GVWR vs axle ratings

[gary85]

I just had the opportunity to have our '99 40FDS weighed at all 4 wheel positions by RVSEF. The front axle is rated at 12,000 #, rear is 19,000 #. GVWR for this coach is 28,000 #. The front axle weighed in at 11,900#. Rear axle weighed 16,600#. This resulted in 500# over the 28,000# GVWR, but 2400# below the rear axle rating. My question is: what do I go by, the 31,000# total axle capacity or the posted (and inadequate)GVWR of 28k? I will be getting the full writeup by mail from RVSEF in a few weeks but I wanted to ask the forum for comments.

[gary85]

I just had the opportunity to have our '99 40FDS weighed at all 4 wheel positions by RVSEF. The front axle is rated at 12,000 #, rear is 19,000 #. GVWR for this coach is 28,000 #. The front axle weighed in at 11,900#. Rear axle weighed 16,600#. This resulted in 500# over the 28,000# GVWR, but 2400# below the rear axle rating. My question is: what do I go by, the 31,000# total axle capacity or the posted (and inadequate)GVWR of 28k? I will be getting the full writeup by mail from RVSEF in a few weeks but I wanted to ask the forum for comments.

[hondo122]

Talk about confusing! I would have to go with the GVRW just because a component other than the axles may not be designed for the weight. Just seems odd that they rate the coach that way. Sorry I can't offer any positive input.

[EngineerMike]

on our 2006 the total gvwr is the sum of the axle ratings @ 33k. try sending this question to WRV: "My coach # is xxxxx (last five of the VIN) and the lit says the gvwr is 28k but the axle ratings are 12k front + 19k rear for 31k. I know the newer coaches are gvwr rated for the sum of the axle ratings. Is there a component in my coach that would be an issue if I'm travelling @ over the 28k gvwr from the literature, or was the method for reporting gvwr changed in a subsequent year and I'm ok @ less than the sum of the axle ratings (31k total) and less than than each axle rating? Thanks, blah, blah, blah." They should be able to identify the controlling part or at least tell you that the 28k is correct for good engineering reasons.

[gary85]

Thanks Mike, that's an excellent idea.

Gary

[Ray,IN]

GVW has no basis in law nor are LEO's concerned. In the trucking world LEO's are only concerned with axle weight limits. The only limiting factor for the lower GVW may be the brakes. It takes good ones to stop 15 tons quickly.

[gary85]

Update - I called WRV and asked about the discrepancy between the GVWR and the sum of the axle ratings. They looked up my coach ('99 40 FDS) and said my data plate was in error - that the GVWR should be the sum of both axles. The GVWR of 28k lbs was for the 36-38 ft coaches. I would be imterested in hearing from an owner of a similiar coach as to what your data plate says.

[EngineerMike]

Did they say why the difference? One of the clever things about WRV's product line over time has been crafting a rig in different lengths using the same components across the spectrum, in this case same axles, brakes... that would seem to affect the gross weight capacity. W/that direction, the shorter rigs simply have higher cargo capacity (not to mention simpler & better control on parts inventory & diagnostics).
Not sure why shorter rigs would have had lower GVWR unless at that time they used lower rated components for the shorter rigs. Maybe somebody has the sales brochure w/specs from your year of rig?

[gary85]

I was wrong. WRV agreed to replace the data plate. All I had to do was send a picture of my old plate. In cleaning the plate, I found the correct (33k) GVWR. It was located on the lower left side of the plate, under some gunk. The plate, btw, is inside the generator slide compartment. Not having seen this 33k before, I was relying on the owners manual specs, which are of course, wrong. Sorry for the confusion.