Weight information labels

[booster]

There was recently a poster on the Yahoo Roadtrek board who asked some questions about handling and shocks in relation to his 2015 Roadtrek 210 Chevy. What came out immediately was that he was severely overweight, both on the rear, which was the worst, but also on the gross. The scariest part was that even though he had been on the scales and had the axle weights, and had looked at the Roadtrek specs, he did not think he was overweight, based on the specs. He had no idea about axle weights, and used the combined weight instead of the gross. This combined with the 1400# of OCCC listed made him certain he couldn't be too heavy. Some others looked at the specs, and while realizing he was overweight, did not understand how much load capacity he actually would have, which in a 210 is not very much.

A couple of years ago the US regulators tried to make the weight labels more easily understood, but it doesn't seem to have helped. The dealers and a lot of safety groups wanted to have each RV actually weighed after completion and that weight on the label, so that all changes, options, etc were sure to be included, but that was not implemented, which is too bad.

It appears that the biggest issue with the Roadtrek labels is that the OCCC (occupant cargo carrying capacity) number now includes any options put into the RV. The labels used to list the options weight on them as a separate line item that was specific to that vehicle so should have been accurate. Of course, using 154# people in the calculation can be off by 100s of pounds.

The problem comes from that nobody knows how much the options weigh, it appears. The dealers sure don't as several people asked and got blank looks. One called Roadtrek and they said the total for a 210 is usually about 100#. The sample label for a 210 in an older manual shows 300#, and our 190 is just under 300#. A generator is well over 100# all by itself, and with a rear tire carrier, you will be over 200# right there, so definitely bad information from Roadtrek.

Roadtrek also has played a bit of a game with the options list, also, as the unloaded weight has actually dropped on some models because some things are now options.

I don't know if the other brands have similar methods as the Roadtrek, but I think it would be good for everyone to know if they do, so they can take all of into account in doing the research or in use. Seeing 1400# of OCCC in the 210 specs looks like a whole lot, but when all is accounted for, you could be closer to 500# you could actually use. I hope all the brands are doing it the same, though, and this isn't a manipulation to make the specs look good, like the "400 amp" battery that is really a 185ah battery.

If we were looking at vans right now, I think that I would want the dealer to take whatever we were interested in to the scales, so we would have an accurate weight to know just how much capacity we would have. I don't see any other way to know at this point.

Weight adds up in a hurry as you add this and that, which we know all too well, so knowing your weights is just plain good common sense. A blown tire can cost $1000s in damage or even put you your roof, so just not worth the risk.

[AZ ADVenturist]

Booster, thanks for all your info & insight into the mysteries of "B's" especially R/T. While I remain confused by the intrigues of suspension upgrades I would like to pursue some of the improvements that you & others
Have achieved w/ our current '13 - 190.Chev.
So? Will adding rear airbags & up grade shocks (Bilstein) front & rear solve most problems - weight & handling stability? I know you & Brian (Photog) have done most all of the heavy 'lifting' on this subject. I've tried to follow your lead in the past w/ our '02 - not very successfully. So would like to keep it simple this time & maybe succeed.
Thnx for your help , Ric in AZ.

[booster]

Of course we all know that any change will result in a different ride quality, and some will think it is better and some will think it is worse.

I try to make this disclaimer all the time now, as we have seen so many folks that don't like the results they get, usually because they think the ride gets too harsh.

Your 190 is probably on the rear overload leafs and close to hitting the bump stops in the front. Both of those will give some funny pitching on bumps and go very stiff on big bumps. The Bilsteins should give some better control, and IMO will improve small bump ride quality and be harsher on big bumps. They have variable valving so they are less damping on small stuff, but stiffen up quickly on big bumps.

I like air bags in the rear of the Chevies, but if yours is like our 190 was, the rear is already about an inch higher than the front (wheelwell lip height measurement). To get up high enough to not have the overload springs hit on bumps, you need to go up at least an inch, probably more, so it will get very unlevel compared to the front. Even with our 2" lift in the front, when we were level (1" higher than stock in the rear) we could hear and feel the overload leafs slapping the spring pack on larger bumps. While I had things apart to change out the rear axle, I took off the overload leafs and had them dearched by 1/4". They now clear the springpack by enough that they very rarely touch, and the ride and noise from the rear is better. They do, however still hit if the airbags fail, so the body can't drop too far. I would think this might be a good thing to have done if you are going to put in bags, but not a front lift. It is easy and cheap, as the overloads come out from the bottom and the spring shop charged $40 to rearch.

