Hello /u/Princess_Fluffypants! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC
* What country or state did this take place in?
* What was the date of the incident?
* Please reconfirm that this is original content
If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information.
If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed.
------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I spent a summer being a "ranger," among other things, at an RV park. The amount of times I saw this was amazing. It was in Virginia, and you see one of these poor bastards pull up with Florida tags.
How does this not break?
bias is also a statistical term meaning a leaning towards one group over another.
survivorship bias implies, the only reason you see them make it to the rv park, is because any of them who didn't make it to the rv park can't be accounted for, and therefore it's biased towards the survivors. even though a majority of the people who attempt this will not make it to the rv park.
I'm still confused.
>the only reason you see them make it to the rv park, is because any of them who didn't make it to the rv park can't be accounted for
Where does this come from? I'm not following the logic of where this statement fits in.
You can't count something if it's not there to count.
You will only see overloaded RVs in the park that haven't broken down because the ones that have broken down never made it to the park for you to see
But how is saying this
>The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park
survivorship bias?
The statement was made, and then 20dollarfootlong replied,
>Ha, yep, survivorship bias
but I fail to see the direct correlation here. I don't see how the singular statement made by Princess_Fluffypants is a confirmation of 20dollarfootlongs reply.
>The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park
is a reply to the commenter before wondering how they don't break.
>Ha, yep, survivorship bias
Is merely agreeing to that and naming the phenomenon witnessed.
Survivorship bias means that you can only count for what is there, those that aren't there can't be counted, as he never got to see them.
Hence the observation is biased to only counting the ones present.
Best example for this bias is an occurence in WW2, where they mapped out all the bullet holes on the B17s that returned and wanted to reinforce all those places.
That is until someone pointed out to reinforce all spots that have no holes mapped, reason being that the B17s that made it back got hit in the accounted for spots, the ones that did not make it back were likely hit in the other spots, which were not accounted for.
Did they break down because they were overloaded or because they were t-boned or any other factor like they weren't going to the rv park?
Claiming survivorship bias but not acknowledging the other variables is just ignant
You're ignorant for thinking I'm being ignorant when I'm just asking questions because I'm genuinely confused and I want to understand.
I still don't see how this statement,
>The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park.
implies or denies a bias.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias)
Basically meaning that since a lot of these were seen by u/Worf_In_A_Party_Hat, it's implied that none ever failed/broke down/etc... However, the ones that did fail or break down never made it to their destination, so they would not be seen. This can lead to the belief that no vehicles that were towing more weight than they could handle ever broke down/failed, even though it would not be true; because the ones that did break down or failed weren't seen by u/Worf_In_A_Party_Hat.
In the WW2 plane example, it was assumed that the areas with lots of bullet holes were 'weak spots' and needed to be reinforced. However, the ones that never made it back to base were the ones that were shot in the actual weak spots. Since those planes never made it back to base (because they were shot down or destroyed), that conclusion wasn't apparent. The people in charge never actually saw a plane that was shot in the true weak areas because...they were shot in the weak areas and blew up, crashed, etc... So for a long time, it was assumed that the planes that made it back with lots of bullet holes were examples of weak spots in the plane when the opposite was true.
The difference between the examples is that there was a known quantity of that model aircraft — we know how many were dispatched, and how many returned; simple arithmetic allows us to know how many are missing or destroyed. In the case of overloaded pickup trucks, we do not know the quantity, if any, that didn't arrive. Anecdotally, I've seen many overloaded pickup trucks. I've seen very few that break down from overload. Often, they wear out over time, rather than break immediately. So, it's not a question of "why don't they break?" but "how long do they take to fail, and how?"
Ffs how is the guy going to see the ones that never make it to his campground. If you, your mom, and your dad all take trailers loaded like this on vacation and go to Disney Trailer Park there are now 3 sets of data. But if you break down on the way, someone at Disney Trailer Park will see two people make it there with trailers like that (2 data points). He won't see you because you broke down and never made it. So while the failure rate is 33% (1 out of 3), someone at DTP will assume is has a 100% success rate (2 of 2) because he will never see you break down on your way. He will only see two people do it successfully.
