Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-16-2014, 06:48 AM   #61
Winnebago Camper
 
IMDSailor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada
Posts: 24
Just read this. Thought it might be helpful.
http://www.woodalls.com/articledetai...icleID=2799181


Sent from my iPhone using iRV2 - RV Forum
__________________
Stewart & Kim. 2011 Serrano 31V, MaxForce 7 w/ Allison 6 Sp. Fiat 500 Sport Diesel Pusher.
Surge Guard 3450, TST 510, Sliverleaf VMSpc, RVND 7710. Blue Ox Tow. 2010 Arctic Cat 700 TRV.
Someday your life may flash before your eyes. Make sure it's worth watching.
IMDSailor is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 07:52 AM   #62
Winnebago Camper
 
TwelveVolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 42
Do we really need a braking system in our toads?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis4809 View Post
In Oct we were southbound on I75 through KY when I saw a car against a tree across the northbound lanes. On the side, a quarter mile or so further was the motorhome less their toad. It had crossed the median and both northbound lanes. Fortunately for all, the unguided missile missed all the innocent drivers and their passengers.

The toad got itself off the road with no personal injuries. What are the possible outcomes if an unmanned toad brings itself to a stop across two active freeway lanes with no lights? Some setups turn on the brake lights because the pedal is pressed, many rely on the MH cable for lights. Food for thought.

Sure it's off topic, but now I really want to hear the "paranoia based" sales pitch for electric toilets.
TwelveVolt is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 08:21 AM   #63
Winnebago Camper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
But... What's a trailer?

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDSailor View Post
Just read this. Thought it might be helpful.
2011 Driving Laws for the US and Canada


Sent from my iPhone using iRV2 - RV Forum
IMDSailor,

Thanks for posting this. Good info and very concise.

I've been following this thread with interest. We've only had our 2003 Travel Supreme 41' DP since June. When I asked the original owner about brakes for the 2004 Honda CRM toad, he said, "Not necessary". I don't have much experience towing the CRV, but with 500HP in the heavy TS, I can barely tell the difference in acceleration and braking. That said...

My choice is to get a braking system for the CRV, probably an Air Force One. It makes sense to me and provides an extra margin of safety.

I'm not going to argue whether my choice is "common sense". What makes sense for me may not make sense for other people. Does it make sense to have a braking system if you pulling an H2 Hummer (6400 lbs) with a lower powered gas RV. Absolutely! (IMO) Does it make sense to have a braking system if your are pulling the original Smart ForTwo (1600lbs) with a 45' DP with 600HP and 2000 ft/lbs of torque? Maybe. Maybe not.

However, they key issue is the legal argument that many posters are tossing around in this thread. Since I live in Washington State, I focused on the laws there. In the Woodalls article, like virtually all articles that I've read, they refer to "trailers" when discussing brakes and breakaway switches. The Washington State laws are similar - they refer to "trailers". I haven't looked much at laws and regulations for other states, but all the ones I did review referred to "trailers".

The issue is: what's a trailer? Your opinion and my opinion what constitutes a trailer is NOT relevant except when making our own decisions. What is relevant is what the law says. And more specifically, what a judge would say in a court of law or what a law enforcement officer (LEO) would say if he or she pulled you over.

The problem I see with most of the laws and regulations is that virtually all of them were written for the traditional version of "trailer". E.g. a commercial tractor/trailer combo or a truck with camping trailer. If you could find the folks who originally wrote those laws or regulations, I'll bet large quantities of the long green that "toad" NEVER entered their minds. If asked for a definition of "trailer", they'd say something like, "You know... Trailer! Camping trailer. 18 wheeler." (Meanwhile they're thinking, "Boy, is this guy a dolt!")

So, what's a trailer? Does anyone have a link to a document that legally defines "trailer" at the federal or state level? Preferably for Washington State.

