trailering tragedy in MA [Archive]

talloaks

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">No mystery, and no real details. My friend wasn't speeding, wasn't doing anything but driving the two horses. Hit a pothole, horses tried to situate themselves, and swayed, the truck (an Expedition/Excursion type) flipped with trailer twice.
The trailer was a kingston two horse, if anyone was wondering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately if the vehicle was an Expedition it has a history of flipping over due to the short wheel base. Now the Excursion has a longer wheel base more like a truck and is safer for pulling trailers. That is one reason Jeeps, Blazers and Broncos with the short wheel base are not good vehicles for towing horse trailers. That is one reason we have bought GMC trucks.
This is very sad indeed, but accidents to happen, and my condolences to the family. So sad.

sophab

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:17 AM

I think the Excursion is the next size up from the Expedition...

Doublete, I am so sorry. This must be a terrible time. My thoughts and prayers to your friend and all involved. It is such a tragedy.
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

beausgirl

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:26 AM

Oh how horrible, to have to live with that in your memory, and the loss of beloved horses.

This is why I drive like a ninety-year-old grandmother when towing. Accidents happen in the blink of an eye, and Lordy I don't want one to happen when there are a bunch of horses in the trailer, and a bunch of people in the truck.

Holly Jeanne

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:49 AM

I'm so very sorry!! I can understand how quickly something like this can happen. I was driving on a small two lane road a couple of months ago and came up over a hill and hit a pot hole. Construction trucks had been cutting cross country on that two lane road and did a number on the edge of the road (there was little or no shoulder and I couldn't pull over). I hit hard but I didn't realize how hard until I got to the highway and the tire went completely flat. The fender was bent up double and slashed the tire big time in the process. I've still got to get the fender bent back out. I sure sang the praises of my truck and the level headed response of my OTTB. She stood calmly in the trailer for about an hour while I got help. I'm so sorry the poor person in MA was not so lucky. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

Norcrest

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:56 AM

Doublete....sending thoughts and prayers out to Jill and everyone involved including those who witnessed the accident. I can only imagine the horror to everyone involved and the memories will be painful for a long time.
It makes me really think about my driving the next time I roadtrip anywhere, because sometimes I do forget that I am hauling a trailer and and just start cruising along and those potholes can just appear out of nowhere.

Such a sad ending...thoughts and prayers!

Sobriska

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:18 AM

So very sorry.

Boston Chicken

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:53 AM

I had also mentioned this on the other site where it was being discussed but I did see the accident just after it happened and it was awful. Thank God the horses died quickly. Terrible for all involved, but I feel most awful for the horses' owners. Makes me want to keep mine at home...

TedShel

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Unfortunately if the vehicle was an Expedition it has a history of flipping over due to the short wheel base. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Talloaks:

Can you point me to the source of your stats?

Thanks.

MyArgie

Aug. 23, 2005, 07:18 AM

my OP was never meant to place ANY blame on the driver. (I actually did NOT want to mention the driver's name or personal specifics for this very reason). The radio did report that the driver was not speeding or doing anything out of the ordinary.

I am not SURE of this (i will find out) but I heard the vehicle was a Ford Explorer. Many people use this vehicle to tow, or other brands' equivilent. I believe ford has issued statement's about the vehicle's towing capacity, or lack thereof. My intent is to find out the make/model of the vehicle, type of trailer, type of hitch...etc. Furthermore, I plan (once I get more details that I am sure of) to write to the MA's departments of transportation as well as the governor (ye old Mitt...) concerning the matter of the conditions of MA's roads (which can be treacherous in places!). There is a huge large horse population in MA with a big showing demand. Just hearing about this accident makes me nervous to think about pulling my trailer. precisely for the reasons that doublete mentioned, the driver was not being reckless and the accident was not preventable.

If I get more info, I will post it. As much as it was a loss of a valuable show horse, the pony lost was the daughter's favorite, and old hat at shows. The type of pony you could NEVER put a price on. My thoughts are out to the driver and family.

Barnfairy

Aug. 23, 2005, 08:26 AM

Sending out support to the girls involved in the accident, which was just that, an accident. They must be absolutely grief stricken, and I hope that in time they will come to terms with this and find peace.

I've said this elsewhere, and I'll say it again here: the road conditions, general attitude of drivers, and traffic congestion in MA are all appalling. The thought of hauling through my home town in the metrowest makes me shudder.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I plan (once I get more details that I am sure of) to write to the MA's departments of transportation as well as the governor (ye old Mitt...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Mr. Romney's wife rides, too (she was the focus of an article in the Globe a while back). Maybe that angle would have some teeth.

Shiaway

Aug. 23, 2005, 09:07 AM

I'm so sorry to hear this news. My heart goes out to Jill.

As for the flipping issue, I checked on my jeep cherokee (it's NOT a grand cherokee) out of curiosity once. I was surprized to find that my F150 truck has the same roll over rating as my cherokee. So those of you who have trucks, before you start thinking that having a truck makes something like this less likely, check out the roll over rating on your truck.

I'm not saying trucks all have the same roll over rating. But if you have an F150, it doesn't have any better of a rating than a Jeep cherokee SUV. I was surprized to learn that.

Daydream Believer

Aug. 23, 2005, 09:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shiaway:
As for the flipping issue, I checked on my jeep cherokee (it's NOT a grand cherokee) out of curiosity once. I was surprized to find that my F150 truck has the same roll over rating as my cherokee. So those of you who have trucks, before you start thinking that having a truck makes something like this less likely, check out the roll over rating on your truck.

I'm not saying trucks all have the same roll over rating. But if you have an F150, it doesn't have any better of a rating than a Jeep cherokee SUV. I was surprized to learn that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually it's not just the roll over ratings but wheelbase which makes a huge difference between a jeep and a 150. The truck is much more stable for towing because of the longer wheel base. Frankly I'm surprised that jeeps rating is the same as a 150 because we used to have one, and I always felt top heavy when I drove it and it felt much less stable than my pickup. I really did not like that Cherokee at all. JMO. I'm glad you like yours.

My condolences to the folks who lost their horses also. What a terrible loss for them.

A good friend rolled a two horse tag a long some years ago in a similar accident but she was lucky that her horses escaped with minor injures. She replaced her totalled rig with a gooseneck and refuses to tow with anything else now. Having pulled both types of rigs, I can say that the goosenecks are a lot more stable and am not going back either.

Invested1

Aug. 23, 2005, 09:25 AM

How do you find your roll over rating?

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 23, 2005, 10:37 AM

Finding rollover ratings: A quick internet search revealed these 2 articles -

http://www.cochranfirm.com/truckaccidents3-rollovereasy.html

http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/why_they_roll/Default.htm

The second article is ESPECIALLY interesting & has multiple associated articles you can access.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 23, 2005, 10:46 AM

Here you can read the specs for the Expedition:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/expedition/features/specs/

It has only a 119 inche wheelbase, making it a very minimal vehicle for towing 2 horses.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 23, 2005, 10:50 AM

Here are the specs for the Excursion:

http://www.fordvehicles.com/suvs/excursion/features/specs/

With a 137 inch wheelbase, it has a longer wheelbase than a full-sized, regular cab pick-up.

Wheelbase length is one factor (perhaps the biggest factor) in rollover resistance.

talloaks

Aug. 23, 2005, 10:53 AM

Thanks Evalee Hunter for posting the information. This is just something I have known forever but wouldn't have known where to find the info. Gosh almost 30 years ago I wanted a Jeep Cherokee or a Blazer and hubby said NO, they can't do the job!!

Duffy

Aug. 23, 2005, 10:59 AM

How awful. My condolences to all concerned. At least the horse and pony didn't suffer. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

1-800-Dial-A-Distance

Aug. 23, 2005, 11:15 AM

Right before I bought my truck and trailer a good friend of mine flipped her Expedition with a bumper pull. She was on a road with a construction wall, swerved to keep from hitting a pothole, hit a rock on the other side, her tire went up, caught on the wall and flipper her trailer and thereby her truck.

She was very lucky that she was unharmed and her trailer was empty. I promptly switched my Explorer/Bumper pull plan to a F-250 and gooseneck plan....

So sorry....

1-800

rfath

Aug. 23, 2005, 11:16 AM

What a horrible tragedy... my condolences to all...

The roads in Massachusetts are terrible. With laws passed in recent years declaring that the state is not liable for damage to your car because of potholes/sinkholes/poorly repaired roads, the roads have become nightmares to drive on - they're just not being repaired as needed. It's easy to imagine the damage and injury that could result from breaking axles or wheels or slicing tires on some of the surfaces I've seen.

The last I heard when researching, the state IS liable for bodily injury caused by potholes and the like, and you can try to pursue the cities for negligence for not maintaining their stretch of road. Obviously not an attorney...

Quinn

Aug. 23, 2005, 11:38 AM

Everything aside, my heart and prayers go out to Jill. A nightmare beyond my comprehension. Tragic.

http://community.webshots.com/user/ballyduff

MHM

Aug. 23, 2005, 12:09 PM

So sorry to hear about this. What a tragedy for all involved. At least the people were not seriously hurt.

This news link was on another BB.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BOS3925/

olympicprincess

Aug. 23, 2005, 12:18 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This news link was on another BB.

http://www1.whdh.com/news/articles/local/BOS3925/ </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
According to this link it was an Expedition.

I believe an Excursion is the Ford version of a Chevy Suburban? (IE, the same as their trucks, just completely closed in) and an Expedition is btw. an Explorer & an Excursion.

Scary any way. I saw some people at my event this wknd haul with: an older 2-door Explorer and another hauled their steel Bison with a small Lexus SUV. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Tiki

Aug. 23, 2005, 12:22 PM

It's a terrible tragedy and my condolences to all involved, but folks, I've got news for ya! It ain't just Massachusetts roads. Many, many roads in many, many states - at least on the East Coast - are getting worse and worse and worse, and more dangerous all the time.

TedShel

Aug. 23, 2005, 12:25 PM

While wheelbase is an important factor, it alone does not make towing a trailer unsafe.

The length of the trailer vs. the wheelbase of the vehicle is a better comparison of whether or not your choice of tow vehicle is a good one.

The longer the trailer, the more leverage it can apply to the tow vehicle and create sway, side to side movement. The amount of sway that can be applied can also be mitigated by the distance between the rear axle of the vehicle and the ball, and the ball to the rear axle of the trailer.

So, in the RV world, where sail area is more of a problem then weight, the guideline is that a vehicle with a wheelbase of 110 inches can tow a 20 foot trailer. Each additional 4 inches will get you 1 more foot of trailer.

Another guide that relates to the ball to axle distance is that the trailer's rear axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the vehicle.

This is just wheelbase, we can get into how to determine if your vehicle can safely tow the weight of the trailer.

The bottom line in tow vehicle is to do the math. It is easy to say that a 2500/250 or 3500/350 is the only safe vehicle to buy for towing, but that's not true. It's easy to say only because that type of vehicle surpasses the minimums of most weekend horse enthusiasts as determined by the math.

