Tow Ball Standards.

I'd reckon that there are a lot of vehicles and trailers, campers and vans that are illegal then.
My 7x4 box trailer has a coupling which is 580mm off the deck, 25 y/o Golf poptop van 590mm, Cub camper 600 mm, three volvo sedans of different vintages all have towball heights within 10mm of 500mm and the Humvee at 590mm.
I'd only be a tiny section of the towing community.

Kevin, this is an interesting subject and I'll be very interested in responses. I don't have AS4177 (or a knowledge of it) but I just checked scope because I was suspicious standard written for specific applications and perhaps assessors using it inappropriately. Amongst other things, scope says following:

"The towbars are intended for trailers and caravans of up to 3.5 t aggregate trailer mass, for use on public roads", and "Requirements for off-road applications are beyond the scope of this Standard" and "Requirements for load-distributing hitches are not included in this Standard."

I guess public road aspect is ok in cases such as yours. Other bits are of interest though. Question I have is can a certifier review / certify your rig as appropriate, or otherwise confirm what you have to do to make it legal. You should try talking to person who drafted the standard too as to how ball height requirement was adopted - they need to be accountable for the stuff they write apart from anything else. cheers

Hi there, and thanks for an informative story. It strikes me that Australian law is clear that goods shall be 'fit for the purpose', and so a caravan fitted with a standard ball coupling should be fit for the purpose of being legally towed via that ball coupling. So, your advice that the van would be seriously 'nose down' if connected at the legal height seems to make a strong case that you shouldn't have to cop this one on your own, and that it is ultimately the responsibility of the manufacturer and/or dealer (probably the manufacturer, based on your information) to rectify the fautls in the caravan. Technically, the van, on your account, is not of merchantable quality, and not fit for the purpose.
But it still amazes me that there is so much getting in the way of common sense. I hope you'll keep us informed as this unfolds.
Regards
Chris (SA).

Hi Kevin,
Is the standard AS 4177 that you refer to 'called' by any law ?

To explain; A standard is just a written document with some suggested requirements. It does not necessarily have the weight of the law behind it. If you were a building contractor and I wanted you to build a house for me I could write my own 'standard' and then ask you to build my house to that standard. In case of a dispute I could say that you had to follow my standard and if you did not then you were at fault.

If however, the standard is 'called' in a law eg. a state or federal government law says you have to comply with standard xyz 1234 then the standard has authority. If it is not 'called' by a law (regulation) then it is just another bit of paper with no real standing. There are many 'standards' that have no legal requirements behind them. The word 'standard' doesn't mean much on it's own, many people think that if they see the word 'standard' then they reading a law - and it may not be.

.

Sounds like a storm in a teacup. If you got pulled over for any reason, no Police or RTA would even notice if the ball was a little higher. They would be more concerned at how it was towing and if level. Who out there on the road would know the standard.. the Highway Patrol certainly wouldnt, nor would they care.. I think they are after speedsters and morons, not some guy and his family towing a caravan. I wouldnt worry!! Michael

Trying to think of a way of putting this politely - but really there isn't one.

To my interpretation of the above the scope of that standard is for towing a 3.5 T van with a family 2wd car at normal height!

I.e. I don't believe a 4wd tow vehicle falls within the scope.

That said here's a pictorial example for you.



Here you can see a boat & trailer at the time of the photo that belonged to the WA Dept of Transport (Marine) which I had just bought from them at tender - IN the Dept Transport inpection pits yard down Stock road near Fremantle.

I had to get a permit to tow it there to get the trailer re-licensed becase the dept of transport who owned it were too stupid to write a check to themselves, to keep their own trailer "in license".

The point I guess is this - these particular Einsteins arent exactly the sharpest tools in the shed (lets face it if they were any sharper than a bowling ball they'de be employed with a real Job in privatre enterprise).

So - here we have one of their own trailers being towed with the same vehicle and tow hitch etc that they themselves used for 5 years from 2000 - 2005 - and set up at the 300 mm height of the above Australian Standard quoted aove!

Clearly you can see that the vacuum brakes cylinders slung under the trailer actually scrape the speed humps in the inspection pits carpark! :rollseyes:

Kinda makes a mockery of their "safety message" up on the big billboard in the photo.

In this configuration - the vessel was all over the road sucked halfway across the double white lines on the 7 hour tow to Gerladton (no faster than 75 kph) every time a road train passed or the seabreeze came in!

It ended up I had to reverse the cranked 2 inch solid steel draw bar - to gain height, have the hitch re-welded at an engineering works to raise the tow height and allow the fitting of a WDH.



You can see in this picture - with the modifications the trailer / boat and vehicle, all sit nice and level - the vacuum tanks for the breakaway breaks - are clear of the road and obstacles and not likely to be punctured.

