The RV Forum Community

RVing message boards => Motorhomes => Topic started by: WinterAdverse on October 18, 2017, 11:01:43 AM

Title: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 18, 2017, 11:01:43 AM
I am trying to find something to improve the handling of my Thor Hurricane 31s. At highway speeds, 55+, it tends to wander in the lane and is pushed around by crosswinds and passing semis.  Regarding the highway speed: typically the higher the speed the worse the handling. A note on that, I don't like to go over 65 mph, mainly as a mileage consideration. I have been researching stabilizers, track bars, etc... on the internet and various Forums such as the this forum (probably the best IMHO), the RVUSA Forum, Thor Forum, iRV2 Forum, Camping World/Good Sam plus reading about Super Steer, Roadmaster, Blue-Ox, Safe T Steer, and various Ford F53 with a Class A solutions. What I have discovered is that the solutions, advice, and recommendations run the gamut from minor to major. Some say lower the tire pressure below the recommended or raise the tire pressure to 110 psi, the tire rims are too narrow, get different tires, add shocks or air bags, a steering stabilizer will fix it, or maybe not, a rear track bar is needed, a front track bar is needed, a front or rear track bar won't help. Also there is discussion about how the F53 was not designed to be used for motorhomes, Thor under designs their units,  Essentially the information is confusing and frustrating. Are there any owners that have had success with some of the after market solutions? I realize that a person has to pay for good results but there has to be a reasonable, cost effective solution.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: SeilerBird on October 18, 2017, 11:05:52 AM
You need to get the proper amount of air in your tires. Too much air will cause all the problems you are having. Take your RV to a public scale (Flying J) and get it weighed. Then go to the manufacturers web site and find their tire inflation chart. Most beginners inflate their tires to the number on the sidewall which is dead wrong, that is the maximum you can inflate to not the recommended pressure. That number is different for each RV and each set of tires.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 18, 2017, 11:50:22 AM
Hi, Thanks for the comment. I have weighed the unit, loaded and with the tow vehicle attached. I have the tire pressure at the recommended pressure plus a couple of pounds. The psi was originally at 105 and I gradually reduced it to what I now have (84) and it did make a difference. Also I have had the front end aligned and that provided some improvement. I still think the handling should be better though.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on October 18, 2017, 12:16:32 PM
Yup.  Tire pressure first - you did that.  There are almost countless conditions that can cause the problems you described.  In order, generally, the most helpful for most folks that own a coach on a Ford F53 chassis, is better front and rear swaybars.  Then a rear trac bar and steering stabilizer. The newer F53s have front trac bars.  There are other aftermarket add-ons you can get as well.  Like you seem to have noticed, not cheap.  You can try the handling fix as talked about at length on the IRV2 forum; zero cost, and if it helps, that's one thing you know you need to address, sway bars.  That was my biggest improvement, then a rear trac bar and steering stabilizer.
Make sure you cover your butt about the warranty, if you make changes to the chassis.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 18, 2017, 12:35:12 PM
I think the best upgrade for the money is a rear track bar. You need to stabilize that rear overhang as that is a big leaver that pushes the front around.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: hedhunter9 on October 18, 2017, 05:00:00 PM
We have a 2008 Thor Outlaw that is 37 foot long on the F53 Chassis.
When we bought it and drove it home from La.   , It was scary !!   65 or 70mph and it would start
tipping back and forth untill you slowed down to under 60mph..   
  And if a semi-trailer passed you, it would shove you over 6-8 feet !   Very very Scary feeling..

Well after I got it home and started checking it out, I found the rear sway bar was unhooked at one end and
the bracket was bent and there was NO bushings left in the brackets..   So I bought new bushings, straightened
bracket out and rebolted the whole thing back on and lock-tited the bolts..
  Huge difference !  Much much better with no tipping back and forth and only getting pushed 2-3 feet by passing Semi's..

