Date:         Sun, 30 Oct 2005 23:34:30 -0700
Reply-To:     John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         John Bange <jbange@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: vanagon Digest - 30 Oct 2005 - Special issue (#2005-906)
In-Reply-To:  <00a501c5ddc2$deaab310$8ccd4e45@t41>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

> So we should'nt pay any attention to the Vehicle Manufacture
> or the the Dept of Transportantion guiidlenies.
>
> OK .. Got it.
>
> So which guidelines should we use?
>
> If it's sort of round it's ok?
>

I think what he's saying is that DOT regs and mfr suggestion are based on
GVWR. Tires that cumulatively miss GVWR by 200lbs are no more UNSAFE on a
Vanagon weighing in 1200lbs under GVWR than tires with 10% margin beyond
GVWR are SAFE on an overloaded Vanagon weighing in 20% over GVWR. NHTSA/DOT
assumes vehicle loaded to MAX WEIGHT. VW assumes vehicle loaded to MAX
WEIGHT. Even if you follow their recommendations, you could still easily be
UNSAFE because you're overloaded (and many people are). There is no Word for
on high that will guarantee safety. All is dependent on the weight. There is
no substitute for being conscious of what loads you're carrying; no
substitute for weighing your vehicle and using THOSE numbers to ensure your
tires are adequate. All he's saying is that magic numbers from the
government are no substitute for sensible load analysis.