Go Back   iRV2 Forums > THE OWNER'S CORNER FORUMS > Alpine Coach Owner's Forum
Click Here to Login
Join iRV2 Today

Mission Statement: Supporting thoughtful exchange of knowledge, values and experience among RV enthusiasts.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-26-2007, 09:26 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Join the #1 RV Forum Today - It's Totally Free!

iRV2.com RV Community - Are you about to start a new improvement on your RV or need some help with some maintenance? Do you need advice on what products to buy? Or maybe you can give others some advice? No matter where you fit in you'll find that iRV2 is a great community to join. Best of all it's totally FREE!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest so you have limited access to our community. Please take the time to register and you will gain a lot of great new features including; the ability to participate in discussions, network with other RV owners, see fewer ads, upload photographs, create an RV blog, send private messages and so much, much more!

Old 04-26-2007, 09:26 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2007, 12:52 PM   #3
Registered User
 
Fleetwood Owners Club
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Back in Philly for the fall heading to Sunshine before the snow flies
Posts: 1,485
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.
__________________
hondo122 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2007, 10:49 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Auburn, CA, Havasu, AZ & Mulege, BCS
Posts: 5,217
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.
__________________
Baja-tested '08 2-slide 36'
Alpine: The Ultimate DIY'er Project
EngineerMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 10:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
Thanks Mike, that's an excellent idea.

Gary
__________________
gary85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-01-2007, 12:11 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Ray,IN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: North America somewhere
Posts: 13,713
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.
__________________
2000 Winnebago Ultimate Freedom USQ40JD, ISC 8.3 Cummins 350, Spartan MM Chassis. USA 1SG, retired;PPA,Good Sam Life member,FMCA."We the people are the rightful masters of both the Congress and the Courts - not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow men who pervert the Constitution. "Abraham Lincoln"
Ray,IN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2007, 03:14 PM   #7
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
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.
__________________
gary85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2007, 11:08 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Auburn, CA, Havasu, AZ & Mulege, BCS
Posts: 5,217
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?
__________________
Baja-tested '08 2-slide 36'
Alpine: The Ultimate DIY'er Project
EngineerMike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2007, 12:29 PM   #9
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 182
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.
__________________

__________________
gary85 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply



Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
gvwr, gvwr, ? on towing, overloadiing jwine Class A Motorhome Discussions 8 12-09-2008 03:23 AM
GVWR SSteve Workhorse and Chevrolet Chassis Motorhome Forum 8 05-30-2008 03:24 PM
Single axle or Tag axle BudtheDiplomat Monaco Owner's Forum 7 05-02-2008 06:12 PM
WW GVWR JRBurn Toy Haulers Discussion 19 02-05-2007 07:59 PM
Title has wrong GVWR, what to do? hondo122 Class A Motorhome Discussions 7 01-02-2007 03:29 PM

» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.