I do not think that forcing your hypothetical hairy-chested bloke who had replaced his Hyundai Tucson with beaut new dual cab ute with an overrated towing capacity, plus generators, fridges, boat on top, and 3,500kg van to undergo a towing license course will make him behave any differently. IMHO what has lowered our road toll over recent decades isn't education and training but more enforcement, a much greater risk of getting caught, and stiffer penalties. So it will be for van accidents. That's what will force people to take less on a trip and be more careful how they load it. I honestly don't think that licensing will change the root cause of all the accidents that has people calling for licenses. It may educate those who are ignorant about weights, but licensing for all is a pretty heavy-handed way of solving that particular problem. Forcing the ute makers to specify more realistic tow limits would help, but I'm not optimistic about that.

bristte wrote:

---

I do not think that forcing your hypothetical hairy-chested bloke who had replaced his Hyundai Tucson with beaut new dual cab ute with an overrated towing capacity, plus generators, fridges, boat on top, and 3,500kg van to undergo a towing license course will make him behave any differently. IMHO what has lowered our road toll over recent decades isn't education and training but more enforcement, a much greater risk of getting caught, and stiffer penalties. So it will be for van accidents. That's what will force people to take less on a trip and be more careful how they load it. I honestly don't think that licensing will change the root cause of all the accidents that has people calling for licenses. It may educate those who are ignorant about weights, but licensing for all is a pretty heavy-handed way of solving that particular problem. Forcing the ute makers to specify more realistic tow limits would help, but I'm not optimistic about that.

---

 Should those in authority finally see the light and introduce a trailer-towing licence that includes questions on how to correctly load a trailer, knowing correct towball weight, and legislate so that NEVER can the towing vehicle have less weight on its wheels than does any PIG trailer it tows, the safer we all will be. Might I suggest that the vast majority of car buyers would have no clue on how tow-ratings are issued, and possibly don't care, but the present situation where Ma and Pa Kettle, who have likely never driven anything bigger than a Corolla, can trade said Corolla on a twin-cab ute, or similar unsuitable vehicle, hook up the 3500kg ATM van, load the ute with "essentials", and set out to "Do the lap" is ridiculous in the extreme. How anybody can consider that it is even remotely acceptable to have a car tow a PIG trailer that is 40% heavier than the tow car is beyond comprehension for anybody who understands physics and is even remotely responsible. If safety is of any concern, ALWAYS the weight on the wheels of the car should be at least 10% greater than the weight on the van's wheels. And a prompt revision of how tow ratings are issued would be a BIG help to those who don't know weights and dynamics. Cheers

So Yobarr, how do you tow 3500 kg with a LC 79 series which has a GVM of 3300 kg fully loaded, which is not good anyway. It is not 10% heavier than the Pig as you say. Plus you are right on the GCM of 6800 kg, no room for a slab of beer.

You may twist these figures around as you like, but I venture to say there is not many tugs at least 10% heavier than a 3500 kg van.

Cheers Bob

Bobdown wrote:

---

So Yobarr, how do you tow 3500 kg with a LC 79 series which has a GVM of 3300 kg fully loaded, which is not good anyway. It is not 10% heavier than the Pig as you say. Plus you are right on the GCM of 6800 kg, no room for a slab of beer.

You may twist these figures around as you like, but I venture to say there is not many tugs at least 10% heavier than a 3500 kg van.