But, probably most of us weekend horse enthusiasts need our vehicle for more then towing our ponies, so we get something in between.

Boston Chicken

Aug. 23, 2005, 12:28 PM

If anything good can come of this, maybe one of those things is that we're all considering how very dangerous it is to trailer - and to take every absolute precaution when doing so.

Though it seems not much could have prevented this tragic accident, perhaps just hearing about it will help prevent others in the future - whether it's forcing people to consider the proper hauling vehicle, speed or even the route of travel. I would surely hope to see some quick repairs on Rt. 128.

Does anyone know how the owners of the horses are doing? What a living nightmare.

AdultMedals

Aug. 23, 2005, 02:50 PM

Hey everyone, just wanted to update this. The owners of both the horse and the pony are doing ok, although obviously very upset. They both have other horses that were not involved in the accident, so they have been pretty busy with them. I used to show the horse that was killed and just can't believe that he's gone. I had been away for the weekend and only found out about it today. I'll make sure to keep everyone updated on how the owners are doing.

MyArgie

Aug. 23, 2005, 03:37 PM

i agree with those who have emphasized the importance of wheel base. also important is the actual weight of the vehicle. The roll over specs will differ between a vehicle when it is being driven solo as opposed to when it has 5K lbs attached that can leap to the side. The balence of the trailer to vehicle is also influenced by the type of hitch. Many trucks come with a label on them which specifies #lbs towing dead weight, and #lbs towing with a weight distribution hitch. In my truck's case, the difference is more than 5klbs... I remember several years back, Ford issued a formal statement that the Explorer was not safe to tow using Firestone tires. Why this combination? I don't know, but apparently after years of the vehicle being sold, it was found this this combination is not safe. Seeing as there are so many Explorers, there is no way that EVERY owner could have possible heard the update. Please please please- drive carefully and be as up to date as possible on your truck and trailer's safety information.

I was towing my horse along the same highway (different part of it) around the same time on Sunday night. I shudder to think, it could have been me and my horse.

gabz

Aug. 23, 2005, 03:56 PM

Just as a reference: Ford Explorer is the smallest, Expedition is mid-size, the Excursion is the largest.

I'm so sorry for the loss of these horses and the grief the owners are suffering.

The suspension and how the tow vehicle can handle "sway and torgue are critical along with wheelbase length. Extended cab trucks, with full size bed, will have the greatest towing capacity. A 4-door truck which will usually have the shorter bed, but due to the 4 doors, more base weight - which can be a good or bad thing.

My 2004 F150, extended cab has a 145" wheelbase. It's tow capacity, as I have it set up, is 9300 pounds. Since horses move around and are top heavy--- some suggest applying an "80% rule"... that is, never haul more than 80% of your rating when hauling horses. I have a 3H steel GN. I haul 1 horse and camping stuff.

Potholes are wicked things - that kind of situation could have thrown a 3/4 ton (250/2500) around or caused a blowout on any of the tires - truck or trailer with horrible results.

One of the problems with the Jeeps (and I'm sorry I don't know which exact model/year) is that they did NOT have a full-body frame. Some models did.
Again, my condolences.
(Edited to change wheelbase from 139 to 145" after I rechecked my specs)

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 23, 2005, 03:57 PM

TedShel - while I do not pretend to be an expert on towing, I did a lot of research before I bought a trailer (some years back). This research involved reading every trailer towing article I could find in horse magazines, as well as going to the library & reading articles in magazines devoted to towing in general (boats, cars, etc.). The horse magazine articles I read recommended 120 inches of wheelbase as the minimum for towing a two horse. Others may well find different recommendations &, I admit, I did not ask the magazines where they got their info.

Anyway, I would appreciate some examples that use numbers to illustrate your points about the ratio between the length of the tongue of the trailer & position of axles, etc.

I know Tom King has conducted some personal research which suggests that weight distributing hitches INCREASE the braking distance if you have antilock brakes. Interesting research & I wish some truck manufacturers would conduct some "real" research on the topic but if they are doing so, they are not telling me about it.

Anyway, any & all info is appreciated. Sources of said info (references) are also appreciated.

I do wish the Brenderup crowd would read this thread & take it to heart - the laws of physics DO apply to all of us.

magnum

Aug. 23, 2005, 04:36 PM

VERY SORRY to hear about this tragedy. How awful. Relieved to hear that the horses did not suffer.

Evalee and Ted -- good comments on the wheel base.

IMHO, ALL horseowners need to stand up to SALESSTAFF who insist that small to medium sized SUV's and 1/2 tons are UTTERLY safe for pulling (unconditionally SAFE and "designed to do this!" they say!).

However, the problem with calculating WEIGHT alone is a towing factor is twofold:

1: HORSES ARE TOP HEAVY;
2: HORSES ARE LIVE CARGO AND SHIFT THEIR WEIGHT.

That weight shift alone can and DOES pull an SUV and most half tons OFF the road entirely, and/or flip the towing vehicle.

If these sales folks had to defend themselves in COURT .... and/or if the Big 3 who claim that their half tons are SAFE to pull unconditionally ever had to defend themselves in a Product Safety Lawsuit .... then we would not be reading about cases like these.

The laws of PHYSICS, ENGINEERING AND HORSES do not always add up (for one, horses do NOT study engineering books!)

One other problem that we, as a horse community in general needs to BE HONEST with ourselves ABOUT:

We have to ADMIT it is not really feasible to cross a more gas efficient commuter truck with a hauling rig!

As long as we scale back to have one vehicle be BOTH, then the Big 3 will eagerly continue to take OUR money and let us attach our horses to their vehicles, and we will CONTINUE to see these upsetting reports of tragic deaths.

IMHO, as an ENGINEER, I will stand by my convictions that these vehicles are not up to this task when variables such as live MOVING cargo, weather, road conditions, etc. come in to play. There are too many stories out there like this one, and the price we are paying as horse owners is just heartwrenching. I could not say this if I didn't care (or if I was selling you an insufficient rig just to get your money).

BTW -- Could someone earmark this thread when the 100th post about "will a half ton pull my rig safely? question inevitably pops up in a few weeks?

Again, sincerely sorry to hear about the driver and her horses. If I were that driver, I'd be contacting a lawyer.

Magnum

Bogey

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:10 PM

I trip up and back down 128 from the South Shore to Rte. 2 every week for my lesson.(did it today) I have been doing this for almost 4 years now...I am a middle aged adult, hauling for 12 years....and all I can tell you is I have to be on "high alert" at all times. I have an F250 with a Kingston Trailer. Between the knuckleheads who cut me off, the road conditions, the people on their cell phones slamming on breaks and the trucks whizzing by me....I am lucky I have not been in an accident.
whoever posted "there but for the grace of god go I" was right. You just don't know.
I hope the young ladies get the support they need in this time of tragedy.

talloaks

Aug. 23, 2005, 05:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The trailer was a kingston two horse, if anyone was wondering. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doublete, do you know if the Kingston had a dressing room?? I have always had Kingston tag a longs and love them and find them to be so stable on the road and super for hauling. Just curious if it was longer than mine without the dressing room.

Ghazzu

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:20 PM

TedShel

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:41 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would appreciate some examples that use numbers to illustrate your points about the ratio between the length of the tongue of the trailer & position of axles, etc.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure I understand the question.

What we need is some smart college kid that is studying physics/statics/dynamics/vectors and all that other stuff that was too many beers ago for me to remember how to do the hard math.

All I know is that I tow a 3H DR BP with an Expedition w/ tow package and weight distro hitch w/o a problem for several years now (knock on wood). Did the math, weighed the truck (full of fluids), weighed the trailer empty, know the weight of my ponies, saddles, water, and other junque/tack, and I'm fine with it.

Huntertwo

Aug. 23, 2005, 06:56 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by magnum:
VERY SORRY to hear about this tragedy. How awful. Relieved to hear that the horses did not suffer.

Evalee and Ted -- good comments on the wheel base.

IMHO, ALL horseowners need to stand up to SALESSTAFF who insist that small to medium sized SUV's and 1/2 tons are UTTERLY safe for pulling (unconditionally SAFE and "designed to do this!" they say!).

Magnum </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Magnum, correct me if I'm wrong but a 1/2 ton has nothing to do with what a vehicle can PULL.
It is what the vehicle is capable of carrying.

My 1/2 ton, has a V-8 5.3L engine with the heavy duty tow package, beefed up suspension etc.
It is only myself and my saddle/tack.

Is this correct?

doublete

Aug. 23, 2005, 07:04 PM

tall oaks- yes it had a dressing room.

I'm not sure I understand all of the discussion, but I will sit down and *try* to understand. But basically, I think the gist is my next trailer and new truck will be a gooseneck with a bigger truck than I have now (although my rig now is very safe, and I never feel like it is even swaying behind me).

Boston Chicken

Aug. 23, 2005, 07:08 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by AdultMedals:
I'll make sure to keep everyone updated on how the owners are doing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Please do! and please let them know we're thinking of them

DKL

Aug. 23, 2005, 07:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by gabz:
My 2004 F150, extended cab has a 145" wheelbase. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gabz how do you find out the wheelbase specs on your F150? I bought a used 2003 F150 7700 which I think means heavy duty suspension, but I am not 100% sure and would like to know how to find out more. Thank you in advance.

My heart goes out to these poor girls....

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 23, 2005, 07:26 PM

TedShel -

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The length of the trailer vs. the wheelbase of the vehicle is a better comparison of whether or not your choice of tow vehicle is a good one.

The longer the trailer, the more leverage it can apply to the tow vehicle and create sway, side to side movement. The amount of sway that can be applied can also be mitigated by the distance between the rear axle of the vehicle and the ball, and the ball to the rear axle of the trailer.

So, in the RV world, where sail area is more of a problem then weight, the guideline is that a vehicle with a wheelbase of 110 inches can tow a 20 foot trailer. Each additional 4 inches will get you 1 more foot of trailer.

Another guide that relates to the ball to axle distance is that the trailer's rear axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the vehicle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I bolded two parts of the quote. Neither part is clear to me. What kind of relationship between the ball to rear axle of tow vehicle/ball to rear axle of trailer is ideal? What kind of proportion? Give me a real world example, such as the numbers on your particular tow vehicle & trailer & explain why this ratio works well.

On to the 2nd bolded quote: "the trailer's rear axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the vehicle"?? You lost me totally. I have no idea what you are saying or what ratio or proportion you are saying there should be. Again, ideals vs. real world examples would be a big help.

I don't think either part that I bolded represents a clear or clearly expressed thought.

armandh

Aug. 24, 2005, 02:41 AM

if the distance between the towing rear axle and ball is short it gives the trailer tung [weight and side to side pressure] not much leverage to lift and push sideways the front of the towing truck. a weight distributing hitch reduces the lifting action keeping more braking and steering traction in front.

