+- Wanderlodge Gurus - The Member Funded Wanderlodge Forum (http://www.wanderlodgegurus.com)
+-- Forum: Yahoo Groups Archive (/forumdisplay.php?fid=61)
+--- Forum: WanderlodgeForum (/forumdisplay.php?fid=63)
+--- Thread: 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem (/showthread.php?tid=3024)
Pages: 1 2
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Lee Davis - 07-25-2006 08:15
We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full time). This is
the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately and
duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the tire
pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended by
Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get rid
of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more than
50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that helps
with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill Coleman,
been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this model.
They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all factory
installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so, what
did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety situation
I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
blowout going down a mountain or something else).
Thanks for any info you can give.
Lee Davis
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Neil & Pat - 07-25-2006 13:06
Hi Lee, thanks for writing. I am very sorry to hear of your (coaches)
âweightâ problem but you are far from alone. First, so you will know who is
talking to you; I am a 32 year active RVer, 15 year Bluebird owner and a 36
year tire engineer who upon retirement volunteered nearly 4 years with the
RVSEF the group that weighed your coach at the FMCA rally. Since that time
I have written a comprehensive book on RV safety with a strong emphasis on
the weight issues because they are not only prevalent but the cause of most
of the problems and concerns that we face as RVers.
When you were weighed you were given your vehicleâs weights written on a
fairly long detailed pamphlet, which listed step-by-step the initial steps
to take to get safe and legal. That is a very good start (I actually wrote
that document several years ago) and I am pleased that you have already
followed many of the recommendations in your effort to help alleviate the
problem. Your problem appears to go beyond what can be easily accomplished
yet there is more that can be done. When making any changes please keep
track of all weigh removed from your coach; in addition you need to make a
âroughâ determination as to where that weight was located i.e. the weight
that you removed was located behind the rear axle? Between the axles or
forward on the coach. That will help you to determine which axle overload
was reduced by your effort and by approximately how much. In your case the
overload in the rear is worse that the front so shifting weight will also
aid in minimizing the problem at all locations. You did not state the
actual weight differential from side-to-side so the magnitude of your
overloads may actually be worst than stated if the side-to-side differential
is high (note this is not the case with most BBs without a slide). In any
case the basic steps are to immediately eliminate all controllable weight
i.e. dump the black water totally, dump fresh water to no more than ¼ tank
(for emergencies) and get rid of personal goods aggressively (promise to
always travel in this configuration in the future). You indicate that you
are full-timers yet your total weight most likely does not exceed 2000#. I
have found through our work at the RVSEF that the average full-timer carries
in excess of #3000, in all likelihood your do as well. Note that it may be
necessary to even limit yourself to less than a full tank of fuel (drastic
but very important.) You did not indicate but it is almost a certainty that
you tow something, if that vehicle is on a trailer or dolly there is weight
carried by the RV that can be eliminated. After all of this is fully
addressed, there is still something significant that you can and should do
that is when you are driving you are ânot towing a car but a trailerâ; you
can legally and properly carry as much as #800-1000 in the car because at
that time (driving) your car is empty (no passengers) thus it has excess
capacity before it reached itâs GVWR, inconvenient yes but very important.
Donât forget that you will also require brakes on your toad; No responsible
RVer will tow without them.
One final consideration is that your driving habits can be altered to give
you greater margins for your tires thereby offsetting some of the overload
consequences. Slowing down to 55mph is the law in many states for good
solid reasons. Note that for a tire rated at 65mph (most large RV tires)
the max load rating is appropriate for speeds from 51-65 however, slowing to
50 will actually increase the tires load carrying capacity by approximately
8% (this info is all contained in the Tire & Rim Association manual); this
canât be carried to an extreme but you get the idea our tires gain
capability with every mph we slow down.