Next, I did the cheap no cost mod.  I moved the sway bar arms from the outside hole to the innner holes as many have done
and again, A big differnce..   Much more stable ride and now passing Semi's hardly bother us at all....
  I still feel that they need a larger rear sway bar as the rig is so tall  (13 foot) and still moves more than I like, But I can live with
what I have now...

   I dont know if your newer Thor F53 has the sway bar on the rear or not. But if not, that is something I would strongly recommend..
And our rig weighs about 24,000lbs and we run 80psi in our tires..

Bob
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: motoxbob on October 18, 2017, 07:51:40 PM
Hi, Thanks for the comment. I have weighed the unit, loaded and with the tow vehicle attached. I have the tire pressure at the recommended pressure plus a couple of pounds. The psi was originally at 105 and I gradually reduced it to what I now have (84) and it did make a difference. Also I have had the front end aligned and that provided some improvement. I still think the handling should be better though.

You are doing things right. Air pressure, then a good alignment. I did the same thing to my 2007 Damon on a 20,500 pound chassis. It was much better but when I added the rear trac bar it was huge as far as handling side winds and trucks. I never did the cheap handling fix because on my coach at least sway was not a problem.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: reniram on October 18, 2017, 08:06:20 PM
I am weighing in about 19000 lbs fully loaded pulling a single axle trailer    F53 Chassis... I done the CHF on both the sway bars..Installed Firestone Air bags and run tire pressures at 65lbs ....even the DW enjoys driving the rig now...
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: mgcjeff on October 19, 2017, 01:41:15 AM
Had a similar situation with my Damon UltraSport. Went to a super steer shop Mainline Truck and Trailer in Cleveland Ohio. Had a road performance assessment done. They road test the coach. Check all the suspension parts and weight all 4 corners of the coach. Then make recommendations. I had tried to self diagnose with no luck. Their recommendations are rated as what is most important. Best $145.00 I ever spent on the coach. If they do the work all or part of the fee is applied to the final bill.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Utclmjmpr on October 19, 2017, 08:28:55 AM
 Have the CASTER adjusted more POSITIVE BY TWO DEGREE'S.>>>Dan
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Gary RV_Wizard on October 19, 2017, 09:09:34 AM
I have an article in the RVForum Library on Motorhme Handling Problems and Solutions. See http://www.rvforum.net/miscfiles/MH_Steering_Handling_%20Primer.pdf
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Harvard on October 19, 2017, 10:46:21 AM
Have the CASTER adjusted more POSITIVE BY TWO DEGREE'S.>>>Dan

POPULAR MECHANICS MAY 1973:
"If too little caster exists, the car will wander and weave, thus necessitating constant corrections in steering."
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 19, 2017, 05:49:41 PM
Gary, that is a good article and covers most every thing, good job.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 20, 2017, 09:42:31 AM
Well, I will try this again since my previous reply apparently didn't get sent. First I want to thank Gary for the link to the the article in the Library. It was very helpful and cleared up a lot of things for me. Also want to thank everyone else for their comments. I am apparently at the beginning of a steep learning curve. I did some stretching exercises and then crawled under the the motorhome to see what is actually there. It looks like there is a factory installed sway bar on the rear axle and also one on the front. Additionally it looks like there is a factory installed track bar on the front. There is a bar that connects from the passenger side frame to the front axle, with appropriate bushings, and I assume that is a track bar. For additional info, both the coach and the chassis are 2017 models. I am starting to come to the conclusion that perhaps I should first try a rear track bar or a supplemental rear sway bar. The sway bars look to be pretty substantial though with the front thickness measuring 1 3/4" and the rear at 1 5/8". The front track bar appear to have a thickness as least as great as the front sway bar. Another possibility is perhaps after market springs or shocks but after reading Gary's article I am not sure that would provide the improvement I want. Opinions are welcome.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: SeilerBird on October 20, 2017, 10:39:10 AM
I think your problem is all the crap that was added on. A stock RV should not need add on accessories to make it drive properly.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 20, 2017, 11:04:56 AM
I think your problem is all the crap that was added on. A stock RV should not need add on accessories to make it drive properly.
I don't think anything has been done to his yet as it is a unfortunate reality that the manufactures don't do a better job.
 WinterAdverse, The sway bars control side to side roll or rocking. One cheap upgrade (if you don't already have them) is polypropylene sway bar bushings as they are firmer than the rubber ones.
The track bar for the back will stabilize the side to side (fish tailing) caused by the rear overhang.
Speaking of that watch out for "tail swing" when maneuvering in tight places, like gas stations. Don't get to close to the pumps and don't turn to quick or sharply when pulling out. ;)
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on October 20, 2017, 11:17:26 AM
A stock RV should not need add on accessories to make it drive properly.