Regards,

Dan.

p.s. I don't read what the braking system vendors and manufacturers have on their website. Those web pages were written by marketing people to sell their product.
__________________
2003 TS Select 41DS03
Dan_public is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 08:28 AM   #64
Registered User
 
mel s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1mainiac View Post
Federal DOT says over 3000 lbs must have brakes so even states that don't have rules have rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDSailor View Post
Just read this. Thought it might be helpful.
2011 Driving Laws for the US and Canada
1mainiac
Thanks.

Note that the ONLY mention of a "towed vehicle" in that entire document is in the info pertaining to British Columbia, Canada, which states:
(quote)
"Motorhomes (only) may tow motor vehicles via a tow bar without brakes hooked up on the towed motor vehicle when the towed motor vehicle’s weight is less than 4,409 lbs. and less than 40 percent of the gross vehicle weight rating (gvwr) of the motorhome towing it".
(end quote).

If one believes that "2011 Driving Laws for the US and Canada" document/article/information, (as published by Good Sam), there are "trailer brake requirements" in most US States, and in all Canadian Provinces.
But
NO brake requirement for a "vehicle being towed behind motorhome" in the remainder of Canada, or in any state in the US.....(and apparently no Federal DOT rule either).

The question is:
Is a "vehicle being towed behind motorhome" a "trailer"?
And if it is why on earth does British Columbia exempt a vehicle weighing less than 4,409 lbs. being towed behind motorhome).

Mel
'96 Safari
mel s is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 08:54 AM   #65
Winnebago Camper
 
TwelveVolt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by mel s View Post

Note that the ONLY mention of a "towed vehicle" in that entire document is in the info pertaining to British Columbia, Canada, which states:
(quote)
"Motorhomes (only) may tow motor vehicles via a tow bar without brakes hooked up on the towed motor vehicle when the towed motor vehicle’s weight is less than 4,409 lbs. and less than 40 percent of the gross vehicle weight rating (gvwr) of the motorhome towing it".
(end quote).

Perhaps someone with industry experience can answer this question:

Does the "Combined Weight Rating" posted in the MH imply that the braking system design is adequate to stop that much weight within accepted norms?
TwelveVolt is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:18 AM   #66
Winnebago Watcher
 
ardbark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Logan, Ut
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1mainiac View Post
Federal DOT says over 3000 lbs must have brakes so even states that don't have rules have rules.
Unless your toad weighs 2300 lbs? Like my Tracker?
__________________
Its not the destination, its the journey
2003 FW Disco 39L chased by 2300 lbs of raging GEO Tracker
ardbark is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:26 AM   #67
Winnebago Camper
 
chawkins99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Calera, AL
Posts: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1mainiac View Post
Federal DOT says over 3000 lbs must have brakes so even states that don't have rules have rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mel s View Post
1mainiac
Can you please supply a link to a Federal DOT document stating that a vehicle being towed weighing over 3000 lbs must have brakes.
Thanks
Mel
'96 Safari, '07 Saturn ION toad
I have tried searching on DOT/Government regulations. All of the regulations I have found regarding equipment on 'towed' vehicles specifically exclude "Vehicles in Driveaway-Towaway operations".

A definition of Driveaway-Towaway can be found here:
Regulations Section | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Driveaway-towaway operation means an operation in which an empty or unladen motor vehicle with one or more sets of wheels on the surface of the roadway is being transported:
(1) Between vehicle manufacturer's facilities;
(2) Between a vehicle manufacturer and a dealership or purchaser;
(3) Between a dealership, or other entity selling or leasing the vehicle, and a purchaser or lessee;
(4) To a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for the repair of disabling damage (as defined in § 390.5) following a crash; or
(5) To a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for repairs associated with the failure of a vehicle component or system; or
(6) By means of a saddle-mount or tow-bar.