The real issue here is that the coach you purchased as âspecâedâ by the
original owner and operated by you does not have the payload capacity to
meet your expectations as a full time RVer. That point could be debated all
day without resolving the issue but the bottom line is that the owner has
the ultimate responsibility to live within the vehicleâs limitations (your
are legally liable). If new, it is often possible to twist the
manufacturers arm to help resolve the problem but in a 10+ year old coach
there is virtually no recourse available to the owner. This is one of few
times that reengineering the vehicle may be necessary to assure your safety
but this will not rectify the legal issues. Note, that only the original
manufacturer can change the data plate limitations that were originally
applied to the vehicle and they have virtually no incentive to do so. In
your situation, larger or higher capacity tires make sense. However, there
are several considerations that must be satisfied if this is attempted i.e.
you may not have adequate wheels (size or pressure rating), there may not be
adequate tire spacing or wheel well clearance, higher tire pressures will be
required, the turning angle limits may have to be reset and the vehicles
computer and/or speedometer may be adversely affected and reset. Even after
all that work & expense to make the vehicle safe to drive you will still be
illegal if you exceed the posted GVRW of the coach. In the absolute extreme
if you wish to be totally safe and legal while maintaining your present
lifestyle it may be necessary to change motorhomes for one with a greater
(adequate) CCC (cargo carrying capacity).
With all of the above stated, I must add that I have personally weighed many
many BBs of all models. My observations are that the single axle units (SP
and BMC) were somewhat limited in CCC and the PT versions were generally OK
with the front axle a little high on many 40s while the 36s/38s are well
balanced, the FCs are heavy on the front but generally legal without
question. Note, I drive a PT-36 and have determined that it is virtually
impossible to overload it either front or rear as the coach has close to a
10,000# CCC.
I suspect that your will receive other comments and that this e-mail will
receive it own share of questions as well as possible debate but I can
assure you that all the above comes from solid facts and observations. If
you require additional consultation, please feel free to contact me directly
or thru the forum, as other readers will no doubt benefit from this
discussion.
Best of Luck,
Neil
Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
author@...
-----Original Message-----
From: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Lee Davis
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:16 PM
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem
* We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full time). This
is
the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately and
duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the tire
pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended by
Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get rid
of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more than
50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that helps
with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill Coleman,
been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this model.
They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all factory
installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so, what
did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety situation
I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
blowout going down a mountain or something else).
.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Gardner Yeaw - 07-25-2006 13:29
Neil,
Since you have been weighing BB's, I am looking at a 1978 FC33. I
have seen several threads on the forum about gvwr on thes older
units, but no-one seems to know the real value. Would you perchance
have access to that data?
I don't have a BB at this time, but I am looking at a couple and
the actual weight and GVWR are of great interest to me.
Gardner
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Neil & Pat"
wrote:
>
> Hi Lee, thanks for writing. I am very sorry to hear of your
(coaches)
> "weight" problem but you are far from alone. First, so you will
know who is
> talking to you; I am a 32 year active RVer, 15 year Bluebird owner
and a 36
> year tire engineer who upon retirement volunteered nearly 4 years
with the
> RVSEF the group that weighed your coach at the FMCA rally. Since
that time
> I have written a comprehensive book on RV safety with a strong
emphasis on
> the weight issues because they are not only prevalent but the
cause of most
> of the problems and concerns that we face as RVers.
>
> When you were weighed you were given your vehicle's weights
written on a
> fairly long detailed pamphlet, which listed step-by-step the
initial steps
> to take to get safe and legal. That is a very good start (I
actually wrote
> that document several years ago) and I am pleased that you have
already
> followed many of the recommendations in your effort to help
alleviate the
> problem. Your problem appears to go beyond what can be easily
accomplished
> yet there is more that can be done. When making any changes
please keep
> track of all weigh removed from your coach; in addition you need
to make a
> "rough" determination as to where that weight was located i.e. the
weight
> that you removed was located behind the rear axle? Between the
axles or
> forward on the coach. That will help you to determine which axle
overload
> was reduced by your effort and by approximately how much. In your
case the
> overload in the rear is worse that the front so shifting weight
will also
> aid in minimizing the problem at all locations. You did not state
the
> actual weight differential from side-to-side so the magnitude of
your
> overloads may actually be worst than stated if the side-to-side
differential
> is high (note this is not the case with most BBs without a
slide). In any
> case the basic steps are to immediately eliminate all controllable
weight
> i.e. dump the black water totally, dump fresh water to no more
than ¼ tank
> (for emergencies) and get rid of personal goods aggressively
(promise to
> always travel in this configuration in the future). You indicate
that you
> are full-timers yet your total weight most likely does not exceed
2000#. I
> have found through our work at the RVSEF that the average full-
timer carries
> in excess of #3000, in all likelihood your do as well. Note that
it may be
> necessary to even limit yourself to less than a full tank of fuel
(drastic
> but very important.) You did not indicate but it is almost a
certainty that
> you tow something, if that vehicle is on a trailer or dolly there
is weight
> carried by the RV that can be eliminated. After all of this is
fully
> addressed, there is still something significant that you can and
should do
> that is when you are driving you are "not towing a car but a
trailer"; you
> can legally and properly carry as much as #800-1000 in the car
because at
> that time (driving) your car is empty (no passengers) thus it has
excess
> capacity before it reached it's GVWR, inconvenient yes but very
important.
