If you have "dual wheels" in the back... does it make you feel safer and more stable?

[booster]

Originally Posted by MotoVan

Yes, sorry. A stiffer rear bar decreases understeer.

Yes, absolutely. When you went with softer rear springs you not only gained understeer, but you also lost the roll stiffness. The van will roll more in turns and from the sidewind. You must use a thicker rear bar to restore the balance and get the roll stiffness back.

That is very much in line with how I have been looking at it, too. I think I will order a 1.500" bar and give it a try.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by hepcat

Does it automatically improve safety by its very presence? No.

Nonsense. The very presence, say, of anti-lock brakes automatically improves safety. Period. This is demonstrably true. You can cherry-pick as many anecdotal counter-examples as you like, but it will not change this simple fact. Yes, they can fail, and yes people can misuse them by pumping their brakes as they were once taught. Doesn't matter. They help far more often than they harm. (And, by the way, antilock brakes are NOT "passive"). One can say the same about thousands of other examples of technological best practice.

What you clearly do not understand is that all such questions are fundamentally statistical in nature. The technologies don't have to be perfect--they just have to do more good than harm. Whether they are COST-effective is a different question--an economic one. But whether they are EFFECTIVE is a straightforward matter of data properly analyzed.

And, your assertion that the presence of a smoke detector is worthless absent an escape plan is beyond absurd.

We are not even on the same planet WRT this topic. This is a waste of time. I'm out.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

Nonsense. The very presence, say, of anti-lock brakes automatically improves safety. Period. This is demonstrably true. You can cherry-pick as many anecdotal counter-examples as you like, but it will not change this simple fact. Yes, they can fail, and yes people can misuse them by pumping their brakes as they were once taught. Doesn't matter. They help far more often than they harm. (And, by the way, antilock brakes are NOT "passive"). One can say the same about thousands of other examples of technological best practice.

What you clearly do not understand is that all such questions are fundamentally statistical in nature. The technologies don't have to be perfect--they just have to do more good than harm. Whether they are COST-effective is a different question--an economic one. But whether they are EFFECTIVE is a straightforward matter of data properly analyzed.

And, your assertion that the presence of a smoke detector is worthless absent an escape plan is beyond absurd.

We are not even on the same planet WRT this topic. This is a waste of time. I'm out.

And yet, my friend, people continue to have rear-end collisions even WITH anti-lock brakes. That particular technology shortens stopping distance in most instances, but unless it's deployed by the driver in the appropriate distance for the speed being driven, a collision is still inevitable. Which brings us back to the necessity of the DRIVER ensuring his/her safety and the safety of the passengers.

I'm not arguing against the technology. I'm arguing that advertising has made us as humans risk-averse to things we really don't need to worry much about. These kinds of threads, especially those on travel trailer sites about Hensley and Pro-Pride hitches are nothing more than advertising for the "improved safety" product du jour. People frighten easily. People don't want to learn how to make themselves more safe, and spend the necessary time to do that, they want a technology solution and they're willing to pay for it. Do those solutions work? Certainly, often they do, but they're solutions to threats that happen very seldom and can be competently handled in other ways. Are the companies producing that product getting wealthy off the fears of people? Yep.

I suspect that your derision of my posts comes more from my challenge to your assertion of the primacy of technology in securing "safety" rather than that my assertions are "beyond absurd." It would appear that you are the consummate consumer of technology. More power to you. If it works for you, and you have the unlimited supply of cash to throw at it, good on ya. Just lighten up on the sales pitch, as I obviously don't fear the same things you do, and the sales pitch doesn't work without the fear factor. There ARE other perspectives that are equally valid.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Statistically, you're safer in a newer car than an old one...ABS, electronic stability control, air bags, the list goes on.....

I used to have a trailer before my RS...got rid of it because I don't want to have that either...the single vehicle is safer and easier........

I ALWAYS find it "interesting" that the people who are in "information technology" are the last people to get on board with new technology...??? I found this to be the case when I was working as well..... don't know why?????