If the law required brakes on the toad, every wrecker truck on the road pulling a broken-down vehicle would be illegal.
__________________
Chris, Jo & Dell (Siberian Husky - 110lb of fur and muscle)
2003 Beaver Santiam 40DST - Cummins 330ISC
Closely followed by a 2012 Equinox AWD
chawkins99 is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:32 AM   #68
Winnebago Owner
 
CampDaven's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Fulltime, USA
Posts: 111
I dont have all of the answers.
I only know I stopped much sooner and the child was not struck, nor injured, nor killed.
There was nothing for me to rationalize.
Some simply prefer and accept the avoidable risk.
__________________
Dave and Nola, RVM1
The Journey is Our Destination!
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
https://davenola.blogspot.com/
CampDaven is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:35 AM   #69
Winnebago Camper
 
DMTTRANSPORT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Henderson, Nevada
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hikerdogs View Post
I read an article recently that stated "most accidents aren't really accidents". It was based on a survey done over several years trying to determine the causes of industrial accidents.

The conclusion was that the majority of the "accidents" weren't really accidents, but rather the result of repeating of unsafe behaviors. Most accidents had been preceded by performing the same unsafe procedure between 25,000 and 250,000 times. The unsafe procedures had become so commonplace that those committing them they considered them normal.

I would consider towing a vehicle with no auxiliary braking system one of those unsafe acts. You may be able to do it 25,000 times or 250,000 times without a negative result. It only takes 1 failure to inflict damage or result in death.

You don't need them until you do, and if you don't have them that 1 time you might not get a do over.
Correct, There is no such thing as an "Accident", Crashes/Wrecks happen for a reason, (Johnny accidently spilt his milk), no he didn't , he wasn't paying attention to what he was doing.
__________________
2005 Newmar DS 4023, Spartan Chassis, ISL 370 Cumapart, 2008 Jeep Rubicon 4dr, 2015 Kia Soul, 1969 Italian & 2004 Akita
DMTTRANSPORT is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:35 AM   #70
Winnebago Camper
 
Don and Dale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 6
Quote:
Originally Posted by gruelens View Post
and lot of the other expensive "paranoia based" RV accessories

Yeah, and now that I think about it ...... I don't need that tow bar either. A piece of thick rope should pull just fine. I was paranoid and thought I needed steel.
X100 I have to say I LMAO over that statement.
__________________
"In the game of life, I have no need for tickets on the 50-yard line, I brought my shoes, I came to play." Unknown
Don and Dale (2015 Tiffin 32 SA with 5ST, CHF, Safe-T-Plus and EEZRV TPMS) RVM106
Don and Dale is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:52 AM   #71
Registered User
 
mel s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwelveVolt View Post
Perhaps someone with industry experience can answer this question:
Does the "Combined Weight Rating" posted in the MH imply that the braking system design is adequate to stop that much weight within accepted norms?
TwelveVolt
I don't have "industry experience", but IMO the answer is YES.

It is my understanding that IF the total combined weight of the coach and the towed vehicle is LESS than the GCWR, (Gross Combined Weight Rating), of the coach, the braking system, (as well as the engine and transmission), of the coach is adequate, (and it's perfectly safe to operate/drive without modification or "add on" accessories).

see: HowStuffWorks "How Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) Works"

BTW, the GCRW of my coach is 28,000 lb.... the actual combined weight, of my fully loaded for travel coach and toad, (a '07 Satrun ION), is only 25,250 lbs.

Mel
'96 Safari Sahara, 250 hp Cat, (133k miles)
mel s is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 09:57 AM   #72
Winnie-Wise
 
Ramzfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 352
Finally, we're starting to get some "thinking" thoughts on this subject instead of the original "what if" paranoia-based liberal arguments that filled the first few pages of this post. Now we're getting somewhere....
__________________
06' Itasca Meridian 36g with CAT 350
2011 Jeep Wrangler 4-door
Ramzfan is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 10:06 AM   #73
Winnebago Camper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by CampDaven View Post
I dont have all of the answers.
I only know I stopped much sooner and the child was not struck, nor injured, nor killed.
There was nothing for me to rationalize.
Some simply prefer and accept the avoidable risk.
CampDaven,

At this point in the thread, the question is not personal preference or what we believe is safe. It looks like most people in this thread, including me, believe that having a braking system is safer.

