[slowmover]

A lot of meat on that bone. I going to suppose we've all heard of "regulatory capture" whereby Federal agencies give the fig leaf imprimatur of "safety" to a product used by citizens though the definitions of what constitutes "safe" are written by corporate attorneys in connivance with Federal administrators who plan to leave the public sector for a far higher paying private sector job as a result. Our latest Attorney General is case in point. This extends throughout Federal and State agencies. I wonder if it is even any longer considered what it is, and that is corruption.

As to travel trailers it appears little different. A group of industry captive engineers [SAE] has advised on towing standards for around fifty years [1965; Bundorf]. In the interim has addressed related concerns and made somewhat different recommendations. Ignores entire classes of vehicles as adequate tow vehicles by neither testing them (and the OEMs give them generically low numbers as to trailer weight; one hand washes the other), nor using more than one type of trailer to be representative. A high wind load, high COG travel trailer is considerably different than a low open trailer with very low COG. But the recommendations on how to set a hitch don't reflect this.

In fact, hitch set recommendations have been revised due to "more extensive testing" (my paraphrase), and that this has revealed something on the order of" yaw induced oversteer" when a weight distribution hitch is set to old standards. Handily, that helps eliminate lighter, more efficient vehicles from consideration. But a disinterested party , in simple testing, has demonstrated that these OEM recommendations result in worse, not better, handling. Increasing the chance of a loss of control accident. Funny, ain't it, how the experts took a half century to find the purported problem.

In turn, the acknowledged engineering experts are happy to take trailer industry consulting or speaking fees and what we have is no improvements to trailers since the Model A era, and worse as to what constitutes best practice. I could fill this post space with changes to cars in that time only noting, not explaining, them. But trailers, and the risk they pose, isn't a concern where ones bread is buttered. The low total miles and the total risk is borne by those politically invisible thus disposable Americans.

Towing standards are, essentially, a set of recommendations for a subset of vehicles with only a subset of trailers. And the recommendations of how to set a weight distribution hitch based on these -- against a half century of experience by owners -- upon experimentation turn out to be wrong. But fit nicely with the profit motive of pushing low cost, high profit pickups as the ONLY choice. Nicely done, boys. The least safe roadgoing vehicle coupled to industry standard trailers with suspensions unchanged since the dawn of time (not even As good as the leaf sprung designs on 19th century buggies; the science, like aerodynamics, is long understood).

Be careful of what you wish for. Something is not necessarily better than nothing.

IMO, the safety aspects outweigh the concerns over FE. FE, properly understood, is a part of overall better road performance. It trails in the wake. Better suspension, brakes, tires and then aero will achieve what you're asking. Crosswind handling means more. Minimizing risk. That it ALSO achieves lower fuel burn is the proper order of things.

But finding the disinterested party to test is what's gone missing in this civilization. Doctors or lawyers or plain old scientists (see the latest fun about so called peer review). There is no disinterested party as much as we might wish it that profit does not come first and foremost. Good luck finding monies to test. Tax monies are released to test that some private entity may benefit. Not otherwise. Not any more.

If it weren't for a very few willing to test their rigs as private individuals we would t have even this.

.