TedShel

Aug. 24, 2005, 05:22 AM

Wheel base to trailer length:

Wheelbase Length Wheelbase Length
110" 20' 150" 31'
114" 21' 154" 32'
118" 22' 158" 33'
122" 23' 162" 34'
126" 24' 166" 35'
130" 25' 170" 36'
134" 26' 174" 37'
138" 27' 178" 38'
142" 28' 182" 39'
146" 29' 186" 40'

TedShel

Aug. 24, 2005, 05:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TedShel:
Wheel base to trailer length:

Wheelbase Length Wheelbase Length
110" 20'..............150" 31'
114" 21'..............154" 32'
118" 22'..............158" 33'
122" 23'..............162" 34'
126" 24'..............166" 35'
130" 25'..............170" 36'
134" 26'..............174" 37'
138" 27'..............178" 38'
142" 28'..............182" 39'
146" 29'..............186" 40'

"Ball to rear axle" comment numbers

Wheelbase Length Wheelbase Length
110" 18'4"......... 150" 25'
114" 19'........... 154" 25'8"
118" 19'8"......... 158" 26'4"
122" 20'4"......... 162" 27'
126" 21'.......... 166" 27'8"
130" 21'8"......... 170" 28'4"
134" 22'4"......... 174" 29'
138" 23'........... 178" 29'8"
142" 23'8"......... 182" 30'4"
146" 24'4"......... 186" 31'

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 24, 2005, 06:31 AM

OK, I appreciate the answers but I am still somewhat dim.

armandh - what you are saying is basically that a gooseneck works better because the horizontal distance from the tow vehicle rear axle to the ball of the trailer is short. Am I correct? You are also saying that a weight distributing hitch attempts to compensate for the larger distance between the rear axle/ball by (in part) damping the up/down motion of the trailer tongue on the ball. I think I understand this part.

TedShel - I understood the relationship you gave of tow vehicle wheelbase to trailer length. I did NOT bold the part about "in the RV world . . . the guideline is that a vehicle with a 110 inch wheelbase can tow a 20 foot trailer. . . ."

What I AM asking about is: WHAT IS THE IDEAL DISTANCE FROM THE TRAILER BALL TO THE REAR AXLE OF THE TRAILER?? Is there a proportion or ratio between the distance from rear axle of tow vehicle to ball/distance from ball to rear axle of trailer? To me your first post suggests that there is some kind of proportion or ratio, but you don't tell us what it is.

We do know from your posts that you haul a relatively large BUMPER PULL trailer with a relatively small tow vehicle. What makes this work? What are the two distances mentioned above on your real world example? (How far from your trailer ball to your tow vehicle's rear axle? How far from your trailer ball to your trailer's rear axle?)

I am looking at your chart of "'Ball to rear axle' comment numbers" & I don't understand this chart at all (which you must know from my previous questions). Are you saying that if your tow vehicle has a 110" wheelbase, the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer rear axle should be 18'4" out of a 20 foot long trailer? (I believe all of these assume a bumper pull trailer?)

Now, you have already said you drew these numbers from the RV world where "sail" is more a concern than weight. Are you saying that these numbers (whatever they are) will apply in the horse trailer world where you have a top heavy, high center of gravity, moving cargo?

I really need more of an explanation in addition to a chart.

Thank you for your attempts to explain. Please keep trying.

MyArgie

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mr. Romney's wife rides, too (she was the focus of an article in the Globe a while back). Maybe that angle would have some teeth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Doubt it wll have any effect whatsoever.
Mitt the Git is too busy running for the Republican nomination for President to concern himself with such prosaic matters as the roadways of the Commonwealth.[/quote]

i know, but hey if enough people will write and some media attention can be directed in that direction it might help a little... small chance i know, but it will make ME feel better to know i did not just sit back and say nothing after this tragedy

i agree to standing up to sales people!!! i went to a chevy dealership (litterally, for kicks) i'm 5'4", very small boned, i was 18 at the time. explained that i was graduating HS and my parents were and looking to buy a new truck to pull my horse trailer. the dealer knew NOTHING. he suggested a checy avalanch, when i told him i was under the impression that the bed was not long enough to tow a gooseneck trailer, he have me a nervous laugh and excused himself for a moment. he saw me and thought "stupid spoiled brat who has no idea what she is even doing", when i popped the bed length question, the look on his face was priceless. but also sickening about the way i was being treated...

Eventer55

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:13 AM

I clicked on this post not for morbid curiosity, but for solid information on safety, which is what comes out of something like this.

I am thinking of getting a Kingston 2 horse gooseneck next Spring, I drive a 1/2 ton Chevy 350, I use level bars chains etc. What is the consensus on the 2 horse gooseneck?

Not meaning to hijack this thread, I think all this information can save lives.

All good thoughts to the driver. I wish we never had threads like this!

P.S. I too drive like an old lady. . . hey, I am an old lady!

Barnfairy

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I plan (once I get more details that I am sure of) to write to the MA's departments of transportation as well as the governor (ye old Mitt...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Mr. Romney's wife rides, too (she was the focus of an article in the Globe a while back). Maybe that angle would have some teeth </div></BLOCKQUOTE><BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Doubt it wll have any effect whatsoever.
Mitt the Git is too busy running for the Republican nomination for President to concern himself with such prosaic matters as the roadways of the Commonwealth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aw, c'mon Ghazzu, don't be such a stick in the mud. Heck, it'll give us a chance to find out now just how much influence Ann has on the presidential-candidate-to-be. (Would she be a Hillary or a Laura?) I'd like to think that governors' wives love their horses too.

p.s. there's a lovely picture of Mrs. Romney on NEDA's homepage (http://www.neda.org/home.php)

pegasus209

Aug. 24, 2005, 07:57 AM

I haven't read through all of the informative posts but just wanted to say how sorry I am for the OP's friend.. such a terrible tragedy. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

Sandy M

Aug. 24, 2005, 08:04 AM

Thanks for your post, Magnum. My '88 Chevy 2500 recently had to have fairly $$$ work done in order to pass its (very tough) California smog test. It's now good to go for another 2 years. But the expense made me start thinking about a new (used) truck... So I go into dealerships saying I want a basic work truck F250/2500, and they show me stuff that is beyond my price range, then INSIST that I should buy even a NEW F-150/1500 (or used) because "with the correct towing package it will do the job." And BOY do they hate to have me keep saying NO-NO-NO-NO. HOw much weight are you hauling, it's made to do that, etc. AAAARGH!! However, I do stand my ground.

With reference to this tragic accident, before I had my own rig, I used to borrow vehicles belonging to my then-employer, a lawyer/hobby Arabian breeder. He had both Suburbans and 2500 trucks. Usually, I used the trucks, but once only one of the Suburbans was available. I did NOT like it as a tow vehicle - the center of balance or something was NOT right, even though it had load levers/sway bars. The trucks did a much better job.

gabz

Aug. 24, 2005, 10:01 AM

DKL, there are 2 sites that I visit.
http://www.ford-trucks.com/forums/index.php?s=
this one is an honest & safe to register site. Look for SPECS... they go back several years.

The other is Ford's product webpages...
http://www.fordvehicles.com/trucks/f150/
I used to be able to "trick" it and go to prior years... but it doesn't seem to be working like it used to.
Mr. Truck is another excellent resource
http://www.mrtruck.net/

also - your owner's manual should tell you. If nothing else, you can measure from the center of your front wheel to the center of your back wheel to get the measurement.

The 7700 payload trucks were 99% of what Ford sold as 3/4 tons. There were many Ford 3/4 ton truck buyers who felt ripped off for a few years when Ford was marketing "Super Duty" and "Heavy Duty"...

I have also owned the 2000 and 2002 F150 extended cabs. Those had a 139" wheelbase. Longer than a regular cab. The 2004 and newer extended cabs have the 145" wb.

Sandy M

Aug. 24, 2005, 10:58 AM

Just remember that when manufacturer's specs specify a towing capacity, they are talking about a stable, bottom heavy load, like a boat. A horse trailer is neither bottom heavy nor stable. Most dealer salesmen usually do not "get it" about the difference, and will tell you ANYTHING will pull a trailer, with no concern for you or your horse's safety. They just want to make the sale.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 24, 2005, 12:19 PM

Bumping this up in hopes that TedShel will see it & try to explain his posts to me. I hate admitting to being so dense, but I am really puzzled. (I'm not blonde, I'm gray, by the way.)

TedShel

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:14 PM

Evalee Hunter: you're on my list (not high on it, but on it), but gotta make money to feed the ponies.

I guess I don't understand what you don't understand.

I think you are asking me why I think what I am doing is safe. IMO, my Expedition's specs are adequate to handle my trailer, based on gross combined curb weight, weight distro hitch capacity, braking ability, wheelbase vs. trailer length, driving/towing experience, family usage, and color.

It's all comes down to what level of safety you can afford.

Sandbarhorse

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MyArgie:
I was towing my horse along the same highway (different part of it) around the same time on Sunday night. I shudder to think, it could have been me and my horse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was towing two horses through MA myself on Sun. and agree with the "there but for the grace of God" comment. Condolences to the driver and to the owners of the horses. This accident, will, at least, be a reminder as to how quickly something can go radically wrong, so some good will be served.

In terms of tow vehicles and trailers, count me in the "Own a GN and will never go back group" (Kingston, BTW). For me personally, I will also never again tow with anything less than a 2500 with a big enough engine to get it out of the way, towing gears to assist stopping and the full tow package. It is my only vehicle, but I am too chicken to take a chance with less.

The important thing to come from all of this, IMHO, is that no matter how safe a rig is, things can still go wrong and that sometimes it's more important to go slower and take longer to get home (Says the very tired individual who was really tempted to go faster in an effort to get the horses and me home to bed sooner on Sun.).

Ghazzu

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MyArgie:

i agree to standing up to sales people!!! i went to a chevy dealership (litterally, for kicks) i'm 5'4", very small boned, i was 18 at the time. explained that i was graduating HS and my parents were and looking to buy a new truck to pull my horse trailer. the dealer knew NOTHING. he suggested a checy avalanch, when i told him i was under the impression that the bed was not long enough to tow a gooseneck trailer, he have me a nervous laugh and excused himself for a moment. he saw me and thought "stupid spoiled brat who has no idea what she is even doing", when i popped the bed length question, the look on his face was priceless. but also sickening about the way i was being treated... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH, I walked into a GMC dealer's one evening, leaving my POS Datsun p/u running outside (because if I shut off the ignition it wouldn't start again). Said I wanted to buy either a p/u or SUV that had 4WD and could pull a trailer.
The salesman gave me some brochures with specs to take home, and the business card of one of the other salesmen who wasn't there at the time, because he didn't know anything about towing stuff, but his colleague did.

Smart move, that, because I've now bought 3 vehicles from that same dealership over the years...