> Don't forget that you will also require brakes on your toad; No
responsible
> RVer will tow without them.
>
> One final consideration is that your driving habits can be altered
to give
> you greater margins for your tires thereby offsetting some of the
overload
> consequences. Slowing down to 55mph is the law in many states for
good
> solid reasons. Note that for a tire rated at 65mph (most large RV
tires)
> the max load rating is appropriate for speeds from 51-65 however,
slowing to
> 50 will actually increase the tires load carrying capacity by
approximately
> 8% (this info is all contained in the Tire & Rim Association
manual); this
> can't be carried to an extreme but you get the idea our tires gain
> capability with every mph we slow down.
>
> The real issue here is that the coach you purchased as "spec'ed"
by the
> original owner and operated by you does not have the payload
capacity to
> meet your expectations as a full time RVer. That point could be
debated all
> day without resolving the issue but the bottom line is that the
owner has
> the ultimate responsibility to live within the vehicle's
limitations (your
> are legally liable). If new, it is often possible to twist the
> manufacturers arm to help resolve the problem but in a 10+ year
old coach
> there is virtually no recourse available to the owner. This is
one of few
> times that reengineering the vehicle may be necessary to assure
your safety
> but this will not rectify the legal issues. Note, that only the
original
> manufacturer can change the data plate limitations that were
originally
> applied to the vehicle and they have virtually no incentive to do
so. In
> your situation, larger or higher capacity tires make sense.
However, there
> are several considerations that must be satisfied if this is
attempted i.e.
> you may not have adequate wheels (size or pressure rating), there
may not be
> adequate tire spacing or wheel well clearance, higher tire
pressures will be
> required, the turning angle limits may have to be reset and the
vehicles
> computer and/or speedometer may be adversely affected and reset.
Even after
> all that work & expense to make the vehicle safe to drive you will
still be
> illegal if you exceed the posted GVRW of the coach. In the
absolute extreme
> if you wish to be totally safe and legal while maintaining your
present
> lifestyle it may be necessary to change motorhomes for one with a
greater
> (adequate) CCC (cargo carrying capacity).
>
> With all of the above stated, I must add that I have personally
weighed many
> many BBs of all models. My observations are that the single axle
units (SP
> and BMC) were somewhat limited in CCC and the PT versions were
generally OK
> with the front axle a little high on many 40s while the 36s/38s
are well
> balanced, the FCs are heavy on the front but generally legal
without
> question. Note, I drive a PT-36 and have determined that it is
virtually
> impossible to overload it either front or rear as the coach has
close to a
> 10,000# CCC.
>
> I suspect that your will receive other comments and that this e-
mail will
> receive it own share of questions as well as possible debate but I
can
> assure you that all the above comes from solid facts and
observations. If
> you require additional consultation, please feel free to contact
me directly
> or thru the forum, as other readers will no doubt benefit from this
> discussion.
>
> Best of Luck,
>
> Neil
> Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
> http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
> author@...
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Lee Davis
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:16 PM
> To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem
>
> * We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full
time). This
> is
> the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
> Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately
and
> duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
> Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
> About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
> 31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
> That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
> don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the
tire
> pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
> according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended
by
> Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
> printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
> which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
> everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get
rid
> of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more than
> 50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
> jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
>
> I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that
helps
> with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill
Coleman,
> been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
> recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this model.
> They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
> single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
> capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all
factory
> installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
> wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
> the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
>
> Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so,
what
> did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety
situation
> I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
> built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
> running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
> blowout going down a mountain or something else).
>
> .
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Neil & Pat - 07-25-2006 14:11
Hi Gardner, good to hear from you and to learn that you are seeking a BB; I
love them and I certain you will as well when you settle on one.
I no longer have access to the specific weighing data that you seek, nor
would I divulge it if I did. The reality is that coach weights are so
dependant upon the original coach specs (build sheet & options) and how
operators load and operate them that any attempt to apply anyone elseâs data
to your specific coach is virtually impossible and can be quite misleading.
