Are We Lost wrote:

---

An empty ute is usually a bit too light at the back for good handling. I know my Ranger benefits from some weight in the tray, particularly noticeable in the wet. With a small van, the weight on the towball probably helps. But 350kg, and the leverage effect means closer to 500kg extra on the rear axle, while at the same time, reducing weight on the front wheels.

When you add extra stuff in the tub for a longer trip away, you soon get close to the maximum rear axle loading, while the front will probably be reduced from its empty weight. The balance has now reversed and the front is too light in comparison. The front/back need similar weight on them for similar surface grip.

If a tail wag commences, unbalanced front/rear weight loadings make it more difficult to control.

However, most discussions on this subject usually focus on static loads. It's on the road that you really notice the difference. With a heavy van, the difference in road feel between no WDH and having one is like chalk and cheese. Without it, when you pass over road undulations the porpoising effect is very noticeable. At those times the loss of traction on the front wheels is substantial. With a WDH fitted the porpoising is very significantly damped, thus maintaining tyre grip on the front better.

There was a video posted here a while ago showing the vehicle's front wheels actually becoming airborne while overtaking on the highway. No doubt improved loading would have helped, but it highlights the situation.

Air bags and spring upgrades may reduce porpoising, but not as well as a WDH.

---

 Agree. What some fail to realise is the rear axle acts like the fulcrum of a see-saw. So when you add weight to the rear, even with spring or air bag upgrades a lot of weight is still being lifted off the front wheels compromising steering and braking. IMO People who opt for the upgrade often do it because they are too slack to rig the WDH everytime they tow. 

Are We Lost wrote:

---

Iana, you took my post as black and white ..... dangerous to drive when empty, dangerous to drive when fully laden. That is far from what I said or meant.

Vehicles are a compromise. The Ranger is designed to be a compropmise between capable workhorse and family car. I believe it's a little light in the back when empty, and a little heavy in the back when laden to capacity. And as Bomurra says, the load must be distributed, not just all in the back. The rear axle limit of 1850kg ensures this. I certainly don't expect it's best handlng to be when loaded to capacity.

I am guessing that if the designers set it up with perfect weight distribution when empty, it would not have the payload it does.

As for your measurements, I assume they are theoretical, and I have not measured the distances to verify them. However, when I put my 320kg drawbar load on the towball,the rear axle weight increased by 480kg and the front wheels lessened by 160kg. That was measured at a weighbridge, with 2 passengers, extra fuel and water, and loaded to the full 6000kg GCM.

---

The figures you've supplied show that you've a good understanding of the physics involved here,although weighbridge increments may affect accuracy.Ranger cannot SAFELY tow more than about 2900kg ATM van because of the lightweight 1850kg rear axle and 6000kg GCM figure. The axle figures of the car,added together,are 3330kg,so there is a little bit of 'wriggle room'.SAFELY tow 3500kg? Not a chance,in my opinion.Cheers

Well, if you purchase a van of a sensible weight you don't need to buy and modify a tractor in the first place. I'd certainly never buy a LC rough rider. I like a bit of comfort and Ute that looks decent, and doubles as a family car, not like an old tractor.

Everyone should buy a Triton, bloody great all round Ute. I certainly feel safe with the WDH fitted when towing. Beats riding in a ute with the suspension of an old bullock dray and chespr than an upgrade made up of cheap leaf springs, 1920s technology.

Cheers.

https://youtu.be/7RYpJAUMo2M  Go rocky.  

oldbloke wrote:

---

Now for the truth. Laughs aside.

All non-believers need to watch this video in its entirety.

Using air bags, and I believe heavier rear springs does level the vehicle, however the rear axle takes most of the load and front axles the weight is significantly reduced resulting in compromised steering and braking. So the problem is still there.

When a WDH is fitted the weight from the rear axle is distributed to the front axles and the trailer. It also levels the tow vehicle. This restores steering and braking back to normal.

The scales prove this beyond doubt.

youtu.be/XBZu39pQ8Gg

Dont pay for useless rear spring upgrades or air bags.get a WDH and understand how to adjust it.

youtu.be/4DC-lfNnKf4

It's a shame we don't have ant "qualified" people here to answer questions on this subject.

---

 It will take me hours to point out the inaccuracies and self-promotion in the WDH v Airbags video,so not just now.The WDH video,with tape measures etc,is nearly 8 years old,and contradicts some of what the first video shows,so that too will take time to sort.Just to get started,how on earth does connecting a trailer to a car,with a nett drop in car body height of 1 9/16",add 215lb to the trailer axles,which have increased from 3785lb to 4000lb? And then we are told that,when the airbags are inflated,suddenly the trailer's axle group has lost 90lb,down to 3910lb,but is still 125lb  above the "baseline" weight? The whole video is a joke,not believed by even the  smaller of the two men in it.(Body language) And their total weights give different figures throughout the video.Later.Cheers

oldbloke wrote:

---

Yobarr, you just can't admit you made a mistake getting a rear end upgrade that does very little if anything to correct the problem of less weight on the ront steering axles.

If your (you're?) sooo, good show us, don't say you don't have time. You keep telling us your an expert.

