Got Mine!!!

[OpenRoads]

Picked up my new (well, new to me) 2004 2720SL in Arkansas yesterday. Drove home to Austin today, 500+ mile trip. Pulled by my 2002 half-ton Silverado with trailering package. Trailer wasn't loaded for camping, but it trailed very nicely at basic weight. Not an inch of sway, ever. Don't have a WDH. Wanted to see how it behaves nekkid (without the sissy bars), first.

Got a bit of bounce over rougher sections of highway (man, between the construction and roads that desperately need re-constructing, that I-35 south of Dallas is some of the worst in the country). I'm used to being bounced by trailer tongue weight. Thought for years that's what trailering was all about. But some of you may be convincing me to take a closer look at WDH.

Planning a 9,000 mile trip next Summer (2005) to Alaska, so if a WDH smoothes the ride as much as I've read on this website, it may warrant a closer look.

But first, gonna load for camping and weigh the rig, one axle at a time (already got my truck's basic operating weight). If I'm close to rear axle limit, I'll get a WDH for sure. If not, I'll try a trip nekkid, and if the bounce becomes wearing I may give WDH a try.

What is the concensus on best hitch for a good balance between effectiveness and ease of use? What do you do with the hardware when you unhitch? Can the bars stay mounted to the trailer, or do you just drag 'em behind your truck like a Native American Indian travois? (Just kiddin', but I'd 'preciate a serious answer.)

OpenRoads

[G-V_Driver]

The most serious answer I've heard about your plans is that you should assume that any vehicle you drive and/or tow to Alaska and back will be junk by the time you're back home.

I've heard incredible stories about the rocks (thrown up from the road, mostly by trucks) that break the glass, break the headlights and dent everything else--sheetmetal, muffler and exhaust systems, mirrors, trailers--beyond recognition. Somebody said to buy a couple of rolls of 1/4" metal mesh and fashion covers for anything you don't want broken. Pretty much convinced me to forget about that adventure.

[Chris_Bauer]

Congrats on your new addition. You're gonna love your 2720SL. It's great for two people, cozy and comfortable. Regarding the WDH, it was the best investment I could have ever made. It worked great with both TMs and both TVs.

I stow the bars in the back of the SUV or leave them on the ground under the trailer. I guess someone could steal them but I have good karma ;).

Enjoy your adventures and remember, "It really is the greatest thing on wheels".

[OpenRoads]

Yeah, I've heard the stories, too. But my daughter and her mate have between them six trips on the ALCAN, with nary a word about trashing their vehicles. Guess we'll take the chance.

Supposed to be a fabulous trip. We love the Northwestern states and have taken many trips through the Rockies. We hope the Canadian Rockies and Alaska will be even more worthy of a few dings and breakage along the way. Let's call them badges of honor!!! Combat medals!!

I do plan on devising and installing plastic covers for the street side windows for that trip. Meanwhile, I have plenty of time to check out the TM, to see if it is too fragile or I am too meager a TM mechanic for such a journey. If the trailer proves over the next year to be unworthy, I can always fall back on a tried and true Airstream for the Alaska trip. But one way or another, we will be there next year. Got a granddaughter graduating high school in Anchorage. Besides, adventure is what Open Roads is all about--the venture yet tried, the roads yet traveled, the sights yet seen.

OpenRoads

[jniles]

A WDH will make a great difference in ride wheather you need it or not. Try it you'll like it.

[Bill]

OpenRoads -

The AlCan trip sounds great, and I know you'll love your new 2720SL. But I think you are missing one of the basic concepts on the weight distributing hitch. The purpose of a WD hitch is not to improve the ride - though it will do that as well. The purpose is to distribute the 400-500 pound hitch weight to where it belongs. There are two aspects to this.

First, if you toss 400-500 pounds on the rear suspension of your half-ton, that's a lot of extra load. Add another 500 pounds of "stuff" in the back of your half-ton, and you are really stressing the tires, shocks, and so forth. Now, go and beat that overloaded rear end over 1000 miles of AlCan highway, and ... Well, it just isn't smart.

The second aspect is actually more important. If you drop 400-500 pounds of weight on the hitch (and the hitch is a ways behind the rear axle, of course), then the vehicle tends to pivot - as the weight presses down on the hitch, the front end of the truck tends to lift. In fact, you are lifting about 200 pounds off the front wheels. Your half ton wasn't designed to run that way. The wheels will bounce up off the road on that AlCan washboard, and the steering will be squirrelly as heck. In the worst case, you'll lose steering control as that front end floats around. Again - not smart.