Personal preference is fine, but some people are rationalizing their choice to use a braking system because it is legally required. The question is: what are the laws?

So far, I've seen no clear evidence in this thread that it is legally required. I.e. no links to specific laws and regulations for a motor coach pulling a toad or to specific, legal definitions that a toad is a "trailer".

I've made my choice because that's what I prefer and NOT because it is clearly required by law (which I can't find).

Regards,

Dan.
__________________
2003 TS Select 41DS03
Dan_public is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 10:29 AM   #74
Winnebago Watcher
 
ardbark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Logan, Ut
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by mel s View Post
TwelveVolt
I don't have "industry experience", but IMO the answer is YES.

It is my understanding that IF the total combined weight of the coach and the towed vehicle is LESS than the GCWR, (Gross Combined Weight Rating), of the coach, the braking system, (as well as the engine and transmission), of the coach is adequate, (and it's perfectly safe to operate/drive without modification or "add on" accessories).

see: HowStuffWorks "How Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) Works"

BTW, the GCRW of my coach is 28,000 lb.... the actual combined weight, of my fully loaded for travel coach and toad, (a '07 Satrun ION), is only 25,250 lbs.

Mel
'96 Safari Sahara, 250 hp Cat, (133k miles)
Another chart, this one from AAA
http://www.aaa.com/aaa/Traveler/ITT910.pdf

This list, once again, uses the term "trailer" and may or may not be applicable to toads. Regardless, its pretty clear that weight restriction laws (before needing aux brake systems) as written by various states have no basis in science. The mechanics of stopping distance are quite consistent and can be well described mathematically, yet weight thresholds vary wildly from state to state (anywhere from 1,500 lbs to over 10,000lbs). Seems the various states arbitrarily picked a number out of a hat and said that's the law.

If stopping distance was paramount then logic says we should never drive with a full tank of fuel, always keep our holding tanks empty and under no circumstance leave home with 90 gallons of water on board. All this excess weight will lead to longer stopping distances.

Emergency breakaway systems are another issue, and at least IMHO the more important one.

YMMV
__________________
Its not the destination, its the journey
2003 FW Disco 39L chased by 2300 lbs of raging GEO Tracker
ardbark is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 10:58 AM   #75
Winnebago Owner
 
tedgard01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Winston Salem, NC
Posts: 50
There are many things that I buy and hope I never need it. Some examples are; RV Insurance, Extended Warranty, Emergency Roadside Assistance, as well as the toad braking system.

Yes, from the point of view of someone that has driven for decades without having an issue, that may make me look as if I am paranoid about the "perceived" danger versus the actual potential of a problem.

Regardless, for me, and my experiance, I find it better to be prepared and not need some things than to find out after the fact that that I should have been prepared, but made the conscious decision not to be prepared.

I use a braking system for three primary reason;

1) I know that the brakes on my RV were designed to stop the weight of the RV, not the additional weight of my toad. Therefore, using a braking system on the toad removes the weight of the toad from the RV, allowing my braking on the RV to do the job that they were designed for.

2) In the event of a separation of the toad, I want to protect others by having the toads breaks automatically be systematically applied in a pulsed manner to slow down and stop the toad under a controlled fashion versus sending the toad off into traffic without any speed or directional control. The consequences are scientifically shown to be much safer with the breaking system installed.

3) It is the law to have it. I do not want to be involved in an accident, or otherwise stopped by the officials, and be fined, detained and/or otherwise cited, simply because I chose to ignore what I knew to be the law.

In my openion, having a breaking system is more how one individual looks at this as being their responsibility as a safe driver, versus being paranoid.


