Keep putting off getting the 02C200P weighted, gonna do it someday and today is someday! Ladies at Pilot truck stop were baffled when I told them I wanted to do a split weight and said they could not do it. But they patiently let me explain and despite their misgivings decided to try. Unlikely this could be done at scale with guard rails.
I show an available load of 1360 lbs but things have to be considered such as I have a 1/2 tank of gas, full fresh tank etc.
Keep putting off getting the 02C200P weighted, gonna do it someday and today is someday! Ladies at Pilot truck stop were baffled when I told them I wanted to do a split weight and said they could not do it. But they patiently let me explain and despite their misgivings decided to try. Unlikely this could be done at scale with guard rails.
I show an available load of 1360 lbs but things have to be considered such as I have a 1/2 tank of gas, full fresh tank etc.
Interesting numbers but pretty typical if the van was empty except for gas. The difference in the rear is opposite of what most of the next gen ones run and not very large a difference.
Best part is that the front is even, but you probably didn't have any water in the van and that would all go on the left side front if the tank is in the same spot as the later ones and is about 14 gallons so about 120#. Gas tank is probably on the left side also. You may have a second fresh tank inside that is about 10 gallons also and it would probably be in the rear passenger side in the bolster with the furnace.
Nothing to worry about on those weights, it appears.
Best part is that the front is even, but you probably didn't have any water in the van and that would all go on the left side front if the tank is in the same spot as the later ones and is about 14 gallons so about 120#. Gas tank is probably on the left side also. You may have a second fresh tank inside that is about 10 gallons also and it would probably be in the rear passenger side in the bolster with the furnace.
Nothing to worry about on those weights, it appears.
Thanks, the wander got me wondering about weights. Fresh water tank is definitely full and black and grey tank have some in them, no idea how much. On my 200 the fresh tank is on the right/passenger side and about 35 gallons. I do not have the 2 tank setup.
The front being equal on both sides has me wondering if I should go back and re weight but it is a CAT scale with printouts and the #'s add up.
Bridgestone load and inflation table tell me I could run 70 psi in the rear.
You mentioned wander. On my 97PW I find that making sure my airbags are filled to 55psi (PW recommends 60) helps to insure that the weight emphasis is more toward the front wheels. That helps alleviate the light steering on my rv and, I believe, also the tendency to wander.
You mentioned wander. On my 97PW I find that making sure my airbags are filled to 55psi (PW recommends 60) helps to insure that the weight emphasis is more toward the front wheels. That helps alleviate the light steering on my rv and, I believe, also the tendency to wander.
The weight being transferred to the front is a very commonly quoted piece of not particularly accurate information.
Very, very little weight is transferred to the front and you can calculate it pretty easily by using the amount lifted, the wheelbase and the axle weight and trig it out.
The main reason it feels better driving is because you have made the rear stiffer, essentially increasing the spring rate of the rear with the high pressure in the bags. One of the fundamental characteristics of tweaking handling is to reduce understeer, stiffen the rear suspension, to reduce oversteer stiffen the front.
Basically, what you do be increasing the rear bag pressure is to reduce the understeer, tires slipping instead of turning, and that makes the vehicle more responsive to steering inputs and improves stability.
It truly doesn't matter why it works, just that it does, but the weight thing just isn't the reason because you don't move enough to make any difference. If you added 500# of weight right over the front axle, yep, that would also reduce understeer and make it feel more stable and responsive as added weight improves the traction in which ever end it is placed.
You mentioned wander. On my 97PW I find that making sure my airbags are filled to 55psi (PW recommends 60) helps to insure that the weight emphasis is more toward the front wheels. That helps alleviate the light steering on my rv and, I believe, also the tendency to wander.
I have a post on wandering, multiple wheel alignments and inspection and nothing wrong except caster and camber are not correct. Going to an alignment/suspension specialist wed to see if it can be sorted out. I do not have air bags.
Interesting observations, booster. Rear end stability makes sense. I'm thinking of adding a rear bar before my next long trip. But thx for the explanation.Re jjrbus: PW is probably different from RT but many shops might apply the alignment specs for the chassis vehicle. PW makes it clear that they have their own that disagree with those but make for better handling. Not sure, though. I had mine set by a truck/RV suspension shop.
Interesting observations, booster. Rear end stability makes sense. I'm thinking of adding a rear bar before my next long trip. But thx for the explanation.Re jjrbus: PW is probably different from RT but many shops might apply the alignment specs for the chassis vehicle. PW makes it clear that they have their own that disagree with those but make for better handling. Not sure, though. I had mine set by a truck/RV suspension shop.
I think you will like the rear bar for settling down the van, IMO it is probably one of the best ways to improve handling in tail heavy class b vans after making sure all the existing parts aren't worn out.
Yep, good shops will not hesitate to off from the factory specs to align vehicles to get them to drive the way you like, and Pleasure-ways specs probably came for a shop they worked with. The shops that understand how it all works together are getting to be very few these days, unfortunately. Truck shops are a good option because a lot of trucks have similar steering setups to our older Bs.