The weight distributing hitch distributes the weight of the trailer tongue (hence the name) so that some of it rides on the rear axle, some of it rides on the front axle, and some of it rides on the trailer axle - all evenly distributed.

Like my Dad always told me, you get to choose your own poison, but once you've chosen it, you don't get to complain if you don't like it. Been there. Done that. Wouldn't even CONSIDER doing it on a long rough piece of road like the AlCan.

Bill

[live2shopnc]

I picked mine up on Friday.(2720sd) It lowered the rear about 1 in. and mayba raised the front 3/4 in. The rear overload springs just touched in the rear. Its about 2 1/2 hrs. from the dealer to my house. It towed fine but did add some bounce. When I talked with the folks @ Equilizer they said with my truck and the weight of the TM I shouldn't need the hitch. Would it help take some of the bounce out of the traler? Just hate to spend that much money and not get much benifit out of it.

[OpenRoads]

Thanks for your comments, Bill. I believe I understand the concept of a WDH. So, correct me if I'm wrong.

Until the weights on my rear axle, front axle, gross TV, gross TM and combined gross weights approach their limits, the rig is safe (weight-wise), or at least the rig can be operated within its designed parameters. And if the hitch weight leverages a couple hundred pounds off the front axle, or even several hundred pounds when bouncing over rough roads, a couple thousand plus pounds of front wheel bite still remain for safe (normal) steering and stopping (I'm not addressing emergency handling here, most of which can normally be avoided by alert and skillful driving. Unalert and unskillful driving can't be helped, even with a WDH, although I might grant that a WDH could delay the inevitable.) In fact, if a driver lets his TV "BOUND," that would indicate a driving error of simply going too fast for the road conditions, rather than a weight distribution problem. Is this not so?

While you're at it, Bill, please explain this. TM went to great lengths to design a trailer with an axle far enough behind the hitch and the trailer's center of gravity far enough ahead of its axle(s) to put nearly 15% of its gross weight on its tongue. That magic 15% ratio is needed to maximize trailing stability (fifth wheelers put an even greater percentage on the hitch and "big rigs," more yet.) TM also designed the trailer light enough so that a 15% tongue weight would not overload the rear axle of a typical light-duty TV. Then we come along and redistribute TM's designed weight distribution by removing some of the tongue weight and placing it back on the trailer's axles. How does the resulting lower tongue weight percentage and aft movement of the trailer's CG not affect towing safety?

What happens to the magic 15% tongue weight ratio (and optimum stability) when we redistribute the trailer's weight? Seems to me that when none of the limiting weights are exceeded, the only real reason for using a WDH to reduce tongue weight is for riding comfort, rather than safety. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to increasing TV comfort.)

Maybe this has been explained elsewhere on this website, but I've read extensively and have not found explanations to the above questions.

OpenRoads

[OpenRoads]

Live2shopnc, I can't imagine how your three-quarter ton TV would benefit enough to warrant the cost (and more importantly, the hassle) of a WDH. My half-ton seems to work fine without one, so far. Course, I haven't really loaded it down yet. That's why I've asked the questions.

If a WDH can improve comfort (less bucking, by reducing tongue weight and percentage) without compromising safety (from a reduced tongue weight and therefore a lower percentage), I want to understand how that works and why. Hopefully, folks like Bill and others who've been there, done that, and thought it through can help us (me, anyhow) understand.

OpenRoads

[RockyMtnRay]

Thanks for your comments, Bill. I believe I understand the concept of a WDH. So, correct me if I'm wrong.

Until the weights on my rear axle, front axle, gross TV, gross TM and combined gross weights approach their limits, the rig is safe (weight-wise), or at least the rig can be operated within its designed parameters. And if the hitch weight leverages a couple hundred pounds off the front axle, or even several hundred pounds when bouncing over rough roads, a couple thousand plus pounds of front wheel bite still remain for safe (normal) steering and stopping (I'm not addressing emergency handling here, most of which can normally be avoided by alert and skillful driving. Unalert and unskillful driving can't be helped, even with a WDH, although I might grant that a WDH could delay the inevitable.) In fact, if a driver lets his TV "BOUND," that would indicate a driving error of simply going too fast for the road conditions, rather than a weight distribution problem. Is this not so?