Cheers Bob

---

 Bob, I was pretty sure that you would be among those who surely would understand that 10% (350kg) of the 3500kg ATM of the van is transferred to the car when it is hooked up? Thus we have GTM of 3150kg and car yGVM of 3300kg. Whilst not ideal as a factory unit this unit runs 2300kg on the rear axle which very effectively reduces the effects of yaw, which is the one of the biggest causes of caravan accidents. Compared with the stupidly low rear axle ratings of twin-cabs, at around 1850kg, and the much over-rated LC200 at 1950kg, you would have to agree that the extra 350kg-450kg on the rear axle would improve the stability of the whole unit? My car is a bit different in that I run legally at 6800kh GCM, with weight on van's axles (GTM?) of 3150kg, front axle weight of 1350kg and 2300kg on the rear axle, for total weight on wheels of car (GVM?) of 3650kg. Thus the weight on wheels of car is around 16% greater than weight on wheels of van. SAFE. Experts in this field agree that ALWAYS the weight on the car's wheels should be greater than the weight on the van's wheels, some suggesting 10% greater and others saying 20%. Again, for the benefit of those who seem not to understand weights and simple physics, it is LAW that if a vehicle has a GVM of more than 4500kg any PIG trailer that it tows must ALWAYS weigh less than the towing vehicle. Common sense and simple physics at play! This is why many earthmoving contractors have to put a bit of ballast in the back of the truck when they are using a PIG trailer to shift their machines from site to site. Recently I read that consideration is being given to expansion of that law to include ALL towing vehicles. The sooner the better, I say, to protect people from their own stupidity. Using one of the popular Twin-cab utes to tow a 3500kg PIG trailer? Tell 'em they're dreaming. Cheers

P.S Brakes on trailer have little to do with stability because once the van starts swaying it is travelling more quickly than is the car, and is trying to overtake the car. (Work that out!)

P.P.S Just re-read your post, Bob, and surely you jest? Assuming the generally accepted 10% towball weight, and a 3500kg ATM van, a stock- standard 79 cannot ever get more than 6450kg GCM, even with perfect loading. With absolutely perfect loading, assuming the same  weights, an LC200 MIGHT get to 6500kg. Because of the lightweight rear axle on these cars, when towing, the magical GVM upgrade on this car gives only an extra 50kg, so why bother? The GVM upgrade certainly is of benefit when the car is to be used for touring, with lots of passengers or cargo, but is of limited benefit when towing.

yobarr wrote:

---

Bobdown wrote:

---

So Yobarr, how do you tow 3500 kg with a LC 79 series which has a GVM of 3300 kg fully loaded, which is not good anyway. It is not 10% heavier than the Pig as you say. Plus you are right on the GCM of 6800 kg, no room for a slab of beer.

You may twist these figures around as you like, but I venture to say there is not many tugs at least 10% heavier than a 3500 kg van.

Cheers Bob

---

 Bob, I was pretty sure that you would be among those who surely would understand that 10% (350kg) of the 3500kg ATM of the van is transferred to the car when it is hooked up? Thus we have GTM of 3150kg and car yGVM of 3300kg. Whilst not ideal as a factory unit this unit runs 2300kg on the rear axle which very effectively reduces the effects of yaw, which is the one of the biggest causes of caravan accidents. Compared with the stupidly low rear axle ratings of twin-cabs, at around 1850kg, and the much over-rated LC200 at 1950kg, you would have to agree that the extra 350kg-450kg on the rear axle would improve the stability of the whole unit? My car is a bit different in that I run legally at 6800kh GCM, with weight on van's axles (GTM?) of 3150kg, front axle weight of 1350kg and 2300kg on the rear axle, for total weight on wheels of car (GVM?) of 3650kg. Thus the weight on wheels of car is around 16% greater than weight on wheels of van. SAFE. Experts in this field agree that ALWAYS the weight on the car's wheels should be greater than the weight on the van's wheels, some suggesting 10% greater and others saying 20%. Again, for the benefit of those who seem not to understand weights and simple physics, it is LAW that if a vehicle has a GVM of more than 4500kg any PIG trailer that it tows must ALWAYS weigh less than the towing vehicle. Common sense and simple physics at play! This is why many earthmoving contractors have to put a bit of ballast in the back of the truck when they are using a PIG trailer to shift their machines from site to site. Recently I read that consideration is being given to expansion of that law to include ALL towing vehicles. The sooner the better, I say, to protect people from their own stupidity. Using one of the popular Twin-cab utes to tow a 3500kg PIG trailer? Tell 'em they're dreaming. Cheers

P.S Brakes on trailer have little to do with stability because once the van starts swaying it is travelling more quickly than is the car, and is trying to overtake the car. (Work that out!)