Location: Red-Neck Riveria - (Fort Walton Beach, FL)
Posts: 202
You didn't 'splain the process, so I thought I'd try and get it down. Also, some things don't "quite add up," but the numbers are well within the 50-60 pound range, so "no biggie."
Quote:
The F/R values add up to each of the sides I've shown in the boxes, but those do not add up to the GW given from the scale (8100).
I reckon the scenario was; weigh the front (3020#), then drive the entire van on and weigh it (8140#). Next, you weighed one side. I assume it was the left @ 3920#.
The rear weight was calculated, from the front and total weights. That gets a F/R percentage. That percentage was then used to "guess-timate" the corner weights (each wheel).
To help make it a bit easier (perhaps), I built a short 3 pager spreadsheet you can use to get the numbers without too much fiddeling. Looks like:
The results will still be dependent of the scale accuracy, phase of the moon, etc.. It is based on 3 input values, Total Weight, Front End weight, and then either the Left or Right side weight. Separate sheets for Left and Right scale use. Attached is a ZIP of the xls file.
Again, it will only be as accurate as the scale.
Alternatively, you could measure the contact patch of each tire, and knowing the tire pressure calculate the corner weights too. Level surface required. Enjoy!
The Cat scale is multi sectioned, if the scale does not have guard rails it is fairly easy to weight each wheel. The RV can be un level having 2 wheels off the scale so not NASA accurate but gud nough for me. Plus the total axle weights confirms it is only off a bit.
Location: Red-Neck Riveria - (Fort Walton Beach, FL)
Posts: 202
Copy all.
I've not (yet) used a CAT scale, but your clarification makes me think the errors are, as you suggest, due to a non-level setup. Also, sway bars being connected have an impact on getting accurate corner (and overall L/R) weights.
As I suggested, probably in the "no-biggie" category.
Thanks, the wander got me wondering about weights. Fresh water tank is definitely full and black and grey tank have some in them, no idea how much. On my 200 the fresh tank is on the right/passenger side and about 35 gallons. I do not have the 2 tank setup.
The front being equal on both sides has me wondering if I should go back and re weight but it is a CAT scale with printouts and the #'s add up.
Bridgestone load and inflation table tell me I could run 70 psi in the rear.
Run the rear at 80, it's what is called for on the placard for the listed rear axle weight rating. This will give a bit of room for more stuff to be loaded and give a bit of reserve which will come into play when temperatures drop.
This from an ex 2000 200 owner.
__________________
Tick tock, baby(Ironbuttal)
2000 Roadtrek Chevy 200 Versatile(sold)
'98 Safari Trek 2480
Just for fun:'15 Kawasaki Versys650LT
Perfection is a fantasy, though improvement is possible(Wifey).
What I am missing are the GAWR's.
Can be that your rear axle is already cose to that, even if GVWR leaves 1360 lbs to load.
And is rear axle single or dualload?
Once read advice to keep at least 30% of total weight on front axle. So your 37.1 % is not that bad.
Reaction to post #9
That spreadsheets assumes if left weighed lighter then on both axles left lighter and at ratio devided over the axle.
But in practice R/L balance can be crossed between the axles, and for instance front more weightdifference then rear.
Has to do with dynamic balance instead of static balance.
What I am missing are the GAWR's.
Can be that your rear axle is already cose to that, even if GVWR leaves 1360 lbs to load.
And is rear axle single or dualload?
Once read advice to keep at least 30% of total weight on front axle. So your 37.1 % is not that bad.
Reaction to post #9
That spreadsheets assumes if left weighed lighter then on both axles left lighter and at ratio devided over the axle.
But in practice R/L balance can be crossed between the axles, and for instance front more weightdifference then rear.
Has to do with dynamic balance instead of static balance.
I have not seen axle weight ratings that I could confirm were for the Cut Away. Lots of ratings on the net for 3500 van but none specify Cut Away! Of course I have not looked very hard.
In Europe since about 1980 there has to be a VIN plate on the vehicle somewhere, with MTA= GAWR's and MTM = GVWR on it.
Saw in US topics besides the sticker with yellow in it also a grey methalic with the GAWR's and GVWR.
So try to find it on car somewhere.
But you gave GVWR already, where did you find that.
In Europe since about 1980 there has to be a VIN plate on the vehicle somewhere, with MTA= GAWR's and MTM = GVWR on it.
Saw in US topics besides the sticker with yellow in it also a grey methalic with the GAWR's and GVWR.
So try to find it on car somewhere.
But you gave GVWR already, where did you find that.
There is a plate on my Roadtrek, but it is from Roadtrek not GM. I do not have a lot of faith in RV manufacturers. The cargo vans and the Cut Aways seem to have the same numbers but the Cut Away appears to be more heavy duty so am not sure the numbers I find are correct. Not so important that I will put a lot of time into looking.
To properly weight the RV 4 portable scales would be needed or some kind of public scale that I do not know about. For my rear axle weight the Bridgestone load and inflation tables spec I believe 67 psi in the rear. However Roadtrek specs 80 psi and I have been told that there is a TSB out changing the front pressure to 65 psi. So I have all the info I need.
Also my rear springs are sprung. Bridgestone 245 75R 16 load range E.
Weighting Roadtrek
Linear Mode