Quite simply I believe your applying a standard for a different towing situation - and a 4wd vehicle doesn't fall within the scope or at least the intention of the scope, even if not specifically stated.

There is no way I would go back to towing as the first pic depicts, even if trasport were stupid enough to have it set up that way - as stated -they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Other examples from that same day...proving my point!

The Dept of Transport (Marine) Patrol & Rescue boat - that carried marine trasport inspectors about the rivers and oceans of WA for 5 years prosecuting the likes of you and I for not carrying say epirbs or life jackets and flares etc FAILED it's own commercial marine survey by Dept Marine Transport Surveyor because:-

Nav lights and horn didn't work - nor the 2 way radio. Flares outta date, Fire Extinguishers hadn't been insected and stamped/ serviced since they were instaled new 5 years prior. First Aid kit out of date supplies inside etc etc etc

I'm trying to delicately make a point here & that is - these guys might be good at reading a book and handing out speeding fines etc - but they aren't real smart when it comes to real world practical matters - in fact IMHO the arent fit to be on the water / roads as evidenced above.

I'd maybe get an engineer to sign off on your tow setp and send a copy to your insurer to say that in his opinion you comply with the applicable standard, and head off with the van set up properly.

Trying to talk sense to these public service doults is akin to bangin your head on the wall - it feels good when you stop.

Back to my day at the pits - after providing the idjits with their own vessel and trailer they started to do all sorts of measurements to determine if it was within the towing widths and legths etc etc and dribble on and debate each other and question this and that - we had been there some 7 hours since they opened in the AM and werent looking like getting out that day.......

Finally I spat it and laid out for them like this.

1. The boat and trailer belnged until that day to them - therefore they should already have ALL the specs of when they licensed it to themselves - all they had to do was look it up on the 'puter to see that it all complied.

2. If they didn't stop peeing about - I was going too:-

A ) ring my bank and cancel the check!

B ) Tow their boat out into the middle of the now late Friday Afternoon peak traffic on Stock road

C ) disconnect THEIR boat and trailer (unlicensed) on the main highway and just drive away!

When the police arrived they would track the boat to - you guessed it - Marine Transport Dept - who would then have to come out after working hours on a Friday night - and recover it and explain to their minister WHY they had blown a $75K deposit that was already receipted into their account.......for a boat they had tendered off, that wasnt in survey, and the trailer wasnt licensed, etc etc etc and WHY it was abandoned in the middle of a highway on a Friday night of a long weekend!

After explaining my intentions within the next 5 mins, - I was happily on my way with license plates and registraton papers etc etc - all completed in record time with a "sorry sir for delaying you unecessarily" apology from the Pits Inspector!

Amazing how quicly he found all the required records on his own computer once he realised his little power play was about to all go very bad for him inside only a few minutes.

Point - they aren't real bright or helpfull, UNLESS - they some how suddenly have a "personal vested interest" in helping you get a quick and simple logical outcome...

Unless you want to do the transport peoples job for them in your time and at your expense - you need to find a way to make it n their interests to find the answers for you!

In extreme circumstances handing them a subpeona to a law suit against them poersonally seeking damages in the $millions for their failure to act in accordance with their enabling act and legislation - sometimes (almost always) has the desired motivational impetus to get simple solutions sorted out quickly!

Cheers

Official definition of a class MC vehicle

Offroad vehicles

4.3.3. OFF-ROAD PASSENGER VEHICLE (MC)
A passenger vehicle having up to 9 seating positions, including that of
the driver and being designed with special features for off-road
operation. A vehicle with special features for off-road operation is a
vehicle that:
(a) Unless otherwise ‘Approved‘ has 4 wheel drive; and
(b) has at least 4 of the following 5 characteristics calculated when the
vehicle is at its ‘Unladen Mass‘ on a level surface, with the front
wheels parallel to the vehicle’s longitudinal centreline, and the
tyres inflated to the ‘Manufacturer‘s’ recommended pressure:
(i) ‘Approach Angle‘ of not less than 28 degrees;
(ii) ‘Breakover Angle‘ of not less than 14 degrees;
(iii) ‘Departure Angle‘ of not less than 20 degrees;
(iv) ‘Running Clearance‘ of not less than 200 mm;
(v) ‘Front Axle Clearance‘, ‘Rear Axle Clearance‘ or
‘Suspension Clearance‘ of not less than 175 mm each.