P.P.S Just re-read your post, Bob, and surely you jest? Assuming the generally accepted 10% towball weight, and a 3500kg ATM van, a stock- standard 79 cannot ever get more than 6450kg GCM, even with perfect loading. With absolutely perfect loading, assuming the same  weights, an LC200 MIGHT get to 6500kg. Because of the lightweight rear axle on these cars, when towing, the magical GVM upgrade on this car gives only an extra 50kg, so why bother? The GVM upgrade certainly is of benefit when the car is to be used for touring, with lots of passengers or cargo, but is of limited benefit when towing.

 

---

 Yobarr, it is still not !0% heavier than a 3500 kg van with the 350 kg tbw taken off, close but no.

I don't what you re-read in your PPS, I never mentioned a LC200, all I said there would not be many tugs that qualify for your 10% rule of being heavier than the van. 

At your 3650kg GVM, and 3150kg van it is a fully laden nightmare at 90kph, with no room for that important slab of beer. You probably have to run with empty water tanks coz you can't fit any more weight on.

Cheers Bob

DMaxer wrote:

---

The thought of another eye glazing rendition from you Yobarr is great news for any forum member suffering from acute insomnia.

---

DMaxer wrote:

---

The thought of another eye glazing rendition from you Yobarr is great news for any forum member suffering from acute insomnia.

---

 For someone who apparently finds my posts tiresome you certainly do seem to spend a lot of time reading them? However, you clearly struggle to understand the basics physics that I regularly explain. Unfortunately, you will have to wait until tomorrow to again try to grasp the basics as I am in an area of poor reception and unable to post the photos I need to help to jog Graham's memory about the experts who say that ALWAYS the weight on the car's wheels should be greater than the weight on the van's wheels, some suggesting 10% greater and others saying 20%. You may have noticed that I posted a screen shot of a story that explained that "the laden vehicle needed to be at least as heavy as the laden trailer, and that the greater the ratio the better". This is EXACTLY what I have been struggling to make some members understand, although there clearly are others who understand simple physics, and load their cars accordingly. The screen shot also explains the simple physics involved in minimising TBO (towball overhang) and maximising wheelbase. Clearly the fact that these basic truths were discovered in 1921 by Fruehauf, a world wide leader in building heavy trailers, went right over the head of one member, who doesn't seem to understand that what was simple physics in 1921 still is simple physics today. Physics in 2022 is EXACTLY the same as Physics in 1921. Sorry.  Actually READING and understanding my posts, rather than simply looking at them, and arguing about things they clearly don't understand would perhaps help some to see what is so glaringly obvious to so many others. If safety is of ANY concern, ALWAYS  the weight on the wheels of the car should be greater than the weight on the wheels of the van. Not negotiable, but reference to the "Tail wagging the  Dog" may assist comprehension? Tomorrow I will attempt to answer Graham's list of questions. Cheers.

vince56 wrote:

---

Hmmm.... my LC200 is overrated? I have driven a couple of 79's, the reason I don't have a 79 series is that they are designed for farms! 150kw vs 200kw, 430Nm torque vs 650, drives like a truck, thirsty as all get out, very basic and uncomfortable interior with very little room, raer seat like a park bench. Fantastic car for a farmer or tradie, give it a miss for long miles on the road. Whatever suits the individual, good on you, I just don't understand why some have to continually denigrate something they don't have!

