Trailer Cargo Capacity

[SoonerWing03]

Is it a red flag if the trailer Cargo Capacity is around 1500 lbs? I have notice a lot of trailers in the 24' to 26' range either have a 6500 - 6600 GVRW or a 7500 GVWR. Would you consider the ones with a higher GVWR to be more sturdy?

[All_I_could_aff]

For those of you disappointed in your CCC, check out my numbers! 549 pound available for water and other cargo after adjusting the base trailer weight for the dealer installed air conditioning, awning, spare tire, and other options.

[colliehauler]

beemerphile1 wrote:

colliehauler wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:
More cargo capacity is a good thing. I wouldn't buy a trailer without a large CCC. My trailer carries 800+ pounds of water before putting anything else in.

Under stressed parts last longer.

I would agree but you and I both pull TH'S that are built purposely to haul loads in. My little 17' TH has a built in Onan and over 100 gallons of water and the cargo capacity darn near exceeds the weight of the trailer.

That is why I tow a 13 year old trailer when I can afford any TT made. After shopping for two years and looking at just about every brand made, I gutted the inside of my trailer and built what I wanted. It is no longer a TH, but is exactly what I want with no worries about capacity.

When shopping I was turned off by low cargo capacity, small tanks, and poor quality.

Would like to see pictures of your customized trailer. Ironically enough I load my BMW into the truck so the Collies and I can have more room when traveling.

[beemerphile1]

colliehauler wrote:

beemerphile1 wrote:
More cargo capacity is a good thing. I wouldn't buy a trailer without a large CCC. My trailer carries 800+ pounds of water before putting anything else in.

Under stressed parts last longer.

I would agree but you and I both pull TH'S that are built purposely to haul loads in. My little 17' TH has a built in Onan and over 100 gallons of water and the cargo capacity darn near exceeds the weight of the trailer.

That is why I tow a 13 year old trailer when I can afford any TT made. After shopping for two years and looking at just about every brand made, I gutted the inside of my trailer and built what I wanted. It is no longer a TH, but is exactly what I want with no worries about capacity.

When shopping I was turned off by low cargo capacity, small tanks, and poor quality.

[colliehauler]

beemerphile1 wrote:
More cargo capacity is a good thing. I wouldn't buy a trailer without a large CCC. My trailer carries 800+ pounds of water before putting anything else in.

Under stressed parts last longer.

I would agree but you and I both pull TH'S that are built purposely to haul loads in. My little 17' TH has a built in Onan and over 100 gallons of water and the cargo capacity darn near exceeds the weight of the trailer.

[colliehauler]

Huntindog wrote:

rbpru wrote:

Heavy TT = Bigger Truck = more Cost. There is little correlations between weight and quality. There is some degree of correlation between cost and quality.

Disagree here.
There was recently a thread here of a destroyed 30' TT, and the poster was saying how poorly it was built.... The video showed how weak the frame was.... Things that stuck out IMO... The gvwr was pretty low for a 30', and the frame was VERY thin. About 4".

My 30' TT has a HEAVY 10" thick frame and a GVWR of 11,500.
Obviously it will be far stronger. And of course will require a stronger truck to pull it.

The lite weight TTs serve a need. The trouble is when people start expecting too much out of them.

I would have to agree with Huntindog on this I never seen a light weight Excel, New Horizon, Spacecraft mfg, Continental Forks, Travel Supreme, DRV, Teton. I know their weight far exceeds my Forest River and Keystone and so does their quality.

A lot of families do not own heavy duty trucks and the market caters to the market who pull with half tons and SUV'S.

I owned one light model and did not care for it and traded after one trip. The frame was a joke.

[Huntindog]

rbpru wrote:

Heavy TT = Bigger Truck = more Cost. There is little correlations between weight and quality. There is some degree of correlation between cost and quality.

Disagree here.
There was recently a thread here of a destroyed 30' TT, and the poster was saying how poorly it was built.... The video showed how weak the frame was.... Things that stuck out IMO... The gvwr was pretty low for a 30', and the frame was VERY thin. About 4".

My 30' TT has a HEAVY 10" thick frame and a GVWR of 11,500.
Obviously it will be far stronger. And of course will require a stronger truck to pull it.

The lite weight TTs serve a need. The trouble is when people start expecting too much out of them.

[rbpru]

My Dutchmen Lite is rated 5000 lbs. dry and a max of 7500 lbs. When loaded for the road it crosses the scales at 6200 to 6400 lbs. So it is fine for us.

Heavy TT = Bigger Truck = more Cost. There is little correlations between weight and quality. There is some degree of correlation between cost and quality.

If money is not a concern, expensive is generally better. If money is an issue, then like most you will have to buy the best you can afford.

