Full or Empty Tanks for Travel

[Marty51]

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?

[GTXRAS]

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.

[Dave&Ginny]

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.

[RomanyLife]

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.

[roracarr]

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.

[LadyEcooper]

Originally Posted by Dave&Ginny

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

[piper guy]

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 ........

[atom ant]

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.

[Dave&Ginny]

Originally Posted by atom ant

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.

[atom ant]

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.

[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

[piper guy]

I agree Shane. I run the same way frequently and like you feel the rig is/should be designed to support that.

[atom ant]

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

[RomanyLife]

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.

[Shane Wood]

Originally Posted by atom ant

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

[atom ant]

Originally Posted by Shane Wood

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.

[Shane Wood]

Originally Posted by atom ant

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

[Piper Guy's Gal]

Originally Posted by atom ant

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.

[atom ant]

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.

[Piper Guy's Gal]

Originally Posted by atom ant

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.