You may want to reconsider a front spring change, now that we know that the latest Bill Erb springs are giving good results for those that have them. They seem to have the same spring rate as the stock springs, so the harshness will be similar, which a lot of people like. For me, I like to be a bit stiffer than that because of the weight they carry to prevent porpoiseing, which some with the Erb springs have reported, but were not concerned with, because it was said to be not severe. Getting the front higher makes the rear airbags work better, as you the ability to go higher, and be level for camping.

As far as the handling goes, the biggest thing you can do is add a rear sawbar, but you would have to have a custom one made (similar to what we did) if you have a generator.

For weight capacity, the airbags will increase the capacity in the rear, but most 190s don't get near the 6000# axle weight anyway. The front will still be right near the max load and going onto the bumpstops regularly.

The rear tires are the limiting factor in the rear as they are what set the 6080# rear load limit. The bigger tires and wheels that some of us have gone to, just give you more gap to the max load rating of the tires, which makes them run cooler, and can allow slightly lower pressure to improve ride.

Bottom line on your question for me would be that the Bilsteins and airbags would help, if just they were done, but you would be high in the rear.

[markopolo]

#1 on the to-do list with a 210 would be a visit to the scales.

Even better if the facility will give you each corner weight. Regardless, get it weighed.

I added close to 1000 lbs between visits to the scale! http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f5...html#post15012

[markopolo]

FLSTFI weighed his 2006 Roadtrek 210 the day they drove it off the dealer lot:

RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Class B Towing/Rear Axle Capacity

I can tell you what our 2006 210 weighed at a CAT Scale the day we drove it off the lot.
4120 lbs front axle GAWR 4300 lbs
5260 lbs rear axle GAWR 6084 lbs
9380 lbs total GVWR 9600 lbs

And that was with only the full tanks of fuel, propane and fresh water it came with, plus the two of us and 115 lbs of German Shepherd.

[gregmchugh]

One thing to note on the Roadtrek RS Adventurous on the current generation Sprinter chassis is that when it was built initially on the 2500 chassis with single rear wheels, Roadtrek tested the van at a gross weight higher than the Daimler specified GVWR (they tested at the sum of the front and rear axle weight ratings) and stated that it was safe to operate at that higher weight. This added 670 lb to the weight limit, assuming, of course, you were able to load the van to get the weight distributed to hit the max allowed weight on each axle.

The CCC on the Roadtrek weight label on mine is 216 lb at the Daimler GVWR of 8550 lb and would be 886 lb at the higher weight limit. CCC on the label is based on a no option van build weight with full fuel, oil, coolant, plus full fresh water tank and hot water tank, plus full propane tank, plus 3 of the standard 154 lb people, and plus 172 lb of factory installed options. There were no dealer installed options that I see, I bought it used in 2012.

[markopolo]

I wrote up a comparison of CCC and OCCC here:
http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f5...-ccc-3363.html

When it comes to weight handling the weakest rating point is there for a reason. You have to assume that dynamic force loading entered the equation assigning the given GVWR.

[booster]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

One thing to note on the Roadtrek RS Adventurous on the current generation Sprinter chassis is that when it was built initially on the 2500 chassis with single rear wheels, Roadtrek tested the van at a gross weight higher than the Daimler specified GVWR (they tested at the sum of the front and rear axle weight ratings) and stated that it was safe to operate at that higher weight. This added 670 lb to the weight limit, assuming, of course, you were able to load the van to get the weight distributed to hit the max allowed weight on each axle.

The CCC on the Roadtrek weight label on mine is 216 lb at the Daimler GVWR of 8550 lb and would be 886 lb at the higher weight limit. CCC on the label is based on a no option van build weight with full fuel, oil, coolant, plus full fresh water tank and hot water tank, plus full propane tank, plus 3 of the standard 154 lb people, and plus 172 lb of factory installed options. There were no dealer installed options that I see, I bought it used in 2012.

It is interesting that in the new rules they say that there has to be a second sticker to cover all dealar installed options, but that is not what is going on with Roadtrek. They are including all the FACTORY options in the catch all OCCC category. I found a weight label pic that Wincrasher had posted and it looked like Winnebago doesn't do it that way. I wonder if this is just Roadtrek.

