lanerd
Home in Ridgecrest CA for the winter.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/03/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?
Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".
I just don't understand why other don't get this.
Ron
Ron & Sandie
2013 Tiffin Phaeton 42LH Cummins ISL 400hp
Toad: 2011 GMC Terrain SLT2
Tow Bar: Sterling AT
Toad Brakes: Unified by U.S. Gear
TPMS: Pressure Pro
Member of: GS, FMCA, Allegro
RETIRED!! How sweet it is....
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?
Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".
I just don't understand why other don't get this.
Ron
It isn't that we don't get it. It's that you're oversimplifying it. Braking distance is the result of a combination of factors, two of which are speed and tow vehicle braking capacity, and you're completely ignoring that each RV pulling a toad is different and has a different braking capacity.
I can choose to purchase an RV that is older, has a lower-end chassis, an older brake design, etc... and for any number of reasons it would have less braking capacity. I can then hitch up my Jeep, add supplemental brakes, and by your definition it would be safe because I've gained those few inches or feet that might just avoid an accident.
Or I can purchase an RV with a better chassis, a newer brake design, etc... that can stop itself and the same toad faster without supplemental brakes than the first example with supplemental brakes. By choosing this second RV, although it may cost more, I can stop significantly shorter than the first example.
The second option without the supplemental brakes is the 'safer' rig because it can stop several feet shorter, regardless of the fact that it doesn't have supplemental brakes.
You're arguing that every rig should have supplemental brakes because that extra inch or 1 foot or 10 feet might make a difference in preventing an injury. But if one rig will stop shorter without supplemental brakes on the toad than another rig with supplemental brakes, then it's already stopping that extra inch or 1 foot or 10 feet shorter. At what point is it enough? Where do we draw the line? The answer is that there is no one-size-fits-all answer to this question, and there never will be.
Sure, you could argue that any rig with a toad can be improved by adding supplemental brakes. But I could also argue that any rig could be improved by upgrading to the latest, greatest braking system to improve stopping distance. Where does it end? How do you define what's enough?
2003 Country Coach Intrigue, Cummins ISL 400
Toad: 2006 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited (LJ) toad, with just a few mods...
Other rig: 2005 Chevy Silverado 3500 Duramax Dually / Next Level 38CK Fifth-wheel Toy Hauler w/ quads, sand rail, etc...
|
paulcardoza
Southeastern Massachusetts
Senior Member
Joined: 01/15/2010
View Profile
Offline
|
Using that logic Ron, towing should just be outlawed altogether. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/rolleyes.gif "rolleyes")
lanerd wrote:Is one inch "significant"? How about 1 foot? How about 10 feet?
Any measurement regardless of what it is...is very significant if it is sufficient enough to keep you from causing death, injury, or damage. If a supplemental braking system, even on a 45,000 lb coach or a 15,000 lb coach, keeps this from happening....then it is most definitely "significant".
I just don't understand why other don't get this.
Ron
Paul & Sandra
Plymouth, MA
2014 Heartland Cyclone 4100 King
|
lanerd
Home in Ridgecrest CA for the winter.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/03/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
You are sill not getting it and are totally missing the point.
I don't care if it is a rig 30 years old or one right off the show room floor. It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system and that shorter distance can make a huge difference. Period.
I'm not over simplifying this at all. It is simple logic.
And Paul, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Who said ANYTHING about outlawing??? Sheesh!
Ron
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:You are sill not getting it and are totally missing the point.
I don't care if it is a rig 30 years old or one right off the show room floor. It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system and that shorter distance can make a huge difference. Period.
I'm not over simplifying this at all. It is simple logic.
And Paul, your comment has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter. Who said ANYTHING about outlawing??? Sheesh!
Ron
It's not that I don't get your point, I do - I understand exactly what you are trying to say. It's just that your point is abstract, and without substance unless you look at the individual rig and decide whether or not that rig needs supplemental brakes in order to be able to travel down the highway in a manner that doesn't impose unneccesary risk on everyone else.
To use your exact words: "It's going to stop quicker and shorter if the toad it's pulling has a supplement brake system." It's also going to shop quicker and shorter if the owner upgrades the brakes on the RV to a newer, higher performance setup. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we limit toads to vehicles under 2500 lbs. It's also going to stop quicker and shorter if we reduce the speed limit for RV's pulling toads to 45 MPH. Each of these statements is technically correct and logically true. That doesn't make them reasonable or rational, even though each one would reduce stopping distance by inches or feet, and potentially avoid an accident. Each one would be summarily dismissed as unnecessary or unreasonable.