What I previously reported is accurate, most FCs that I have weighed are
heavy on the front axle (near the GAWR but generally not over) but under the
limit both front and rear. That reality has lead some owners to retrofit
the 12R22.5 (from 11R22.5) tires to gain load capacity and/or reduce air
pressure (remember it is the air volume that support the actual load) for a
better ride quality; important when you are dealing with a front engine
vehicle. I have not seen any great difference in the air vs. steel spring
BBs relative to weight issues but caution that misadjusted or failing
leveling valves can and do have a adverse effect on side-to-side weight
issues as well as their own reliability issues.
The best and only advice possible is to have the coach weighed before you
purchase. Any reputable dealer or private party will allow this. This info
will tell you what the CCC is for the coach in question, thus, how much of
your personal goods and people you may legally and safely carry. Note a
simple axle-by-axle weighing will do with the FC chassis design. Note I
believe that the Federal Data Plate for BBs which contains the data (GVWR,
GCWR, TIRE SIZE and PRESSURE) that you require is mounted over the driver
window on a upper sile requiring you to contort yourself to read it.
Thanks again for writing do not hesitate to write should it be possible to
be of further assistance,
Neil
Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
author@...
Neil,
Since you have been weighing BB's, I am looking at a 1978 FC33. I
have seen several threads on the forum about gvwr on thes older
units, but no-one seems to know the real value. Would you perchance
have access to that data?
I don't have a BB at this time, but I am looking at a couple and
the actual weight and GVWR are of great interest to me.
Gardner
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Tom Warner - 07-25-2006 14:26
Just a side note before panic sets in. Are you
absolutely sure you weighted the coach correctly?
Its possible on some scales that are sloped at
the sides, when you attempt to weigh one dual or
one front tire the coach leans just enough to one
one side to transfer a significant amount of
weight to the tire/tires being weighed. Most
truck scales are designed so the truck is weighed
on the fly and goes down the middle of the scale.
Did you weigh this coach yourself or did someone
do it for you and were either of you knowledgable
on how to do it correctly. This is an excellent
guide to correctly weighing your
coach.
http://www.michelintruck.com/michelintruck/pdf/RVTireGuide.pdf.
700# over on the front sounds like an awful lot. I am suspicious.
tom warner
Vernon center,NY
1985 PT 40
At 09:06 PM 7/25/2006, you wrote:
>Hi Lee, thanks for writing. I am very sorry to hear of your (coaches)
>âweightâ problem but you are far from alone. First, so you will know who is
>talking to you; I am a 32 year active RVer, 15 year Bluebird owner and a 36
>year tire engineer who upon retirement volunteered nearly 4 years with the
>RVSEF the group that weighed your coach at the FMCA rally. Since that time
>I have written a comprehensive book on RV safety with a strong emphasis on
>the weight issues because they are not only prevalent but the cause of most
>of the problems and concerns that we face as RVers.
>
>When you were weighed you were given your vehicleâs weights written on a
>fairly long detailed pamphlet, which listed step-by-step the initial steps
>to take to get safe and legal. That is a very good start (I actually wrote
>that document several years ago) and I am pleased that you have already
>followed many of the recommendations in your effort to help alleviate the
>problem. Your problem appears to go beyond what can be easily accomplished
>yet there is more that can be done. When making any changes please keep
>track of all weigh removed from your coach; in addition you need to make a
>âroughâ determination as to where that weight was located i.e. the weight
>that you removed was located behind the rear axle? Between the axles or
>forward on the coach. That will help you to determine which axle overload
>was reduced by your effort and by approximately how much. In your case the
>overload in the rear is worse that the front so shifting weight will also
>aid in minimizing the problem at all locations. You did not state the
>actual weight differential from side-to-side so the magnitude of your
>overloads may actually be worst than stated if the side-to-side differential
>is high (note this is not the case with most BBs without a slide). In any
>case the basic steps are to immediately eliminate all controllable weight
>i.e. dump the black water totally, dump fresh water to no more than ¼ tank
>(for emergencies) and get rid of personal goods aggressively (promise to
>always travel in this configuration in the future). You indicate that you
>are full-timers yet your total weight most likely does not exceed 2000#. I
>have found through our work at the RVSEF that the average full-timer carries
>in excess of #3000, in all likelihood your do as well. Note that it may be
>necessary to even limit yourself to less than a full tank of fuel (drastic
>but very important.) You did not indicate but it is almost a certainty that
>you tow something, if that vehicle is on a trailer or dolly there is weight
>carried by the RV that can be eliminated. After all of this is fully
>addressed, there is still something significant that you can and should do
>that is when you are driving you are ânot towing a car but a trailerâ; you
>can legally and properly carry as much as #800-1000 in the car because at
>that time (driving) your car is empty (no passengers) thus it has excess
>capacity before it reached itâs GVWR, inconvenient yes but very important.