Ted
tedgard01 is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 11:03 AM   #76
Registered User
 
mel s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 340
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan_public View Post
CampDaven,

At this point in the thread, the question is not personal preference or what we believe is safe. It looks like most people in this thread, including me, believe that having a braking system is safer.
Personal preference is fine, but some people are rationalizing their choice to use a braking system because it is legally required. The question is: what are the laws?
So far, I've seen no clear evidence in this thread that it is legally required. I.e. no links to specific laws and regulations for a motor coach pulling a toad or to specific, legal definitions that a toad is a "trailer".
I've made my choice because that's what I prefer and NOT because it is clearly required by law (which I can't find).
Regards,
Dan.
Dan
Good point
Although I believe differently, (and have made a different choice), I have no argument against your choice, (and especially your right to make that choice).
Believe it or not, some people actually base their important choices on speculation, rumors, half truths and advertising hype.
Mel
mel s is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 11:21 AM   #77
Winnebago Camper
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 5
Quote:
Originally Posted by tedgard01 View Post
There are many things that I buy and hope I never need it. Some examples are; RV Insurance, Extended Warranty, Emergency Roadside Assistance, as well as the toad braking system.

Yes, from the point of view of someone that has driven for decades without having an issue, that may make me look as if I am paranoid about the "perceived" danger versus the actual potential of a problem.

Regardless, for me, and my experiance, I find it better to be prepared and not need some things than to find out after the fact that that I should have been prepared, but made the conscious decision not to be prepared.

I use a braking system for three primary reason;

1) I know that the brakes on my RV were designed to stop the weight of the RV, not the additional weight of my toad. Therefore, using a braking system on the toad removes the weight of the toad from the RV, allowing my braking on the RV to do the job that they were designed for.

2) In the event of a separation of the toad, I want to protect others by having the toads breaks automatically be systematically applied in a pulsed manner to slow down and stop the toad under a controlled fashion versus sending the toad off into traffic without any speed or directional control. The consequences are scientifically shown to be much safer with the breaking system installed.

3) It is the law to have it. I do not want to be involved in an accident, or otherwise stopped by the officials, and be fined, detained and/or otherwise cited, simply because I chose to ignore what I knew to be the law.

In my openion, having a breaking system is more how one individual looks at this as being their responsibility as a safe driver, versus being paranoid.


Ted
Ted,

Although not really relevant, I agree with you. That is, except for item 3. I looked in the Woodalls links above for North Carolina. It says, "RV Safety Requirements: All RVs: safety glass. Trailers over 4,000 lbs.: trailer brakes."

Do the laws in North Carolina specify restrictions for RV with toads? Do they define "trailer"? Is the Woodalls article incomplete?

Regards,

Dan.
__________________
2003 TS Select 41DS03
Dan_public is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 11:22 AM   #78
Winnebago Camper
 
DMTTRANSPORT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Henderson, Nevada
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by ardbark View Post
Another chart, this one from AAA
http://www.aaa.com/aaa/Traveler/ITT910.pdf

This list, once again, uses the term "trailer" and may or may not be applicable to toads. Regardless, its pretty clear that weight restriction laws (before needing aux brake systems) as written by various states have no basis in science. The mechanics of stopping distance are quite consistent and can be well described mathematically, yet weight thresholds vary wildly from state to state (anywhere from 1,500 lbs to over 10,000lbs). Seems the various states arbitrarily picked a number out of a hat and said that's the law.

If stopping distance was paramount then logic says we should never drive with a full tank of fuel, always keep our holding tanks empty and under no circumstance leave home with 90 gallons of water on board. All this excess weight will lead to longer stopping distances.

Emergency breakaway systems are another issue, and at least IMHO the more important one.

