Determining best tire pressure

[booster]

Based on another thread, this may be more of an issue than one would suppose, as the very common front tire pressures used in the Chevies and Dodges (65psi) was presented as "over inflated" with a warning that there could be serious problems implied.


I think that there are some things that can be very confusing to many people about tire pressures, and in our vans one of the top ones is the door post recommended tire pressures. I can't speak for all vans, but on a Chevy single rear wheel 3500 van the pressures are shown at 50/80 psi front/rear. These are the GM specs and have to be safe for an empty to a fully loaded 1 ton van as delivered.


Consider: An empty van has 3331# on the front and 3075# on the rear.


A fully loaded van has variable weights front and rear, but

they can't total more than 9600# and or more thant4300#
front and 6080# rear so can't have max on both ends at the
same time.


This makes for a huge difference in the load#/psi on both the front and especially the rear.


An unloaded van will have 3331/50 66.2#/psi in the front and 3075/80 or 38.4#/psi in the rear. This is going to give the rear a contact patch that is barely above 1/2 the size of the front but carrying nearly the same weight, so handling is going to be poorly affected.


A fully loaded van like a Roadtrek 190 will have about 4300# on the front and 5300# on the rear. This gives 86#/psi in the front and 66.3#/psi in the rear.



If you just kick up the front pressure to 65psi on the last example you get the front at 66.2#/psi, which is essentially the same as the rear. both will have the same contact area and sidewall height so match well that way.


I think that this would point out that the 65/80 isn't over inflating the the tires as they are running right at the same #/psi as the stock front do on an empty van. and are both within the max inflation pressure for the tires.


I don't think it is a coincidence that the #/psi would be one of the indicators of a good choice of tire pressure, particularly in front/rear handling balance and especially in wind where sidewall flex and contact patch shape count. But you can't just go by #/psi by itself either as there is a very wide range of pressures from low to high that can be made to match that requirement.



This was mentioned in the other thread, but I have found the easiest way to zero in on best actual pressures and #/psi ratio is to get the tires warm on the highway and then drive over a damp spot or dusty spot, straight and slow, then stop and look at the tire tread areas. The water or dust should have coated the area it contacted on the tread so you can plainly see your running tread width. Normally, having that contact full width and just into the radius at the shoulder is a good spot to be in the rear and just to the radius in the front as turning rolls them over a bit and it is good to allow a bit for that. If they are the same or slightly different is usually not a big issue, however. If the water/dust does not reach all the way to the shoulder radius you would reduce the pressure a bit, and if it is too far into the radius you would increase the pressure a bit. I think most folks would find a fully loaded Chevy to be very close to 65/80 using this test although very stiff or very soft sidewall tires could move it up or down a little in the front (could go down in rear but not up as at max rated).


One thing that likely might get mentioned is the old Michelin truck tire pressure chart that many of us have seen over the years. I don't think they publish it anymore, but there are lots of places that still have it available. What most of us found using that chart was that they recommended pressures that were way low for good handling and seemed to be based on what the minimum pressure would be that maintained full load capacity and didn't have anything to do with driveability.


IMO, tire pressure tweaking is one of the first and easiest things to do to get improved handling in your van, to match your driving preferences. Different drivers may like quicker or slower steering response or other ride characteristics. In our vans the response if quite slow in stock form, so most drivers seem to like the faster response of the 65/80 over lower front pressures, but some don't. Neither choice is inherently more or less dangerous IMO.


In general, increasing tire pressure will make that end of the van have more traction so in the front increased pressure gives better steering response. Of course there is a practical limit of how high you would go based on the tread test mentioned earlier. Ride quality will also go down quickly with excess pressure. Lower front pressure will give less responsive steering. As an extreme example a BMW would have fast response and 1964 Buick would have slow response. The vans are closer to the Buick

[avanti]

Aren't the upfitters supposed to add a second door-post sticker for use after the conversion? My GWV has such a sticker.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

Aren't the upfitters supposed to add a second door-post sticker for use after the conversion? My GWV has such a sticker.

I would certainly think they should, but haven't seen any with changed pressures on the Chevies, at least the one's in our age bracket. It has been mentioned many times that the 50/80psi was on the sticker. Ours does have a Roadtrek sticker on it, but all they did was copy all the weights and pressures from the Chevy sticker. Of course that may be a liability thing were they don't want to go off of Chevy specs and it is safe, just not the best driving.


Are the pressures and load ratings the same on your GWV sticker as the MB one?