While you're at it, Bill, please explain this. TM went to great lengths to design a trailer with an axle far enough behind the hitch and the trailer's center of gravity far enough ahead of its axle(s) to put nearly 15% of its gross weight on its tongue. That magic 15% ratio is needed to maximize trailing stability (fifth wheelers put an even greater percentage on the hitch and "big rigs," more yet.) TM also designed the trailer light enough so that a 15% tongue weight would not overload the rear axle of a typical light-duty TV. Then we come along and redistribute TM's designed weight distribution by removing some of the tongue weight and placing it back on the trailer's axles. How does the resulting lower tongue weight percentage and aft movement of the trailer's CG not affect towing safety?

What happens to the magic 15% tongue weight ratio (and optimum stability) when we redistribute the trailer's weight? Seems to me that when none of the limiting weights are exceeded, the only real reason for using a WDH to reduce tongue weight is for riding comfort, rather than safety. (Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to increasing TV comfort.)

Maybe this has been explained elsewhere on this website, but I've read extensively and have not found explanations to the above questions.

OpenRoads

The stability/resistance of a TM to sway is not an outcome of putting 15% of the trailer's weight on the hitch. It is an outcome of TM putting the trailer's wheels farther behind the it's center of gravity (CG) and aerodynamic center of pressure (CP) than most RV makers do...the 15% is simply a metric of how far behind the CG the wheels are. TM can move the wheels back further simply because the ultra light construction (and low profile) allows this without generating 1000 lb hitch weights.

Using a WDH changes where the downward forces apply...and undoubtedly unloads the hitch area somewhat...but a WDH does not change the relative position of the trailer's CG/CP to its wheels, therefore it has little to no effect on the trailer's stabilty and resistance to sway. Bottom line: Hitch weight as a percentage of trailer weight is strictly a metric of the relative position of the CG to the wheels and though there is a correlation between high hitch weight percentages and good stability, it is not in and of itself the the causal factor in trailer stability/instability. This is a classic case of correlation not being the same as causation.

However, changing the position of the trailer's CG relative to its wheels does have a great effect on its stability...people who have placed moderately heavy loads (e.g. 4 steel frame bicycles) well behind the rear bumper of a TM have notice a significant drop in the trailer's stability...with or without a WDH. The reason is they moved the trailer's CG significantly backwards...not by adding lots of weight but by adding moderate weight on a very long moment arm.

As for the affects of not using a WDH and therefore unloading the front axle of the tow vehicle, that's more than just a comfort issue. It does affect steering and definitely affects front wheel braking, particularly on shorter wheel base tow vehicles. On a longish wheelbase half ton (or bigger) truck...or a full size SUV, the reduction of front wheel braking effectiveness is probably not noticeable unless the road surface is loose (gravel, snow) or wet. But on a shorter wheelbase vehicle (e.g. the Jeep Cherokee (103 inch wheelbase) I used to use), the loss of front wheel braking is immense. I skidded halfway into an intersection last year with both front wheels locked up (no ABS) because the bars on the WDH I was using simply didn't transfer enough force to the front wheels. When I upgraded from 550 lb spring bars to 750 lb spring bars (same number of chain links dropped), I finally solved a very dangerous front wheel braking/skidding problem.

[OpenRoads]

Thanks for your explanation, Ray. I guess I just haven't had enough coffee this morning. You mention (and I understand) that a WDH reduces TM hitch weight and increases TM axle weight. What I'm slower to understand is that this changing relationship doesn't change the TM's CG. Must be that enough weight is shifted to the TV's front axle that the long moment from hitch to front axle keeps the TM's CG where it was, even though the transaction does change the TV's CG (it has to, if the TV's rear axle lightens up while the front axle gets heavier.) Words fail to penetrate my brain at a time when a simple picture could say so much. If anyone knows a website for a good explanation, I'd appreciate understanding this issue once and for all.

OpenRoads

[Bill]

OpenRoads –

You raise some interesting questions, so let’s talk about them. I'll try not to repeat to much of Ray's excellent advice - which he posted just before I hit the SEND button.

First, no one said that 15% hitch weight is a “magic” number. Since you use the term several times, I think you intend your post to be a bit facetious, and I will take it that way.

Magic aside, however, it seems clear that the TM was designed to have a higher hitch weight, percentage-wise, than most travel trailers. This comes about as a result of moving the axle back behind the CG, which in turn was done to improve towing characteristics, specifically sway. And there seems to be near-universal agreement that TMs don’t sway much compared to other travel trailers. The design was a success, in other words.