Ghazzu

Aug. 24, 2005, 01:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Barnfairy:

Aw, c'mon Ghazzu, don't be such a stick in the mud. Heck, it'll give us a chance to find out now just how much influence Ann has on the presidential-candidate-to-be. (Would she be a Hillary or a Laura?) I'd like to think that governors' wives love their horses too.

p.s. there's a lovely picture of Mrs. Romney on NEDA's homepage (http://www.neda.org/home.php) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but I'm a native, and sick to death of outsiders who come in to play governor and then get bored with it partway through their terms.

Now, if Frank Sargeant was still governor...

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 24, 2005, 03:19 PM

OK, I am so dense that, not only do I not understand TedShel's posts, I can't communicate to him what I want to know. So, can anyone else help us out, here?

TedShel - on page 3, near the end, I wrote a post in which I posed these questions:

First question:

[QUOTE] Is there a proportion or ratio between the distance from rear axle of tow vehicle to ball/distance from ball to rear axle of trailer? To me your first post suggests that there is some kind of proportion or ratio, but you don't tell us what it is. [QUOTE]

Second question:

[QUOTE]
[Is] your chart of "'Ball to rear axle' comment numbers" . . . saying that if your tow vehicle has a 110" wheelbase, the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer rear axle should be 18'4" out of a 20 foot long trailer? (I believe all of these assume a bumper pull trailer?)[QUOTE]

Third question:

[QUOTE]
Now, you have already said you drew these numbers from the RV world where "sail" is more a concern than weight. Are you saying that these numbers (whatever they are) will apply in the horse trailer world where you have a top heavy, high center of gravity, moving cargo?
[QUOTE]

Fourth question:

[QUOTE] Another guide that relates to the ball to axle distance is that the trailer's rear axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the vehicle. [QUOTE]

I feel if you read this out loud it doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the towing vehicle? Have I understood this one?

Final quote & question:

[QUOTE] my Expedition's specs are adequate to handle my trailer, based on gross combined curb weight, weight distro hitch capacity, braking ability, wheelbase vs. trailer length, driving/towing experience, family usage, and color. [QUOTE]

Having introduced these ratios/distances (which, I am embarassed to admit, I had never heard of), you seem to suggest you actually did not use them when deciding whether the Expedition would safely tow a particular 3 horse bumper pull trailer (whatever brand you own).

I hope by pulling my questions into one post, I will facilitate your reply!

MyArgie

Aug. 24, 2005, 03:49 PM

Eventer55- I don't know much about trailering goosenecks, BUT i do know that a chevy 3500 is perfectly suitable for a GN 2 horse. I would highly reccomend you speak to a variety of trailer dealers (even if you are set on a kingston), tell them what type of truck you have, and ask what trailers/types they would reccomend. find out the manufacturers specs on towing weight. to figure out the weight of trailer you want, my rule is that i want to stay at least 2klbs under my limit, add up trailer weight, 2 horses + 1,000 (theoretical) water, hay, equipment....etc

as i said before, my chevy suburban says (i think..) 4000 dead weight, 10,000 distributed weight. when i called one place about having a weight distribution hitch put on, he was hesitant to put on one because he thought i would "be ok to get away with the dead weight, it would avoid the approx $500 for a w.d. hitch" i promptly found another trailer service and sales place. i'm not willing to chance my truck, trailer, life and most valuable MY HORSE'S LIFE for a few hundred bucks... (this place was in MA, if anyone in the area is curious, PM me i would be happy to pass on the name if it may help prevent accidents)

magnum

Aug. 24, 2005, 04:15 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Huntertwo:
[QUOTE]Magnum, correct me if I'm wrong but a 1/2 ton has nothing to do with what a vehicle can PULL.
It is what the vehicle is capable of carrying.

My 1/2 ton, has a V-8 5.3L engine with the heavy duty tow package, beefed up suspension etc.
It is only myself and my saddle/tack.

Is this correct? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are correct that the ratings are for "payload" or "Carrying weight."

In my mind, the difference comes in EVERYTHING else that goes along with an HD Package. The axles are heavier ... the tranny is heavier ... the Diffy is heavier .... the BRAKES are heavier .... the FRAME is heavier -- mostly those improvements are designed to support that PAYLOAD.

... Last but not least ... a heavier TRUCK (shipping weight on the truck) in general (helps to counterbalance the rear load in a bad situation.

That "overall more SUBSTANTIAL TRUCK" translates into a rig that can:

1) be more likely to stop WITHOUT JACKKNIFING OR SKIDDING when those kids drive a bike out in front of you;
2) help you stop better when a motorcycle snaps in front of you in traffic at high speed, then slams on his brakes;
3) A deer SLAMS into your front end;
4) An 18 wheeler NEXT to you blows a tire -- as if a cannon just shot at you -- explodes in SMOKE and instantly careens out of control TOWARDS YOUR TRAILER (had this happen to me around the beltine of Indy once at 65 m.p.h. - Again, I insist if I had been driving a 1/2 THREE HORSE B.P. (death traps, IMHO), we'd ALL be dead. Instead I was able to swerve WITHIN CONTROL and not FLIP .... or ROLL .... and no one was anything except STRESSED when I stopped right away to check my TWO BIG BEEFY WB boys in back!) ...;
5) ..... etc.

You get the idea. The smaller trucks SIMPLY ARE NOT BEEFY ENOUGH TO HANDLE A HIGH CENTER OF GRAVITY LOAD shift, while the beefier trucks are MUCH MORE SUITED to handling unforeseen emergencies!

There is TOO MUCH WE CAN NOT CONTROL WHEN WE DRIVE OUR HORSES DOWN THE ROAD. GIVEN A CHOICE, I WILL CONTROL WHAT I CAN (my tools and equipment), and know I stand a better chance in an accident. What's the worst that can happen? I show up OVER-PREPARED to handle an emergency?

Finally, I've said this a hundred times (most of them here): Most horse trailers are DESIGNED under the old studies done in the 70's and 80's .... with diagrams from Oklahoma cowboys who took yardsticks to their cattle cutting QH's! Maybe these little "sardine can" trailers are what the Big 3 are looking at when they say their rigs will "do it!" Yes, a 1/2 ton will generally HANDLE a skimpy, 2 horse B.P. with that notorious little tack room under the MANGER and a 950 lb. horse on board ... but smaller trucks will not SAFELY handle much beyond that!

Also, FWIW -- It's only been in the last 8-10 years we've had trailers who come even CLOSE to handling our 16.3 hand WB's ... or 2 or 3 or 4 of them .....

Now, it is up to US to find SUITABLEy SIZED AND POWERED TRUCKS TO TOW THOSE SAME LARGER TRAILERS we were so google eyed looking at on the dealer's lot.

One final word: About Weight DIstr. hitches -- at that point, one is ATTEMPTING TO COMPENSATE FOR A WRONG DECISION THAT HAS ALREADY PAIRED A TRUCK AND TRAILER THAT RESULTED IN A MISMATCH ...

It's a TRUE statement, so even if you don't wish to believe it -- then for the sake of your horses who TRUST you to load them up and take them somewhere SAFELY -- then please, please PLEASE believe this!

Magnum

Huntertwo

Aug. 24, 2005, 05:04 PM

Magnum, Thanks for all the information. There has just been so many trailering posts on different horse sites, it gets confusing. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Also, my truck has the extended cab. Does this help?

I do have a small 2 horse bumper pull and one 13.2 hand pony to pull.

Thanks again.

TedShel

Aug. 24, 2005, 06:33 PM

First question:

[QUOTE] Is there a proportion or ratio between the distance from rear axle of tow vehicle to ball/distance from ball to rear axle of trailer? To me your first post suggests that there is some kind of proportion or ratio, but you don't tell us what it is. [QUOTE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There prob is, but I tried to get around figuring it out by posting the tables.
Second question:

[QUOTE]
[Is] your chart of "'Ball to rear axle' comment numbers" . . . saying that if your tow vehicle has a 110" wheelbase, the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer rear axle should be 18'4" out of a 20 foot long trailer? (I believe all of these assume a bumper pull trailer?)[QUOTE]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just distance to the axle, doesn't say anything about overhang behind trailer axle. Yes, they assume BP trailers, GNs are totally different in construction.
Third question:

[QUOTE]
Now, you have already said you drew these numbers from the RV world where "sail" is more a concern than weight. Are you saying that these numbers (whatever they are) will apply in the horse trailer world where you have a top heavy, high center of gravity, moving cargo? >>>>>>>>>>>>Sure, why not, it's all we got. Apparently no Physic majors/teachers/hobbiest answered the call.
[QUOTE]

Fourth question:

[QUOTE] Another guide that relates to the ball to axle distance is that the trailer's rear axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the vehicle. [QUOTE]

I feel if you read this out loud it doesn't make any sense. Are you saying that the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer axle should be no more than twice the wheelbase of the towing vehicle? Have I understood this one? >>>>>>>Bingo!

Final quote & question:

[QUOTE] my Expedition's specs are adequate to handle my trailer, based on gross combined curb weight, weight distro hitch capacity, braking ability, wheelbase vs. trailer length, driving/towing experience, family usage, and color. [QUOTE]

Having introduced these ratios/distances (which, I am embarassed to admit, I had never heard of), you seem to suggest you actually did not use them when deciding whether the Expedition would safely tow a particular 3 horse bumper pull trailer (whatever brand you own). >>>>>Nope, I said "based on.....", one of which was wb vs. tl.

But, Apparently this is all hogwash because, nope never mind, y'all prob won't see the humor in what I was about to post, so like I said before, I accept my margin of safety for my horses. You do what you think is right and what you can afford. All of the capacities for your towing vehicle and how do the calculations are found in the owners manual, or at least Ford puts them in there. The tables posted were guidelines, I didn't do the math. A few that posted are doing far worse then what I'm doing, some are doing far better. Sorry I couldn't get my points across, or my that my points weren't accepted by all, just trying to put another point of view out there for those that are just weekend types, not everyday or many times a week haulers. Lots of considerations go into the decision of what trailer and tow vehicle you get, it all comes down to what you are comfortable doing, or getting away w/ (just trying to head off anticipated comments)

Cheers

icicle333

Aug. 24, 2005, 08:11 PM

very sorry to find out that i know the girl whose horse was in the trailer...not sure if she or her family also owned the pony...

really really sad. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 24, 2005, 08:16 PM

Thank you very much for taking time to answer my questions.

Now back to my quote - the light has come on & I understand your tables which I am reprinting below my quote.

