Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2016, 10:28 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Marion, LA
Posts: 220
Well, different axles, brakes, tires, springs, rear end ratio, frame steel yield strength and I haven't looked pass there, but same could be said of 1/2 ton, 3/4 ton, 1 ton pickups - and those are grossly different animals. Also note that the 22k chassis with 22.5 tires does NOT have the 55 degree wheel cut of the 24 and 26k. The 22k and lighter chassis with 19.5 wheels all have 55 degree wheel cut. I don't own any of them so don't have a dog in the fight, but have been looking at specs on several class A's.. 22k is very popular, but from what I see, it's a different animal from the 24 and 26k chassis.
__________________

__________________
RubberNail is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2016, 10:29 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 470
Thank you for the details, much appreciated.
__________________

__________________
Modmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 09:59 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
BillMFl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Modmike View Post
Hello fellow owners,

I took possession of my 2016 364TSF last Friday. When I got home I filled it with gas and headed to the CAT scales. it has all the options except for washer/dryer combo. Here are the results for those who are curious:

Straight from the dealer, full tank of gas, no driver;

Front Axle: 6,768 LBS
Rear Axle: 12,125 LBS
Total 18,894 LBS

Corner weights:

Left Front: 3,373 LBS
Front Right: 3,395 LBS
Rear Left: 5,974 LBS
Rear right: 6,151 LBS

GVWR 22,000 LBS
Curb weight 18,894 LBS

Cargo Capacity: 3,106 LBS
Very interesting Modmike. It looks to me like your side to side weight balance is very good. What does surprise me is the front to back ratio. I would have guessed that the front axel would carry approx. 40%. Given the fairly long rear overhang that we have, I suspect that some of the handling issues that cause many owners to invest in modifications are because of the relatively light front axel load and the rear overhang. On uneven road surfaces, and especially when towing, the heavy rear distribution and overhang would likely shift the center of gravity back and forth which would sporadically reduce the weight on the front axle to even less than the roughly thirty percent static load at rest. Taking weight off the front axle will affect tracking which is a frequent complaint. I have a 360 and have not weighed it, but I have really good tracking and can steer with one finger at 70mph. Too much weight on the front axel can also affect handling. I suspect that the 378 model with its very large and lovely two slide living room may be front heavy. That may be why 378 owners report very good improvement in handling after the mods. Perhaps some smarter folks than me in here can add more info about my speculations.
__________________
BillMFl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 10:18 AM   #14
jkoenig24
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Box Elder, SD (formerly NY)
Posts: 378
Wow! Nicely balanced right now. You did a good job getting the weight at each wheel position. What's the fresh water capacity and, where is that tank located? If you have a chance to get a "Smart Weigh" at an RV rally (RVSEF & Escapees both offer the service for a modest fee), you get get a chart with the recommendation for proper tire pressures for your equipment and load. Until you have that information, I'd go with a tire pressure at / near the maximum shown on the tire sidewall (better to be a bit overinflated than underinflated).
__________________
jkoenig24 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 10:23 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Desert SW - Arizona
Posts: 6,360
Old Thread written by MGOBlue
Information about weight distribution of Georgetown F-53 chassis.



Just FYI - I talked to an Engineer from the Ford Motorhome Division this morning about the F53 chassis. Here's some of the things he told me:



1. The suspension mod of moving the attachment points on the front and rear sway bars is recommended by Ford, but it will offer a more firm ride while adding some increased stability. The sway bars are designed to handle either hole location. Ford installs on the outer holes purely for ride comfort. Modifying to the inner holes will not impact the chassis warranty.



2. Ford Motorhome division phone # is: 800-444-3311



3. Ford recommends to all MH manufacturers to have 40% (front) and 60% (rear) on the UVW ratio. He told me that many consumers are getting their coaches weighed to find that the front axle is only getting 30% or less of the total UVW. To correct this some manufacturers are offering to install air bag helpers to level out the load. He suggest that if the MH manufacturers aren't going to do it, than the owners should if the ratio is not close. 40% on the front axle will help with tracking and stability.

Hope some may find this info useful.
__________________
2012 Georgetown XL - 378TS 60,000 miles
Life is a journey, not a destination !

Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 10:31 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Iggy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Desert SW - Arizona
Posts: 6,360
Last year at the Goshen FROG Rally a commercial company was weighing trailers and motorhomes for a price.
Did anyone get their Georgetown's weighed?
It would be interesting to see what they came up with.


My 2012 378TS is about 40% on front axles and 60% on rear which is what Ford likes after reading the message above.
__________________
2012 Georgetown XL - 378TS 60,000 miles
Life is a journey, not a destination !

