RV News RVBusiness 2021 Top 10 RVs of the Year, plus 56 additional debuts and must-see units → ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-29-2015, 02:53 PM   #21
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 27
Reading there is a possible problem of traveling with a full load of fresh water is very concerning to me. My wife and I mostly take long weekends and follow a race circuit here in the north east. Race tracks do not have hook ups so we of course we have to be prepared for 3-4 days. Traveling home the fresh will be down to roughly a 1/3 and the gray close to full and the black normally no more than half. If there is a place to dump close by then I stop and dump, leave the fresh as is and start home. I would like to hear from RW on this as we want to do things right and avoid and issues regarding warranty claims, etc. Can we pull full or not?
Marty51 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 05:42 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
GTXRAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 220
We have a 39MB, the dealer had our fresh full when we picked it up. We have always traveled with the fresh full in any RV we have had and the rest of the tanks mostly empty. That way we can stop anywhere for the night.
__________________
2015 Ram 3500 SLT Mega Cab DRW, SS Nerf Bars, Andersen Ultimate Hitch, ATTA Freedom Fill System
Living Full Time in a 2015 39MB Tan & Burgundy Urban Clay/Caramel, Wineguard Dish, Res Fridge & Induction Cook Top, myRV Linc Remote, MorRyde 8K IS, Titan Disk Brakes, 17.5 Goodyear G114's
GTXRAS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 06:56 PM   #23
Site Team
 
Dave&Ginny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,379
You should be able to travel with full tanks as long as the weight doesn't exceed the truck's/trailer limits. Otherwise, there would have to be a disclaimer, clearly posted saying not to travel with full tanks. There are weight restriction on every RV and unfortunately I see those numbers shrinking due to the added weight of the trailers while not improving the suspension or axles.

I personally don't think it should be legal for any RV to have a carrying capacity lower than 2500 LBS.
__________________
SOB "The RV Wiseguy"
Dave&Ginny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:26 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
RomanyLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 512
Tanks are for filling, period. I refuse to worry about this. IF something happens under conditions under which the equipment is intended to be used, then the manufacturer will be hearing from me. I do not expect that Redwood would decline to cover something like this.
__________________

Living the Dream in our 2015 38RL: 1600 watts solar, 800 ah lithium, slide in slide, residential refer, washer/dryer, Moryde 8K, H rated tires, Kodiak disc brakes, Drainmaster system, SeeLevel II
Our big girl is dragged around by our 2019 RAM 3500 Limited DRW
Grateful Veterans, Proud Americans, Devoted Partners, Parents and Grandparents!
LOVE the Full Time RV Life @OurRomanyLife
RomanyLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:33 PM   #25
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 2
Lci

Yep we have found that LCI looks for every excuse to deny a claim that they can. Seems in this situation in the original thread LCI is trying to defer this claim to your auto insurance by saying you hit a pothole, which any damage then would be covered under your auto insurance (road hazard - comp and collision) if you were towing the vehicle at the time. I would have used what they wrote to make a claim on my auto insurance to cover the cost of the repairs if they were to costly to pay out of pocket.
roracarr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 07:51 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
LadyEcooper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave&Ginny View Post
You should be able to travel with full tanks as long as the weight doesn't exceed the truck's/trailer limits. Otherwise, there would have to be a disclaimer, clearly posted saying not to travel with full tanks. There are weight restriction on every RV and unfortunately I see those numbers shrinking due to the added weight of the trailers while not improving the suspension or axles.

I personally don't think it should be legal for any RV to have a carrying capacity lower than 2500 LBS.
I agree with Dave. Knowing that we allow approx. 10 lbs per gallon for black water and 8.3 lbs per gallon for fresh & grey water.....adding this kind of significant weight to our overall weight just doesn't make sense for us. It comes down to being a safety issue for sure.

The Professor will keep the fresh water about 1/3 full (max) so we have water for potty breaks, etc. A couple of times we were forced to stay over at a parking lot and still had enough water for conservative showers. But, this scenario is not the norm for us as we are in campgrounds every night if we can make it happen.

Dumping before leaving the campground and filling the fresh water tanks right before arriving for a dry camping situation makes a lot more sense. It's all about SAFETY!!! Take no chances of being overweight and causing damage to tires & axles.