True - but sadly not the case with the majority of the Ford F53 Chassis' in use.  I think it should be on the coach builder to do what is necessary to make things right; Ford has no control over what someone does with their bare chassis, nor can they possibly make "one size fits all".  (or in the case of the F53,many sizes).
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 25, 2017, 08:29:37 AM
I guess I'm a slow learner. I have been looking at the CHF solutions and can't help but think that there is some reason the design engineers wanted the sway bar connections in the outside hole rather than the inside. I keep thinking if I move the connections to the inside hole I would be defeating some design/safety issue. That being said, the CHF on the front looks like it is a nonstarter with my chassis. In order to move the connections I would have to raise the ends of the sway bar and that would move the inside holes further away from the ends of the rods that drop down from the frame. It looks like those rods are just too short to make the connection to the inside holes on the sway bar. The rods are already located forward of the sway bar and are slanted towards the sway bar to make the connection at the outside holes. I think the connection rods would be an inch or two short of the inside holes. On the rear sway bar the CHF could be done but I would have to lower the sway bar ends in order to connect to the inside holes. It looks like that is certainly doable without causing any additional issues. That's where the nagging design issue thought come into play. Perhaps I am over thinking this but I can't help but wonder why the connections are in the outside holes to being with. I can understand why there are 2 holes in the sway bars, which is probably to make the bars fit different chassis.  If anyone has any design insights I would certainly be interested in seeing them. On another issue I'm looking at rear track bars and I see some connect from the frame to the sway bar bracket that is welded to the axle and some are connected from the frame to bolts on the differential housing. I think the latter would put a lot of stress on those bolts. Does anyone have any thoughts on which is the better approach?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: SeilerBird on October 25, 2017, 08:50:41 AM
I don't think anything has been done to his yet as it is a unfortunate reality that the manufactures don't do a better job.
You are right Bill, I misread one of his posts. Thanks.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 25, 2017, 10:38:17 AM
I guess I'm a slow learner. I have been looking at the CHF solutions and can't help but think that there is some reason the design engineers wanted the sway bar connections in the outside hole rather than the inside. I keep thinking if I move the connections to the inside hole I would be defeating some design/safety issue. That being said, the CHF on the front looks like it is a nonstarter with my chassis. In order to move the connections I would have to raise the ends of the sway bar and that would move the inside holes further away from the ends of the rods that drop down from the frame. It looks like those rods are just too short to make the connection to the inside holes on the sway bar. The rods are already located forward of the sway bar and are slanted towards the sway bar to make the connection at the outside holes. I think the connection rods would be an inch or two short of the inside holes. On the rear sway bar the CHF could be done but I would have to lower the sway bar ends in order to connect to the inside holes. It looks like that is certainly doable without causing any additional issues. That's where the nagging design issue thought come into play. Perhaps I am over thinking this but I can't help but wonder why the connections are in the outside holes to being with. I can understand why there are 2 holes in the sway bars, which is probably to make the bars fit different chassis.  If anyone has any design insights I would certainly be interested in seeing them. On another issue I'm looking at rear track bars and I see some connect from the frame to the sway bar bracket that is welded to the axle and some are connected from the frame to bolts on the differential housing. I think the latter would put a lot of stress on those bolts. Does anyone have any thoughts on which is the better approach?