Good luck in your travels.....

I find assertions like "statistically, you're safer in a newer car" interesting as they're absolutely not provable. You may sustain fewer and/or less severe injuries if you're in a crash with a newer car, but that's provided that you actually use the basic safety equipment (like seat belts.) You'd be amazed at how many people don't. You can also compare accident, injury and fatality stats from year to year, to try to get a picture of the safety of "old" technology vs. "new," but you have to remember that there are a LOT more variables than just the technology built into the vehicles... miles driven per vehicle; driver competency; and the primary cause of the collision being among them. An old car that isn't crashed because of driver error is significantly more safe than a new car that is totaled. And of course there's still the concept of "Risk Compensation" where drivers take on more risky behavior because the safety technology makes them feel more safe. Would I rather be in a new car if I were to be in an accident? Of course. But hopefully you see my point.

I'll agree that a single vehicle is easier than towing a trailer... but what makes you think it's safer? And frankly, looking at published information from a variety of sources, likely a Class A motorhome as a single vehicle is probably the LEAST safe on the road if you're talking in terms of passive and active safety technology in limiting deaths and serious injuries.

I can't speak for every IT person, but I suspect that I have some answers. First is that they're relatively immune to the advertising that the general public isn't. They know that the "latest and greatest" is generally only an incremental improvement over the last iteration and whatever they have won't be obsolete for several "upgrade" cycles, and pragmatism often over-rules stylishness. For example, the stylish iPhone X offers no functionality for me that I don't have with my iPhone 6. I didn't upgrade to the iPhone 6 from a 4S until IOS stopped supporting the iPhone 4S, and I didn't buy a 4S until my 3GS was no longer supported. I don't plan to upgrade the 6 until IT's end-of-life cycle.

In corporate buying, of course, pragmatism about financials are the key. There are a LOT of companies still using mainframes with COBOL and PCs on Windows 7. Money not spent is the same as money earned.

Another issue is that often technology is poorly implemented and un-sustainable. How often have we seen "bleeding edge" technology fail? The first generation anti-lock brakes on my '95 Ford B-van have bad sensors, and I'm told that those early iterations really never worked well anyway. IT people recognize the futility of being on the "bleeding edge." They tend to let the technology mature for a while and see how it pans out. Because of their regular exposure to both minor and catastrophic technology failures, I think many IT people tend to take a longer-view of the viability of new technologies before they consider adopting them.

And last, my friend, thank you for the well-wishes in my travels; but I really try not to rely on "luck" for my well-being. Preparation, training, planning and regular preventative maintenance hopefully negate the need for "luck."

Ok, enough contrarianism for today... cheers!

[avanti]

Highway fatalities.jpg

"Facts first"

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by avanti

Attachment 6163

"Facts first"

You ARE tenacious, aren't you.

So, the fatality RATE has dropped since 1963 to about half. The total number of fatalities have remained about constant.

Please differentiate the effects of driver's training and licensing requirements, highway engineering improvements, and passive and active vehicle safety design out of those statistics. How are each of those factors ranked in importance in the drop of the fatality RATE?

Sam Clemons said it best... "There's lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Statistics are great until you need to analyze what they really mean. And in this case, I don't believe you can differentiate the effects of each of those factors outside of the aggregate. I could argue just as eloquently that highway engineering has been just as or more important than the safety improvements in vehicles in the decline of the accident rate. And I can't support that either.

[Boxster1971]

hepcat - deaths from tire failures might be low, but injuries are the real problem. Death statistics can often be misleading to the real problems of injuries suffered from accidents.

http://williammcbride.com/many-fatal...ires-blowouts/

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by hepcat

TPMS is a nice luxury, and as I said, it allows me to be lazy about manually checking the pressures on my Jeep; but I have to disagree that it's "an essential safety feature" on any vehicle any more than not carrying a cell phone would inherently put me at some kind of risk. Sorry.