>Donât forget that you will also require brakes on your toad; No responsible
>RVer will tow without them.
>
>One final consideration is that your driving habits can be altered to give
>you greater margins for your tires thereby offsetting some of the overload
>consequences. Slowing down to 55mph is the law in many states for good
>solid reasons. Note that for a tire rated at 65mph (most large RV tires)
>the max load rating is appropriate for speeds from 51-65 however, slowing to
>50 will actually increase the tires load carrying capacity by approximately
>8% (this info is all contained in the Tire & Rim Association manual); this
>canât be carried to an extreme but you get the idea our tires gain
>capability with every mph we slow down.
>
>The real issue here is that the coach you purchased as âspecâedâ by the
>original owner and operated by you does not have the payload capacity to
>meet your expectations as a full time RVer. That point could be debated all
>day without resolving the issue but the bottom line is that the owner has
>the ultimate responsibility to live within the vehicleâs limitations (your
>are legally liable). If new, it is often possible to twist the
>manufacturers arm to help resolve the problem but in a 10+ year old coach
>there is virtually no recourse available to the owner. This is one of few
>times that reengineering the vehicle may be necessary to assure your safety
>but this will not rectify the legal issues. Note, that only the original
>manufacturer can change the data plate limitations that were originally
>applied to the vehicle and they have virtually no incentive to do so. In
>your situation, larger or higher capacity tires make sense. However, there
>are several considerations that must be satisfied if this is attempted i.e.
>you may not have adequate wheels (size or pressure rating), there may not be
>adequate tire spacing or wheel well clearance, higher tire pressures will be
>required, the turning angle limits may have to be reset and the vehicles
>computer and/or speedometer may be adversely affected and reset. Even after
>all that work & expense to make the vehicle safe to drive you will still be
>illegal if you exceed the posted GVRW of the coach. In the absolute extreme
>if you wish to be totally safe and legal while maintaining your present
>lifestyle it may be necessary to change motorhomes for one with a greater
>(adequate) CCC (cargo carrying capacity).
>
>With all of the above stated, I must add that I have personally weighed many
>many BBs of all models. My observations are that the single axle units (SP
>and BMC) were somewhat limited in CCC and the PT versions were generally OK
>with the front axle a little high on many 40s while the 36s/38s are well
>balanced, the FCs are heavy on the front but generally legal without
>question. Note, I drive a PT-36 and have determined that it is virtually
>impossible to overload it either front or rear as the coach has close to a
>10,000# CCC.
>
>I suspect that your will receive other comments and that this e-mail will
>receive it own share of questions as well as possible debate but I can
>assure you that all the above comes from solid facts and observations. If
>you require additional consultation, please feel free to contact me directly
>or thru the forum, as other readers will no doubt benefit from this
>discussion.
>
>Best of Luck,
>
>Neil
>Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
>http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From:
>
>[mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Lee Davis
>Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:16 PM
>To:
>
>Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem
>
>* We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full time). This
>is
>the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
>Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately and
>duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
>Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
>About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
>31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
>That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
>don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the tire
>pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
>according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended by
>Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
>printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
>which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
>everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get rid
>of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more than
>50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
>jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
>
>I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that helps
>with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill Coleman,
>been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
>recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this model.
>They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
>single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
>capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all factory
>installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
>wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
>the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
>
>Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so, what
>did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety situation
>I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
>built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
>running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
>blowout going down a mountain or something else).
>
>.
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Stephen Birtles - 07-25-2006 14:31
my 77 weighs 26,000 lbs loaded
has 13,000 front axle and 23,000 rear but havenot got a clue what the
gvw is
Stephen 77fc35
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Gardner Yeaw"
wrote:
>
> Neil,
> Since you have been weighing BB's, I am looking at a 1978 FC33. I
> have seen several threads on the forum about gvwr on thes older
> units, but no-one seems to know the real value. Would you perchance
> have access to that data?
> I don't have a BB at this time, but I am looking at a couple and
> the actual weight and GVWR are of great interest to me.