Hear is a design insight. Do the CHF or spend a couple thousand on a stiffer sway bar that does exactly the same thing. I don't know how many thousand have done this with NO PROBLEM.
Pick a track bar no one is having any problems with either attachment method.
Bill


Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on October 25, 2017, 12:07:22 PM
I guess I'm a slow learner. I have been looking at the CHF solutions and can't help but think that there is some reason the design engineers wanted the sway bar connections in the outside hole rather than the inside. I keep thinking if I move the connections to the inside hole I would be defeating some design/safety issue. That being said, the CHF on the front looks like it is a nonstarter with my chassis. In order to move the connections I would have to raise the ends of the sway bar and that would move the inside holes further away from the ends of the rods that drop down from the frame. It looks like those rods are just too short to make the connection to the inside holes on the sway bar. The rods are already located forward of the sway bar and are slanted towards the sway bar to make the connection at the outside holes. I think the connection rods would be an inch or two short of the inside holes. On the rear sway bar the CHF could be done but I would have to lower the sway bar ends in order to connect to the inside holes. It looks like that is certainly doable without causing any additional issues. That's where the nagging design issue thought come into play. Perhaps I am over thinking this but I can't help but wonder why the connections are in the outside holes to being with. I can understand why there are 2 holes in the sway bars, which is probably to make the bars fit different chassis.  If anyone has any design insights I would certainly be interested in seeing them. On another issue I'm looking at rear track bars and I see some connect from the frame to the sway bar bracket that is welded to the axle and some are connected from the frame to bolts on the differential housing. I think the latter would put a lot of stress on those bolts. Does anyone have any thoughts on which is the better approach?
As far as the track bar goes - the longer the bar, the better - don't think either location is problem - they have been used on many ford chassis and for many miles/years without issue - as have the swaybar chf changes. No one has ever gotten answer to the question as to "why two holes".  Again, been in use for several years and many miles on many an F53 chassis.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 25, 2017, 02:48:29 PM
Thanks for the comments and insights. Based on the comments the track bar design that connects to the sway bar bracket is the longer of the track bar designs so that sounds like the way to go for the best results. I still have concerns about the CHF but will probably try it on the rear when the weather warms a bit. I can't see that the CHF for the front can be done unless I find some longer rods to connect the frame to the sway bar. Anyone know if those are available from any aftermarket suppliers.  I have entertained the idea of swapping the rear rods and front rods since the rear ones look like they are longer than they need to be. I always think that just because something has always been done doesn't necessarily mean that it is the right thing to do. Thanks again for the comments.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on October 25, 2017, 03:06:37 PM
Hellwig makes adjustable links.  Can get them through Amazon or Summit Racing, or others. (https://www.amazon.com/Hellwig-7962-11-14-Adjustable-Endlinks/dp/B001UFRWBO/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_top?ie=UTF8)
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 25, 2017, 04:30:10 PM
Thanks for the link for the adjustable links. I will look at that. Much appreciated.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 25, 2017, 07:23:12 PM
Thanks for the link for the adjustable links. I will look at that. Much appreciated.
Trying to figure out why you need longer links? take both links loose and the sway bar will rotate down. The links control the location of the sway bar. Replace the bushings in the links with polypropylene bushings as they are harder and will give better control.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 26, 2017, 11:06:50 AM