This assertion is so absurd that it leaves one wondering if you're not joking. Nobody in this thread has suggested that a tire pressure monitor should replace the common sense practice of taking a visual walk around before departure whether it's a vehicle or a plane or a boat for that matter. Your becoming lazy about manual checks is your problem and to extrapolate your negligence in this regard to everyone else's behavior is just plain silly. And even for those drivers that don't do a visual pre-departure check, they're still better off having a tire pressure alarm indication on startup.

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by Storysrvwego

15jul
Roadtrek Adventurus - I agree with BBQ all that was said; " Single drives better, rides better, quieter, feels less bumps, have better traction in the winter, gives better fuel economy, easier to maintain, cheaper to replace, cheaper snow tires, less intrusion into the cabin (ie more room for your RV stuff)...".

Of course the duals increase load carrying capacity but I found they have a number of disadvantages which mostly are covered.in BBQ's statement above. There are two additional and significant issues to point out - (1) Duallies mean there us a larger, heavuer duty rear axle. Just the fact that there is a rear axle means the body on frame must sit higher. Now there are positive points for this design including more ground clearance and potentially more undercarriage storage. But (2) the dually equipped coaches have more roll you will feel when standing still or moving. Especially going around corners and cross winds. The axle and tires are well panted but the sprung chassis with higher coach on top are sway a bunch more. In some circumstances, a bit more scary although experience behind the wheel helps to anticipate and control before something bad happens.

The single wheels on the non-differential rear axle of the front wheel drive RAM Promiser is dramatically different in a good way. The chief downside of this design is the load carrying limitation versus the others. Bottom line is you have to pick the chassis and coach combination that best matches your travel requirements. And to some degree, the piggy bank.

Heavier duty body on frame with rear wheel drive and duellies is what I would have picked for off pavement use. Potentually a big pocketbook hit if we are talking about a MERCEDES sprinter. Since my wife well and I are Probably done with dusty vehicle camping, our no-towing pavement travels work with the Promaster. No towing means we fit in more places. If we want to go to town, a Class B duels or singles is quick to fold up and go. In town, backing up single rear tires with some turning involved is simpler. Especially if parallel parking has to be done. Lots of choices you can ponder before u buy.

Storysrvwego

Unfortunately because tge coach sits higher, t

Storysrvwego,

Your comments are "very interesting"... EXCEPT.... the Mercedes Benz Sprinter is a "UNIBODY construction...... not body on frame.....

And, I'm glad to have the "dual wheels" for more cargo carrying capacity.....

I've heard from others that the "dual wheels" are a harder ride?? Maybe? I'm not riding in the back seat.....up front, the ride is extremely smooth...

Here's the thing...the chance of both wheels blowing out at the same time is really small..and I have a tire pressure monitoring system showing me the exact tire pressure for all tires .. with an alarm....

I had all the shocks changed to KONI FSD shocks, Roadmaster anti sway bar and Super Steer Trac Bar...( Their own proprietary design on the track bar) . The track bar is designed to stabilize the rear tail wagging...

Works really well...and going around concerns is marked improvement.....

Look... there's a lot of people including Motovan on the forum who has worked with industry professionals and discussed why dual wheels are safer... I believe him....

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

This assertion is so absurd that it leaves one wondering if you're not joking. Nobody in this thread has suggested that a tire pressure monitor should replace the common sense practice of taking a visual walk around before departure whether it's a vehicle or a plane or a boat for that matter. Your becoming lazy about manual checks is your problem and to extrapolate your negligence in this regard to everyone else's behavior is just plain silly. And even for those drivers that don't do a visual pre-departure check, they're still better off having a tire pressure alarm indication on startup.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. I didn't say I don't do a visual check. Of course I do a pre-driving visual every time I go out in the Jeep. I just don't check the tires' pressure with a gauge as often as I do with my other vehicles as the TPMS reads out on the dash with the tire pressures.

And yet, from the attorney's page Boxter cited above:

"Under inflation: 10 percent of the vehicles that were involved in a collision had tires that were underinflated by more than 25 percent.

