Up-Rated Towing Suspension

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:07:57 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2005 19:13:31 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"load carrying capacity, which airbags won't provide."
>>>
>>>Uhm, Officially changing the original manufactures GVWR or GCWR, no, But
>>>allowing you to greatly exceed that rating and keep your front end from
>>>floating and you rear suspension form bottoming out, airbags absolutely
>>>will provide that...
>>>
>>>That '94 Dodge I mentioned, the guy that has it now, regularly hauls a
>>>lot of firewood, both for all his own heating and for sale. He has
>>>totally worn out 2 roller fairleads on his 12,000 pound warn winch
>>>skidding the logs out to cut up and load into that truck. His loads
>>>regularly exceed GVWR, and without the airbags, he absolutely would not
>>>have the extra load carrying capacity that they do indeed provide.
>>>
>>>Are you sure you know what you are saying?
>>
>>
>> Yup!
>> I have to wonder why you continue this. Do you think that only the
>> springs determine the weight ratings? It seems so.
>> A little more education on what constitutes a weight rating will make
>> you rethink this.
>>
>
>Education?
>
>I specifically said you could not "Officially change the original
>manufactures GVWR or GCWR"!!! Did you miss that?

Yet you also say that those trucks were now carrying more than their
GVWR allowed.
That's stupid.
>
>ON THE OTHER HAND, The "weight ratings" have a VERY generous "safety
>factor" built in, its very similar to a pressure vessel "pressure
>rating", no where near the true physical limits of that pressure vessel.
>Yes these ratings are a real number that have official, and legal
>ramifications if they are exceeded, but they aren't an actual physical
>limit.

And you presume to know what that safety factor amounts to, while
admitting that you're overloading.
That's just showing how little you understand safety.
>
>Springs are not the only component that contribute to arriving at a
>given "weight rating", but they have a greater contribution than any
>other single component.

Wow! You say you know that more than springs are involved in a weight
rating, then go on th say that only changing springs let's you carry
more weight safely.
Do yuou read this before you hit "Send"?
>
>My position is that The SPRINGS have an overwhelming true physical
>effect on the ride and handling characteristics of any pickup truck, and
>that relationship DOES NOT simply magically evaporate when you are are
>loaded in excess of a grossly conservative original manufactures GVWR or
>GCWR weight rating!
>
>Either you do not understand what I am saying, or you have no clue what
>you are talking about!
>
I understand very well. You're saying that you think altering the
springe lets you carry more load safely.
I also understand that this is wrong, and you're doing the rest of us
a real disfavor by trying to imply that your methods are safe.
They aren't.
Maybe people who really want to know will see your writings, and
realize that it's unsafe.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 05:07:37 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>Aw fer Christ sake!
>BULL****!~
>I did not say or suggest that anyone overload their vehicles!

You didn't?

"That '94 Dodge I mentioned, the guy that has it now, regularly hauls
a lot of firewood, both for all his own heating and for sale. He has
totally worn out 2 roller fairleads on his 12,000 pound warn winch
skidding the logs out to cut up and load into that truck. His loads
regularly exceed GVWR, and without the airbags, he absolutely would
not have the extra load carrying capacity that they do indeed
provide."

Who wrote that?
Oh, yeah, you did.
You just make this up as you go, don't you?
I sincerely hope the rest of the readers here understand that you just
don't know what you're talking about, and ignore your unsafe advice.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:58:01 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>Take your teeter-totter analogy, if you stick a jack stand under the
>heavy end, (or simply clamp the teeter-totter securely to the pivot
>point so it can no longer pivot, more closely resembling the geometry of
>the air bags) the light end will NOT get any lighter as you increase the
>weight on the heavy end. When your weight exceeds the structural
>integrity of the teeter-totters 2x10 it will snap, but it will not
>unload the light end.

And therein lies the problem with your advice.
You're recommending that people exceed the structural safety of their
vehicles.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:58:01 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>
>
>>Take your teeter-totter analogy, if you stick a jack stand under the
>>heavy end, (or simply clamp the teeter-totter securely to the pivot
>>point so it can no longer pivot, more closely resembling the geometry of
>>the air bags) the light end will NOT get any lighter as you increase the
>>weight on the heavy end. When your weight exceeds the structural
>>integrity of the teeter-totters 2x10 it will snap, but it will not
>>unload the light end.
>
>
> And therein lies the problem with your advice.
> You're recommending that people exceed the structural safety of their
> vehicles.
>


BULL****!

You need to try to follow along.

At no point did I endorse overloading a vehicle beyond its GVWR, or
suggest that anyone else do that!!!

I AM DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF AIR BAGS ON THE
SUSPENSION GEOMETRY! NOT GVWR!

If I brought up a space shuttle explosion to illustrate fuel system
limits and failures or ceramic tile attachment methods, would you then
miss the point entirely and try to argue how unsafe and inappropriate it
is for me to endorse blowing up space shuttles???