Vehicle Standard (Australian Design Rule 62/00 – Mechanical Connections Between Vehicles) 2006

ADR 62/00

5.2.3. Height of towing pivot:

5.2.3.1. For vehicles fitted with 50 mm pin-type ‘Couplings’ or 127 mm ‘Ball Couplings’ the height of the towing attachment and the ‘Drawbar’ pivots determined in the unladen condition must be either 875 ± 75 mm or 600 ± 50 mm;

5.2.3.2. For MA and MB group vehicles fitted with a 50 mm ‘Ball Coupling’ the height to centre of the ball determined in the laden condition must be between 350 and 420 mm.

I cant find any reference to towball height for a class MC vehicle.

Kevin,

I can't believe that you are researching and researching this topic with, apparently, the ultimate goal of provoking some dozy individual in a Govt Dept into determing that your van and vehicle do NOT comply with some obscure, hidden, ambiguous set of words that may or may not be law.

Hey much pain can a person bring on himself?

Like I said on the other forum, Life's too short.

I think there's a bit of 'shooting the messenger' going on here! Kevin is trying to raise awareness of a problem. People are replying that the law can't be that stupid, and, if it is, then it cannot be enforceable. If only life was that simple!
The main point that I see is that AS 4177 has been around for years, but its impact has been significantly changed with the replacement of ADR 62/00 with ADR 62/01, BECAUSE ADR62/01 REMOVES THE EXEMPTION OF MC CLASS VEHICLES FROM THE SCOPE OF AS 4177.2 - 1994
Why was this done? I haven't a clue. But it seems to mean that the law has been specifically amended in a way that tightens the rules applying to 4WD tow vehicles, and makes thousands (perhaps) of trailers 'unroadworthy' in law, at least those manufactured after the effective date of ADR 62/01.
Calling Kevin 'a pain' doesn't do much to correct this situation!
Chris (SA)

Again

Its a minefield...I still don't believe the towing combination you mention falls within the scope of those posred ADR's if you read the posted link carefully

[quote]
6. TOWBAR REQUIREMENTS

6.0. The requirements of this Section do not apply to connection devices mounted at the front of a motor vehicle or devices not intended for towing trailers.

6.1. Strength Requirements

The vehicle structure including the ‘Towbar’ must either:

6.1.1. be able to withstand the following forces applied at the intended ‘Coupling’ centreline without any residual deformation that would interfere with or degrade the function of the assembly, nor must there be any breaks, cracks, or separation of components:

6.1.1.1. In the case of ME, NB and NC category vehicles:

6.1.1.1.1. longitudinal tension and compression 1.6 × ‘Coupling’ ‘D-value’ required for use with the ‘Aggregate Trailer Mass’ marked on the ‘Towbar’ according to clause 6.3.1.3; or

6.1.1.1.2. a dynamic oscillating force of ± 0.6 × ‘Coupling’ ‘D-value’ required for use with the ‘Aggregate Trailer Mass’ marked on the ‘Towbar’ according to clause 6.3.1.3 for 2 million cycles. The frequency not to exceed 10 Hz but must be chosen not to coincide with the natural frequency of the system.

6.1.1.2. [B]In the case of L group[/B], MA, [B]MB,[/B] MC, MD and NA category vehicles:

6.1.1.2.1. longitudinal tension and compression l.5 × the ‘Towbar’s’ rated capacity;

6.1.1.2.2. transverse thrust 0.5 × the ‘Towbar’s’ rated capacity; and

6.1.1.2.3. vertical tension and compression 0.5 × the ‘Towbar’s’ rated capacity; or

6.1.2. [B] comply with AS 4177.1-1994 for vehicles equipped with ’Towbars’ designed for towing TA and TB category trailers.[/B]

Hopefully my bolding will show the appropriate bits.

Lastly the category of traiilers specified here are light and very light! (i.e. not medium and heavey trailers!)

[quote] from section 4 definitions

Very light trailer
TA
O1
1 July 1991
Nil

Light trailer
TB
O2
1 July 1991
Nil
[/quote]

Now something else that shows these ARDs aren't relating to your situation.

They talk about 50 Mm dia tow pins (and 50 mm dia tow balls) and 127 mm diameter tow balls!

You ever seen a 127 mm dia tow ball?

Man thats 5 inches in diameter about the size of a grapefruit!



Thats a pic of a 75 mm diameter towball rated to tow 4.5 tonnes according to the stamp on it and its partner I carry as a spare.

How many tonnes is a 127 mm tow ball rated too?...and they are talking here about very light and light trailers?

You see these ADR's and the heights being touted aren't referring to your MC class 4wd tow vehicle.

Tell you what tho - when you look at that draw bar of mine - if you go to your local C/van shop and look at the Hayman Reece etc brands just like it - you'll see some that are actually tow ball height adjustable!

Yes - just like your draw bar has a 13 mm pin in a hole - the height adjustable right angle 2 inch solid barstock steel drawbar also has a couple 13 MM holes and high tensile locking pins to adjust the ball height!