Tread: Amazingly, 26 percent of crashes were in vehicles with tires that had a tread depth of 0 to 2/32 of an inch. Compare that rate to 8 percent of vehicles involved in a wreck with a tread depth ranging between 3/32 and 4/32 of an inch."

That data was taken from an interesting NHTSA report.

Apparently much of the motoring public doesn't do pre-departure checks. I would conjecture that our fastidiousness about maintaining our tires does not extend to much of the general public.

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by hepcat

You're assuming facts not in evidence. I didn't say I don't do a visual check. Of course I do a pre-driving visual every time I go out in the Jeep. I just don't check the tires' pressure with a gauge as often as I do with my other vehicles as the TPMS reads out on the dash with the tire pressures.

Facts not in evidence? I guess we've moved to the court room. Well, counselor, let's see what facts are in the evidence so far provided by your client: He doesn't check pressure with a gauge He gives it a visual check instead because he can tell visually that on a radial tire it's easy to spot diminished pressure You better hope you picked a good jury.

FWIW, every time I've ever gotten a low pressure alarm, (short of a complete flat) I visually check the tires and can't tell which tire it is until I determine which one it is with a gauge. And without the TPMS, I would be driving off obliviously without making any check at all.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

Facts not in evidence? I guess we've moved to the court room. Well, counselor, let's see what facts are in the evidence so far provided by your client: He doesn't check pressure with a gauge He gives it a visual check instead because he can tell visually that on a radial tire it's easy to spot diminished pressure You better hope you picked a good jury.

FWIW, every time I've ever gotten a low pressure alarm, (short of a complete flat) I visually check the tires and can't tell which tire it is until I determine which one it is with a gauge. And without the TPMS, I would be driving off obliviously without making any check at all.

Yes, you're making assumptions that aren't valid.

The TPMS in my Jeep has a PSI readout for each corner. it's apparently a little more sophisticated than the aftermarket versions. The visual check is for obvious flaws; sidewall cuts or bulges, chunks missing, that sort of thing.

And you're not manually checking your pressures regularly even with the TPMS? Hmm...

[cruising7388]

Originally Posted by hepcat

And you're not manually checking your pressures regularly even with the TPMS? Hmm...

Nah, I rely on traffic officers advising me that one of my wheels is raising hell with the pavement.

[rontaki]

You might want to consider Super Singles, heavy duty SRW setup too replace DRW. The load rating is about the same as the duallies.
I've only read anecdotes, never had either. They sound like just what some folks need for their rigs.
Ron

[rsmitch2@gmail.com]

Hi there, mine has wind stability but doesn't have stability control. All I can say is for a big 11,000 pound vehicle I was quite impressed by the handling but have no experience with the 2500 chassis and non dually versions, Roger

[Roadtrek Adventuous RS1]

Originally Posted by hepcat

I find assertions like "statistically, you're safer in a newer car" interesting as they're absolutely not provable. You may sustain fewer and/or less severe injuries if you're in a crash with a newer car, but that's provided that you actually use the basic safety equipment (like seat belts.) You'd be amazed at how many people don't. You can also compare accident, injury and fatality stats from year to year, to try to get a picture of the safety of "old" technology vs. "new," but you have to remember that there are a LOT more variables than just the technology built into the vehicles... miles driven per vehicle; driver competency; and the primary cause of the collision being among them. An old car that isn't crashed because of driver error is significantly more safe than a new car that is totaled. And of course there's still the concept of "Risk Compensation" where drivers take on more risky behavior because the safety technology makes them feel more safe. Would I rather be in a new car if I were to be in an accident? Of course. But hopefully you see my point.

I'll agree that a single vehicle is easier than towing a trailer... but what makes you think it's safer? And frankly, looking at published information from a variety of sources, likely a Class A motorhome as a single vehicle is probably the LEAST safe on the road if you're talking in terms of passive and active safety technology in limiting deaths and serious injuries.