Incidentally, a weight-distributing hitch does not change tongue weight - a common misconception. It simply changes where that weight is carried. Instead of carrying all 450 pounds (or whatever) on the rear frame, suspension, and tires, a WD hitch spreads the weight out more evenly, enabling you to carry 150 pounds on the front suspension, 150 pounds on the rear suspension, and 150 pounds on the TM suspension. No, it doesn’t break out exactly evenly, but you get the idea.

As far as levering weight off the front wheels, clearly this does happen with a weight-carrying (as opposed to weight distributing) hitch. The magnitude of the decrease is dependent on the length of the lever arms (wheelbase, essentially). An extended cab vehicle - even the short box version such as yours - may have a longer wheelbase than a standard-cab pickup, so less weight is removed from the front wheels. Nonetheless, some substantial amount of weight is removed. The question is what effect this will have on handling. Clearly the Chevy engineers designed the front end of your truck to bear a certain amount of weight. If you are going to be concerned about the “magic” in the design of the TM weight distribution, then you ought to be equally concerned about the “magic” in the design of your truck’s front end. No, removing 200 pounds won’t cause it to “bound”, but it will change the suspension geometry and it will change the handling. Each vehicle design is different. With my Explorer, the handling gets squirrelly enough that I am uncomfortable. Many people on this board have experienced the same thing – but some have found that they don’t feel a difference. As I said, try it out for yourself, and then make your own decision.

By the way, TM recommends a WD hitch for vehicles as light as yours and mine. I’m sure that wasn’t done on a whim, but on the basis of good engineering analysis and experience. I’m not an automotive engineer. Are you?

For the 2004 model (I can’t find the equivalent numbers for 2002), Chevy says “Silverado 1500 models are limited to a 5,000-lb. trailer rating with a 600-lb. tongue rating”. A twoing package will increase the weight rating - does it increase the hitch weight rating? Even if it doesn't, a 450-pound hitch weight is within specs. I’m not sure that I would choose to run that close to the spec – especially when you are going to beat the vehicle over a long stretch of poor road – but that’s your choice, of course. Chevy also says “Addition of trailer tongue weight cannot cause vehicle weights to exceed Rear Gross Axle Weight Rating (RGAWR) or Gross Vehicle Weight Rating (GVWR). These ratings can be found on the certification label located on the driver door or door frame.” What does your sticker say?

Finally, it is my opinion that neither my Explorer nor your half-ton pickup is a particularly big vehicle. It is tempting to look at that V-8 and say "Wow!" and forget about everything else. But there is a lot more to towing than engine size. Braking (as I just spotted in Ray's post above) is real important. And the moment arm that the trailer uses to try to swivel your tow vehicle around in a tight corner (described by Ray in earlier posts) is important. And yes, so is steering and suspension geometry.

I don’t know if any of this is helpful. It is my view of things, no more and no less. I am basically a pretty conservative guy, and I am uncomfortable running near the edge of anything. And I see no reason to spend $30-35K on a vehicle, and then beat on it unnecessarily to save $200 on a hitch. But that’s just me. Your mileage may vary.

Bill

[RockyMtnRay]

Thanks for your explanation, Ray. I guess I just haven't had enough coffee this morning. You mention (and I understand) that a WDH reduces TM hitch weight and increases TM axle weight. What I'm slower to understand is that this changing relationship doesn't change the TM's CG. Must be that enough weight is shifted to the TV's front axle that the long moment from hitch to front axle keeps the TM's CG where it was, even though the transaction does change the TV's CG (it has to, if the TV's rear axle lightens up while the front axle gets heavier.) Words fail to penetrate my brain at a time when a simple picture could say so much. If anyone knows a website for a good explanation, I'd appreciate understanding this issue once and for all.

OpenRoads

Ok, I did slightly oversimplify the affect of a WDH on the trailer's CG (which, BTW, is completely separate from the TV's CG). A WDH does indeed apply a downward force to the trailer tongue at the point where the WDH bars attach to the tongue. So it does indeed increase the effective weight being carried by the trailer's wheels; however because that additional "weight" (or more precisely downward force) is being applied only 2 feet from the end of the tongue, I would argue that the location of the trailer's CG actually moves forward . And by moving the CG even more forward from the trailer's wheels, you will thus actually increase stabliity through the use of a WDH! The goal of WDH is not increased stability, however, but rather the equalization of load between the TV's front and rear axles. That it can slightly increase stability is an additional benefit.