As stated in a previous post: "The CHF on the front looks like it is a nonstarter with my chassis. In order to move the connections I would have to raise the ends of the sway bar and that would move the inside holes further away from the ends of the rods that drop down from the frame. It looks like those rods are just too short to make the connection to the inside holes on the sway bar. The rods are already located forward of the sway bar and are slanted towards the sway bar to make the connection at the outside holes. I think the connection rods would be an inch or two short of the inside holes." I may try the CHF on the front without the adjustable links just to see if it is possible if I feel adventurous and have time to spare. First I want to measure the links and the approximate length required with the CHF but that will have to wait till the weather is a bit warmer.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 29, 2017, 10:31:50 AM
Well I took advantage of a nice day and performed the CHF on the rear of the Motorhome. It actually wasn't too bad, once I had all the tools I needed close by. It was a good workout for an old man. I was really surprised that the nuts and bolts were metric, 16 & 18mm to be exact. For something made it the US I was expecting and was prepared for the old SAE stuff. That required a trip from the storage unit to home and back. I looked at the front end and did some measuring and realized that the CHF is not possible unless I get some longer link rods. The installed rods measure 11 inches bolt to bolt. As I mentioned before I would need to raise the sway bar to make the CHF and that would move the inside holes away from the link rods, which would have to be pushed toward the back of the chassis to reconnect to the sway bar inside holes. The link rods are already slanted back towards the rear to connect to the sway bar outside holes. My rough estimate is the link rods would have to be 12 to 12 1/2 inches to allow for the reconnect. My thinking is to forget about the CHF on the front and see how the MH handles with the the rear CHF. If it is not what I want then to try a steering stabilizer instead of the CHF. I haven't test drove the MH yet since the rear CHF because we have a cold front coming through with high wind warnings. I hope to get it out in a couple of days.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: rls7201 on October 29, 2017, 12:08:25 PM
Glad you elected to make adjustments before buying some of the stuff being marketed to us RVers.
Here's one more adjustment to make before you spend a fortune on stuff.
Make sure the toe-in is set to 1/16"-3/32" toe-in. It makes a huge factor in steering wheel response.  Believe it or not, if it feels like something is loose, it may just be toe-in.
Toe in can be measured using two straight pins, stuck in the center of the tread, and a tape measure. Have you ever seen a tape measure out of calibration? GRIN.... Think about all those high end, out of calibration, front end lazer alignment machines and the unqualified personal using them. Grrrrrrrrrr
Stick the pins in the center/front of the tread, measure. Roll RV tires back 180 degrees and measure again. Front measurement should be 1/16"-3/32" less than rear. How simple is that.
If the toe-in is off, then the work begins. The adjustment is on the right tie rod end. Wrench sticking up on top of the sleeve nut, push back for more toe-in. Oh yeah, loosen the clamp first. Wipe sweat out of eyes.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on October 29, 2017, 03:59:27 PM
Thanks for the tip on the toe-in. I have seen that discussed in other places and wonder how that would affect the tire wear. Have you noticed any unusual or increased wear on the tires after getting the toe-in adjusted?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: wackymac on October 29, 2017, 04:17:57 PM
I am weighing in about 19000 lbs fully loaded pulling a single axle trailer    F53 Chassis... I done the CHF on both the sway bars..Installed Firestone Air bags and run tire pressures at 65lbs ....even the DW enjoys driving the rig now...