LadyEcooper
__________________
Full-timers: Evada & Terry Cooper
Mobile RV Academy
Big Max - 2013 F350 King Ranch 4x4 DRW
Lady DRV - 2017 DRV Fullhouse JX450 w/Executive Office Options
LadyEcooper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:01 PM   #27
Site Team
 
piper guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,885
I have to agree with Dave. If I can't travel with full tanks as long as I'm under the GVW, then some serious re-engineering needs to be done on the manufacturers part.


The RL especially, while a great towing coach, is even more stable when the Fresh water tanks is full. Anytime I know we're going to get into "crappy conditions", if at all possible I fill the tank.


And ours gets towed ~ so far we have about 14k miles on it. Probably a bit more now that I think about it. We did a couple thousand before I stopped trying to convince myself that a SRW truck was enough truck ........
__________________
Vaughan & Tracy 2013 RW 36RL, 2013 F350 DRW CC, 2016 Focus. MorRyde IS, MorRyde pinbox, disc brakes, Comfort Ride Hitch. "Life is to be embraced, Grab it with both arms ! "
piper guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:44 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
atom ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,101
3. Photos also show that supports for tanks are bowing down which implies traveling with fluid in the tanks. Since tanks are not baffled this allows for fluid to transfer freely within the tank causing undue stress to supports as well as the I-beam itself, in this case located just in front of the axle area where you are experiencing torsional cracking.

Ah, but according to Mr. Brad Smith of LCI, travelling with 1/3 tank in a non-baffled tank could create more stress than a full tank and start those awful torsional cracks!

I know there are GVWR concerns and safety checks, but my overall purpose for the thread was to point out that if your tank hits the pavement going down the road, LCI may just deny your claim because you made the mistake of putting water in it.
__________________
Brad & Dory - Lone Tree, CO
CURRENT - 2013 Itasca Meridian 42E/2013 Wrangler 4dr Sahara
SOLD - 2014 Redwood 36RL/2014 F350 DRW
atom ant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 08:54 PM   #29
Site Team
 
Dave&Ginny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 5,379
Quote:
Originally Posted by atom ant View Post
3. Photos also show that supports for tanks are bowing down which implies traveling with fluid in the tanks. Since tanks are not baffled this allows for fluid to transfer freely within the tank causing undue stress to supports as well as the I-beam itself, in this case located just in front of the axle area where you are experiencing torsional cracking.

Ah, but according to Mr. Brad Smith of LCI, travelling with 1/3 tank in a non-baffled tank could create more stress than a full tank and start those awful torsional cracks!

I know there are GVWR concerns and safety checks, but my overall purpose for the thread was to point out that if your tank hits the pavement going down the road, LCI may just deny your claim because you made the mistake of putting water in it.

Brad,

all the years I've been around RVs......I've never seen a warning label stating it was unsafe or in any way damaging to travel with tanks being filled (partially or full)....as long as the GVW of the unit wasn't over limit.

They could argue that the trailer was out of balance due to the weight ....but....they designed it that way. This would fall back on their design.

Because of this, their refusal, is only an effort to see if someone has the courage to fight them. I believe I would draw the makers of the frame, tanks and manufacture of the trailer into the fight.
__________________
SOB "The RV Wiseguy"
Dave&Ginny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 09:13 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
atom ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,101
I totally agree - just beware it may turn into a fight, especially with the recent warranty tendency for denials based on Lipperts decision and not necessarily Redwood. I don't think many of those fights have been won.