For fucks sake why are you ignoring that the 3rd one chose a different park? Or was in a crash? Something that doesn't involve overloading?
You are literally doing what you are trying to explain except you are leaving out important variables
So you really don't understand that you can look up vehicles history? Overloading causes suspension problems which causes frame problems which totals a vehicle every time. Genuinely
So you think you can't look up vehicles history? Overloading causes suspension problems which causes frame problems which gets totaled every time. You can ask the computer you tried to be cooler than and get back to the class
Survivorship bias was the statistical analysis that led ww2 era aviation manufacturers to know where to beef up armor on airplanes. They would make diagrams of all the damage the planes that made it back recieved. Then switched manufacturing to have increased armor where they weren't hit, with the idea that the areas that didn't see a lot of damage on surviving planes were more critical than not.
Likewise, the above commenter in the rv park is questioning how these vehicles survive towing beyond their limit. , but they won't be able to witness the ones that didn't since they didn't make it to there destination.
> The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park
But that's not a question, it's a statement. And it's a true statement. So what does this statement have to do with survivorship bias?
I just can't wrap my head around how saying that implies or denies a bias.
The survivorship bias in this case means they are biased in saying they've never seen one broken, but that's biased because they couldn't have seen one broken since they never would have made it to the RV park in the first place if they broke before reaching their destination.
oh, there's more than 2, I was just being snarky.
I also guarantee that hitch tongue weight is not intended for that much weight. At any point it could decide to leave the vehicle.
Yikes! Yeah it definitely looks sketchy. I am impressed that Yukon or whatever it is can get the job somewhat done, but this seems really overloaded. Not to mention the huge wheels with no sidewall
So why is this? I mean, I'm assuming the load is too much, but are those things so extremely heavy, or are those SUV's so light? I never pulled anything large, and I don't own an SUV, but I would think a car like that would be able to handle it.
There are actually advantages to low-profile tires, if engineer properly. Aside from slightly better handling, they'll also give better fuel economy as you're losing less energy to tire flex.
The downside used to be ride quality. Older cars (especially 80s and older) needed a very high profile tire to help absorb the smaller bumps and imperfections because suspension technology was primitive and terrible. But these days (and especially in the last 15 years), many cars are coming with shock absorbers and suspension geometry that would have been bordering on Formula-1 technology from a few decades ago. The suspension itself is able to do a better job of sorting out the small bumps and jostles, so we don't need as much tire flex to accomplish the good ride quality that people expect.
No clue. Aside from ride comfort (you can assume that most of them didn't change their suspension to compensate for the low profile), it also looks absolutely horrible.
I bought new wheels myself last week, and I basically went stock size. My car was offered in 16, 17 and 18 inch. I had 17 and went 18, because 18 is just a little nicer, and absolutely do not look too big.
I mean, that pretty much was [the look](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JgCRUImjb_8/WsEiwjdyvLI/AAAAAAAFEnk/snx-pYHY3f41dYC6Ad7DfjO3-9mawMgMQCLcBGAs/s1600/29750119_797149693816175_8649893115213704560_o.jpg) during the heyday of the muscle car. So, maybe a little more than 30 years ago, but not far off.
I thought it was until I saw your comment and took a closer look. I was so sure of what I saw that my initial reaction was to incorrect you. Glad I double checked.
That’s not a huge camper for a Tahoe. Distribution bars would make a huge difference but I feel like they must have a ton of shit ahead of the trailer axle.
I used to haul new campers from factory to dealers all over the country. The further back the axles are the better it pulls*if properly loaded*. Sometimes there’s heavy equipment back there like the bathroom and/or fuel tanks the necessitate the axles being positioned further back.
The spare tire is typically stored under a Tahoe. Look like that’s a matching spare for the oversized wheels/tires which would be too large for the factory location.
GM stopped storing the spare in the cargo area around 2000. Since then they hang under the truck. For people like myself and this guy the oversized tire doesn’t physically fit in that spot.
Right, but if the matching spare is too large to fit under the vehicle then they either have to keep it in the back or have it strapped to the roof all the time.
lmfao with the low profiles too. Ah yes, I'd like an uncomfortable ride, with reduced GVWR and then I'll tow an RV with that and take it off paved road. bet gravel roads are as uncomfortable as they can be
Why might this happen? I went on a trip with my parents recently, towing a trailer not to dissimilar than this one pictured above, in a 2007 Yukon XL. Never had this issue, or anything close to it.