reniram---How did you arrive at 65 pounds?  That seems awful low.  What size tires are you running?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: rls7201 on October 30, 2017, 08:40:08 AM
Thanks for the tip on the toe-in. I have seen that discussed in other places and wonder how that would affect the tire wear. Have you noticed any unusual or increased wear on the tires after getting the toe-in adjusted?

Just the opposite, when toe-in is set correctly you will get minimum tire wear.

Richard
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Harvard on October 30, 2017, 11:41:39 AM
Incorrect Toe In will cause excessive wear. Camber and Pressure will reflect the wear profile. Too little caster will effect the highway speed stability. IMO.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: rls7201 on October 30, 2017, 01:50:59 PM
delete
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: vmyoung61 on October 30, 2017, 09:05:03 PM
We have heard good things about the Safe-T-Plus. Planning on installing one on our coach.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: reniram on October 31, 2017, 09:17:39 AM
I am weighing in about 19000 lbs fully loaded pulling a single axle trailer    F53 Chassis... I done the CHF on both the sway bars..Installed Firestone Air bags and run tire pressures at 65lbs ....even the DW enjoys driving the rig now...

reniram---How did you arrive at 65 pounds?  That seems awful low.  What size tires are you running?

Tires are Goodyear 245 70 R19.5   5 ply rating...  Max rec tire pressure is 110psi...I experimented..initially running 85psi..and gradually , using the trial and error method found that  my current 65psi gained me much increased control and a better ride...a win win situation for me...I was concerned at first about tires overheating etc. but my local tire expert  assured me that with my total weight and distance between the rear duals (can't have them even close to touching)..these tires will handle pretty much anything I can throw at them, but he also told me that I should NOT go any lower....However..as the WEIGHT increases..ie  larger rig...  as in more HEAVY...then you should raise the tire pressures accordingly...suggesting NOT to exceed 85psi...  talking about summer heat increasing tire pressures and needing a safety margin..so this is where I am at and as stated very happy with the end result...
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 31, 2017, 10:19:26 AM
Tires are Goodyear 245 70 R19.5   5 ply rating...  Max rec tire pressure is 110psi...I experimented..initially running 85psi..and gradually , using the trial and error method found that  my current 65psi gained me much increased control and a better ride...a win win situation for me...I was concerned at first about tires overheating etc. but my local tire expert  assured me that with my total weight and distance between the rear duals (can't have them even close to touching)..these tires will handle pretty much anything I can throw at them, but he also told me that I should NOT go any lower....However..as the WEIGHT increases..ie  larger rig...  as in more HEAVY...then you should raise the tire pressures accordingly...suggesting NOT to exceed 85psi...  talking about summer heat increasing tire pressures and needing a safety margin..so this is where I am at and as stated very happy with the end result...
The correct way is to weigh your coach and set your tire pressure based on the charts provided buy the tire manufacture. not buy experimenting.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: reniram on October 31, 2017, 02:05:56 PM
So who else would I go to other than my Goodyear tire expert...They have dealt with HD tires for at least the last 50 years I know for sure ..then some young snot nosed college kid comes along and wastes his time making charts and graphs just to impress the boss and the ignorant population..Common sense is thrown out the window  I had to deal with this type of ideals for most of my working life...If we didn't do a little out the box experimentation in our lifetime we still be rubbing two sticks together...End of rant.....My trials were based on the information given...no set hard rules...the end result was arrived at by miles driven and was totally approved with full warranties for my particular application... Tire guidelines papers are just that...It stands to reason if I were involved in the production of tire  or any other manufacturing process I would do my darndest to protect my product...and after severe testing  to destruction I would cut that figure in half just to ensure I wouldn't be sued or whatever..stupid people do stupid things and there are a lot of them out there!
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Larry N. on October 31, 2017, 02:12:25 PM
Your choice, of course -- I just hope you're not underinflating. Good luck.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on October 31, 2017, 10:38:42 PM
"So who else would I go to other than my Goodyear tire expert...They have dealt with HD tires for at least the last 50 years I know for sure"
So please explain to us how, without knowing what your axel weights are he would think it is ok to run 65psi? You are running 245 70 R19.5 load range "G" right? Did you know that  your experts who have dealt with HD tires for at least the last 50 years say 80 psi is the lowest recommended pressure to run that tire? That at that pressure it can only safely carry 3415 as a duel and 3640 on a single application. WHAT DOES YOUR COACH WEIGH AT ALL WHEEL LOCATIONS? Use the heaviest side to set the tire pressure for that axel. If you can't get all 4 corners weigh each axel and use that weight to set pressure. There is something You need to (seriously) check on if your coach is 19,000 lbs and divided by 4 that = 4750 per corner but we all know they aren't balanced like that. But that is why it is so important to get actual weights. if you had a front tire carrying 4750 that is more than a load range "G " can handle at any pressure, you would need a "H" at near max psi. I didn't add in tong weight from your trailer.
https://www.goodyeartrucktires.com/pdf/resources/publications/2010_loadinflation.pdf
One other thing about that statement about your warranty?
"the end result was arrived at by miles driven and was totally approved with full warranties for my particular application..." 
You might want to read the exclusions in your warranty paperwork. Improper inflation, overloading, high-speed spinup, misapplication, misuse, negligence, racing, chain damage, or improper mounting or demounting. Are not covered. They expect you to be smart enough to keep your tiers properly inflated.
 Just trying to keep you safe.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: reniram on November 01, 2017, 08:54:11 AM
Wildbill...do you go to bed each night with a burr under your bed?   Is this all you have...get a life ...or a job or something!!
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: HappyWanderer on November 01, 2017, 09:06:54 AM
Wildbill...do you go to bed each night with a burr under your bed?   Is this all you have...get a life ...or a job or something!!