[@Michael]

Originally Posted by avanti

Aren't the upfitters supposed to add a second door-post sticker for use after the conversion? My GWV has such a sticker.

My Coachmen/Transit has the upfitter stickers, but the tire pressures are the same as the base Transit (67 Front, 57 Rear).

If I could find a Load Inflation table for the stock Hankook tires, I'd use that to set pressure based on actual axle weight.

[Davydd]

Originally Posted by avanti

Aren't the upfitters supposed to add a second door-post sticker for use after the conversion? My GWV has such a sticker.

I had the added upfitter sticker for tire pressure on my Great West Van and my Advanced RV. I probably had it for my Pleasure-way but that is so far back I couldn't say for sure now whether it was on the door post or the user manual. But I had the information.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

Are the pressures and load ratings the same on your GWV sticker as the MB one?

The pressures are different:

sticker1.jpeg
sticker2.jpeg

[booster]

Here is a screen grab of the Michelin light truck tire pressure/load chart





Looking at this chart for 245-75-16 it appears that a typically loaded Roadtrek 190P Chevy at 4300/5300# would be at 50/65psi, which most would find quite difficult to drive, I think. I think these charts should be taken literally to be what they are stating and that is what pressure should be to safely carry the load. What they never seem to mention is going with more pressure to improve driveability.



I think I need to see what DW's Honda CRV says on the sticker as it has tires that appear to be very large for the weight of the vehicle and call out 30psi all the way around.

[booster]

I just did a quick calc on DW's 2009 CRV which says 30 psi all around.



If loaded to max GVWR it would have about 2300# front and 1850# rear


102 load rated tires would be able to carry 1150# per tire at 26psi which may be the minimum on them, I think, so 2250# per axle.


Honda has increase pressure above minimum required on both ends to substantially above load rating, I would assume for handling and probably also for air pressure loss window.


My guess is that nearly all passenger vehicles do this, but it appears the light trucks may just be listing minimum pressures that will carry max rated load.

[jadatis]

The lists give maximum load for the pressure.
Motorhomes have always unequall load R/L.
And rear axle is often loaded to the max or even overloaded for a motorhome with relatively low GVWR, like the most on this forum , I suspect.
Best is to use as high possible pressure, at wich comfort and gripp is still acceptable.
This will come to the 80 psi rear, and most likely about 50 to 60 psi at front.
This " pigheaded Dutch selfdeclared tirepressure-specialist" registered to help you determine the best pressure.
Made spreadsheet for it.
Determining the weights is the most tricky part in it all. Only way is weighing fully loaded, per axle or better per axle-end.

[booster]

Originally Posted by jadatis

The lists give maximum load for the pressure.
Motorhomes have always unequall load R/L.
And rear axle is often loaded to the max or even overloaded for a motorhome with relatively low GVWR, like the most on this forum , I suspect.
Best is to use as high possible pressure, at wich comfort and gripp is still acceptable.
This will come to the 80 psi rear, and most likely about 50 to 60 psi at front.
This " pigheaded Dutch selfdeclared tirepressure-specialist" registered to help you determine the best pressure.
Made spreadsheet for it.
Determining the weights is the most tricky part in it all. Only way is weighing fully loaded, per axle or better per axle-end.

Good information here, although I think I would say in our class b vans mostly applies to the rears and less to the fronts. Most of vans have tires rated at 3042# per tire on the front and have only a max of 2150# on them so way safe on capacity there. IMO just set for best handling that you like.


The rear is where the issues are, and we often see over the rated axle weigh their, and many of our vans rate right at max tire load at max pressure. As mentioned by the previous poster, even if you are within axle weight that doesn't mean that you are within the individual rear tire weights. Our Chevy routinely has 200-300# more on the left rear than on the right, so we could be good on the right and overloaded on the left. This seems to be typical in the Chevies and is definitely and issue for those that run right at max axle weight in the rear (we don't).


I built a set of individual wheel weight scales, so I have the capability to weigh the axle ends individually, which can be very useful. The scales are documented on another discussion here. We have a standing offer to weigh class b's in our driveway if we are around and you are in the area, as I think it would be good to get more data on weights.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

I built a set of individual wheel weight scales, so I have the capability to weigh the axle ends individually, which can be very useful. The scales are documented on another discussion here. We have a standing offer to weigh class b's in our driveway if we are around and you are in the area, as I think it would be good to get more data on weights.