>
> Gardner
>
> --- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Neil & Pat"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Lee, thanks for writing. I am very sorry to hear of your
> (coaches)
> > "weight" problem but you are far from alone. First, so you will
> know who is
> > talking to you; I am a 32 year active RVer, 15 year Bluebird owner
> and a 36
> > year tire engineer who upon retirement volunteered nearly 4 years
> with the
> > RVSEF the group that weighed your coach at the FMCA rally. Since
> that time
> > I have written a comprehensive book on RV safety with a strong
> emphasis on
> > the weight issues because they are not only prevalent but the
> cause of most
> > of the problems and concerns that we face as RVers.
> >
> > When you were weighed you were given your vehicle's weights
> written on a
> > fairly long detailed pamphlet, which listed step-by-step the
> initial steps
> > to take to get safe and legal. That is a very good start (I
> actually wrote
> > that document several years ago) and I am pleased that you have
> already
> > followed many of the recommendations in your effort to help
> alleviate the
> > problem. Your problem appears to go beyond what can be easily
> accomplished
> > yet there is more that can be done. When making any changes
> please keep
> > track of all weigh removed from your coach; in addition you need
> to make a
> > "rough" determination as to where that weight was located i.e. the
> weight
> > that you removed was located behind the rear axle? Between the
> axles or
> > forward on the coach. That will help you to determine which axle
> overload
> > was reduced by your effort and by approximately how much. In your
> case the
> > overload in the rear is worse that the front so shifting weight
> will also
> > aid in minimizing the problem at all locations. You did not state
> the
> > actual weight differential from side-to-side so the magnitude of
> your
> > overloads may actually be worst than stated if the side-to-side
> differential
> > is high (note this is not the case with most BBs without a
> slide). In any
> > case the basic steps are to immediately eliminate all controllable
> weight
> > i.e. dump the black water totally, dump fresh water to no more
> than ¼ tank
> > (for emergencies) and get rid of personal goods aggressively
> (promise to
> > always travel in this configuration in the future). You indicate
> that you
> > are full-timers yet your total weight most likely does not exceed
> 2000#. I
> > have found through our work at the RVSEF that the average full-
> timer carries
> > in excess of #3000, in all likelihood your do as well. Note that
> it may be
> > necessary to even limit yourself to less than a full tank of fuel
> (drastic
> > but very important.) You did not indicate but it is almost a
> certainty that
> > you tow something, if that vehicle is on a trailer or dolly there
> is weight
> > carried by the RV that can be eliminated. After all of this is
> fully
> > addressed, there is still something significant that you can and
> should do
> > that is when you are driving you are "not towing a car but a
> trailer"; you
> > can legally and properly carry as much as #800-1000 in the car
> because at
> > that time (driving) your car is empty (no passengers) thus it has
> excess
> > capacity before it reached it's GVWR, inconvenient yes but very
> important.
> > Don't forget that you will also require brakes on your toad; No
> responsible
> > RVer will tow without them.
> >
> > One final consideration is that your driving habits can be altered
> to give
> > you greater margins for your tires thereby offsetting some of the
> overload
> > consequences. Slowing down to 55mph is the law in many states for
> good
> > solid reasons. Note that for a tire rated at 65mph (most large RV
> tires)
> > the max load rating is appropriate for speeds from 51-65 however,
> slowing to
> > 50 will actually increase the tires load carrying capacity by
> approximately
> > 8% (this info is all contained in the Tire & Rim Association
> manual); this
> > can't be carried to an extreme but you get the idea our tires gain
> > capability with every mph we slow down.
> >
> > The real issue here is that the coach you purchased as "spec'ed"
> by the
> > original owner and operated by you does not have the payload
> capacity to
> > meet your expectations as a full time RVer. That point could be
> debated all
> > day without resolving the issue but the bottom line is that the
> owner has
> > the ultimate responsibility to live within the vehicle's
> limitations (your
> > are legally liable). If new, it is often possible to twist the
> > manufacturers arm to help resolve the problem but in a 10+ year
> old coach
> > there is virtually no recourse available to the owner. This is
> one of few
> > times that reengineering the vehicle may be necessary to assure
> your safety
> > but this will not rectify the legal issues. Note, that only the
> original
> > manufacturer can change the data plate limitations that were
> originally
> > applied to the vehicle and they have virtually no incentive to do
> so. In
> > your situation, larger or higher capacity tires make sense.
> However, there
> > are several considerations that must be satisfied if this is
> attempted i.e.