Wow. Just wow.

He offered solid advice on keeping you and your family safe from what is probably a foolish decision on your part.

Isn't the Internet wonderful?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Charlie 5320 on November 01, 2017, 10:20:38 AM

reniram
You are running YOUR tires severely under inflated according to Good Years inflation guide. If you want to put your familys  life in jeopardy that's YOUR business, but DON'T get nasty with people that are trying to help. You are NOT helping however, you are just giving YOUR opinion. YOUR tires have a minimum inflation of 80 psi according the Good Year, NOT some flunky installing tires YOU call an expert. Good day.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: hedhunter9 on November 01, 2017, 08:10:42 PM
Charlie,
   It depends on which tire he has.. Goodyear chart shows 70psi as the lowest for the G670 tires in his size..
Bob
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: Charlie 5320 on November 01, 2017, 09:12:02 PM
Charlie,
   It depends on which tire he has.. Goodyear chart shows 70psi as the lowest for the G670 tires in his size..
Bob
Not according to this chart. 80 psi is the lowest for his size and the heavier tire shows 85 psi the way I read it.
https://www.goodyeartrucktires.com/pdf/resources/publications/2010_loadinflation.pdf

My coach weighs 19800 and I run 85 psi on a 22.5 much heavier tire. I'm certainly going to run a bit more not less than recommended.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: A Traveler on November 02, 2017, 10:27:27 PM
Reniram, you are a piece of work to be sure. Wildebill308 gives you some SOLID and ACCURATE advice...and you tell him to stick it? Wow.

When you roll your coach into the ditch because one of your 65 psi tires blows, I won't feel sorry for you. And I'll just keep on driving...  (:(
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on November 05, 2017, 07:04:16 PM
Back to the handling and the CHF. I took the MH out today for about a 50 mile test drive. This is the 1st time out since I did the CHF on the rear and I was impressed with the difference it made. I was able to cruise along the interstate at 65 mph without any trouble. I need to mention that there was no wind and very little traffic this afternoon. I was passed by only two semis and I noticed a little push from them but nothing like before the CHF. I did notice the MH tended to wander some, like it wasn't sure which rut to ride in. Based on today I'm thinking I will next do a steering stabilizer to try to reduce the rutting. Still haven't done the CHF on the font and am not sure I need it.  Also want to see how a steering stabilizer performs before I go ahead with the rear track bar. Just a followup in case anyone was wondering.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on November 06, 2017, 06:55:48 AM
Well, we are 300 miles into a 1k mile round trip to the Maine coast and back home this week.
I have deployed the CHF, front and rear, and added a DIY rear track-bar.
Most of the day was on State and US 2-lane roads. Winds were across the road at 20-25mph with gusts to 50! I was apprehensive about even leaving the front yard yesterday afternoon.
The coach was managegable, not a ton of fun but managegable, able to keep it in my lane.
Happy with the handling, was my first experience in the wind with this beast. Big semis had next to no affect while being passed on I89 and meeting on the 2-lane roads.

One thing I do notice is the air turbulance when a semi pulls in front of me after passing. Don't think there is much to do about that - maybe a steering stabilizer?