OK, so now you have me geeking out:

Highly-accurate accelerometers are cheap as dirt. It seems to me that a few strategically-placed sensors and a whole lot of math should permit one to measure the mass of a moving vehicle with great precision (by averaging noisy estimates over time).

A few minutes of Googling produced this:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c9...8fd1cb9694.pdf

Not casual reading, but a quick skim suggests that a technique called "parallel mass and grade (PMG) estimation" would do the trick. I further imagine that with more sensors and more math, one could probably also measure the loads on each tire. Maybe. With such a system, one could know a rig's exact weight and tire loads at all times.

Just a thought.

[booster]

Originally Posted by avanti

OK, so now you have me geeking out:

Highly-accurate accelerometers are cheap as dirt. It seems to me that a few strategically-placed sensors and a whole lot of math should permit one to measure the mass of a moving vehicle with great precision (by averaging noisy estimates over time).

A few minutes of Googling produced this:

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/9c9...8fd1cb9694.pdf

Not casual reading, but a quick skim suggests that a technique called "parallel mass and grade (PMG) estimation" would do the trick. I further imagine that with more sensors and more math, one could probably also measure the loads on each tire. Maybe. With such a system, one could know a rig's exact weight and tire loads at all times.

Just a thought.

Gotta think about that one, as all the stuff I have ever messed with for force and weight, you had to know all the inputs. You would mass, springs, shocks, wind, road, sprung and unsprung rates, sloshing liquids, angular, etc.



Of course stability controls and auto ride height already can do a lot of that kind of stuff.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by booster

Gotta think about that one, as all the stuff I have ever messed with for force and weight, you had to know all the inputs. You would mass, springs, shocks, wind, road, sprung and unsprung rates, sloshing liquids, angular, etc.

That would be true for any kind of direct measurement. But, this would be different.The idea is to infer the mass from the dynamic behavior of the vehicle as it bumps its way down the road. I believe that there exist truck weigh stations that can measure the weight of moving trucks via external cameras. I think the underlying principle has to do with some kind of least-squares fit of measurements of the vehicle motion to a model of the system. I guess the assumption is that there is only one possible mass that would produce a given dynamic behavior. I think there is also a trick that involves looking at differences in acceleration before and after gear changes. As you suggest, a lot of that kind of stuff is already available on the CANbus of modern vehicles.

[GeorgeRa]

My Sprinter 144” WB 2500 Passenger with LT245/75R16 has an MB door tag for front 47 PSI and rear 70 PSI. My weight distribution of the loaded van is front 3750 lbs. and 3850 lbs. rear (total 7600lbs). Tires capacity of 50PSI – 4410lbs; 60PSI – 4960lbs.; 65PSI – 5250 lbs.; 70PSI – 5530lbs and max 5556lbs at 80PSI.

I keep them at the factory recommended pressure at rear - 70 PSI and front - 60 PSI. I tried 65 for the front but was too bouncy.

I added air springs to my travel trailer and to tune air pressure I used USB accelerometer. Picked 15 PSI as optimum as seen on the charts. Adding airbags made big difference in towing and drawers stayed closed. For testing tire pressure placing an accelerometer directly on suspension would likely be necessary.

[booster]

Originally Posted by GeorgeRa

My Sprinter 144” WB 2500 Passenger with LT245/75R16 has an MB door tag for front 47 PSI and rear 70 PSI. My weight distribution of the loaded van is front 3750 lbs. and 3850 lbs. rear (total 7600lbs). Tires capacity of 50PSI – 4410lbs; 60PSI – 4960lbs.; 65PSI – 5250 lbs.; 70PSI – 5530lbs and max 5556lbs at 80PSI.

I keep them at the factory recommended pressure at rear - 70 PSI and front - 60 PSI. I tried 65 for the front but was too bouncy.

I added air springs to my travel trailer and to tune air pressure I used USB accelerometer. Picked 15 PSI as optimum as seen on the charts. Adding airbags made big difference in towing and drawers stayed closed. For testing tire pressure placing an accelerometer directly on suspension would likely be necessary.

So your tires are not load range E at 3040# per tire? You are about 2000# lighter than most of the single rear wheel b's with 3/4 of it off the rear. With those weights being so close together and well within the load limit of the tires, you would have lots of range to platy with front and rear pressures to optimize road feel and driveability.


I would assume the accelerometer on the axle would be optimizing the spring/shock balance, or just looking for resonance in the system?