---

 Hi Vince. Thanks for your response, but you have misunderstood my statement that the LC200 is over rated. There is little doubt that it is a powerful and comfortable car that will give many years of good service to owners. However, there is NO WAY KNOWN that it can safely tow much more than around 3000kg as a PIG trailer because of its stupidly short wheelbase, long TBO and super-lightweight rear axle. The much vaunted GVM upgrade does little to address these problems, while a WDH is of no use if you're towing 3500kg as it will put you over your van's ATM. And a McHitch only makes things worse. Interesting opinion of the LC79, although mine has been tuned to give the same engine output figures as a 200. There is no disputing your assertion that they're "basic", but I after a lifetime driving trucks I don't find mine uncomfortable at all, and I recently travelled more than 700km in one day on dirt roads in the Gascoyne Junction,Cobra, Mt Augustus and Meekatharra areas, trying to beat the forecast rain. No problems! Your "thirsty as all get out" comment also is of interest as I get 5.8km/litre (17 litres/100km) running at 6800kg GCM. Good enough for me! Cheers 

P.S When I set out to find a car to tow with I did indeed drive an LC200, along with the BIG Yank Tanks, but by the time I'd worked through my list of requirements there was only one car left, so I bought it! As you say, "Whatever suits the individual" but surely it would be morally wrong for me to not point out to owners and buyers the deficiencies of the vehicles they're considering buying? The idea that any of the popular twin-cab utes, an LC200 or a Ram 1500 can safely tow 3500kg as a PIG trailer is absurd, and stupidity in the extreme, but because of slick marketing and most people not understanding weights, these cars are sold in their hundreds. Cheers.

yobarr wrote:

---

vince56 wrote:

---

Hmmm.... my LC200 is overrated? I have driven a couple of 79's, the reason I don't have a 79 series is that they are designed for farms! 150kw vs 200kw, 430Nm torque vs 650, drives like a truck, thirsty as all get out, very basic and uncomfortable interior with very little room, raer seat like a park bench. Fantastic car for a farmer or tradie, give it a miss for long miles on the road. Whatever suits the individual, good on you, I just don't understand why some have to continually denigrate something they don't have!

---

 Hi Vince. Thanks for your response, but you have misunderstood my statement that the LC200 is over rated. There is little doubt that it is a powerful and comfortable car that will give many years of good service to owners. However, there is NO WAY KNOWN that it can safely tow much more than around 3000kg as a PIG trailer because of its stupidly short wheelbase, long TBO and super-lightweight rear axle. The much vaunted GVM upgrade does little to address these problems, while a WDH is of no use if you're towing 3500kg as it will put you over your van's ATM. And a McHitch only makes things worse. Interesting opinion of the LC79, although mine has been tuned to give the same engine output figures as a 200. There is no disputing your assertion that they're "basic", but I after a lifetime driving trucks I don't find mine uncomfortable at all, and I recently travelled more than 700km in one day on dirt roads in the Gascoyne Junction,Cobra, Mt Augustus and Meekatharra areas, trying to beat the forecast rain. No problems! Your "thirsty as all get out" comment also is of interest as I get 5.8km/litre (17 litres/100km) running at 6800kg GCM. Good enough for me! Cheers 

P.S When I set out to find a car to tow with I did indeed drive an LC200, along with the BIG Yank Tanks, but by the time I'd worked through my list of requirements there was only one car left, so I bought it! As you say, "Whatever suits the individual" but surely it would be morally wrong for me to not point out to owners and buyers the deficiencies of the vehicles they're considering buying? The idea that any of the popular twin-cab utes, an LC200 or a Ram 1500 can safely tow 3500kg as a PIG trailer is absurd, and stupidity in the extreme, but because of slick marketing and most people not understanding weights, these cars are sold in their hundreds. Cheers.

---

 Well done vince56.

You got it all in one description.

All except for the often overlooked and not mentioned fact that the rear track is much narrower than the front track which puts the 79 series into the group of one of the most unstable vehicles currently on Australian roads.

This narrow track causes them to *tramline* on all but the smoothest of road surfaces creating an experience that only throwing thousands of dollars at the modification to widen the track will fix.

They are a great vehicle on the farm or the mine site but they should stay confined inside the property fence.

Anyone only has to try to fit in one is enough unless the driver is a *small man*

The only reason we dont see many of the 79s RSup with a van on the back is that most are aware of the instability caused by the track difference and the sheer discomfort of forking out the 80 to 90 grand to put up with a vehicle that is more uncomfortable than the farm tractor.

