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

[John Hilty <hilty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Phil,

I wish that there were some more objective information than is
available. Phil Tippler wrote a few weeks ago about some of the claims
or recommendations of the folks at Can-Am, i.e. that low center of
gravity, independent rear suspension, softer suspension, short rear
overhang to wheelbase ratio tow vehicles with adequate power and low
profile tires would, "blow the doors off any truck for purposes of
towing an airstream." At the time I asked him some very pointed
questions about his reasons or facts to support his statements. There
has been no response to those questions yet. I did not disbelieve him. I
just wanted to have some clarification or hopefully see some facts to
support those assertions.

This leads me to conclude that there aren't many really objective facts
to back up much of the towing theory that we see here. Can-Am apparently
does not publish any of their test results, assuming there are test
results. I do understand that they have workshops and the like at
rallies. It is quite probable that actually printing recommendations
would put a company at risk of litigation if the recommendations were
followed with bad result. It would be nice to see someone like Can-Am or
Consumer Reports put up the $100,000 or more needed to have a group of
engineers come in and run tests comparing acceleration, hill climbing,
slalom, skid pad, panic stopping, drive train wear as % of estimated
life, etc. on a Seville or Aurora vs. a Powerstroke F250 or Suburban tow
vehicle. Then we might actually have something besides conjecture to go
on. Until then this debate will be mostly about who you believe, what
you own, or what you want to believe. The same is presumably true for
the "Which hitch is better, safer, etc?" debate.

John H.