of the progress of this matter with Four Winds.DennyStart the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year. Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #7 – January 14, 2008, 03:24:22 pm Yahoo Message Number: 398I really hope you are successful against Four WInds. Every time I think of the weight/balance issues you are facing all I can think is negligence.DonOn 14-Jan-08, at 11:33 AM, Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #8 – January 14, 2008, 03:57:20 pm Yahoo Message Number: 399QuoteI really hope you are successful against Four WInds. Every time Ithink of the weight/balance issues you are facing all I can think isnegligence.DonOn 14-Jan-08, at 11:33 AM, Dmyhre943@... wrote:I just had my Dutchmen model 33K re-weighed with cargo yesterday bythe RVSEF team in Indio, CA during the FMCA rally. Unfortunately, it confirmed what I already knew.On my 213.5" wheelbase (no w/b extension), with the frame railsextended almost 3 feet by Four Winds, GM's formula shows that allthe "stuff" I put in my coach loads the rear axle only.Unfortunately, the only cargo that will load the front axle wouldhave to be placed in the "overhead" area above the cab, or in thecab itself. This means that the 1300 lb of CCC left on the frontaxle will go unused, except for the passenger weights. Since myrear axle carries 13,500 lb, and is 11,900 empty, I can only add1600 lbs of cargo, including my spare tire, to the rear axle.It becomes a problem when I consider the individual corners on therear. Because my left rear is within 50 lbs of limit when empty, itis virtually impossible to add 1600 lbs of cargo to the rear axlewithout loading the left rear to several hundred lbs over limits, which is my present condition as well. I suspect this is the reasonthat Jayco and other extended the wheelbase. As the wheelbaselengthens, more cargo weight transfers to the front axle. Inaddition, as the wheelbase shortens, there is an "unloading" effecton the front axle as weight is added behind the rear axle.I plan to pursue an Implied Warranty of Fitness claim against FourWinds for this problem, as this coach fails to meet safely thepurpose intended. I can add all the suspension upgrades, etc., andnone of that will "fix" this problem. I will keep you advised ofthe progress of this matter with Four Winds.DennyStart the year off right. Easy ways to stay in shape in the new year.This is a common problem for MH based on this chassis, I can hear "Class Action Suit" if someone was to get hurt in any of these product(jayco, gulfstream, ect).I have personally spent some money to fix this issue or should i say"repair". I would like to say it's all good now, but i would be lyingto myself.Trx Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #9 – January 14, 2008, 04:47:35 pm Yahoo Message Number: 400Trx - but not all have a problem. I thought I was being pretty cautious when we ordered our Greyhawk. I was not prepared to order unless I could get some pretty good evidence we wouldn't have such weigh or balance problem. Rich Panaganiban (who is in this group) posted the following on Rv.net C Class forum on Dec 1/2006. Given I wanted to purchase the same model, when I found it I figured it was the evidence I was looking for and we find that for a C at 32.5 ft our MH has reasonable storage space and reasonable weight capacity - as well as the ability to tow the Tahoe.I'd agree that we could see an action of someone got hurt or killed and the cause was directly related to terrible weight and balance problems.Don Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #10 – January 14, 2008, 10:26:28 pm Yahoo Message Number: 403 Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #11 – January 15, 2008, 02:27:33 pm Yahoo Message Number: 407That error (8k s/b 7k) was pointed out to Rich on Rv.net early last year.I have no serious concerns about the side to side weight being way out of line since I think Jayco did a reasonable design job. One slide is on the road side and the other is on the curb side (I've seen a couple of Winnie C's in our park with 2 slides on the road side and looking at them one gets the feeling they are about to fall over) and we don't appear to have any lean like some of the others on the market. The fresh water, waste water, and fuel tanks appear to be located to provide balance as well.Balance has to be addressed properly at the design stage or things can go off the rails pretty quickly. One gets the feeling that Four Winds slept through the design stage, based on your weights.DonOn 14-Jan-08, at 10:26 PM, Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #12 – January 15, 2008, 04:02:27 pm Yahoo Message Number: 408For reference we weighed our Gulf Stream. You will find the weightselsewhere here on the forum. It was only overweight fully loaded whenthe 100 gallon fresh water tank is full. Both sides of MH are within100 lbs of each other. As has already been said, it appears that FourWinds has a problem with Denny's MH. Hope he gets it fixed. Newermodels of our MH with a Diesel engine are on the 22,000 chassis. Quote Selected