I think Ron lost at tank when it dropped down between the angle iron brackets, I wonder how that turned out.
__________________
Brad & Dory - Lone Tree, CO
CURRENT - 2013 Itasca Meridian 42E/2013 Wrangler 4dr Sahara
SOLD - 2014 Redwood 36RL/2014 F350 DRW
atom ant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 10:34 PM   #31
Senior Member
 
Shane Wood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,003
Send a message via AIM to Shane Wood Send a message via MSN to Shane Wood Send a message via Yahoo to Shane Wood
I think we are worrying some of the new and inexperienced rivers with this. These rv, s are designed to carry full tanks or they would not be installed. The legality of it could put them out of business. I have ran with full fresh water going out with the others empty and returned with Grey and black full fresh empty over the last 30 years and never had a problem. Now having the manufactor deny a claim for traveling with a full tank is another story altogether. I have heard of very few tanks coming down
__________________
2015 36RL pushing a 2015 Denali
Shane Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 10:39 PM   #32
Site Team
 
piper guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,885
I agree Shane. I run the same way frequently and like you feel the rig is/should be designed to support that.
__________________
Vaughan & Tracy 2013 RW 36RL, 2013 F350 DRW CC, 2016 Focus. MorRyde IS, MorRyde pinbox, disc brakes, Comfort Ride Hitch. "Life is to be embraced, Grab it with both arms ! "
piper guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 11:00 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
atom ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,101
Two on this forum have lost tanks.

it was my intent to worry - everyone. LCI comes up with those kind of excuses to deny claims for such a catastrophic failure, even cracks in the frame, so I think we need to hear from Redwood that the Redwood is designed to carry full tanks. That's all we need to hear.

http://www.redwoodowners.com/forums/...orts-2915.html
__________________
Brad & Dory - Lone Tree, CO
CURRENT - 2013 Itasca Meridian 42E/2013 Wrangler 4dr Sahara
SOLD - 2014 Redwood 36RL/2014 F350 DRW
atom ant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-29-2015, 11:15 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
RomanyLife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 512
We know that they monitor this forum. No response translates as they are choosing not to comment and that doesn't set well. Maybe they will offer some feedback. Brad is right, Lippert is the tail wagging the dog.
__________________

Living the Dream in our 2015 38RL: 1600 watts solar, 800 ah lithium, slide in slide, residential refer, washer/dryer, Moryde 8K, H rated tires, Kodiak disc brakes, Drainmaster system, SeeLevel II
Our big girl is dragged around by our 2019 RAM 3500 Limited DRW
Grateful Veterans, Proud Americans, Devoted Partners, Parents and Grandparents!
LOVE the Full Time RV Life @OurRomanyLife
RomanyLife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 12:22 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
Shane Wood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,003
Send a message via AIM to Shane Wood Send a message via MSN to Shane Wood Send a message via Yahoo to Shane Wood
Quote:
Originally Posted by atom ant View Post
Two on this forum have lost tanks.

it was my intent to worry - everyone. LCI comes up with those kind of excuses to deny claims for such a catastrophic failure, even cracks in the frame, so I think we need to hear from Redwood that the Redwood is designed to carry full tanks. That's all we need to hear.

http://www.redwoodowners.com/forums/...orts-2915.html
If these things were not to be towed with full tanks then they would have to have you sign a waiver contrary to this.. Otherwise by law they will have to honor a claim if your tank falls out. No court in this land would stand behind someone that installs a product and try,s to back out on repairing it when it fails by trying to say it shouldn't have been used as designed
__________________
2015 36RL pushing a 2015 Denali
Shane Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 12:45 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
atom ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,101
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shane Wood View Post
If these things were not to be towed with full tanks then they would have to have you sign a waiver contrary to this.. Otherwise by law they will have to honor a claim if your tank falls out. No court in this land would stand behind someone that installs a product and try,s to back out on repairing it when it fails by trying to say it shouldn't have been used as designed
Ya right, how many of those claims go to court. Probably none as it would cost more to challenge it than the repair if you lost. And what law..? I would like to think there is one, but I don't think there is.
__________________
Brad & Dory - Lone Tree, CO
CURRENT - 2013 Itasca Meridian 42E/2013 Wrangler 4dr Sahara
SOLD - 2014 Redwood 36RL/2014 F350 DRW
atom ant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 12:47 AM   #37
Senior Member
 