[/QUOTE] [Is] your chart of "'Ball to rear axle' comment numbers" . . . saying that if your tow vehicle has a 110" wheelbase, the distance from the trailer ball to the trailer rear axle should be 18'4" out of a 20 foot long trailer? (I believe all of these assume a bumper pull trailer?)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope, it is just distance to the axle, doesn't say anything about overhang behind trailer axle. [QUOTE]

Now your tables:

Table 1:
Wheelbase Length Wheelbase Length
110" 20'..............150" 31'
114" 21'..............154" 32'
118" 22'..............158" 33'
122" 23'..............162" 34'
126" 24'..............166" 35'
130" 25'..............170" 36'
134" 26'..............174" 37'
138" 27'..............178" 38'
142" 28'..............182" 39'
146" 29'..............186" 40'

Table 2:
"Ball to rear axle" comment numbers

Wheelbase Length Wheelbase Length
110" 18'4"......... 150" 25'
114" 19'........... 154" 25'8"
118" 19'8"......... 158" 26'4"
122" 20'4"......... 162" 27'
126" 21'.......... 166" 27'8"
130" 21'8"......... 170" 28'4"
134" 22'4"......... 174" 29'
138" 23'........... 178" 29'8"
142" 23'8"......... 182" 30'4"
146" 24'4"......... 186" 31'

Look at the first line only of both tables. For a 110" wheelbase, according to your first table the maximum trailer length is 20 feet. Then the next table shows for a 110" wheelbase that the distance from trailer ball to trailer rear axle is 18'4". What I didn't realize is that the table is saying this is the MAXIMUM DISTANCE & that anything less is OK. I read the table to mean this was the ideal or correct distance. I also didn't figure out until a few minutes ago that 18'4" is almost exactly twice 110" (which is 9.16 feet) & you did say elsewhere that the maximum distance from trailer ball to trailer rear axle was twice the wheelbase of the tow vehicle. I didn't originally realize that the second table expresses that particular relationship - I should have translated inches into feet & I might have seen it sooner.

Anyway, I now have additional information & I appreciate you taking the time to help me understand it.

JanWeber

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:51 AM

Doesn't it make sense to check with a local trailer dealer on the requirements for the tow vehicle? Before I bought my truck, I "test drove" it to the trailer dealer and asked HER how it would pull my trailer. A couple she vetoed (and told me in technical terms why they were an unsafe combo). I relied on her expertise rather than the truck dealer. BTW, I bought my last (and first) trailer from her 8 years ago. She wasn't trying to make a sale - just trying to make sure that we stayed safe.

Tackpud

Aug. 25, 2005, 05:54 AM

So sorry for the families involved in this tragedy. May the horses rest in peace and may the driver not blame herself for a horrible accident that she could not prevent. May the children remember the wonderful rides on their horse and pony with love and laughter and smiles on their faces. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sadsmile.gif

How about everyone taking the trailering issues to another thread and leaving this one for condolences and remembrances. The OP was about a horrible accident and tragic loss. Let's grieve for those involved.

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 06:38 AM

Does anyone have access to the accident report?

What did cause this tragedy?

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 25, 2005, 08:35 AM

Based on news reports posted earlier, the accident was caused by hitting a pothole which caused the horses to shift suddenly to keep their balance.

OK, I took some real world measurements now that I understand what you are saying. Wheelbase of my truck = 156 inches. I'll round down a little & say I can tow a 32 ft. trailer which is equal to 384 inches. I like the 80% rule of thumb so the biggest horse trailer (in length) that I would tow would be 307 inches long (25 ft. 7 inches, approximately).

Our three horse is, like TedShel's, 20 ft total in length, with almost 4 ft. devoted to the tongue & the rest being trailer. The distance from ball to center of rear axle is appoximately 187 inches or a little over 15 ft. 6 inches.

On the 3 horse, the ball to trailer body length is 48 inches or 20% of the total length of the trailer. The ball to rear axle is 78% of the total length of the trailer, including tongue.

I also measured a 2 horse straight load which is sitting here (also bumper pull). It is 171 inches total length (ball to rear end of trailer) or 14 ft. 3 inches. The distance from ball to center of rear axle is 139 inches or about 11 ft. 7 inches.

On the 2 horse, the tongue length (ball to trailer body), is 38 inches or 38 inches/171 inches = 22% of the total length of the trailer. The distance from ball to rear axle is 81% of the trailer's total length.

Now I would like to measure an even smaller trailer & a bigger trailer & see if I see a trend. I would also like to measure a Brenderup. U-u-m, this is INTERESTING!

17hTBmare

Aug. 25, 2005, 08:47 AM

I'm confused---one of the original posters said the horses were from Stoneymeade. There is a Stoneymeade Farm in Concord, MA, out of which a pro named Jill--I think--works. Then the news clip said the horses and driver were from Vermont. Can anyone clarify, please?

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 08:51 AM

BP axles are positioned so not to put too much weight on the tongue, usually not more then 400 lbs for your larger BPs.

So, in my pea-brain, the only reason why your measured length from ball to trailer body is important is if, by having more trailer body, we have more storage, and we put more weight forward in the tailer and therefore on the ball. That could be bad.

GNs have their axles further back to put more weight on the "ball". Usually 800 or 900 pounds worth. That 800ish pounds then has to be calculated as payload in the tow vehicle, but let's stick w/ BPs.

wendy

Aug. 25, 2005, 09:04 AM

I too would suggest doing what JanWeber did: ask your trailer dealer what they suggest in terms of a tow vehicle.

Sandy M

Aug. 25, 2005, 09:36 AM

MAGNUM - Thank you. I am printing out your post about WHY I need a 2500/F-250, so I don't have to have to argue with the truck dealers about why I don't want a 1/2 truck, why I WANT to be, as you so eloquently put it "Over-prepared to handle an emergency." I wasn't about to back off from my insistance on a 3/4 ton, but it's nice to have a concisely put piece to explain to THEM why I don't want a 1/2 ton.

MyArgie

Aug. 25, 2005, 12:54 PM

17hTBmare- i don't know the specifics. i know the pony was definetly from Stoneymeade in Concord. All i can guess is maybe this Jill (i don't know her) is from Vermont and was maybe the trainer working with the horses? is at Stoneymeade for the summer?... i don't know. maybe someone who knows Jill can answer this better

cyberbay

Aug. 25, 2005, 01:25 PM

Condolences to everyone involved in such a freak scenario. It's awful (and MyArgie, your OP didn't come across to me as a slam to the driver at all).

But having said that...this SUV business is a real sham. That anyone with the information that is out there on these vehicles would even consider driving them, when there are easy alternatives, is still unbelievable to me. They are gas hogs, they don't have to meet emissions standards, and they are extremely dangerous to other drivers on the road. Ask the 3-4,000 people each year who are killed b/c of the SUV's dangerous characteristics. You can't see around them to see the road ahead, and those bumpers threatening everyone's cranium, I mean, how can any reasonable and responsible person drive one? And then people try to tow in them? You can see with the naked eye immediately the imbalance between horse trailer and SUV tow vehicle. Hitch installers shouldn't be allowed to install a hitch on a vehicle that isn't up to the task. Every knowledgeable person I know who tows wouldn't dream of using an SUV (any size, with the possible exception of the Suburban--and the Excursion is out of production now).

The Explorer as tow vehicle? You gotta be kidding me. It's pretty clear to me that the Explorer was not tested for carrying the type of load it implied it could carry as a passenger car, esp. with even more family cargo piled in the roof rack (like horses, the higher-riding the weight...). In my opinion, Firestone had to knuckle under and take the rap
--it was never the tires, though, it was the Explorer's poor physics--the vehicle was wrongly engineered for its SUV job and the tires simply exploded under the side-to-side stresses that the high-riding weight causes.

As for the post that said "you buy as much safety as you can afford..." well, there's a difference between sufficient safety and just plain not being road-worthy. There are other drivers on the road--you are obligated to have safe vehicles. Get your information from as many people as you can when it comes to purchasing a tow vehicle and buy what you need to have, not what you can afford at the moment.

Sorry for the rant, but when people and animals are being killed, well, that crosses my bottom line.

Sandy M

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:12 PM

Worse yet, Cyber - my understanding is the original (and perhaps present?) Explorers are built on a MUSTANG chassis. You use Mustang parts for repair. Would ANYONE rational tow with a Mustang in anything but the direst emergency? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:18 PM

Got any facts and figures to backup your glittering generalities?

And why aren't compact car owners at fault for not driving bigger safer cars that don't squish when they're hit?

So I take it that you tow your horses w/ a gas efficient truck that has to meet emission standards? Or is it that SUVs are trucks so they don't have to meet emission standards? Or maybe it's a diesel with it's clean fuel.

And, get the quote right next time, read what it says, not what you think it says.

I knew it was only a matter of time that the thread would turn to an attack, vice just following your own advice of "Get your information from as many people as you can..."

But I'd like to add that you, the collective you, should have enough self confidence to make your own informed decision vice having someone make it for you.

Sorry for the return rant, but it's a free country and if I want to tow my horses with a SUV, ummm, I can. I'm comfortable with the margin of safety that my rig provides. I guess I won't be hauling cyberbay's horses anytime soon. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

cyberbay

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:40 PM

Have at it, TedShel. No, you won't be towing mine.

There are other people on the road, and I have to be as safe as possible because of that. Yes, I do have the facts to back up the SUV facts (it is my understanding that the SUV is classified as a light truck. LTs have lower emission standards than passenger cars). You can research them, too. And, honestly, it isn't an attack on you--in fact, I didn't read your posts too closely. As you didn't read mine. Since when are facts attacking? But, speaking of attacks, what do you call driving an unsafe vehicle? You are putting other drivers at risk, other passengers--to me, that's an attack on theirs, and our, safety. It's simply denial to think that as long as you're driving safely, all's well, no one could possibly get hurt.

Yes, I think you should be driving in a vehicle no larger than the job needed. For most "driver-only" commuters or soccer moms going to the grocery store, a Passat wagon would fit the bill nicely. Not a Navigator. A small car built with state of the art safety features... For towing horses, a real towing vehicle is what's needed. I don't think you don't have the right to waste in this shrinking world (or even before the human race has multiplied so dangerously) or to endanger anyone. That's my bottom line, and anyone would be hard-pressed to show me what's not right about it--other than it shakes up your sense of denial. In my book, if you're doing something that endangers me or anyone else, I will speak up. Driving more vehicle than you need to get groceries is wrong; driving less vehicle than needed to tow is just as wrong. I have gotten my towing info from as many people as I can, and boy was it thumbs down on the SUV as a choice. Again and again. From engineers, from all types. And coming down on the side of a true tow vehicle and against the SUV has nothing to do with confidence. It has to do with accepting the current set of facts and to have enough learned and earned scepticism to know to always look a little further, stay a little open. Oh... remember, freedom means responsibility. Not a chance to act like an undisciplined teenager. You can't just do whatever you want--that's a shocking statement from a grown-up. Freedom is more work than having someone else shoulder the load. Me, I'd rather shoulder the load.

Ohmygosh, SandyM...how, uh,fitting that the Explorer was on the horsey-themed Mustang. But, no surprise given the Detroit thinking behind car design. Thanks for the interesting fact...;->

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:47 PM

Yep, you've convinced me with the facts, you're right, I'm wrong.