Your "simple logic" is flawed in that, while it is technically correct, it doesn't justify anything and is without merit unless you look at the individual rig. Yes - you are oversimplifying it.
|
|
|
lanerd
Home in Ridgecrest CA for the winter.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/03/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
Abstract and without substance....??? You gotta be kidding me.
Ok, I guess I am simplifying it. It is a simple and logical statement
A motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system. That's all I'm saying.
Ron
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:Abstract and without substance....??? You gotta be kidding me.
Ok, I guess I am simplifying it. It is a simple and logical statement
A motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system. That's all I'm saying.
Ron
Nope - not kidding you at all. Your point is abstract, and without substance unless you look at the individual rig. That part that you left off is the point I've been trying to make all along.
Yes - it is a simple and logical statement to say that a motor home will stop shorter and quicker while pulling a toad if the toad has a supplemental braking system.
It would be just as simple and logical to propose a 45 MPH speed limit for RVs with toads. After all, it is logical that driving an RV with a toad at 45 MPH will stop shorter and quicker than driving at 55 or 65 MPH.
Both statements are simple and logical, but neither one is necessary for every RV or in every case. What is relevant in every case is the ability to stop in a reasonable distance to avoid an accident, and there are accepted standards for that. If you want to go beyond that accepted standard to be more "safe", then that is your choice. But that can be a slippery slope - where does it end? My sports car stops far faster than any RV & toad with supplemental brakes. Should we hold RVs to that standard?
Ultimately we have to define a standard, which is what our state (California) has done. And if an RV with a toad meets that standard, then supplemental brakes are not necessary, and not considered by the state to be a "safety concern".
My only point all throughout this discussion is that the blanket statement that all toads should have supplemental brakes is incorrect. You have to consider each rig individually, based on it's own handling and braking capacities.
|
lanerd
Home in Ridgecrest CA for the winter.
Senior Member
Joined: 03/03/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
MPond wrote:
My only point all throughout this discussion is that the blanket statement that all toads should have supplemental brakes is incorrect. You have to consider each rig individually, based on it's own handling and braking capacities.
Well, I just gotta disagree with you here on this statement. Surely you know that any "individual" coach will stop quicker with toad brakes. I don't care what coach you have, it will stop quicker. Period. I just don't see how you can refute that and how anyone would not want this to happen.
So it seems we're at an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that. You're not going to convince me and obviously I'm not going to convince you.
Ron
|
MPond
Thousand Oaks, CA
Senior Member
Joined: 05/06/2011
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
lanerd wrote:Well, I just gotta disagree with you here on this statement. Surely you know that any "individual" coach will stop quicker with toad brakes. I don't care what coach you have, it will stop quicker. Period. I just don't see how you can refute that and how anyone would not want this to happen.
I'm not trying to refute that supplemental brakes might make a coach stop quicker (though I'm yet to be convinced on how effective they are in some cases). I'm only refuting whether that additional braking is necessary in every case to be considered 'safe'.
lanerd wrote:
So it seems we're at an impasse. Let's just agree to disagree and let it go at that. You're not going to convince me and obviously I'm not going to convince you.
Ron
You're right - we're probably not going to convince each other, so better to part ways on a positive note. It's been a fun mental exercise debating with you. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile") Thank you for keeping it friendly.
Safe travels to you and yours.
|
lkentn
Anywhere, USA
Full Member
Joined: 01/02/2001
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
I have used the Blue Ox Auto Stop direct cable around the brake pedal on our Jeep and while driving into Yellowstone NP the cable actually broke so I abandoned that system. I went to the Brake Buddy system which I had to set up every time I towed. Since I tow a Jeep Liberty and it is recommended that I disconnect the battery while towing, I had to go to a direct from the battery connection to my brake buddy. After my most recent trip, I noticed a strange smell in my Jeep not a brake smell. I pushed the button to release the air from the BB tank and it contained no air. The Brake Buddy had failed me again and likely for the last time. It had failed me so many times previously that it probably wasn't working properly more of my driving time than it ever did working properly. I am now giving up on my second auxiliary braking system and am in a quandary as to which system to try next. Since I have probably driven as many miles without my braking system working as I have with it working, I have not noticed any advantage of my 25,000+ lb Diesel Pusher towing my Jeep with any of my auxiliary braking systems i have used. What do next?
Kent and Margaret
2004 Newmar Kountry Star DP 38'
|
|
|
|