Most caravanners want just a tiny bit of comfort and in all reality most of us do not tow 3500 kg vans as is automatically assumed by some.

As an edit to above,

It is constantly mentioned that TBO is a problem with the 200 so I might suggest that anyone wishing to know the fact just observe the 79 and the variety of tow hitches,. I think some pointed out on here some time ago that the 79 in standard form is very close to the TBO of a 200.

It is when the hitch is shortened so that you have to climb under the tray of the 79 to hook it up is when the result is a shorter TBO.

---

 Well done vince56.

You got it all in one description.

All except for the often overlooked and not mentioned fact that the rear track is much narrower than the front track which puts the 79 series into the group of one of the most unstable vehicles currently on Australian roads.

This narrow track causes them to *tramline* on all but the smoothest of road surfaces creating an experience that only throwing thousands of dollars at the modification to widen the track will fix.

They are a great vehicle on the farm or the mine site but they should stay confined inside the property fence.

Anyone only has to try to fit in one is enough unless the driver is a *small man*

The only reason we dont see many of the 79s RSup with a van on the back is that most are aware of the instability caused by the track difference and the sheer discomfort of forking out the 80 to 90 grand to put up with a vehicle that is more uncomfortable than the farm tractor.

Most caravanners want just a tiny bit of comfort and in all reality most of us do not tow 3500 kg vans as is automatically assumed by some.

As an edit to above,

It is constantly mentioned that TBO is a problem with the 200 so I might suggest that anyone wishing to know the fact just observe the 79 and the variety of tow hitches,. I think some pointed out on here some time ago that the 79 in standard form is very close to the TBO of a 200.

It is when the hitch is shortened so that you have to climb under the tray of the 79 to hook it up is when the result is a shorter TBO.

 

---

Ivan, we've covered this stuff so many times that it is ridiculous, but I will again point out that the rear track on the 70 series has been the same for decades. The front track was increased to accomodate the little V8 so obviously the "footprint" now is greater with an associated increase in stability.      My car still has the standard rear track because I run 2300kg on that axle and I was not comfortable with any of the kits available to increase track. Never has the different track caused me any trouble, and is not even noticeable anywhere except in soft sand without the van. Then the car does skip around a bit, but no problem for anybody with any driving skills. Your claim that only a "small man" could fit in the cab is a nonsense as I have no trouble getting comfortable, and driving for many hours at a time, while at 175cm tall and 110kg I am certainly not "small". You suggest that the reason we don't see many 79s RSup with a van on the back is that many are aware of the (alleged) instability caused by the track difference and the sheer discomfort of forking out the 80 to 90 grand. Firstly, if you can find a 79 for "80 to 90 grand" please let me know, as they're selling for waaaay over $100k second hand, with a 3-4 year waiting list for new, but no more orders being taken. Surely there would be good reasons for its popularity?  As for TBO your claim that one would "have to climb under the tray" to hook up, that would be no problem were it true, as my tray is 900mm clear of the ground. As well as an LC200 having an increased TBO compared with an LC79, the 200 also suffers from having a much shorter wheelbase, with the difference being a massive 330mm. Game over, but if you wish to use a 200 to tow more than about 3000kg ATM you'll need a WDH. More TBO. More yaw. Cheers.

Long Weekend wrote:

---

Hi Yobar,

No wonder you are able to fit into your car easily - although at 175 millimetres tall it would be a bit hard to see over the steering wheel!

Sorry, I just could not resist that!

But I know you mean 1.75 metres!

Murray

---

 Thanks for pointing that out Murray. Been a tough day again trying to impress upon a couple of members the importance of ALWAYS having more weight on the car's wheels than is on the van's wheels when towing a PIG trailer, if safety is of any concern.. All sorted now! Thanks Murray. Cheers

DMaxer wrote:

---

We are so lucky having Brainiac out there watching over us poor fools. It makes you wonder how we ever managed to stay in one piece towing our vans before he came along and steered us along the road to enlightenment.

---

 Nothing more than good luck, as the associated physics always have been the same. You can lead a horse to water .. Cheers