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by booster

So your tires are not load range E at 3040# per tire? You are about 2000# lighter than most of the single rear wheel b's with 3/4 of it off the rear. With those weights being so close together and well within the load limit of the tires, you would have lots of range to platy with front and rear pressures to optimize road feel and driveability.


I would assume the accelerometer on the axle would be optimizing the spring/shock balance, or just looking for resonance in the system?

Placing an accelerometer on any unsprung component should have sufficient resolution to detect total motion and perhaps resonance as a function of tire pressure. I had the USB accelerometer on the trailer floor, this type of placement could be sufficient for tire pressure but I am not sure.

To compare different air bag pressures, I repeat driving a few miles on the fixed and rough route. This was fun project, could level the trailer side to side over 3". The trailer almost got sold to someone from Saudi Arabia for their desert events. He delegated purchasing to an incompetent person asking if there is a port in Portland so I thought it was a scam and sold it, but it wasn’t.

[gregmchugh]

No directly applicable to a Class B but this was shown at RXV...

https://rv-pro.com/news/loadsafe-tra...igh-themselves

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

No directly applicable to a Class B but this was shown at RXV...

https://rv-pro.com/news/loadsafe-tra...igh-themselves

We are in the 21st Century, why not automatic inflating based on each wheel load, feasible - yes, probable – no.

My first job was to produce electronics for load cells for steel foundries, I think it was 1,000 or more metric tons, this was 1972.

[jadatis]

Originally Posted by booster

Good information here, although I think I would say in our class b vans mostly applies to the rears and less to the fronts. Most of vans have tires rated at 3042# per tire on the front and have only a max of 2150# on them so way safe on capacity there. IMO just set for best handling that you like.


The rear is where the issues are, and we often see over the rated axle weigh their, and many of our vans rate right at max tire load at max pressure. As mentioned by the previous poster, even if you are within axle weight that doesn't mean that you are within the individual rear tire weights. Our Chevy routinely has 200-300# more on the left rear than on the right, so we could be good on the right and overloaded on the left. This seems to be typical in the Chevies and is definitely and issue for those that run right at max axle weight in the rear (we don't).


I built a set of individual wheel weight scales, so I have the capability to weigh the axle ends individually, which can be very useful. The scales are documented on another discussion here. We have a standing offer to weigh class b's in our driveway if we are around and you are in the area, as I think it would be good to get more data on weights.

Then I judged it right about the weights,.
Will give link to map on my onedrive that belongs to my hotmail.com adress with same username as in this forum ( so jadatis) https://onedrive.live.com/?id=A526E0...26E0EEE092E6DC
In that map my calculator, wich you can fill in in the claud, but then you see , when looking back later , your chanches or from others behind you.
Best is to download it to your computer, and after eventual virus-check, use Excell or similar programm on your computer.

In that calculator 3 parts
1 to give the tire and vehicle data
2 if only gawr filled in gives advice for front adding first 5% because front seldom overloaded. Rear a floting scale , 18% adding for the lighter motorhomes, and going down to 10% for the heavyer ones, because those are seldomly overloaded on rear axle.
When in part 2 given weight on axles, adding 10% for R/L unbalans, and calculates automatically for those given weights.
But you can chanche the % if you think different.

parts 3 is for when you did axle-end weighing ( fully loaded as going on tripp) . Notice the torsion, often crossed weightdifference between the axles, so for instance front Right more heavy and rear Left more heavy.

Will leave it at this, can write a book about it.

[Pam G]

Booster,
It's interesting reading through this whole thread but I just have a simpler question. I remember reading through this topic not too long ago, but I don't think I asked it there.

I have a 1999 RT 190P. The door tag says to use 45 front and 80 rear, so that's what places like Jiffy Lube will put it. As the typical Dodge, the handling is a little loose but it seemed more so when I got it 5 years ago. When I bought it, I asked at several places what they thought would be the best tire pressure to use, but I never got a clear answer, so I was putting them at 45/80. I had to have the tires replaced while on a trip, and the man there told me to set them at 55 front and 75 in the rear. So, I have been doing that for about 3 years now, and I've thought the handling is much better. Your post explained why I would find that. I'm curious, though, about the rear tire pressure. The reason I had to have the tires replaced is that a rear tire blew out while on the highway - the tires had dry rot (previous owner didn't use it much). So, I'm assuming the man told me to air it to 75 since the air pressure increases from the heat produced while driving. Is that correct?

Is 55 okay on the front or should I go with 60? Is it better to go with 80 on the back instead of 75?

Pam