[markopolo]

There can be mistakes on the sticker as well. I pointed out the GAWR appeared to be wrong on the RT Ranger sticker: http://www.classbforum.com/forums/f5...html#post17109

I don't know if owners ending up getting new stickers or not.

[booster]

Originally Posted by markopolo

FLSTFI weighed his 2006 Roadtrek 210 the day they drove it off the dealer lot:

RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Class B Towing/Rear Axle Capacity

He would have had about 850# in the van if we pick 400# for 2 people instead of the unrealistic 154# each the rules give.

Currently, Roadtrek lists the 210 as having 1450# of OCCC, with the note to subtract the weight of options, but they don't tell you what the options weigh. This is obviously how the Yahoo poster got so far overweight in their 210, as in this case many folks would just take the 1450 and subtract 850 and think they could haul 600# of stuff.

I know they currently list the 190 at 2000# OCCC, so they are doing the same thing there. Our 07 190 shows 901# on the sticker.

This has to make one wonder how much capacity all their other models really have.

[BBQ]

.

Pleasure-Way, in one of their recent videos, bragged about weighing each RV after completion. Dean also pointed out that their RV have more useable weight than their competitors.

[booster]

I wonder how the liability would work out if you were overloaded to the level Roadtrek says is OK, and had a high value ($1M) type accident. I would think your insurance could legally bail out on you, if they could prove the overloading was known and intentional.

[booster]

Originally Posted by BBQ

.

Pleasure-Way, in one of their recent videos, bragged about weighing each RV after completion. Dean also pointed out that their RV have more useable weight than their competitors.

They all should be doing that IMO, as it just makes sense for everyone.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by booster

I wonder how the liability would work out if you were overloaded to the level Roadtrek says is OK, and had a high value ($1M) type accident. I would think your insurance could legally bail out on you, if they could prove the overloading was known and intentional.

Sounds like a good reason to never get it weighed, "I was overweight when the accident occurred? Gee, I didn't know that...".

[Boxster1971]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

One thing to note on the Roadtrek RS Adventurous on the current generation Sprinter chassis is that when it was built initially on the 2500 chassis with single rear wheels, Roadtrek tested the van at a gross weight higher than the Daimler specified GVWR (they tested at the sum of the front and rear axle weight ratings) and stated that it was safe to operate at that higher weight.....

Same was true of the initial Winnebago ERA built on the Sprinter 2500. Running over weight ratings is unfortunately very common in RVs. Reminds me of when my brother-in-law was complaining that his rig couldn't handle the hills. He was towing a triple axle, four slide out, fifth wheel trailer with a Ford F350 pickup truck. I looked over the weight rating and told him he was running about 1,500 lbs. overloaded. Yikes!

[avanti]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

Sounds like a good reason to never get it weighed, "I was overweight when the accident occurred? Gee, I didn't know that...".

Cuts both ways. When we had our then-new GWV Legend weighed fully-loaded, it came out at 9460 lbs -- nicely below the GVWR, which is 11030.

[booster]

I don't recall seeing any scale weights for any of the Promasters yet, but could have missed them in the brand discussions, I suppose.

Has anyone had their Promaster to the scales yet in full traveling setup? I think it would also be very interesting to see a comparison not only of the brands, but how the DIY ones fit in the mix.

[BBQ]

(Not mine)

Safari Condo -- 7000#

Ram Promaster Forum - View Single Post - My new Safari Condo Promaster MX

[MsNomer]

We weighed our self-build PM136" last week on a CAT as we started on this trip. The trip includes a conference in Denver + 2 desert field trips + hiking in between, so we are loaded to the gills, including 26 gallons of liquid (no plumbing, just jugs). Don't anticipate that we will ever weigh more than this. Tipped the scales at 3,500 + 3,400 = 6,900. Add 300 for the two of us, so that's about 1,300 pounds less than GVW.

[tgregg]

We weighed our self build conversion of a gas Dodge Promaster 2500 159" WB High Top (that includes a wet bath / shower, galley with upper and lower cabinets, sink, diesel cooktop, 12v refrigerator, 2 AGMs, hot water heater and a Fiamma awning) at the start of a one month trip to New England and PEI.

Including 26 gal of liquids, empty gray and black tanks, clothes, groceries, house wares, a full tank of gas, some extra tools and spares ( because this was a shake down cruise ) and the 2 of us totalling 300 pounds, it came to 7240 pounds - 1300 pounds under the GVW.