I can't speak for every IT person, but I suspect that I have some answers. First is that they're relatively immune to the advertising that the general public isn't. They know that the "latest and greatest" is generally only an incremental improvement over the last iteration and whatever they have won't be obsolete for several "upgrade" cycles, and pragmatism often over-rules stylishness. For example, the stylish iPhone X offers no functionality for me that I don't have with my iPhone 6. I didn't upgrade to the iPhone 6 from a 4S until IOS stopped supporting the iPhone 4S, and I didn't buy a 4S until my 3GS was no longer supported. I don't plan to upgrade the 6 until IT's end-of-life cycle.

In corporate buying, of course, pragmatism about financials are the key. There are a LOT of companies still using mainframes with COBOL and PCs on Windows 7. Money not spent is the same as money earned.

Another issue is that often technology is poorly implemented and un-sustainable. How often have we seen "bleeding edge" technology fail? The first generation anti-lock brakes on my '95 Ford B-van have bad sensors, and I'm told that those early iterations really never worked well anyway. IT people recognize the futility of being on the "bleeding edge." They tend to let the technology mature for a while and see how it pans out. Because of their regular exposure to both minor and catastrophic technology failures, I think many IT people tend to take a longer-view of the viability of new technologies before they consider adopting them.

And last, my friend, thank you for the well-wishes in my travels; but I really try not to rely on "luck" for my well-being. Preparation, training, planning and regular preventative maintenance hopefully negate the need for "luck."

Ok, enough contrarianism for today... cheers!

Really... I certainly do wish you the best...... I find it interesting that you can have such a dim view of all the modern improvements over the years....why not enjoy them?

Anyway, I wanted to share a small video with you that has gone viral all over the Internet...
I know that Avanti has provided you with some statistics that you have dismissed...?
BUT....as they say....a picture is a thousand words.....

A lot of people were pretty surprised by this match up of these two cars......

And, I see that you wrote it's possible that a Class A may not necessarily be safer than a Class B....I might just agree with that....

Class B's are built to Federal Safety Standards....and are required to have already bags, seat belts in the front and meet certain crash statistics....on the other hand.... Class A's don't have that requirement.

Look, like you..I'm careful about driving...it took me a while to settle down ... having been young once....now in my 60s and realize that all that speeding I did when I was in my 20s was pretty dumb....bad for me, and my cars.... what was the point?? Now I'm older and wiser....I don't hotrod my cars and certainly not the RV......

Take a look at this video and tell me that the larger car with the older technology is safer...you can't... because it's definitely NOT....the fact that they have made and continue to make improvements in vehicles like this and many others is a living testament to the engineering team who got this done....

One more thing I have to share.... my other daily driver is a 2010 Subaru Outback Limited....it has been awarded the top safety pick by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety year after year.....I personally know someone who accidentally hit a "cow" on a rural road in Pennsylvania..cow just came onto the road from a range that was not properly fenced... they couldn't have avoided the accident ... killing the cow instantly at 45 MPH.... crashing the front end of the Subaru Outback.... they WALKED away from the scene unharmed....

Their insurance company paid the the retail blue book of the car and they went out and purchased a brand new Subaru.....

Here's the video link below for the test crash...59 Chevy Impala vs. 2009 Chevy Malibu...


https://youtu.be/fPF4fBGNK0U

When you say that these assertions are NOT provable... I have to say look closely at the video...the 1959 Impala is a lot larger than a 2009 Chevy Malibu....
This works because of the the technology of the crumple zones and air bags.....

The Subaru Outback has the trajectory of the engine going down and underneath the passengers compartment... there's videos out there of this... just Google it....


One more video for you... Mercedes Benz Sprinter vs. Ford Transit

https://youtu.be/C3kN6WF5vAA

Peace....

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by cruising7388

Nah, I rely on traffic officers advising me that one of my wheels is raising hell with the pavement.

From the stats associated with tire failure related crashes, apparently that's a common approach among the motoring public. They don't think tread depth is of any significance either.