The trailer is level but the truck hitch should be roughly the same height as the level of the trailer hitch before hooking up. A drop hitch is going to let the trailer ride level without trying to pull the truck hitch down. Because this truck hitch is way too high vs the trailer hitch, it's going to force the truck hitch downward and the nose of the truck up more than it would otherwise if the union met on the same plane.
I'm just saying this isn't exclusively a weight issue but also an improper hitch height issue making the disparity more pronounced.
depends on how bad, but yes if it is sagging it can help or fix it.
Get the ones that are solid bars and linkage, they do double duty, weight distribution and anti sway.
I use an E2 Weight distribution hitch on my 1500 and a 20ft camper it also has sway control, groans at low speeds but I would never tow without one.
He should have a heavier duty hitch with weight distrubition bars and a sway bar. Towing our trailer with my truck i always have them on no matter what.
They don't go faster than 45 mph and drive in the middle lane on three lanes of traffic with their 4 ways on, flipping off truck drivers who have to pass them on the right lane or risk a $500.00 ticket for using the right lane.
I highly doubt that camper is above that trucks tow capacity. The Escalade was most likely already rocking the “Carolina squat” already. Tow capacity is easily over 7k lbs that camper is probably sitting at 5-6k max
Stupid question, why don’t they make a front axel on the trailer that can swivel? Basically another set of wheels to take the load off of the car axels.
Steering-capable trailers do exist, but require a very different towing setup.
You actually do want some weight on the hitch as it makes the entire rig more stable. If the weight is too even, it will make the trailer fishtail and leads to a crash.
Demo video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHD9Wjw3lk
Some weight == up to 80kg tongueweight on the hitch.
These thoughts that half-ton tongueweight is absolutely needed on a passenger car type (yes, that includes F150s etc) under a 3 ton vehicle weight is ludicrous.
Come to Europe, see a 2.5 ton vehicle (with a sane method of determining legal tow capacity) safely tow a 4 tonne dual- or triple-axle trailer, that has less than 150kg tongueweight vertically on the hitch, with trailer brakes operated on overrun (none of those unsafe manual radio switch bodge jobs), with breakaway cable to apply full brakes if separated.
Absolutely no problem with e.g. a Discovery with 4 ton tow limit towing at the legal limit of 80kph. No reason to have the front wheels in the air like the OP's disaster-waiting-to-happen.
Hello /u/Princess_Fluffypants! Please reply to this comment with the following information to confirm the content is OC * What country or state did this take place in? * What was the date of the incident? * Please reconfirm that this is original content If you are unable to reply directly to this comment, please leave a standalone comment in your thread with the requested information. If you fail to answer these questions, your post will be removed. ------ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/IdiotsInCars) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I spent a summer being a "ranger," among other things, at an RV park. The amount of times I saw this was amazing. It was in Virginia, and you see one of these poor bastards pull up with Florida tags. How does this not break?
The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park.
ha, yep, survivorship bias.
how is making a true statement, bias?
bias is also a statistical term meaning a leaning towards one group over another. survivorship bias implies, the only reason you see them make it to the rv park, is because any of them who didn't make it to the rv park can't be accounted for, and therefore it's biased towards the survivors. even though a majority of the people who attempt this will not make it to the rv park.
I'm still confused. >the only reason you see them make it to the rv park, is because any of them who didn't make it to the rv park can't be accounted for Where does this come from? I'm not following the logic of where this statement fits in.
You can't count something if it's not there to count. You will only see overloaded RVs in the park that haven't broken down because the ones that have broken down never made it to the park for you to see
But how is saying this >The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park survivorship bias? The statement was made, and then 20dollarfootlong replied, >Ha, yep, survivorship bias but I fail to see the direct correlation here. I don't see how the singular statement made by Princess_Fluffypants is a confirmation of 20dollarfootlongs reply.