Are you really incapable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner?

I stated that air bags increase both the spring stiffness, and the ride
characteristics of an existing pickup trucks suspension! Then you and
Bill Jeffery come along and say no they don't, they are dangerous, began
slinging insults, etc.

Bill Jeffrey wrote:
"and he MUST avoid all the spurious advice to cram some air bags into
the rear suspension to level it"
"Do whatever your ignorant mind tells you to do, but please don't
mislead the newbies who are looking for a legitimate answer to a
legitimate question."
"The roads are dangerous enough with idiots like you out there,
overloading your vehicles and begging for sway-induced oscillations."

Big Bill wrote:
"when towing is the concern, it's for extra load carrying
capacitry, which airbags won't provide."
"Do you think that only the
springs determine the weight ratings? It seems so.
A little more education on what constitutes a weight rating will make
you rethink this."

My bringing up the instance of an actual overloaded truck and the
benefit of its air bag use, was in direct rebuttal to your and Bill
Jeffery's naive insistence that airbags won't provide load carrying
capacity, not an endorsement of exceeding any weight ratings...

The "overloaded truck" literally illustrates how unrealistic your
position on air bags and their ability to provide load carrying capacity
is. Because you have no technical rebuttal (the teeter-totter analogy
actually supports my viewpoint on air bags), you try to switch the focus
of the conversation away, and claim that I have endorsed exceeding
weight ratings, how pathetic.

I'm talking about the handling and weight carrying benefits of using air
bags (within the rated GVWR) not overloading a vehicle!!!

Before you fire off your response try thinking about what you say, so it
at least gives the appearance you have extracted your head from your
hindquarters.

On 2005-03-09 14:26:05 -0600, 351CJ > said:

> Big Bill wrote:
>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:58:01 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Take your teeter-totter analogy, if you stick a jack stand under the
>>> heavy end, (or simply clamp the teeter-totter securely to the pivot
>>> point so it can no longer pivot, more closely resembling the geometry
>>> of the air bags) the light end will NOT get any lighter as you increase
>>> the weight on the heavy end. When your weight exceeds the structural
>>> integrity of the teeter-totters 2x10 it will snap, but it will not
>>> unload the light end.
>>
>>
>> And therein lies the problem with your advice.
>> You're recommending that people exceed the structural safety of their
>> vehicles.
>>
>
>
> BULL****!
>
> You need to try to follow along.
>
> At no point did I endorse overloading a vehicle beyond its GVWR, or
> suggest that anyone else do that!!!
>
> I AM DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF AIR BAGS ON THE
> SUSPENSION GEOMETRY! NOT GVWR!
>
> If I brought up a space shuttle explosion to illustrate fuel system
> limits and failures or ceramic tile attachment methods, would you then
> miss the point entirely and try to argue how unsafe and inappropriate
> it is for me to endorse blowing up space shuttles???
>
> Are you really incapable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner?
>
> I stated that air bags increase both the spring stiffness, and the ride
> characteristics of an existing pickup trucks suspension! Then you and
> Bill Jeffery come along and say no they don't, they are dangerous,
> began slinging insults, etc.
>
> Bill Jeffrey wrote:
> "and he MUST avoid all the spurious advice to cram some air bags into
> the rear suspension to level it"
> "Do whatever your ignorant mind tells you to do, but please don't
> mislead the newbies who are looking for a legitimate answer to a
> legitimate question."
> "The roads are dangerous enough with idiots like you out there,
> overloading your vehicles and begging for sway-induced oscillations."
>
> Big Bill wrote:
> "when towing is the concern, it's for extra load carrying
> capacitry, which airbags won't provide."
> "Do you think that only the
> springs determine the weight ratings? It seems so.
> A little more education on what constitutes a weight rating will make
> you rethink this."
>
> My bringing up the instance of an actual overloaded truck and the
> benefit of its air bag use, was in direct rebuttal to your and Bill
> Jeffery's naive insistence that airbags won't provide load carrying
> capacity, not an endorsement of exceeding any weight ratings...
>
> The "overloaded truck" literally illustrates how unrealistic your
> position on air bags and their ability to provide load carrying
> capacity is. Because you have no technical rebuttal (the teeter-totter
> analogy actually supports my viewpoint on air bags), you try to switch
> the focus of the conversation away, and claim that I have endorsed
> exceeding weight ratings, how pathetic.
>
> I'm talking about the handling and weight carrying benefits of using
> air bags (within the rated GVWR) not overloading a vehicle!!!
>
> Before you fire off your response try thinking about what you say, so
> it at least gives the appearance you have extracted your head from your
> hindquarters.

Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing it
off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just hit
"ignore sender".

gimmy a break! wrote:
> On 2005-03-09 14:26:05 -0600, 351CJ > said:
>
>> Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 09 Mar 2005 04:58:01 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Take your teeter-totter analogy, if you stick a jack stand under the
>>>> heavy end, (or simply clamp the teeter-totter securely to the pivot
>>>> point so it can no longer pivot, more closely resembling the
>>>> geometry of the air bags) the light end will NOT get any lighter as
>>>> you increase the weight on the heavy end. When your weight exceeds
>>>> the structural integrity of the teeter-totters 2x10 it will snap,
>>>> but it will not unload the light end.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> And therein lies the problem with your advice.
>>> You're recommending that people exceed the structural safety of their
>>> vehicles.
>>>
>>
>>
>> BULL****!
>>
>> You need to try to follow along.
>>
>> At no point did I endorse overloading a vehicle beyond its GVWR, or
>> suggest that anyone else do that!!!
>>
>> I AM DISCUSSING THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF AIR BAGS ON THE
>> SUSPENSION GEOMETRY! NOT GVWR!
>>
>> If I brought up a space shuttle explosion to illustrate fuel system
>> limits and failures or ceramic tile attachment methods, would you then
>> miss the point entirely and try to argue how unsafe and inappropriate
>> it is for me to endorse blowing up space shuttles???
>>
>> Are you really incapable of reasoning in a clear and consistent manner?
>>
>> I stated that air bags increase both the spring stiffness, and the
>> ride characteristics of an existing pickup trucks suspension! Then
>> you and Bill Jeffery come along and say no they don't, they are
>> dangerous, began slinging insults, etc.
>>
>> Bill Jeffrey wrote:
>> "and he MUST avoid all the spurious advice to cram some air bags into
>> the rear suspension to level it"
>> "Do whatever your ignorant mind tells you to do, but please don't
>> mislead the newbies who are looking for a legitimate answer to a
>> legitimate question."
>> "The roads are dangerous enough with idiots like you out there,
>> overloading your vehicles and begging for sway-induced oscillations."
>>
>> Big Bill wrote:
>> "when towing is the concern, it's for extra load carrying
>> capacitry, which airbags won't provide."
>> "Do you think that only the
>> springs determine the weight ratings? It seems so.
>> A little more education on what constitutes a weight rating will make
>> you rethink this."
>>
>> My bringing up the instance of an actual overloaded truck and the
>> benefit of its air bag use, was in direct rebuttal to your and Bill
>> Jeffery's naive insistence that airbags won't provide load carrying
>> capacity, not an endorsement of exceeding any weight ratings...
>>
>> The "overloaded truck" literally illustrates how unrealistic your
>> position on air bags and their ability to provide load carrying
>> capacity is. Because you have no technical rebuttal (the
>> teeter-totter analogy actually supports my viewpoint on air bags), you
>> try to switch the focus of the conversation away, and claim that I
>> have endorsed exceeding weight ratings, how pathetic.
>>
>> I'm talking about the handling and weight carrying benefits of using
>> air bags (within the rated GVWR) not overloading a vehicle!!!
>>
>> Before you fire off your response try thinking about what you say, so
>> it at least gives the appearance you have extracted your head from
>> your hindquarters.
>
>
> Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing it
> off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just hit
> "ignore sender".
>

Ya, LOL you need to do that Bill...

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:03 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>> Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing it
>> off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just hit
>> "ignore sender".
>>
>
>Ya, LOL you need to do that Bill...

Um, that wasn't me.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Big Bill wrote:
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:03 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>
>
>>>Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing it
>>>off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just hit
>>>"ignore sender".
>>>
>>
>>Ya, LOL you need to do that Bill...
>
>
> Um, that wasn't me.
>

Um, LOL, Ya I Know that, it was Bill Jeffrey...
You do realize both of you are going by the name Bill, right?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 01:37:22 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:03 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing it
>>>>off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just hit
>>>>"ignore sender".
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ya, LOL you need to do that Bill...
>>
>>
>> Um, that wasn't me.
>>
>
>Um, LOL, Ya I Know that, it was Bill Jeffrey...
>You do realize both of you are going by the name Bill, right?

I don't see any indication of that in his post.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Yeah, that was me. You know, this discussion has gotten so convoluted
that I've lost track of who is objecting to what. Was it the fact that
I asked him not to mislead the newbies into thinking they can safely
overload their vehicles?

Bill Jeffrey
========================
351CJ wrote:

> Big Bill wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 02:55:03 GMT, 351CJ > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>> Hey guys, this is REALLY starting to get old! How about continuing
>>>> it off of the news group or better yet, maybe it time for me to just
>>>> hit "ignore sender".
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ya, LOL you need to do that Bill...
>>
>>
>>
>> Um, that wasn't me.
>>
>
> Um, LOL, Ya I Know that, it was Bill Jeffrey...
> You do realize both of you are going by the name Bill, right?