Still friends?

cyberbay

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:53 PM

ok....we can be friends. But, um, besides my pro no-waste/no-endanger stance(s), I'm also a Yankee. That might be worse...

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 02:57 PM

So am I.

The Unites State Navy sent me here, but since I'm now USN Ret., I'm glad you've got the load. Oops, nope not all of it, I'm still fully engaged in the GWOT. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry, had to get one more swipe at you.

SBT

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:11 PM

I'm wondering if having a 17.2 horse on one side and a pony on the other side had something to do with it...that's a seriously uneven load. Add in a mid-weight tow vehicle, a big bump and a big weight shift by the horses, and the rollover was a natural consequence...physics in action, if you will. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Of course, it's easy to understand HOW these things happen. WHY is always a mystery that boils down to "accidents happen." http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

How very sad for all involved! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif

Sandy M

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:19 PM

Not really relevant regarding towing vehicles (I think the vehicle in question was a full-size truck), but years ago, friends of mine who stabled in GGP in SF were gong over the GG Bridge to a horse show in Marin County. As they headed toward the bridge, the trailer came off the hitch. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now.... the two horses in the trailer were a lovely, well-trained TB and a rather snotty little QH who was notoriously unreliable as a jumper and also known as something of a bucker. For some reason, the smaller QH was on the driver side, the big TB on the passenger side. The trailer stayed upright but slid toward the low wall of the overpass they were on, and as it started to tilt (and undoubtedly would have gone over the side), the little QH violently swung his weight in the opposite direction and the trailer came to a stop, upright, next to the low wall. All this observed from a following car. The owner of the two horses said that the QH never had to jump another fence in his life if he didn't want to! He was the "hero" of the barn for "saving" the other horse's life (and his own!) http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

inca

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:24 PM

Very, very sad and I hope all those involved can come to terms with the fact that it was just a tragic accident. It's easy to use hindsight and say woulda, coulda, shoulda but this was simply a very tragic accident that no one should blame themselves for. This was the 1 in 10,000 times that something happened that ended up very badly.

But, this did get me thinking. I have a Chevy 2500 HD so I'm pretty comfy that I have an adequate towing vehicle. I have a 4-Star gooseneck 2 horse slant load trailer. I also feel fairly confident in its safety.

BUT, the 17.2h horse and pony load started me wondering. I will sometimes haul my 14.3hh 880 pound mare and my 16.3hh 1,300 pound mare together. Now the ONLY place my big mare is happy is in my back stall. I don't have a rear tack compartment so my back stall is a big trapezoid (I think that is the correct geometrical figure but HS geometry was a LONG time ago.) It is roomy and she is comfortable there but she CAN move around. Is my load adequately balanced with the 880 pound mare in front and the 1,300 mare in the back stall of a slant load trailer?

I did SPECIFICALLY ask the trailer dealer about hauling one horse in the back stall (front stall empty.) They said it was perfectly safe. I asked because I had a feeling the back stall was going to be where the big mare was the most comfy.

cyberbay

Aug. 25, 2005, 03:28 PM

TedShel--what's GWOT? And I figured you'd also voted for that lying sack of s--- currently in the White House...

Swipe back to you

TedShel

Aug. 25, 2005, 04:55 PM

GWOT is Global War on Terror.

As a matter of fact I did vote for President Bush. So tell me, what lie did he tell? And remember you have to be able to prove that he knew the information that he presented was in fact false at the time he presented it, or are you stating your opinion, much like your opinion on tow vehicles, glittering generalities. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I thought you and I kissed and made up. Why are you starting this? You aren't from MA are you? Constantly voting the murderer or at least man slaughterer into office are you?

And what is it that you do for a living that you can aford the "right" vehicle for the given task, you must have quite a few, a compact for a loaf of bread, an intermediate for a loaf of bread and sandwich meat (or are you a veggie), a larger vehicle to pick up more groceries for when you're having your liberal friends over, for wine and cheese and rabbit food tray, and even a larger more yet still vehicle to safely transport your ponies giving due regard to subcompact cars so that they won't become a "bump" in the road under your tires.

Yes, I voted for Pres. Bush, guilty as charged, he was the lesser of the two choices, but the current choice for taking the fight to the enemy so that we don't have to worry about car bombings, or homicide bombers walking into your Ben & Jerry's. He treated this as a military action vice a police action. Let's hope he continues to be successful so that we don't have anymore terrorist attacks within our borders. The alternative, Kerry was it, nope no way. (we need more then two parties)

This is posted all in fun...

Boston Chicken

Aug. 25, 2005, 05:53 PM

please...whomever posted earlier that perhaps this thread could be kept for thoughts on the accident had the right idea...though I can appreciate TedShel's wit http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

imissvixen

Aug. 25, 2005, 05:56 PM

Oooppsss -- looks like I inadvertently stepped into COTH's version of Fox News. It's worse than stepping into dog doo.

I am very sorry for this tragic accident.

MHM

Aug. 25, 2005, 06:15 PM

Let me add my vote that the towing/politics/jokes/whatever don't belong on this thread.

Does anyone know how the girls involved in the accident are holding up? Hope they're coping, and getting whatever help they need.

Finnegan

Aug. 25, 2005, 06:38 PM

I didn't read through all 5 pages, but was wondering if anyone had hit on weight distribution hitches/sway bars, etc. I wonder if something like that would have perhaps helped? I have a Dodge 2500 2WD and pull a BP 3 horse. My rigging has the weight distribution hitches/sway bars jobbies on there. Hoping that I shouldn't have such towing traumas.

~Bev

doublete

Aug. 25, 2005, 06:55 PM

17htbmare- BOTH horses were from Stoneymeade. The driver is Jill, who works for Stoneymeade doing work for them at shows, etc. She lives in VT at her own farm, however.

Does this clear it up?

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 25, 2005, 07:11 PM

There is something called a "teachable moment". For many of us, a thread where we are reading about a tragic accident is a "teachable moment" for trailering safety info. So, yes, I do think that trailer safety does belong on this thread. If any good can come of such a painful accident, then it will be the safety & preparedness of other horse people.

However, I don't think strange humor or political wrangling belongs on this thread.

KrazyTBMare

Aug. 25, 2005, 07:36 PM

That is horrible. My prayers are with the horse owners, the driver, and all involved. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I am finding the truck/trailer reading interesting though. I have a new body style 04 f150that is far bigger and heavier than the old f150s. Would anyone who is well versed on this truck/trailer info care to engage in a PT so when I do get ready to buy a trailer, I will be informed? I dont want to hijack the thread. Thanks!

talloaks

Aug. 25, 2005, 08:24 PM

Does anyone know where the horse and pony were arranged in the trailer??? I had always been taught to load the largest and heaviest horse on the left side for best weight distribution, or if only hauling one horse to have it on the left yet in traffic I have seen horses arranged in the opposite position so not all do it my way. it would be interesting to know where the large horse and pony were located in the 2 horse Kingston bp.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 26, 2005, 01:41 AM

talloaks - I do NOT know how this horse & pony were arranged in the trailer. However, I have been reading lately that the single horse on the driver's side recommendation was because of the old crowned back roads. Since we are doing less driving on crowned back roads & more driving on correctly banked roads, the modern recommendation is actually the opposite - that the single horse or larger horse should be on the passenger side of the vehicle.

Personally, I think this has always been one of those things that people "think" but has never been researched. I doubt anyone has tested these ideas or knows for sure if either way is more stable.

TedShel

Aug. 26, 2005, 04:51 AM

Finn - I touched on using weight distro hitch, but not anti-sway bars.

Anti-sway bars are basically a friction device that dampens the side to side motion of sway. I've only seen them in conjunction w/ wght dist hitch because of the heavier reciever that supports the bars of the WD contraption.

I don't use them because I believe they restrict your turning radius. And if you keep your "head on a swivel", always aware of your surroundings you can anticipate what will cause sway and react before you have sway.

monstrpony

Aug. 26, 2005, 05:33 AM

Can anyone answer this question with something other than hearsay and guesswork--

I always believed that the large SUVs were built on truck chassis. The Explorer on the Ranger chassis, Expedition on the F-150 chassis, and the Excursion on the F250/HD chassis. In GMC vehicles, the Suburban on the 1500 or 2500 chassis, depending on it's rating, and the Tahoe and equivalent on the 1500 short-bed.

Which means that all of the above vehicles are equivalent to the corresponding trucks, just with different bodies on them. Which would make the larger ones adequate towing vehicles, if properly equipped. They have the wheelbase, and structural integrity of the corresponding trucks.

I agree that the Explorer is inadequate, the Expedition and Tahoe okay only for a smaller standard 2H/BP, but the Excursion and the larger Suburban should be adequate for a three-horse BP, if properly equipped otherwise.

This may be old thinking, from back when the SUVs were first built, and may not be the case any more--I admit, I haven't a clue. Anyone know more about this?

Also, regarding the horse arrangement--many people frequently haul only one horse in a two-horse trailer--how would hauling two horses of very different sizes be more risky than hauling one horse alone? Perhaps this is one case where a slant would be better for distributing the weight of a single horse or two mis-matched horses.

Hope the people involved in this tragedy are beginning to be able to find some peace. My heart aches for them.

magnum

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I have been reading lately that the single horse on the driver's side recommendation was because of the old crowned back roads. Since we are doing less driving on crowned back roads & more driving on correctly banked roads, the modern recommendation is actually the opposite - that the single horse or larger horse should be on the passenger side of the vehicle. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would agree I don't think anyone has ever tested these theories.

However, it is still recommended that we stick with the larger horse on the driver's side because:

if you creep off the (R) shoulder, the larger or single horse on your (L) should counterbalance the "sinking" and possible "jerking" of the trailer off into the deeper shoulder.

Agreed, Evalee. If I had been the driver, I would just hope some good came out of my tragedy. If even ONE horse was saved because of my wreck, I'd just be happy that horse saved.

Ted, just because you have - so far - gotten away with towing with an SUV, please stop advocating the use of SUV's for hauling (whether it is for 1 haul per year or 85 hauls per year).

Outside of a larger Suburban or the very gargantuan Ford Excursion, other SUV's are NOT engineered to haul LIVE cargo in a SAFE MANNER -- esp. larger 2 horses with tack rooms (or 3 horse BP's, I repeat which are IMHO, death traps). Any other SUV is only a cheap and dangerous alternative to a TRULY SAFE way to haul a horses.

(And, I don't CARE who you voted for).

Magnum: DEGREED SAFETY ENGINEER, CSP (certified safety professional), Executive Board Member ASSE (American Society of Safety Engineers) + ASSE Professional Member ..... 20 years experience in engineering & emergency roadside rescues, 20 years in hauling .... and 30 in riding, competing and training horses

http://www.asse.org

17hTBmare

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:43 AM

Thank you for the clarification, MyArgie and doublete. My heartfelt sympathies for all involved.

monstrpony

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:53 AM

Magnum, I'm not arguing, I genuinely want to know and I do not have anything like an engineering background (well, I DID survive the Berkeley physics sequence in the early 70's, but that's as close as I get).