> > you may not have adequate wheels (size or pressure rating), there
> may not be
> > adequate tire spacing or wheel well clearance, higher tire
> pressures will be
> > required, the turning angle limits may have to be reset and the
> vehicles
> > computer and/or speedometer may be adversely affected and reset.
> Even after
> > all that work & expense to make the vehicle safe to drive you will
> still be
> > illegal if you exceed the posted GVRW of the coach. In the
> absolute extreme
> > if you wish to be totally safe and legal while maintaining your
> present
> > lifestyle it may be necessary to change motorhomes for one with a
> greater
> > (adequate) CCC (cargo carrying capacity).
> >
> > With all of the above stated, I must add that I have personally
> weighed many
> > many BBs of all models. My observations are that the single axle
> units (SP
> > and BMC) were somewhat limited in CCC and the PT versions were
> generally OK
> > with the front axle a little high on many 40s while the 36s/38s
> are well
> > balanced, the FCs are heavy on the front but generally legal
> without
> > question. Note, I drive a PT-36 and have determined that it is
> virtually
> > impossible to overload it either front or rear as the coach has
> close to a
> > 10,000# CCC.
> >
> > I suspect that your will receive other comments and that this e-
> mail will
> > receive it own share of questions as well as possible debate but I
> can
> > assure you that all the above comes from solid facts and
> observations. If
> > you require additional consultation, please feel free to contact
> me directly
> > or thru the forum, as other readers will no doubt benefit from this
> > discussion.
> >
> > Best of Luck,
> >
> > Neil
> > Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
> > http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
> > author@
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> > [mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Lee Davis
> > Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 1:16 PM
> > To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [WanderlodgeForum] 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem
> >
> > * We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full
> time). This
> > is
> > the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
> > Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately
> and
> > duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
> > Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
> > About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
> > 31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
> > That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
> > don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the
> tire
> > pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
> > according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended
> by
> > Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
> > printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
> > which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
> > everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get
> rid
> > of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more than
> > 50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
> > jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
> >
> > I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that
> helps
> > with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill
> Coleman,
> > been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
> > recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this model.
> > They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
> > single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
> > capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all
> factory
> > installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
> > wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
> > the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
> >
> > Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so,
> what
> > did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety
> situation
> > I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
> > built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
> > running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
> > blowout going down a mountain or something else).
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Gardner Yeaw - 07-25-2006 14:41
Neil,
Thank you. I understand what you are telling me, that each coach has itâs
own specs based on many factors relative to date of manufacture and the
specific build. Fuel tank and other fluid tanks plus simple things like AC
units etc. can add up and create problems if you arenât careful. The last
thing I want to do is create a dangerous situation out of ignorance. (of
course I will be driving, so that is pretty scary in itself). I plan to tow
a 1995 jeep Cherokee sport, so I need to take that into consideration. Toad
braking system, etc, should cost a bit, but once again, I donât want to be
stupid here. Someone elseâs life is in the balance.
Gardner
-----Original Message-----
From: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Neil & Pat
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 10:12 PM
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [WanderlodgeForum] Re: 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem
Hi Gardner, good to hear from you and to learn that you are seeking a BB; I
love them and I certain you will as well when you settle on one.
I no longer have access to the specific weighing data that you seek, nor
would I divulge it if I did. The reality is that coach weights are so
dependant upon the original coach specs (build sheet & options) and how
operators load and operate them that any attempt to apply anyone elseâs data
to your specific coach is virtually impossible and can be quite misleading.
What I previously reported is accurate, most FCs that I have weighed are
heavy on the front axle (near the GAWR but generally not over) but under the
limit both front and rear. That reality has lead some owners to retrofit
the 12R22.5 (from 11R22.5) tires to gain load capacity and/or reduce air
pressure (remember it is the air volume that support the actual load) for a
better ride quality; important when you are dealing with a front engine
vehicle. I have not seen any great difference in the air vs. steel spring
BBs relative to weight issues but caution that misadjusted or failing
leveling valves can and do have a adverse effect on side-to-side weight
issues as well as their own reliability issues.
The best and only advice possible is to have the coach weighed before you
purchase. Any reputable dealer or private party will allow this. This info
will tell you what the CCC is for the coach in question, thus, how much of
your personal goods and people you may legally and safely carry. Note a
simple axle-by-axle weighing will do with the FC chassis design. Note I
believe that the Federal Data Plate for BBs which contains the data (GVWR,
GCWR, TIRE SIZE and PRESSURE) that you require is mounted over the driver
window on a upper sile requiring you to contort yourself to read it.