On my todo list for this winter, while waiting for some decent weather and heading west for 3 months in May, are a couple things: Going to add a DIY steering stabilizer and extend the the front swaybar links (3"), change out all the swaybar and link bushings, new house batteries and solar system; and maybe some other maintenace items like engine belt(s) and hoses.
Solar for boondocking. We enjoy that way more than the busy campground life. Don't seem to have any problem finding a waste dump site and water when needed.
We are "Happy Campers".
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on November 06, 2017, 10:42:04 AM
"Going to add a DIY steering stabilizer and extend the the front swaybar links (3"), change out all the sway bar and link bushings"
Phil, changing the bushings will help(use the polyurethane bushings) they are stiffer. Hearer is one source although I bought a set at the local parts store.
 http://www.energysuspensionparts.com/?utm_source=bingads&utm_medium=cpc&utm_content=EnergySearch&utm_campaign=EnergySearch
I don't understand what "extend the the front swaybar links (3")" is going to do to improve handling, help me out here.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on November 06, 2017, 02:11:40 PM
Bill, with the links in the CHF (inner) holes of the swaybar, I feel the geometry of the bar and links is too straight. Don't think it will help the handling but will make me feel better. :)
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WILDEBILL308 on November 07, 2017, 10:27:33 AM
Bill, with the links in the CHF (inner) holes of the swaybar, I feel the geometry of the bar and links is too straight. Don't think it will help the handling but will make me feel better. :)

Just so we are on the same page. All the links do is connect the end of the sway bar, torsion bar to the coach. I would think the straighter the better. All the "work" is done in the larger diameter of the bar where it resist the torsional movement.
This is why moving to the inner holes improves handling you are shortening the leaver. Thatis also why stiffer bushings work as they deflect less under load.
I feel the more angle the more chance for the links to bend/deflect and reduce the performance of the setup.
Bill
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on November 07, 2017, 02:33:19 PM
Just so we are on the same page. All the links do is connect the end of the sway bar, torsion bar to the coach. I would think the straighter the better. All the "work" is done in the larger diameter of the bar where it resist the torsional movement.
This is why moving to the inner holes improves handling you are shortening the leaver. Thatis also why stiffer bushings work as they deflect less under load.
I feel the more angle the more chance for the links to bend/deflect and reduce the performance of the setup.
Bill

Yes. But when the links are moved to the inner holes in the bar ends, it puts them more in line with them rathan working as the did before the change, at a more direct push/pull on the bar.  I'll give the new bushings a try first.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on November 07, 2017, 04:07:20 PM
Phil-T: It sounds like your saying when the end links are connected to the inside holes of the sway bar that because of the angle required to make the connection the end links effectively become an extension of the sway bar and increase the overall length of the sway bar, moving the sway bar end to the frame. Am I understanding that correctly?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on November 07, 2017, 05:09:25 PM
Not quite that bad but yes, that is what I mean.
So to connect the existing end links, the bar needs to be turned upward; thus making that angle from the bar to the link "straighter".

Phil-T: It sounds like your saying when the end links are connected to the inside holes of the sway bar that because of the angle required to make the connection the end links effectively become an extension of the sway bar and increase the overall length of the sway bar, moving the sway bar end to the frame. Am I understanding that correctly?
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: WinterAdverse on November 08, 2017, 03:10:03 PM
I had not looked at the front CHP from that perspective but that sure makes sense, at least to me. That would also explain why the rear CHF is more effective. The rear sway bar actually had to be lowered a bit to connect the links to the inside holes thereby moving the sway bar arms further away from the plane of the links and actually making the sway bar's working area shorter.
Title: Re: Class A Handling issues
Post by: phil-t on November 08, 2017, 04:56:08 PM
Just looks to me that in the CHF position - the torsional action of the swaybar might be changed some to "push/pull" action against the swaybar mount points.  Maybe a trivial notion and then, maybe all chassis (weight ratings) are not of the same design; so some CHF implementations may not appear to be like mine.  I think the swaybars are the same but maybe not the axles/suspensions.
I'll be back home this Sunday and will see about getting a couple PICs of what I am talking about.