Iggy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 10:35 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
BillMFl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 498
Great info Iggy. I was pretty sure that the front load should be aprox 40% but glad you confirmed it. Each GT model may vary somewhat. I would suggest new owners drive their rigs a while and run across the scales before making mods. Then make the mods that are most appropriate and then drive some more to compare performance.
__________________
BillMFl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 11:32 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 470
I would think you would want to distribute the weight to the same percentage of axle capacity. I'm sure that can be explained better with math, so are it goes:

Front
Weight: 6,786 LBS
Axle GVWR: 8,000 LBS
% of GVWR 84.8% of capacity

Rear
Weight: 12,125 LBS
Axle GVWR: 15,000 LBS
% of GVWR 80.8% of capacity

Actual bias for reference:
Front: 35.8%
Rear: 64.2%

I am curious to see what it will come out to when the heater tanks are full of water, passengers, and gear.

At any rate I am not leaning forwards or backwards. I believe (and could be very wrong) that airbags were offered to level the coach when an axle or corner was sagging due to bad balancing.

I saw threads about older coaches having this problem but it seems like the manufacturers did their homework and are producing better balanced motorhomes these days.
__________________
Modmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 12:09 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by BillMFl View Post
Very interesting Modmike. It looks to me like your side to side weight balance is very good. What does surprise me is the front to back ratio. I would have guessed that the front axel would carry approx. 40%. Given the fairly long rear overhang that we have, I suspect that some of the handling issues that cause many owners to invest in modifications are because of the relatively light front axel load and the rear overhang. On uneven road surfaces, and especially when towing, the heavy rear distribution and overhang would likely shift the center of gravity back and forth which would sporadically reduce the weight on the front axle to even less than the roughly thirty percent static load at rest. Taking weight off the front axle will affect tracking which is a frequent complaint. I have a 360 and have not weighed it, but I have really good tracking and can steer with one finger at 70mph. Too much weight on the front axel can also affect handling. I suspect that the 378 model with its very large and lovely two slide living room may be front heavy. That may be why 378 owners report very good improvement in handling after the mods. Perhaps some smarter folks than me in here can add more info about my speculations.
I'm not so sure about that, at least on my coach. First I am quite close to the 40/60 and will be even closer when passengers and gear are loaded.

I think that the rear overhang is a big factor but not for the same reason. My model has a massive track bar in the front but nothing in the back. That means that the huge over hang with the uncoupled coach to wheel causes a diagonal swinging effect when hit by side winds or going over bumps that produce a rear side force.

The best I can explain is that i believe the back is swinging right and left causing the coach to require steering corrections when any type of short duration side force is applied to the rear. I also believe that reducing the side to side sway will also help this problem which is why the CHF seemed to help.

Now I will be the first to say that in my VERY LIMITED 2 hour highway ride I felt nothing when passed by rigs, maybe because it was a slow steady pressure, but did have tracking issues when gusts hit or i passed on rough roads. This is why I am getting a track bar installed ASAP. At $285, it's a cheap and easy mod to do and evaluate. By the way, I will be doing all my suspension mods one at a time and report back. I also plan on getting a steering stabilizer but thats more for front tire blowout control than comfort.

I do want to reiterate that it drove perfectly from the dealers lot. I am a habitual modder so please don't take my mod fanaticism for actual necessity. I just love to make things better if I can.

Modding is a way of life for me and gives me as much pleasure as I get camping. It's kind of a way for me to extend the experience between outings. I have compiled a huge mod list, which is actually way shorter than what i did to my previous 2015 Cruisers RV 242BDS TT, but I hesitate to post it because I know people will call me crazy.

The worst part is that they are probably right.
__________________
Modmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2016, 04:22 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by jkoenig24 View Post
Wow! Nicely balanced right now. You did a good job getting the weight at each wheel position. What's the fresh water capacity and, where is that tank located? If you have a chance to get a "Smart Weigh" at an RV rally (RVSEF & Escapees both offer the service for a modest fee), you get get a chart with the recommendation for proper tire pressures for your equipment and load. Until you have that information, I'd go with a tire pressure at / near the maximum shown on the tire sidewall (better to be a bit overinflated than underinflated).
There is a rather anemic 50 gallon tank mounted about midship. I am not sure exactly where as it is in storage.

I plan to rip it out and put in an 80 gallon, the max size I think I can put in. Probably the 3rd or 4th mod I will do because we dry camp a lot and we ALWAYS run out of water.

I never travel with water in the tanks and would only fill it up at the campground anyway.
__________________

__________________
Modmike is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
cat, georgetown

Thread Tools
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



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:48 PM.