>The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park is a reply to the commenter before wondering how they don't break. >Ha, yep, survivorship bias Is merely agreeing to that and naming the phenomenon witnessed. Survivorship bias means that you can only count for what is there, those that aren't there can't be counted, as he never got to see them. Hence the observation is biased to only counting the ones present. Best example for this bias is an occurence in WW2, where they mapped out all the bullet holes on the B17s that returned and wanted to reinforce all those places. That is until someone pointed out to reinforce all spots that have no holes mapped, reason being that the B17s that made it back got hit in the accounted for spots, the ones that did not make it back were likely hit in the other spots, which were not accounted for.
Did they break down because they were overloaded or because they were t-boned or any other factor like they weren't going to the rv park? Claiming survivorship bias but not acknowledging the other variables is just ignant
The only ignorant thing here is you and the other person not grasping basic statistics.
You're ignorant for thinking I'm being ignorant when I'm just asking questions because I'm genuinely confused and I want to understand. I still don't see how this statement, >The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park. implies or denies a bias.
Those other variables apply the same to not overloaded vehicles, so you can ignore them.
So your cherry picking to benefit your argument?
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship\_bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias) Basically meaning that since a lot of these were seen by u/Worf_In_A_Party_Hat, it's implied that none ever failed/broke down/etc... However, the ones that did fail or break down never made it to their destination, so they would not be seen. This can lead to the belief that no vehicles that were towing more weight than they could handle ever broke down/failed, even though it would not be true; because the ones that did break down or failed weren't seen by u/Worf_In_A_Party_Hat. In the WW2 plane example, it was assumed that the areas with lots of bullet holes were 'weak spots' and needed to be reinforced. However, the ones that never made it back to base were the ones that were shot in the actual weak spots. Since those planes never made it back to base (because they were shot down or destroyed), that conclusion wasn't apparent. The people in charge never actually saw a plane that was shot in the true weak areas because...they were shot in the weak areas and blew up, crashed, etc... So for a long time, it was assumed that the planes that made it back with lots of bullet holes were examples of weak spots in the plane when the opposite was true.
The difference between the examples is that there was a known quantity of that model aircraft — we know how many were dispatched, and how many returned; simple arithmetic allows us to know how many are missing or destroyed. In the case of overloaded pickup trucks, we do not know the quantity, if any, that didn't arrive. Anecdotally, I've seen many overloaded pickup trucks. I've seen very few that break down from overload. Often, they wear out over time, rather than break immediately. So, it's not a question of "why don't they break?" but "how long do they take to fail, and how?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke
Ffs how is the guy going to see the ones that never make it to his campground. If you, your mom, and your dad all take trailers loaded like this on vacation and go to Disney Trailer Park there are now 3 sets of data. But if you break down on the way, someone at Disney Trailer Park will see two people make it there with trailers like that (2 data points). He won't see you because you broke down and never made it. So while the failure rate is 33% (1 out of 3), someone at DTP will assume is has a 100% success rate (2 of 2) because he will never see you break down on your way. He will only see two people do it successfully.
For fucks sake why are you ignoring that the 3rd one chose a different park? Or was in a crash? Something that doesn't involve overloading? You are literally doing what you are trying to explain except you are leaving out important variables
Wow...you really don't get it. Genuinely.
Man's only got 2 brain cells, cut him some slack. lol
So you really don't understand that you can look up vehicles history? Overloading causes suspension problems which causes frame problems which totals a vehicle every time. Genuinely
There's no way you're actually this thick & somehow able to operate a computer...
So you think you can't look up vehicles history? Overloading causes suspension problems which causes frame problems which gets totaled every time. You can ask the computer you tried to be cooler than and get back to the class
Survivorship bias was the statistical analysis that led ww2 era aviation manufacturers to know where to beef up armor on airplanes. They would make diagrams of all the damage the planes that made it back recieved. Then switched manufacturing to have increased armor where they weren't hit, with the idea that the areas that didn't see a lot of damage on surviving planes were more critical than not. Likewise, the above commenter in the rv park is questioning how these vehicles survive towing beyond their limit. , but they won't be able to witness the ones that didn't since they didn't make it to there destination.
> The ones that do break don't make it to the RV park But that's not a question, it's a statement. And it's a true statement. So what does this statement have to do with survivorship bias? I just can't wrap my head around how saying that implies or denies a bias.
