1995 BMC 37 Major Overweight Problem

[Gardner Yeaw]

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]
>