Re: [a/s] Towing Question Can-Am

[John Hilty <hilty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to see that periodical or ad. Any idea where it could be
acquired? 
 
> I worry about liability and endurance matters. 

Yes, I think this is a concern for most of us, and I have not seen it
much discussed by those advocating lighter duty tow vehicles.

> I wonder what a comparison of weight ratios with tractor trailer
> combos (tractor to trailer) would show? Also, until only recently tractors
> did not even have front brakes installed as a safety feature to prevent
> jackknifing.

A good point, George.
 
> One thing is for sure, though; when manufacturers produce towing capacities
> for passenger vehicles, not trucks, their main concern is to protect their
> warranty liability/durability.

This might be a clue as to their confidence level in their equipment.
Ford, GM, etc. have many more dollars available for R&D than any RV
dealer will have. One could conclude that they know what they are doing
when they set towing limits for their vehicles. But then common sense
conclusions in an environment of political concerns, government
regulation, and rampant litigation rarely stack up with all of the
thinking of the decision makers.
 
> Jeez, I find it very strange to be commenting on the opposite side of this
> issue!
> george

Good for you, George. I am not particularly attached to either side of
this issue. If there was some way to know definitively that Can-Am was
in fact correct in all of their assertions, I would say, "Cool." But if
they weren't and this was supported by factual data, I would think,
"Well, now we know about that."  There is a basic difference between
'truth' and 'fact'. Truth can take some fact and use it to build a
reasoned conclusion that may not be factual (observe any political
debate). Fact is just fact. With respect to this towing issue, I think
we need more factual data.

John H.