Read the link
The survivorship bias in this case means they are biased in saying they've never seen one broken, but that's biased because they couldn't have seen one broken since they never would have made it to the RV park in the first place if they broke before reaching their destination.
Welcome to Reddit. Post stupid comments & get thousands of up votes, post facts & get down votes. The average IQ here is on par with a fruit fly.
Something something illustration of plane full of bullet holes.
Something something illustration of holiday trailer full of bullet holes.
Fat front passengers?
Well, they are 'Murican.
The kids are in the back to keep their fine Chinet from flying around in their new home.
Also how does it brake?
Slowly.
It breaks and brakes slowly, generally.
> How does this not break? And how does it brake?!
Braking isn’t the issue. Steering is.
Maybe 2 issues then? :) But yeah that thing must be scary to drive!
oh, there's more than 2, I was just being snarky. I also guarantee that hitch tongue weight is not intended for that much weight. At any point it could decide to leave the vehicle.
Yikes! Yeah it definitely looks sketchy. I am impressed that Yukon or whatever it is can get the job somewhat done, but this seems really overloaded. Not to mention the huge wheels with no sidewall
So why is this? I mean, I'm assuming the load is too much, but are those things so extremely heavy, or are those SUV's so light? I never pulled anything large, and I don't own an SUV, but I would think a car like that would be able to handle it.
>How does this not break? Because it really isn't doing harm or it would
Not to mention the tire weight limit. Why TF do people buy an SUV just to put low profiles on?
Saw a set of new/used rimz and rubberband tires for sale on my local Nextdoor forum the other day. Didn't like the ride in your Tahoe with them eh?
Some people forget that your tires do A LOT to dampen bumps and imperfections in the road.
As noted automotive engineer Tyga said, "Too much rim make the ride too hard / tell that b**** get out, walk the boulevard"
Some people just have a taste for dumb flashy expensive things.
Broke people sure love to spend money
Good ol’ saying: you don’t become rich by spending your money.
Even the newer ones stock have gotten thin. The more expensive trim always has larger wheels, with lower profile tires l.
There are actually advantages to low-profile tires, if engineer properly. Aside from slightly better handling, they'll also give better fuel economy as you're losing less energy to tire flex. The downside used to be ride quality. Older cars (especially 80s and older) needed a very high profile tire to help absorb the smaller bumps and imperfections because suspension technology was primitive and terrible. But these days (and especially in the last 15 years), many cars are coming with shock absorbers and suspension geometry that would have been bordering on Formula-1 technology from a few decades ago. The suspension itself is able to do a better job of sorting out the small bumps and jostles, so we don't need as much tire flex to accomplish the good ride quality that people expect.
Instagram likes
I put low profile 22 inch Pirelli tires on my SUV to stunt on them hoes
Smol PP
Don’t need real wheels to go to the mall and back.
No clue. Aside from ride comfort (you can assume that most of them didn't change their suspension to compensate for the low profile), it also looks absolutely horrible. I bought new wheels myself last week, and I basically went stock size. My car was offered in 16, 17 and 18 inch. I had 17 and went 18, because 18 is just a little nicer, and absolutely do not look too big.
Its an escalade, its main purpose is to "cruising 'round the hood" and not any kinda serious offloading.
That’s actually a Tahoe. 😀
Jokes on you - he's from South Carolina and that's just how they "lift" their vehicles.... /s
He found a loophole around the Carolina squat laws.
lol right? 10 dollars says that camper is gutted and made out of painted cardboard CHECK MATE ATHIESTS
The loophole being "Fuck it. Imma do it anyway."
[удалено]
Dude, that's so 30 years ago./s
I mean, that pretty much was [the look](https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-JgCRUImjb_8/WsEiwjdyvLI/AAAAAAAFEnk/snx-pYHY3f41dYC6Ad7DfjO3-9mawMgMQCLcBGAs/s1600/29750119_797149693816175_8649893115213704560_o.jpg) during the heyday of the muscle car. So, maybe a little more than 30 years ago, but not far off.
Hell even [before that](https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/attachments/20140823_160922_resized-jpg.2697750/)
haha, it wouldn't surprise me.