If the SUVs are not adequate to haul a larger BP and live cargo, does that mean that the truck they are based on is also not adequate (that would be the F150 or 1500 trucks)? Or are the SUVs (other than the Excursion and large Burbs) somehow less suitable than the corresponding trucks? Or are they no longer based on the truck chassis?

I'm really just curious about this; I do haul with an F250 myself.

talloaks

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:59 AM

Do you think it is better when hauling one horse, not to have the divider in place so the horse can balance himself on an angle? I know by hubby is adamant about having the dividers in and he's an engineer, if that means anything!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

CessnaPilot

Aug. 26, 2005, 08:47 AM

Monstrpony -

SUV's are based upon the same chassis as the trucks, however that is where the similarity ends. Most SUV's have different spring rates than the truck they are based upon, this is to make the ride comfortable, more like a car than a truck. Also, you will notice that the SUV body tends to sit higher than the corresponding truck, this mass of metal up high shifts the center of gravity to a higher point than the truck. The SUV will weigh more than the corresponding truck it was based upon because of the additional sheetmetal, glass, seats, air conditioning (rear unit), etc.. Therefore its towing capacity will be diminished. Finally, in an effort to give better fuel economy, some SUV's have what a truck owner would consider an undersized engine.

I have a 2000 Yukon with a 4.7 V8 in it. In a pinch if I absolutely HAD to (i.e. no other choice) I would pull a SINGLE horse in a two horse trailer. Frankly the short wheelbase and lack of power, combined with the higher center of gravity really don't thrill me when towing a live load in a trailer that is heavy and has a high center of gravity that is capable of shifting on its own (i.e. the horse).

We made a conscious decision to sell our 1500 RAM and upgrade to a F350 Dually and Gooseneck trailer so we could have a rig that we feel safer in.

My heart goes out to tose involved in the accident, I hope they can find peace somehow.

CessnaPilot

Aug. 26, 2005, 08:53 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by talloaks:
Do you think it is better when hauling one horse, not to have the divider in place so the horse can balance himself on an angle? I know by hubby is adamant about having the dividers in and he's an engineer, if that means anything!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

We just brought a single pony from Charlotte to Atlanta in our 4 house GN. We left the dividers in so that the pony would have something to balance against should we have a sudden jolt. I would really be worried about shifting weight if I had to make a sudden move to avoid trouble and then had to deal with a corresponding weight shift of a horse moving from one side of the trailer to another..

TedShel

Aug. 26, 2005, 09:00 AM

Magnum, still not convinced, show me the math behind it. That's what I've been asking for the entire time.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> (And, I don't CARE who you voted for). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's useful in proving your point. Besides, I'm not sure, but I don't think that was in response to your post, but someone else's. But thanks for for letting me know you don't CARE.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 26, 2005, 09:01 AM

I do NOT KNOW what is better for safety - divider or no. However, when I watched the old Brenderup video years ago (video may be different now), the emphasized that part of the safety of the Brenderup involved placing the divider & bars rather tightly around the horse so that the horse could not move very much. They compared this to a human wearing a seat belt - that being secured in place was safer for all. At that time, the position of the butt bar on the Brenderups was adjustable as part of this "strap the horse in tight". I don't know if Brenderup still follows this but it does make sense that if the horse can move forward & back, they will cause sharp changes in the tongue weight on the tow vehicle.

nature

Aug. 26, 2005, 09:29 AM

[
I'm not saying trucks all have the same roll over rating. But if you have an F150, it doesn't have any better of a rating than a Jeep cherokee SUV. I was surprized to learn that.[/QUOTE]

A Ford 150 can have a wheelbase from 126 to 144 and that is a big spread. Ford has the "city truck" model that is not for towing even though people do tow with it. The 144 is minimum for a good wheelbase, 155 is better.

Expedition WB 110
Excursion WB 137
Ford super duty can go up to 172 WB

SGray

Aug. 26, 2005, 09:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Shiaway:
.....As for the flipping issue, I checked on my jeep cherokee (it's NOT a grand cherokee) out of curiosity once. I was surprized to find that my F150 truck has the same roll over rating as my cherokee. So those of you who have trucks, before you start thinking that having a truck makes something like this less likely, check out the roll over rating on your truck.

I'm not saying trucks all have the same roll over rating. But if you have an F150, it doesn't have any better of a rating than a Jeep cherokee SUV. I was surprized to learn that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

there are a WIDE range of wheelbases available on the F150s - the difference between a shortbed, single cab (120.2") and a long-bed ext. cab (163") is enormous so one must be more specific when describing the Ford

kjheathmed

Aug. 26, 2005, 10:28 AM

My prayers go out to the driver and the families and friends who loved those horses. It is a frightening reminder that terrible accidents can occur no matter how careful we are. The information sharing regarding towing capacity and roll over rates has been very informative - I know the discussion has reminded me to be extra careful when hauling.

A similar accident happened years ago to some friends of mine who were hauling a young WB mare. She did not die in the accident, and the driver and her friend were left to try and hold a badly injured, large, panicked horse on the side of the road at 5:00 am. (in the dark). Unfortunately, they had no type of sedative with them, and they were scared to death the mare would get away from them and end up going through someone's windshield.

They said calls to the operator to try and find a local vet took forever, and the police who stopped said that it wasn't their job to handle such a situation. My friend said she told the officer that it would be his job if a car hit her. Needless to say, we all carry a good supply of sedatives when traveling.

BTW, my friend is also a very careful driver. Her situation is very similar to Jill's. The road condition was poor and uneven - the mare shifted and lost her balance, and then kicked at the back door and broke her leg. She too was driving a SUV and a tag along trailer.

Prayers to everyone involved, and for all of us who haul horses. It could happen to anyone.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 26, 2005, 10:57 AM

On page 2, I posted a link to rollover information. I am going to post SOME of the info here. If you want to look at the total article, go to end of this post & follow the link.

First, a description of what is being rated:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> The Rollover Resistance Ratings are based on Static Stability Factor, which is essentially a measure of how top heavy a vehicle is. The Rollover Resistance Ratings of vehicles were compared to 220,000 actual single vehicle crashes, and the ratings were found to relate very closely to the real-world rollover experience of vehicles. Based on these studies, NHTSA found that taller, narrower vehicles, such as sport utility vehicles (SUVs), are more likely than lower, wider vehicles, such as passenger cars, to trip and roll over once they leave the roadway. Accordingly, NHTSA awards more stars to wider and/or lower vehicles. The Rollover Resistance Rating, however, does not address the causes of the driver losing control and the vehicle leaving the roadway in the first place. SUVs do not have to meet the same safety standards as passenger cars. The double standard exists due to arcane federal rules classifying SUVs as light trucks. Less rigid rules mean occupants of SUVs are not protected by the side-impact crash safety standards or strength requirements for bumpers required on standard passenger cars. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now, specific rollover resistance ratings. I am supplying only SOME of these, the ones that apply to vehicles we might use for towing. These are for 2001 models:

Static Stability Factor (SSF) one star rating: GMC Jimmy with an SSF of 1.02.

SSF range of 1.06 to 1.12 gives a two star rating: Chev Tahoe rear wheel drive, 1.12;

Ford Expedition (rear wheel & 4x4), 1.11;

Ford Explorer, rear & 4x4, 1.06;

GMC Jimmy 4x4, 1.09;

GMC Yukon rear drive, 1.12;

Jeep Cherokee, 4x4, 1.08;

Jeep Grand Cherokee, rear drive & 4x4, 1.09 & 1.11 respectively;

Lincoln Navigator, rear & 4x4, both 1.11;

Ford F-150 regular cab, 4x4, 1.12.

For more complete specifications for each vehicle, look at the complete article.

SSF ratings in the range of 1.13 to 1.22 give a three star rating to these vehicles:

Chevy Suburban, rear & 4x4, 1.13 & 1.14 respectively;

Chev Tahoe, 4x4, 1.14;

Dodge Durango, rear & 4x4, 1.20 & 1.16 respectively;

GMC Yukon 4x4, 1.14;

GMC Yukon XL rear & 4x4, 1.13 & 1.14 respectively;

Jeep Wrangler 4x4, 1.13;

Lexus RX300, front drive & 4x4 1.20 & 1.21 respectively;

Chevy Silverado 1500, 4x4, 1.19;

Dodge Dakota 4x4, 1.17;

Dodge Ram 1500, rear & 4x4, both extended cab, 1.22 & 1.16 respectively;

Ford F-150, rear drive, reg cab, 1.22;

GMC Sierra 4x4, extended cab, 1.19;

GMC Sonoma, rear, reg cab, 1.14; rear, ext. cab, 1.15; 4x4 ext cab, 1.14;

Toyota Tundra 4x4 ext cab, 1.15.

Relatively few trucks & SUVs got 4 star ratings. Those are:

Chevy Silverado 1500, rear drive, ext cab, 1.27;

Dodge Dakota rear drive ext cab, 1.25;

GMC Sierra rear drive ext cab, 1.27.

If there're any conclusions to be drawn, I would say they are:

**You can't depend entirely on wheelbase length to predict rollover, although the only vehicles to get 4 star ratings were extended cab pickups, which are the longest.

**You can't depend on 4x4 vs. rear drive to predict rollover resistance.

**There is quite a range of SSF numbers within a "stars" category, so I would be quicker to look at actual numbers than stars.

**2500s & up aren't rated so who knows where they fall??

**Trucks DO seem to do better than SUVs.

**Each manufacturer has excellent vehicles & duds in the rollover resistance category.

Now, that quote from Shiaway:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I checked on my jeep cherokee (it's NOT a grand cherokee) out of curiosity once. I was surprized to find that my F150 truck has the same roll over rating as my cherokee. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know where you got this information, but . . . the Jeep Cherokee has an SSF of 1.08 & a two star rating. The Ford F-150 reg cab 4x4 has an SSF of 1.12 & a two star rating. I'm not really sure 1.08 & 1.12 are the "same", although he number of stars is the same. Furthermore, the F-150 reg cab with rear drive has an SSF of 1.22 & three stars, so I do NOT think you can put the Cherokee & the F-150 together.

I hope everyone will look at the actual article & try to take time to absorb it.

All taken from this article:

http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/why_they_roll/Default.htm

magnum

Aug. 26, 2005, 11:16 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TedShel:
Magnum, still not convinced, show me the math behind it. That's what I've been asking for the entire time.

[QUOTE] (And, I don't CARE who you voted for). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

... Uh, hello? Please reread my posts. The point I have been trying to make this ENTIRE TIME is that the math and engineering tables would appear to SUPPORT the use of 1500's/ 150's and SUV's in hauling.

Yet, in REALITY, it NEVER works that way.

If it did, we wouldn't be reading all of these articles and incidences about horses being killed, drivers being killed, rollover wrecks, failure to BRAKE PROPERLY, etc.