Thanks again for writing do not hesitate to write should it be possible to
be of further assistance,
Neil
Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
author@...
Neil,
Since you have been weighing BB's, I am looking at a 1978 FC33. I
have seen several threads on the forum about gvwr on thes older
units, but no-one seems to know the real value. Would you perchance
have access to that data?
I don't have a BB at this time, but I am looking at a couple and
the actual weight and GVWR are of great interest to me.
Gardner
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Gregory OConnor - 07-25-2006 16:07
Lee, you are talking about 7% over a weight limit. If the scales are 5%
in error you are only 2% fat. Air suspension has less bounce then
spring and bounce is what puts weight on tires. Someone posted a link
to a recall index for RV's. you might do a search in this forum or the
other yahoo group. The BMC's are so overbuilt and I think the tires
are so under rated. Pull a garage for all your toys like John F does.
Gregory O'Connor 25lb overloaded
94ptRomolandCa
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Lee Davis"
wrote:
>
> We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full time). This is
> the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
> Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately and
> duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
> Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Jeff Miller - 07-25-2006 16:19
My '77 weighed under 25,000 really really loaded, a lighter FC31, and
with the 12,600 front and 23,000 rear I believe its GVWR was around
32,000 (less than the sum of the axles of course). My front axle
weight loaded was around 11,500 and increased with less fuel and
freshwater.
I never weighed it empty or unloaded (family included).
- Jeff Miller
in Holland, MI
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Stephen Birtles"
>
> my 77 weighs 26,000 lbs loaded
> has 13,000 front axle and 23,000 rear but havenot got a clue what the
> gvw is
> Stephen 77fc35
1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem - Jeff Miller - 07-25-2006 16:23
I recall there being an issue with the drive axle weight limits on
the '94 BMC 37', not sure it was on the '95 also. Whether it was a
BlueBird or Spartan issue I don't know either, but did hear that
they were replaced under warranty.
It might be a good idea to check the drive axle numbers to see if it
is an upgraded axle.
- Jeff Miller
in Holland, MI
--- In WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com, "Lee Davis"
wrote:
>
> We bought a 95 BMC 37 about 4 months ago (we RV full time). This
is
> the first motor home we have owned and we excited about getting a
> Bluebird. I recently had it weighed (each front wheel separately
and
> duals separately on the back) with full fresh water and fuel at a
> Family Motor Coach Rally and found I was 3000 total lbs overweight.
> About 700 lbs. on the front, and 2300 lbs. on the back) GVWR is
> 31,000lbs ( I don't have a tag axle) and we were over 34,000 lbs.
> That worried me since although we have a fair amount of stuff, we
> don't have enough to be that overweight. I have since raised the
tire
> pressure (Michelin's) to the maximum 110 lbs, (still overloaded
> according to the Michelin book) but less than with the recommended
by
> Bluebird of 100 lbs. on the front and 90 lbs. on the rear duals
> printed on the Aqua Hot. I also carry now very little freshwater
> which eliminates 700 lbs. or so. We are also trying to eliminate
> everything else that's very heavy, but there is no way we'll get
rid
> of another 2000 lbs. I don't have Joey beds, I don't have more
than
> 50 lbs. of tools, I have some books, but nothing like we'll need to
> jettison. (I think 2000 lbs is close to more stuff than we have!)
>
> I read in one of the forum notes about a rear axle recall that
helps
> with the weight problem, but when I contacted Bluebird, (Bill
Coleman,
> been there since before 1995 and says he has been involved in all
> recalls) they deny there ever was a rear axle recall on this
model.
> They say Ridewell (sp?) redid some tag axles but nothing to do with
> single rear axles. Blue bird say they have no info on the cargo
> capacity of this model or the original initial weight with all
factory
> installed stuff, full fresh water and fuel, but no other cargo. (I
> wish I'd weighed it before putting in our stuff, but we were moving
> the stuff from a trailer and just didn't think about it.
>
> Has anyone else noticed a weight problem with this model? If so,
what
> did they do about it? I'm pretty concerned about the safety
situation
> I am in now. I bought the Bluebird because everyone said they were
> built like tanks and were supersafe, but now I feel I am sort of
> running on the edge of a potential major problem (like a front tire
> blowout going down a mountain or something else).
>
> Thanks for any info you can give.
>
> Lee Davis
>