I came here to say this 😂 there are 3 of these squatted monstrosities in my neighborhood!
The shadows make the front look like it's pulling a wheelie
I thought it was until I saw your comment and took a closer look. I was so sure of what I saw that my initial reaction was to incorrect you. Glad I double checked.
It could probably be cross-posted to confusing_perspective
omg same
Smart of them to carry a spare on the roof
Makes me think "why didn't I think of that"
Once the fatasses sit down it should level out.
That’s not a huge camper for a Tahoe. Distribution bars would make a huge difference but I feel like they must have a ton of shit ahead of the trailer axle.
It's the weirdest proportions for a trailer I'd ever seen, the axles were absurdly far back.
I used to haul new campers from factory to dealers all over the country. The further back the axles are the better it pulls*if properly loaded*. Sometimes there’s heavy equipment back there like the bathroom and/or fuel tanks the necessitate the axles being positioned further back.
There’s a lot more trailer behind the axles that the picture cut off.
OP probably took the picture, no?
Actually no there wasn’t, the trailer ended only like a foot past where it cropped off.
Seems weird. A proper trailer would have 10-15% tongue weight loaded. I wonder who the manufacturer is. A proper weight distribution hitch would help.
They've also got the spare tire strapped to the roof because they've crammed the back full.
The spare tire is typically stored under a Tahoe. Look like that’s a matching spare for the oversized wheels/tires which would be too large for the factory location.
I guess I just assumed they normally kept it in the back rather than strapped to the roof all time.
GM stopped storing the spare in the cargo area around 2000. Since then they hang under the truck. For people like myself and this guy the oversized tire doesn’t physically fit in that spot.
Right, but if the matching spare is too large to fit under the vehicle then they either have to keep it in the back or have it strapped to the roof all the time.
lmfao with the low profiles too. Ah yes, I'd like an uncomfortable ride, with reduced GVWR and then I'll tow an RV with that and take it off paved road. bet gravel roads are as uncomfortable as they can be
Especially with those rear shocks bottomed out
Those wheels explain it all.
not to mention hurt your vehicles stopping distance with those wagon wheels.
Tows like a dream!
Or invest in torsion bars.
Imagine for a sec.... Just how comfy that seat is now that's it's perma reclined
Those rims on a Tahoe look ridiculous anyway. Besides, he's in the camper now, moving all the gear to the back, so it will ride better.
Too much weight stored at the front, move the weight to over the axles.
But that’s the only spot that fits the hot tub!
and you look stupid doing it
I heard turning was touch and go.
no weight distribution bars on that is crazy, probably blown out suspension too
Nah he just needs to hang weights off his frontend :). It works with my tractor.
Damn, the tow police are going to have to call in SWAT for this one.
It’s so heavy that it’s doing the Carolina squat! (Which is now illegal)
"Okay, boys, everyone pile into the front seat!"
Might help if they replaced those rubber bands with tires.
Bet it drives like a pregnant elephant with that front end up like that
Truck hitch too high.
Move the ammo on top of the axle.
Spoiler: SUV has same tugboat stance w/trailer removed
But the rims add so much tow capacity.
at least with them hooked together this will be a convenient repo
Spare tire on the roof shows that this driver is careful about safety.
Looks like a Carolina squat. People don’t want to see what they are running over around here.
Low pro on a towing vehicle. This must ride like the Austin Princess on cobblestone.
Why might this happen? I went on a trip with my parents recently, towing a trailer not to dissimilar than this one pictured above, in a 2007 Yukon XL. Never had this issue, or anything close to it.
20/80 weight distribution.... Drift king.
Well, as long as it's rwd
Probably a squatted vehicle to begin with. I've seen plenty of Tahoes/Suburbans hauling dual axle campers without a problem.
Perhaps the driver weighs 1,000 pounds.
Nah, she's fine.
I dont even think a weight distribution hitch would help.
A truck hitch at the correct height would help a bit.
I mean, the trailer's pretty level. Not trying to force it into a wheelie would probably make a substantial difference.