Things tend to go well with a 1500 or SUV if NTOHING UNPREDICTABLE HAPPENS. It's when, as I mentioned in a previous post, the horses SHIFT THEIR weight (read the INITIAL POST, here TED), something or some animal crosses your path on short notice, you blow a tire and it throws your truck around, or if you hit ice, potholes, etc.

If you stick to your math tables, they will not entirely support REALITY. I know you military guys follow things by the book really well, this is one case where it's better NOT TO.

It's a case of:

In reality, it works. But, does it work in THEORY?" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

CessnaPilot

Aug. 26, 2005, 11:30 AM

Personally, I look at the situation as I do for the programs my developers create... "As long as everything goes according to plan, it works, but what happens when the user does something unexpected?"

Call it margin of safety: Best defined as the difference between the limits that your vehicle is capable of and what you expect to need or require in an emergency.

magnum

Aug. 26, 2005, 11:34 AM

Cessna:

I am probably about the ONLY engineer who will LISTEN TO HUMAN LOGIC (and HORSE logic)! .... At least the only one in my office (and, from my experience, at most Trailer Manufacturer's, as well ..... groan).

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Any updates on the victims of this tragic event? Does anyone know them personally and are they doing OK?

Magnum

TedShel

Aug. 26, 2005, 03:03 PM

Hey Mag, as I've said all along one has to decide what level of safety they are comfortable with.

A low end 150/SUV, with the wrong suspension, with the wrong rear, with the wrong engine, with an add on hitch, is the wrong vehicle to tow animals.

However, a beefier 150/SUV can do it, safely. My tow vehicle, an Expedition has F250 brakes, F250 leaf springs, 5.4L Engine, 3.73 rear, etc etc. It's a truck. It was only 500lbs heavier then my F150 (which was almost a 250 as well).

My Expedition is the same height as the pickups, so it may have a slightly higher Cg. The vehicle itself, imo, handles better when towing then when not, in fact, without the trailer, I don't like driving it.

I've looked for specific stats on roll overs, and I've been unable to find them, just a bunch of mumbojumbo, they don't say what the conditions were, what the specs of the vehicles were, what the experience of the driver was.

In this thread's case was the driver only 22? with a 17 yo passenger? What were they doing? Yacking on the cell phone, listening to music, yacking to each other, what???

the stats you quote, or the ones I found on line, or what happened to these unfortunate young ladys, are lacking complete information.

My bottom line is that of course it is safer to haul with a F450, but not everyone can aford that, the vehicle has to be multipurpose. I still believe that a properly outfitted 150/SUV can handle the load.

And besides, if you aren't living on the edge, you are taking up too much room.

Cheers!

eventamy

Aug. 26, 2005, 03:31 PM

I think the age of the driver and passenger is not important information. She could have many years of driving a trailer, I'm sure more then me. I've only been driving a trailer for a year now (not counting when I was a teenager and drove my trainer's rig, with a 6 horse trailer!), but have been riding and around horses/trailers for 22 years. I just haven't been lucky enough to have a trailer until now. Please don't assume that just because someone is young that they're constantly on their cell phone, that's a really inappropriate comment. My trainer for my horse is a whopping 23 years old, drives a rig as well as my other 60 year old trainer, and can ride the hide off a dog!

Bogey

Aug. 26, 2005, 04:14 PM

KrazyTBMare

Aug. 26, 2005, 04:17 PM

Magnum, are you basing your opinion about the F150s on the older body style or the newer ones? I believe the newer body style and models of the F150s are bigger than the older and personally, as an owner of a 6' bed, extended cab, F150 5.4L 4x2 3.55 gears - I found hauling with this truck much easier and comforting than the older F150s. I have even hauled with a Quad Cab Dodge 4.7 4x2 1500 and the truck has handled many things thrown at it while hauling and handles them quite well (though I do prefer my 5.4). Both trucks were pulling a 2 horse BP Steel trainer with a tack room.

Thanks in advance! Im just trying to get a better grasp on this towing thing. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

MistyBlue

Aug. 26, 2005, 05:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">In this thread's case was the driver only 22? with a 17 yo passenger? What were they doing? Yacking on the cell phone, listening to music, yacking to each other, what??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The driver is an almost lifelong horse person and has had quite some time in towing. Assuming that their ages made them irresponsible and then making such remarks on a very public BB about them is lacking in judgement. Yes, I too am one of those people who gripe about irresponsible young people these days...but I don't automatically assume all of them are and IME most of the long time horse folks are rather mature for their ages. I am sure these girls are heartbroken and extremely upset over this. However, many people older have had the same accidents. Blaming the ages in terms of years of driving experience is one thing if you know the people personally and know they lack experience. Blaming the ages of the people by claiming they were acting as you stated is cruel and unjustified.

Evalee Hunter

Aug. 26, 2005, 06:31 PM

Now, I realize the information I am going to post comes from the website of a law firm that, obviously, wants to get clients. However, I think this quote is both interesting & relevant to the situation at hand:

From article “Rollover Lawsuits” at http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Most rollovers occur when the driver is forced to take an emergency or evasive action after steering in one direction and then rapidly correcting in the opposite direction, such as a typical avoidance maneuver with a with a road hazard, a deer, a dog, pothole or another vehicle in their path. This evasive action often results in a rollover. Adding insult to injury, the driver is likely to be cited by the investigating officer for such violations as failure to control speed, overcorrection, and faulty evasive action and many others. The truth of the matter is that most rollovers occur because of the absence of a lower center of gravity and lack of a wider track width like in passenger vehicles. In most rollovers the fault can be squarely placed on the manufacturers for a negligent vehicle design and not on the unsuspecting drivers of these vehicles. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, there is quite a little information on this site about rollover accidents (in general) with some scientific information about center of gravity, etc.:

Why do so many trucks & SUVs roll over: http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/why_they_roll/Default.htm

2005 SUV rollover test results:
http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/rollover_rating/index.htm

SUV rollover testing (includes formula relating to center of gravity):
http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/rollover_stability_testing/index.htm

NHSTA Rollover & Roof Crush (another quite technical article):
http://www.rolloverlawyer.com/FMVSS/Default.htm

I think these articles would actually answer some of the questions that have been posed.

Now, TedShel, does the military still have a ground safety program to investigate (among other things) offbase traffic accidents? During the Vietnam era, in some areas of the country (the general area where you are stationed being one), the military paid close attention to traffic accidents. It might be that the military could provide you with some of the specific rollover information you would like to have - might not be classified, either.

Magnum, since you are an engineer, would you like to address my question to TedShel several pages back? How well do you think the RV guidelines for wheelbase vs. length of trailer apply to towing horse trailers with live cargo? Do you think applying 80% of the RV guideline would provide an additional (significant) margin to safety to horse trailer haulers? Or maybe not?

KrazyTBMare

Aug. 26, 2005, 06:45 PM

I def agree with those statements that those things are what generally cause rollovers.

Back in mid-Feb, my step sister was driving her 97-98 Ford Explorer west on I-10 on her way to go see her boyfriend. She was talking to him on the phone, driving at least 70 (as that was the speed limit) and got off on the shoulder. She over corrected, flipped the truck all the way across the median (and for anyone whos been on I-10 esp near 75, thats a BIG median), into on coimng traffic lanes, when it oddly burst into flames. Tragically, my step sister died that day at only 21.

And thats not even while pulling a heavy load. And we all do it. (the general ALL). Talking on the phone while driving, messing with the radio, etc etc. And then add in a trailer and then living cargo? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/cry.gif Makes you not want to trailer anywhere. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

CessnaPilot

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:00 PM

Evalee - I'm no engineer, but here is my thoughts on your 80% rule. RV's tend to have steel floor systems, but the upper structure is most usually thin skinned aluminum over insulation. This provides for a lighter weight up high. Also, recreational trailers tend to sit pretty low to the ground in comparison to some horse trailers. That being said, one severe factor for RV's is sail size. Basically this is the amount of metal you are exposing to a crosswind. Remember, these units tend to have light upper structures and are long, so they make a nice sail.

In contrast, the horse trailer tends to be heavier all around. The axles of a horse trailer are usually beefier, the tires are always LT rated tires, there is a stout steel frame backed up by a heavy wood floor. And the upper structures tend to be steel or heavy aluminum that is MUCH thicker than that of an RV. So what you have is a shorter, but signifiantly heavier trailer.

The wheelbase numbers reflect the arm and moment in comparison to the trailer ball. When an rv trailer starts swaying or is being pushed sideways, you need a certain amount of vehicle in front of it to be able to counteract the movement. Now if you have a 25 foot RV trailer swaying back and forth behins a short wheelbase such as a Blazer, you literally have the tail wagging the dog. The same can be true for a F150 with a smaller, heavier horse trailer because it exerts MUCH more force than the RV trailer due to its increased weight.

What this all boils down to is that the wheelbase is only one factor in the equation. I would personally think that 70% is probably getting closer since the horse traler would be much heavier and carrying a live load that can easily shift at will as opposed to the stabilized weight of the RV trailer.

CessnaPilot

Aug. 26, 2005, 07:24 PM

Here is something I encourage everyone to do no matter what trailer they have. Hitch up your truck/suv/car to your trailer (empty) and head to a LARGE open parking lot. Take a cone or a bale of hay and set it out in the open area. Now drive straight at it at about 10 MPH, and swerve at the last minute to avoid it. Try to get as close as you can with it centered on your vehicle or at least directly in front of the driver. Feel how the rig reacts. Now go back and try it at 20 mph and possibly 30 mph. See how it reacts without the addition of 800-1700 lbs for horses. See how YOU react also. You may find yourself in an uncomfortable situation, better to find that out in a parking lot with an empty load, than loaded in traffic. Practice if you are uncomfortable, and if you find/feel it unsafe, then make changes accordingly.

Next, go in a straight line at 25mph and stand on the brakes. Yes, do a full panic stop with the trailer. See how the rig reacts, do the trailer wheels lock? Does the trailer or tow vehicle dive to one side? These are important things to know. Again, better to find out in a controlled environment than in an emergency.

Lastly, repeat the above but use a marked place that you begin your stop. (The cone/hay bale works well here). Stand on the brakes when the front of the tow vehicle gets to the cone/bale. Then go back and measure the distance it took to stop. Now add 5 or 10mph and try it again. The results will not only astound you, but may save your life.

I have done this with all of my trailers and tow vehicles. The least you will come away with is the knowledge of how your rig will react in a panic situation. I have many friends that have done this and promptly went out and replaced their tow vehicles because they felt that it was inadequate to provide enough control/safety.

This is especially good for those of you towing with equalizer bars on your vehicle. You might be surprised at what happens when that trailer gives the tow vehicle a nice shove!

As a pilot, we practice emergency landings, engine failures, stalls, many things that can go wrong. This way if it actually happens to us, we know how our equipment will react and are better prepared. The same applies to trailering, and driving in general.

End of rant... thanks for listening.