YMMV
Chart states TRAILER, there is a legal difference between Trailer & Vehicle....
__________________
2005 Newmar DS 4023, Spartan Chassis, ISL 370 Cumapart, 2008 Jeep Rubicon 4dr, 2015 Kia Soul, 1969 Italian & 2004 Akita
DMTTRANSPORT is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 11:25 AM   #79
Winnebago Camper
 
DMTTRANSPORT's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Henderson, Nevada
Posts: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by chawkins99 View Post
I have tried searching on DOT/Government regulations. All of the regulations I have found regarding equipment on 'towed' vehicles specifically exclude "Vehicles in Driveaway-Towaway operations".

A definition of Driveaway-Towaway can be found here:
Regulations Section | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration


Driveaway-towaway operation means an operation in which an empty or unladen motor vehicle with one or more sets of wheels on the surface of the roadway is being transported:
(1) Between vehicle manufacturer's facilities;
(2) Between a vehicle manufacturer and a dealership or purchaser;
(3) Between a dealership, or other entity selling or leasing the vehicle, and a purchaser or lessee;
(4) To a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for the repair of disabling damage (as defined in § 390.5) following a crash; or
(5) To a motor carrier's terminal or repair facility for repairs associated with the failure of a vehicle component or system; or
(6) By means of a saddle-mount or tow-bar.



If the law required brakes on the toad, every wrecker truck on the road pulling a broken-down vehicle would be illegal.
Federal Motor Carrier has NOTHING to do with a NON COMMERCIAL Vehicle, I deal with them through my Business
__________________
2005 Newmar DS 4023, Spartan Chassis, ISL 370 Cumapart, 2008 Jeep Rubicon 4dr, 2015 Kia Soul, 1969 Italian & 2004 Akita
DMTTRANSPORT is offline  
Old 08-16-2014, 11:30 AM   #80
Winnebago Camper
 
DieselTech39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Ham Lake, MN
Posts: 26
[QUOTE=chawkins99;2184843]
Regulations Section | Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

BTW...It's interesting if you read further in that document you would find this:
"Trailer includes:
(a) Full trailer means any motor vehicle other than a pole trailer which is designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and so constructed that no part of its weight, except for the towing device, rests upon the self-propelled towing motor vehicle. A semitrailer equipped with an auxiliary front axle (converter dolly) shall be considered a full trailer.
(b) Pole trailer means any motor vehicle which is designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and attached to the towing motor vehicle by means of a “reach” or “pole,” or by being “boomed” or otherwise secured to the towing motor vehicle, for transporting long or irregularly shaped loads such as poles, pipes, or structural members, which generally are capable of sustaining themselves as beams between the supporting connections.
(c) Semitrailer means any motor vehicle, other than a pole trailer, which is designed to be drawn by another motor vehicle and is constructed so that some part of its weight rests upon the self-propelled towing motor vehicle."

More definitions here: FHWA Vehicle Classification

As far as the tow truck being illegal when towing, if you read other FMCSA standards, they are excepted from certain regulations.

But in the end it is my humble observation that some justifications are of the "my way or the highway" variety, which in no way encompasses logic, concern for safety of oneself or others personal well being or the well being of property, and only designed to make the poster "right" in their method of operation.

Just wondering if anyone has read their insurance policy or checked with their agent to see if the vehicle they are towing is covered if it becomes disconnected from the tow vehicle; and, whether their insurer requires any means of stopping the vehicle being towed?
__________________
Have a wonderful day!
Ken (RVM 87)
FT DP Wanna B The journey is the destination!
Retired & perfecting procrastination!
DieselTech39 is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
toad, toads


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
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


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Braking System craig C Towing, Hitching and Vehicles 26 02-02-2017 07:54 AM
Winnebago View TOADS gaugeguy Winnebago Class C Motorhomes 10 02-28-2012 06:48 AM
Do you really need slider locks? IMPULSE DRIVEN General Maintenance and Repair 18 07-25-2011 08:09 AM
TOADS tps0424 Towing, Hitching and Vehicles 12 12-08-2006 07:44 AM
ABS braking system in Freightliner chassis General Maintenance and Repair 8 12-31-1969 07:00 PM

» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

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


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.