[hepcat]

Originally Posted by Roadtrek Adventuous RS1

Really... I certainly do wish you the best...... I find it interesting that you can have such a dim view of all the modern improvements over the years....why not enjoy them?

And, I see that you wrote it's possible that a Class A may not necessarily be safer than a Class B....I might just agree with that....

Class B's are built to Federal Safety Standards....and are required to have already bags, seat belts in the front and meet certain crash statistics....on the other hand.... Class A's don't have that requirement.

Take a look at this video and tell me that the larger car with the older technology is safer...you can't... because it's definitely NOT....


Peace....

I think you are completely misunderstanding what I'm saying. I appreciate the technology, particularly the passive safety improvements. I don't rely on digital technology for my "safety" though, as it's inherently unreliable, and the DRIVER remains the #1 "safety" component in any moving vehicle. If the driver's judgement lapses, then the vehicle becomes unsafe.

Three parts of your post that are salient: first I don't have a dim view of the improvements. I appreciate them greatly, especially the comfort and convenience items and the new crash-safety engineering features designed into the structure of vehicles; but digital technology tends to fail when you need it most. I don't depend on it to stay alive (to the extent possible recognizing that many cars are now "digital drive by wire.") I'm saying that the DRIVER is still the most important piece of safety, and that's regardless of level of technology in the car. The level of technology does NOT relieve the driver of his/her responsibilities; yet that's exactly what seems to be argued here... and what we're seeing on the roadways because of "risk compensation."

Neither of those cars sitting parked side by side are "safer." One just allows for the driver to engage in higher-risk behavior knowing he'll like suffer fewer consequences when things go badly. If I had to crash, would I prefer to crash in the newer car? Absolutely. But, I prefer not to crash at all.

And last, there are few if any of the safety features we value so highly in our Class B and C mohos in a Class A. There are no energy absorbing crumple zones, air bags, side intrusion bars, roll bars (in my Super-C,) or engine-transmission collapse zones. There's some light weather structure barrier and a little framing, a windshield and dashboard between you and that semi tractor-trailer you're tailgating at 70mph.

The BEST way to improve highway traffic safety in the US is to make drivers test every three years... and not just a parking test, a DRIVING competency test where you need to drive the vehicle(s) you own on a skidpan where you prove you can successfully navigate a decision gate, stop in an assured distance from speed under reduced-traction conditions, and that you can control a side-slide in your motorhome. And yes, your van CAN be controlled in a side-slide, provided that the center of gravity isn't raised too high by the conversion company and your tires don't hit a curb or rut.

Impaired drivers should have their vehicles seized upon conviction, and a license would be allowed three violations in a licensing period before the license is revoked and the driver's vehicles seized. Nationwide mass transit needs to be built for daily commuter traffic and to accommodate those who don't want the hassle of a driver's license or car ownership, or who can't obtain or maintain licensing.

Our roads would become the safest roads in the world, almost over-night. Of course, the public doesn't REALLY want that... they want to continue to be able to be negligent with low competency standards, and be able crash vehicles that are built to allow them to not be seriously injured. So, we just accept nearly 40,000 citizens dying on our highways annually as the cost of doing business.

[avanti]

[markopolo]

hepcat is taking a pretty good pounding here............

I suspect that he's trying to make the reader think...... He's likely also suggesting that the reader not offload responsibility for human safety to technology. (Edit: I see he has indicated as such while I was typing this)

I'd suggest that there is evidence of that offloading in this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_...n_U.S._by_year

You could argue that safety has not improved since around 2009. Think about that for a moment.

I'm definitely not arguing against technology and generally speaking, I'd say newer vehicles are safer. There are still certain fundamentals that apply as in an old bus colliding with a new small car.

If you get low tire pressure alarms on a regular basis then there's likely a problem with your tires or your maintenance habits.

I would not assume that a Class B is safer than Class C or A. I'd expect parts of the interiors to become projectiles in all of them. Typically there are just screws holding cabinetry and appliances in place. Take care to strap down your golf clubs and put away a laptop etc.