Keep in mind that all of this is second to the proper floor plan.

[mike-s]

pulsar wrote:

mike-s wrote:

pulsar wrote:
Among those regulations is that a full propane tank must be included as part of the vehicles UVW.

Note: that's tanks, not cylinders. Cylinders are the more common BBQ style containers.

Semantics?

Federal regulations are required, now, to be written in plain English. The final publication in the Federal Registry of the regulations refer to the Plain English executive order 12866. The requirement restricts technical terms and jargon. I think most people whole would say that BBQ style containers could be called propane tanks. Do a Google search for propane tanks and see what comes up.

Regardless, the regulation makes it clear that it they is referring to the type of containers you are referring to. The final publication states:S4.3.5 If the vehicle is a recreation vehicle trailer and is equipped with a propane supply, the weight of full propane tanks must be included in the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.

Tom

Nope. There are significant differences between cylinders and tanks in the regulations. Cylinders are the BBQ type things, are regulated by the DOT, and require regular requalification. Tanks are meant to be permanently mounted ("equipped with a propane supply"), are spec'd by ASME, and do not require requalification.

If you're going to cite things, do it right. You're referencing 49 CFR 571.110, S4.3.5.

The difference is described in the definitions at 49 CFR 171.8:

Cylinder means a pressure vessel ... having a circular cross section. It does not include a portable tank, multi-unit tank car tank, cargo tank, or tank car.

Cargo tank means a bulk packaging that ... Is permanently attached to ... a motor vehicle ...

[myredracer]

Our numbers don't jive.
GVWR = 6800 lbs.
UVW on sticker inside a cabinet = 5870 lbs
Brochure UVW = 5237 lbs
Actual wt. of TT as picked up from dealer = 6477 lbs
CCC on sticker on exterior = 930 lbs, calculated with full FW tank & HWH.

Going by actual wt. of TT as picked up at the dealer, available cargo capacity is a mere 702 lbs (with empty FW tank & HWH). But if we go by the exterior sticker and take away the wt. of the FW tank (333 lbs) & HWH (46 lbs), the available cargo capacity would be 1309 lbs.

An actual CCC of 702 lbs in a 29' TT is flippin' low! Sure glad I went to a scale before the TT got home and that the total weight of camping stuff & mods is only 674 lbs. We never tow with water in any of the holding tanks otherwise would be well over the GVWR.

[SoundGuy]

pulsar wrote:
Semantics?

Federal regulations are required, now, to be written in plan English.

SoundGuy wrote:
What the heck is "plan English"? :h

pulsar wrote:
It's what you get when you old eyes don't see that you've dropped the "i" out of "plain."

Hey, I can relate to that! :W

[pulsar]

SoundGuy wrote:

pulsar wrote:
Semantics?

Federal regulations are required, now, to be written in plan English.

What the heck is "plan English"? :h

It's what you get when you old eyes don't see that you've dropped the "i" out of "plain."

I've edited the post.

Tom

[SoundGuy]

pulsar wrote:
Semantics?

Federal regulations are required, now, to be written in plan English.

What the heck is "plan English"? :h

[pulsar]

mike-s wrote:

pulsar wrote:
Among those regulations is that a full propane tank must be included as part of the vehicles UVW.

Note: that's tanks, not cylinders. Cylinders are the more common BBQ style containers.

Semantics?

Federal regulations are required, now, to be written in plain English. The final publication in the Federal Registry of the regulations refer to the Plain English executive order 12866. The requirement restricts technical terms and jargon. I think most people whole would say that BBQ style containers could be called propane tanks. Do a Google search for propane tanks and see what comes up.

Regardless, the regulation makes it clear that it they is referring to the type of containers you are referring to. The final publication states:S4.3.5 If the vehicle is a recreation vehicle trailer and is equipped with a propane supply, the weight of full propane tanks must be included in the vehicle's unloaded vehicle weight.

Tom

[SoundGuy]

GrandpaKip wrote:
My camper was about 300 pounds heavier than the placard when I took it home. So that needs to be considered.
I think you are wise to consider the CCC as one of the weight factors.

My own 2014 Coachmen Freedom Express 192RBS has an "advertised" dry weight of 3535 lbs ...



... but my particular unit arrived at the dealer with a stickered dry weight of 3815 lbs, a whopping 280 lbs heavier - and this is just a 19' couple's trailer!



To that I have to allow for the weight of a battery, water in the WH tank, and reserve capacity in the fresh water holding tank ... all in about 4000 lbs before I added anything else. :E It ALL counts so more CCC you have the better. :B

GrandpaKip wrote:
I would say that probably 90% of people I talk to in campgrounds have no idea what any of the weights are regarding their camper.

Absolutely agree.