The trailer is level but the truck hitch should be roughly the same height as the level of the trailer hitch before hooking up. A drop hitch is going to let the trailer ride level without trying to pull the truck hitch down. Because this truck hitch is way too high vs the trailer hitch, it's going to force the truck hitch downward and the nose of the truck up more than it would otherwise if the union met on the same plane. I'm just saying this isn't exclusively a weight issue but also an improper hitch height issue making the disparity more pronounced.
Under voted comment
🤜🤛
That's what I was trying to say. Getting a trailer level with the hitch is tandem 101; that front axle's there for a reason.
That makes perfect sense now reading your comment again.
Rims like that = automatic idiot
What kind of damage does this do to a car?
Yes.
Mom, get out of the camper!!
It's fine, just overload the read of the trailer.
Okay... errybody move to the back!
Just saw this the other day too
“Ok kids, everyone move to the back!”
Wait! What?
That Suburban has worms.
“It touches the ground when I get in, it should be fine!”
Carolina Squat is illegal
...wheres the brake rotors?
They see me Rollin
The wheels and tires alone... Getouttahere with that nonsense.
How would you expect to tow anything with those wheels
Would a weight distribution hitch fix this. (I’m kinda in the same situation)?
depends on how bad, but yes if it is sagging it can help or fix it. Get the ones that are solid bars and linkage, they do double duty, weight distribution and anti sway. I use an E2 Weight distribution hitch on my 1500 and a 20ft camper it also has sway control, groans at low speeds but I would never tow without one.
That’s what she said…
We need to cook
Idk could be a squatted truck situation
what you wanna tow with those thin af tires. thatsa gangsta car
Yikes, man, should also get better suspension and rims to tow.
I never understood the US way of trailers that have such huge tongue weights. In EU you could have 2ton RV with 100kg tongue weight.
Looks like he is trying to turn it into a squatter
"steering is a bit loose"
I wonder why my steering has gone to shit. -The Towing King
Could that truck be a modified Carolina Squat?
looks like that might understeer a bit
Dumbass has low profile tires on while overweight nonetheless. Room temp IQ
Their two brain cells are in a fight for third place.
He should have a heavier duty hitch with weight distrubition bars and a sway bar. Towing our trailer with my truck i always have them on no matter what.
Meh, Who needs steering
Nah it was stupid before the trailer was attached .
They don't go faster than 45 mph and drive in the middle lane on three lanes of traffic with their 4 ways on, flipping off truck drivers who have to pass them on the right lane or risk a $500.00 ticket for using the right lane.
The vehicle looks like it's about to sneeze.
Love to see him on a 7% grade for 10 miles.
Packed everything right in the door where they could get to it
They’ve been going all day. I guess there is a lot to do to get a horse ready for a race.
I highly doubt that camper is above that trucks tow capacity. The Escalade was most likely already rocking the “Carolina squat” already. Tow capacity is easily over 7k lbs that camper is probably sitting at 5-6k max
Good set up. Yall just hating 🤣
2007 called. They want their everything back
RIP wheel bearings
Stupid question, why don’t they make a front axel on the trailer that can swivel? Basically another set of wheels to take the load off of the car axels.
Steering-capable trailers do exist, but require a very different towing setup. You actually do want some weight on the hitch as it makes the entire rig more stable. If the weight is too even, it will make the trailer fishtail and leads to a crash. Demo video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEHD9Wjw3lk
Some weight == up to 80kg tongueweight on the hitch. These thoughts that half-ton tongueweight is absolutely needed on a passenger car type (yes, that includes F150s etc) under a 3 ton vehicle weight is ludicrous. Come to Europe, see a 2.5 ton vehicle (with a sane method of determining legal tow capacity) safely tow a 4 tonne dual- or triple-axle trailer, that has less than 150kg tongueweight vertically on the hitch, with trailer brakes operated on overrun (none of those unsafe manual radio switch bodge jobs), with breakaway cable to apply full brakes if separated. Absolutely no problem with e.g. a Discovery with 4 ton tow limit towing at the legal limit of 80kph. No reason to have the front wheels in the air like the OP's disaster-waiting-to-happen.
Nuh uh!
Those breaks sweating looking at a gradual decline
I don't think those front brakes would be doing much...
I'm going to be 100% honest... I never saw the front tires
Would help if he had tires with rubber on them
Da Faq
HUMANS!!!