weight distribution Reply #13 – June 19, 2008, 07:54:08 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1291I have another question relating to weight distribution to present to the group. I have been involved in a "discussion" with Four Winds engineering through their general counsel. By their numbers, my coach weighs 793 lbs more on the drivers side than the passenger side, based upon 9517 lbs on the drivers side and 8724 lbs on the passenger side. I have discussed this issue with other manufacturers like Fleetwood and Newmar, who both have stated that their goal is to keep the side to side weight difference under 5% and 2% respectively.I informed Four Winds that the weight difference of my coach is 9%.... 9517 divided by 8724 equal 109%, meaning the drivers side is 9% heavier than the passenger side. Four Winds insists that the difference is less than 5%, because the drivers side is 52% of the total weight of 18,241 lbs, while the passenger side is 48% of the total weight... 52% minus 48% equals 4%....Who is right??DennyGas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #14 – June 19, 2008, 08:43:32 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1292QuoteWho is right??DennyWell... I guess you're both right mathematically but I suspect thatFleetwood & Newmar, like Jayco, are also using total weight as theframe of reference... it sure works out better for them that way eh?Bill Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #15 – June 19, 2008, 09:02:38 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1293Thanks Bill...Actually, the coach I wanted to buy from Newmar had a difference of 166 lbs side to side... 9100 on the curbside, and 9280 on the streetside.... 9280 divided by 9100 equals 1.0197, or 2% difference using my method... I don't have any comparison with Fleetwood yet.Denny Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #16 – June 19, 2008, 10:01:15 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1296Ask them what weight in pounds is acceptable from side to side, and stay away from the percentage game. Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #17 – June 19, 2008, 10:59:13 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1297Four Winds answer is that there is no "industry standard," ie., no "acceptable" weight distribution. I have a friend that is a pilot, and weight distribution is important. I will check with him. Thanks, Denny Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #18 – June 19, 2008, 11:03:48 pm Yahoo Message Number: 1298I suspected that might be their reply...... Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #19 – June 20, 2008, 12:51:45 am Yahoo Message Number: 1300Hi, Math freak lurker here. I don't know much about RVs and I have loved the information I have been learning from this group as we hope to head out full time as soon as our house sells. But I am a nerd and wanted to contribute where I could, hopefully without coming off as snobbish. JAnyway, in this case, and probably one of the few, Four Wind's math is actually correct. When doing a ratio of a number, or finding the difference, it needs to be against the total, to have a fixed point of reference. https://www.supercrvgroup.com/But your number is correct, and probably the most important way.If you reduce the problem to an even 100lbs total, in 1lb increments with 1lb every inch across 100 inches, something that evenly translates to percentages, if you start a marker in the middle, with 50lbs, or percent, on either side then you of course have 0% difference. If you slide the marker to the left 2 lbs (2inches, or 2%) then there is 4lbs or 4% between the two numbers. However 52 is 8% greater than 48. So technically I guess it comes down to terms. One is a greater number by a percentage. The other is the difference between the two. What this really means is yes, there is a 4% difference between the weights. But you are right, one side is 9% heavier than the other. Take the above 100 inch stick and turn it into a teeter totter, do you have 4% more pushing down on one side or 8%? It is 8%. The other is just a ratio of numbers.Which is more important? Well I would think that one side being heavier would be a better indicator and not just the difference between two numbers. But it sounds like they are being tricky and saying they are trying to stay within a certain difference, which allows them a lot more leeway in the amount of pressure exerted by the weight.Ok, you can wake up and resume reading now. JDaveFrom: KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.com [mailto:KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dmyhre943@...Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2008 4:54 PMTo: KodiakChassisClassC@yahoogroups.comSubject: [KodiakChassisClassC] weight distributionI have another question relating to weight distribution to present to the group. I have been involved in a "discussion" with Four Winds engineering through their general counsel. By their numbers, my coach weighs 793 lbs more on the drivers side than the passenger side, based upon 9517 lbs on the drivers side and 8724 lbs on the passenger side. I have discussed this issue with other manufacturers like Fleetwood and Newmar, who both have stated that their goal is to keep the side to side weight difference under 5% and 2% respectively.I informed Four Winds that the weight difference of my coach is 9%.... 9517 divided by 8724 equal 109%, meaning the drivers side is 9% heavier than the passenger side. Four Winds insists that the difference is less than 5%, because the drivers side is 52% of the total weight of 18,241 lbs, while the passenger side is 48% of the total weight... 52% minus 48% equals 4%....Who is right??DennycenterGas prices getting you down? Search AOL Autos for fuel-efficient used cars. Quote Selected
Re: weight distribution Reply #20 – June 20, 2008, 08:30:27 am Yahoo Message Number: 1304Dave, Thanks for your input.... I have been trying to "equate" the situation to an understandable concept and you have provided the tools... nerd or not, we'll keep ya!Denny Quote Selected