1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem

[Michael Brody]

Lee:

My 40' BMC was delivered with a lesser load range than that specifiedm on the
placard. I upgraded to 'H' when the tires were replaced. The important thing
is that my GVW is approximately 44,000# and I weigh out at about 39,500# totally
loaded. I do need 120# in the fronts to meet the weight, but can run 100# on
the drive and 85# on the tag. I totally disregard the BB suggested tire
pressure.

Go on the BMC group and ask the question. There are many 37' units on the list.
I am the odd man out with a 40'.

I believe the rear axle problem was corrected in '94. Someone will answer that
on the other forum.

I am currently roasting my stones near San Jose, so can't look at the coach for
more info.

Mike
'97 BMC 40'

Michael Brody, CEO
Capital Progress, Inc.
P.O. Box 281
Dresher, PA 19025
capitalprogress.com
(V) 215-572-0663
(F) 215-572-6992

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Howard O. Truitt]

Neil,
Is the CCC rating, the GVRW of each Axel, minus the Actual Weight of each Axle.
Howard Truitt
Camilla, Ga.
86 PT40

----- Original Message -----
From: Neil & Pat
To: WanderlodgeForum@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2006 9:06 PM
Subject: RE: [WanderlodgeForum] 1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Neil & Pat]

Hi Howard, thanks for writing. The official definition of CCC is the
difference from the GVWR less the actual weights of the four corners less
the weight of a full tank of fuel, full fresh water, full propane, all
factory installed options and a #154 allowance for each passenger on board.
The number of passengers is based on the number of sleeping position and the
quantity of seat belts present; hence the newest weight term SCWR which now
appears on the RIVA dataplate. What capacity a remains after all of this is
considered is CCC or Cargo Carrying Capacity. The old term NCC or Net
Carrying Capacity was similar but had no allowance for the passengers on
board and the tank of fresh water. There are many other terms used in the
RV world such as empty weight and carrying capacity but none of them carry
any validity by virtue of a industry standard.

The weight remaining as you described it would be the CCC only if the coach
was fully loaded with fuel, water, propane and a full compliment of
passengers; then it would equal the CCC.

Neil
Author, "The RVer's Ultimate Survival Guide"
http://www.rvsafetyinfo.com
author@...

Neil,
Is the CCC rating, the GVRW of each Axel, minus the Actual Weight of each
Axle.
Howard Truitt
Camilla, Ga.
86 PT40




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[John Suter]

Hi Lee,

Neil has provided excellent and comprehensive
advice. Many BB's from the 90's thru our 2000LXi
exceed the front axle rating by 700 to 1500 lbs with
the slightest provocation, although the front axle is
rated such that this amount of overweight condition is
probably within the margin of error (if I recall
correctly, our 2000LXi is 14,000 before an early
recall and 15,000 after their fix and I have no idea
of the axle rating of the '95). I'm not suggesting
deliberate weight violation, simply that a lot of work
is needed for the owner to get down to bare essentials
and then to locate items carefully, just as Neil has
suggested. A full-timer may not be able to achieve it
without dropping the top speed dramatically, and
upping the Load Rating and pressure of the tires.

John Suter

> At 09:06 PM 7/25/2006, you 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]
> >
> >
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com