Shane Wood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 2,003
Send a message via AIM to Shane Wood Send a message via MSN to Shane Wood Send a message via Yahoo to Shane Wood
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by atom ant View Post
Ya right, how many of those claims go to court. Probably none as it would cost more to challenge it than the repair if you lost. And what law..? I would like to think there is one, but I don't think there is.
parently you have no faith in your judicial system
__________________
2015 36RL pushing a 2015 Denali
Shane Wood is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 01:17 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
Piper Guy's Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by atom ant View Post
Ya right, how many of those claims go to court. Probably none as it would cost more to challenge it than the repair if you lost. And what law..? I would like to think there is one, but I don't think there is.
It would be a breach of merchantability. If there are such claims which are valid, they probably don't go to court because they are settled. And if such claims are settled pre-trial, there is, in all likelihood, a non-disclosure provision which means we wouldn't know about it.
__________________
"Life is too short to take the same road twice"
Vaughan and Tracy, and our 4-legged fur babies: Zeus, Millie, Murphy and Miles, traveling happily in Tilda, our 2013 RW 36RL.
Piper Guy's Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 01:34 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
atom ant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 7,101
Ya, the consumer doesn't always make out on those. We would especially be without cause because the manufacturer is silent on the intended use of the tanks.

The question of whether goods are fit for their ordinary purpose is much more frequently litigated. Thomas Coffer sued the manufacturer of a jar of mixed nuts after he bit down on an unshelled filbert, believing it to have been shelled, and damaged a tooth. Coffer argued in part that the presence of the unshelled nut among shelled nuts was a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Unquestionably, Coffer was using the nuts for their ordinary purpose when he ate them, and unquestionably, he suffered a dental injury when he bit the filbert's hard shell. But the North Carolina appellate court held that the jar of mixed nuts was nonetheless fit for the ordinary purpose for which jars of mixed nuts are used (Coffer v. Standard Brands, 30 N.C. App. 134, 226 S.E.2d 534 [1976]). The court consulted the state agriculture board's regulations and noted that the peanut industry allows a small amount of unshelled nuts to be included with shelled nuts without rendering the shelled nuts inedible or adulterated. The court also noted that shells are a natural incident to nuts.
__________________
Brad & Dory - Lone Tree, CO
CURRENT - 2013 Itasca Meridian 42E/2013 Wrangler 4dr Sahara
SOLD - 2014 Redwood 36RL/2014 F350 DRW
atom ant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-30-2015, 01:50 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
Piper Guy's Gal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 243
Quote:
Originally Posted by atom ant View Post
Ya, the consumer doesn't always make out on those. We would especially be without cause because the manufacturer is silent on the intended use of the tanks.

The question of whether goods are fit for their ordinary purpose is much more frequently litigated. Thomas Coffer sued the manufacturer of a jar of mixed nuts after he bit down on an unshelled filbert, believing it to have been shelled, and damaged a tooth. Coffer argued in part that the presence of the unshelled nut among shelled nuts was a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Unquestionably, Coffer was using the nuts for their ordinary purpose when he ate them, and unquestionably, he suffered a dental injury when he bit the filbert's hard shell. But the North Carolina appellate court held that the jar of mixed nuts was nonetheless fit for the ordinary purpose for which jars of mixed nuts are used (Coffer v. Standard Brands, 30 N.C. App. 134, 226 S.E.2d 534 [1976]). The court consulted the state agriculture board's regulations and noted that the peanut industry allows a small amount of unshelled nuts tjo be included with shelled nuts without rendering the shelled nuts inedible or adulterated. The court also noted that shells are a natural incident to nuts.
Respectfully, we're talking peanuts and liquid tanks. Peanuts are also sold for consumption both shelled and unshelled. And it's probably not a bad idea to take a look at whatever it is you are putting in your mouth.

On the other hand, I do believe a reasonable person would think that at least a fresh water tank is meant to be carried full. Otherwise, why have a fresh water tank, at least at the capacity our tanks come in? If unsafe, then why not include say a 15 gallon tank and tell owners that they have to rely on the water hook up at a site? Gray and black is a little different. Their capacity could be one of convenience, so that you don't have to drain everyday.

If there was a structural failure attributed to the weight of a full fresh water tank, well that's a case I would happily take.
__________________
"Life is too short to take the same road twice"
Vaughan and Tracy, and our 4-legged fur babies: Zeus, Millie, Murphy and Miles, traveling happily in Tilda, our 2013 RW 36RL.
Piper Guy's Gal is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3
Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Redwood RV or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×