---

 Neil,could I respectfully point out to you that NEVER have I referred to myself as an expert,but I do have a bit of knowledge gained from many years dealing with weights and measures.Understanding simple physics,and having a but of common sense certainly help me.These qualities may be foreign to you,but all I ever do on this forum is try to help people understand the basics,despite sometimes being contradicted by well meaning,but misinformed,members.Seems some never will learn,but when I first joined mmy comments were often met with derision.However,over time,members gave realised that I do know what I'm talking about,and have contacted me by PM for help, which I have been happy to give.Whether you understood or not,I do not know,but previously I have explained that all I did to my car was arrange to have the respective axle carrying capacities (1480kg and 2300kg) combined to give 3780kg GVM.As for your suggestion that I have "less weight on the front wheels",I still have 1350kg there.How much do you have? Unlike many lightweights,this car was designed for heavy stuff,and I can run at 6800kg GCM,legal on all axles.Saying that the common twin-cab utes can "tow 3500kg" or even 3000kg for some, is ridiculous in the extreme,if SAFETY is of any concern.MANY times I have explained the physics involved here,so I will not elaborate.If you don't yet understand,you never will,or I can only surmise that it is because you don't want to understand? As for your claim that I said that I "don't have time",once again you've failed to read my post.Does the word "Later" mean anything to you? Already I have briefly outlined the inaccuracies in the video,and once I get my Diesel heater sorted,I will elaborate.But,once again,could I point out to you that never have I referred to myself as an expert.Hope this helps you to understand? Cheers

iana wrote:

---

Now ! Now!, no sparring on this thread, or I'll summon Dougewe to sent you both off to the naughty room corner (opposite corners) :)
I tried to work out where the fulcrum points would be to calculate the moments with the tow vehicle, and concluded that there are so many varying variables it would blow my mind.

---

 The fulcrum is the rear axle,Ian,as no matter where weight is applied to the rear of the car,it pivots around that axle.There are simple formulae for all such calculations,but I will not confuse the issue.Cheers

iana wrote:

---

Yes the fulcrum is about the rear axle, but unless its a wishbone type suspension, the wheel base dimension will move as the load is applied, the rear wheels will move back, and then go inverted ! so its a variable.

---

What you say,Ian,is correct but the variance would be so small as to be almost immeasurable,maybe 1%. Similar system on caravans,where axle movement creates roll understeer or roll oversteer,which is a major pitfall for those who think that switching from underslung to overslung springs is a good way to increase ground clearance.Cheers

Your, you're are interchangeable mate. At least I can use the space bar.  

Cheers

The age of the video is totally irrelevant . BTW it's a fulcrum, so no matter what you do to the rear springs, weight still comes off the front wheels. Simple physics. Think see-saw or levers. 

Cheers

iana wrote:

---

Well if the fulcrum is the center of the rear axle, or the point where the rear wheel is on the ground, I am still at a loss to see how "are-we-lost" ball weight has increased so much. Quote: However, when I put my 320kg drawbar load on the tow ball, the rear axle weight increased by 480kg and the front wheels lessened by 160kg. That was measured at a weighbridge, with 2 passengers, extra fuel and water, and loaded to the full 6000kg GCM.

---

The increase in the weight applied to the rear axle,in your case,is 50% more than the towball weight. This is about average,which is why cars with small TBO (towball overhang,or distance from rear axle to hitchpoint) have less weight added to the rear axle,and are inherently more stable,and safer.Cheers.

oldbloke wrote:

---

Mate you seem to have difficulty using a key board and understanding to basic physics of cars. The key board has a space bar. Suggest you use it.  Provided that my posts are easy to read,and easily understood,I see no need to use your "space bar". Throwing in a Red Herring in an attempt to distract from your crumbling position in this debate is pathetic.

The rear Axle is a fulcrum, think levers and see saws. No matter what springs or air bags you install, if you add weight to the tow ball weight MUST come off the front axles. Scales don't lie, and the age of the video has nothing to do with the very simple physics. Claiming it's old is clutching at straws.  Regarding fulcrums,levers and seesaws,when have I ever claimed anything  different? You claim that "scales don't lie",which may or may not be true,but accurate reporting of the readings may not always occur. Without wasting too much time dissecting this self-promoting video report,I already have found 140kg of inaccuracies. My intention was to write a detailed report on every stage of their weighing process,but since you do not understand even the basics,I feel that I would be wasting my time.Rote learning is a proven method of teaching,but it works best when people WANT to learn.Arguing your point from a losing position is pointless.

Are you saying Hayman Reece has been lieing to their customers. The WDH distributes the TBW to the front axles and van axles. Something heavy springs can never do.

This is becoming monotonous.When have I EVER claimed anything different? If you care to study my posts from early in my membership here,you will see that when I first wrote that weight was added to the van's axle group by a WDH,thus increasing total weight (ATM if you like) I was shouted down by one and all.Subsequently I was proven right,so you have at least learned that. 

Here is some additional info for you about levers. 

 You should have bought a mighty Triton.When referring to cars,putting "Triton" and "mighty" in the same sentence is ridiculous.They're a "dime a dozen",and probably overpriced at that.

 Cheers

 

---

iana wrote:

---

Well if the fulcrum is the center of the rear axle, or the point where the rear wheel is on the ground, I am still at a loss to see how "are-we-lost" ball weight has increased so much. Quote: However, when I put my 320kg drawbar load on the tow ball, the rear axle weight increased by 480kg and the front wheels lessened by 160kg. That was measured at a weighbridge, with 2 passengers, extra fuel and water, and loaded to the full 6000kg GCM.

---

 I had a fresh look at the figures. The weighbridge had 20kg increments and it was at a dump site, so a couple of readings differred by about 20kg when calculating totals. The actual measurements were:

So the towball load of 340kg resulted in 500kg increase on the rear axle and a reduction of 160kg on the front. Once the WDH was adjusted, it transferred 120kg off the back wheels, distributing 80kg to the front wheels and 20kg to the van (yes, the raw figures show a discrepancy of 20kg).

The figures in red are where the loads were over the limit. It was packed to the gills with full van tanks, extra water, spare battery, fuel, beer and provisions, and would very rarely be driven like this. The weighing highlighted that I needed to get rid of a few things.