So essentially by using the right angle draw hitch you can reverse it to make the adjustment either up or down from the existing height - by just reversing the ball mounting to account for which way you insert it into the tube (either up or down) then you can raise or lower the ball coupling section with the two locking pins to whatever laden height you desire!

(you can attain about 2 feet of total raise height or lower height using this method.

This way - whatever the weights and scales police tell you when they pull you over is the proper legal height - you just measure the existing laden height and figure how much you need to go up or down. Then drop your jockey wheel - to support the weight of the trailer, leave the safety chains on - and wind the trailer up or down so theres no load on the towbar - and adjust your ball height up or down by the required measured amount to comply and then re attach!

Which weights and measures copper is going to charge you for towball height - if your willing to adjust it to whatever he says on the spot!

I'd bet you my left nut that - he couldn't produce any ADR that specified a height - to quote you letter and verse what was required.

About all they can do with their scales and tape measure is tell you what overall load your towing - and the towbar downweight!

Long as those are rght and your towing level or slightly nose down - they won't even query your towball height!

Guess what - neither will your insurance assessor!

How could an insuarance assessor determine after an accident what the laden or unladen towball height was anyway - the van by then would be uncoupled and the load off the tow vehicles springs etc - he has no way to tell those laden perameters after the fact!

It is my belief - you are asking the public service transport people to specify something that falls outside their ADR scope for your van and vehicle in order to be covered for something no insurance assessor could measure or determine accurately after the event of an accident anyway!

As others have said - I reckon - your just whippin a dead horse- no matter what you achieve it will still be a dead horse at the end of the day!

Try and remember - these guys you want answers from aren't the sharpest tools in the shed.

Who told you (what verifyable and reliable source) in writing that insurance asessors are denying caravan towing accidents claims based on unladen vehicle towball to road heights from the ADR's?

Remember - even the ADR's quoted above are for unladen vehicles. Once you attach your van it is no longer unladen - the specified heights are MINIMUMS - to STOP tow bar supp[liers fitting towbars to vehicles that are so low thery drag on the ground when the vehicle is laden.

I think you have this bull bye the wrong horns maybe.

It's a paradoxical discussion based on an initial false premise IMHO.

The usual problem with producing a hypothesis based on a "false" premise is a paradoxical result.

For example:

(1) All dogs have four legs,
(2) All four legged animals are cats.
Therefore:
All dogs are cats,
AND/OR
All cats are dogs!

Which premise is false?

I don't believe insurers are denying accident claims to 4wd owners towng vans due to some unprovable reference to a ADR that apparently doesnt exist specifying minimum road to tow ball unladen height specification, for Class MC (4wd Passenger vehicles).

Don't let it eat you up - even geniuses get it wrong sometimes!

Einstein was one!

With the Special Theory of Relativity, the resulting paradox, was called the "twin paradox" (google it - fascinating) along with several others which were discovered later.

The thing is today even a 14 year old kid in high school can disprove Einsteins special relaivity theory E = MC ^2

C being the universal constant speed of light limit MEASUREABLE velocity in our universe!

186,000 mi/sec. (3 x 10^8 meters per second).

Those big numbers tend to confuse average mathematicians.

Lets look at a simpler figure for sqaure roots ` 4

Ask most people here whats the suare root of 4 and most of us will answer 2

2 squared equalls 4 - everyone knows that just as everyone in Einsteins time knew that the speed oflight squared was 9 x 10 ^ 16 meters per second or (3 x 10 ^ 8) squared! (or back in my day 186 000miles per second).

Trouble is - the 14 year old kids on this forum - who payed attention in year 9 math class - will tell you,

That the square root of 4 is +ve 2 and -ve 2

Yep - when you square a negative you get a positive result -something all the scientists conveniently forgot when Einsteins un peer reviewed paper on special relativity was published because he had recently won a nobel prize for his peer reviewed paper on the Phototelectric effect, and was thus considered a scientist without peer!

The fact is that E = MC^2 was a false premise which led to a paradoixical result (the afforementioned twin paradox).

Just as your original post was based on a false premise and has you chasing a paradoxical result.

Facts are

The ONLY velocity for the limit velocity for light in our universe that makes E = MC^2 is infinity (Immeasurable) because only infinity squared + infinity!

Only Infinity gives us a result for lightspeed C that is not paradoxical in E = MC ^2!

So - back to your quest.

Your orignal hypothesis about insurance assessors = false premise above number (2) "All four legged animals are cats" and has led you to a paradoxocal result.

Thats how I see it!

Quit whippin the dead horse & the paradoxical cat!

Just take that van somewhere and enjoy it, life is too short!

Cheers