As for the tow vehicle, if a WDH is properly set up so the increased weight is equally applied to front and rear axles (e.g. both ends settle an equal amount after the trailer is hooked up), then the TV CG location does not change at all! The amount of force on the TV tires does increase, but it's an equal increase front/rear.

[fcatwo]

Re: Alaska Highway and broken windshields.

We lived in Alaska 29 yrs, drove a significant part of the Alaska Hwy several times and had windshield rock damage three times--- once in Idaho, once in Washington and once in Texas. IMHO, gravel from your tires peppering the front of your trailer is a much bigger problem on the Alcan than broken windshields and you'll want to protect your trailer from it if you can. A heavy rubber flap as wide as your trailer and long enough to reach close to the ground (wind will bend it back) under you rear bumper seems to work best. An even better solution is to completely cover the front of the trailer with plywood or something similar. You can repaint the A frame and tanks when you get home but a peppered trailer is permanent.

On windshields: I've read that the trucks just throw the rocks up in the air and the amount of damage they do depends on how fast you are going when you drive into them. The Alcan is not the best place to be in a hurry anyway.

Frank

[kempert]

I'd get a WDH - enough said.

I also have a 2720SL and I've discovered that a good place to put the bars from my Reese hitch is in the space by the slideout. I had a visitor once who wanted to watch me take it down (you'll get a lot of those). When I pulled out the bars, he thought that they were part of the TM. Boy was he surprised when he took a closer look.

[OpenRoads]

Thanks to all for your education and patience. As a new TM owner, I still have a lot of questions, which I'll try to ask in the right place and also stay on subject next time.

OpenRoads

[Windbreaker]

I don't mean to confuse anyone here but I pull with an '02 Chevy 1500HD, 4X4, crewcab. Tow package rated at 10K. I don't use the WDH because of 1) the added weight to the trailer wheels/axle, I'm over the factory limit with just a few food items, tv, microwave, and pots/pans. We have to carry clothing in the truck. 2) the time and trouble of hooking up the Reese.

In the past two years I've been on one road that the WDH might have helped on and and was assured when I got where I was going it would not have.

I'm guessing my truck is a little heavier duty than the standard 1500 but for the most part I don't think you will need it. I will say that I do carry my Reese in the truck just in case I have an over powering desire to use it but if I were to I would have to empty the trailer first.

Boy there are a lot of things to consider when trailering. A lot of folks do it and think nothing of it. Maybe we just over analize things?

[Denny_A]

A WDH does indeed apply a downward force to the trailer tongue at the point where the WDH bars attach to the tongue. So it does indeed increase the effective weight being carried by the trailer's wheels; however because that additional "weight" (or more precisely downward force) is being applied only 2 feet from the end of the tongue, I would argue that the location of the trailer's CG actually moves forward .

Small point. The force applied to the frame by the spring bars creates a moment around the hitch which rests on the ball. That moment is canceled by the increased reaction force at the tire point of contact. Action, reaction. Moments cancel. CG is not affected.

As for the tow vehicle, if a WDH is properly set up so the increased weight is equally applied to front and rear axles (e.g. both ends settle an equal amount after the trailer is hooked up), then the TV CG location does not change at all! The amount of force on the TV tires does increase, but it's an equal increase front/rear.


Here's an example, with numbers, from my 2720 and 4Runner setup.
Assume: Tongue WT = 510 lbs; Find--> Spring bar load to distribute approx. 170 lbs to each of the 3 axles.
Dimensions: Hitch to RA (rear axle) = 4.33'; Hitch to FA(front axle)= 13.8'; Hitch to TM(TM axle) = 13.5'.

Add 170 lbs to FA: Moment(centered at WDH) = FA * Arm = 170*13.8 = 2346 lb-ft.
Force on TM = Moment/Arm =2346 lb-ft/13.5 ft = 166 lbs.
Force on SB(Sping bars) which has 2.25 ft arm; SB = 2346/2.25 = 1042 lbs or 521 lbs per bar.
Wt on RA; RA = Tongue wt - FA - TM = 510 -170 -166 = 174 lbs.

Equal distribution. Vehicle weights are irrelevant for isolation of moments and forces applicable to the WDH. Tongue weight is the only REAL weight. Resultant is forces and moments. BTW, w/o the WDH, the front axle is unloaded by 160 lbs. So the WDH represents a 330 lb difference (160 +170) in front wheel down force. I sneer at crosswinds.

Denny_A

[RockyMtnRay]

A WDH does indeed apply a downward force to the trailer tongue at the point where the WDH bars attach to the tongue. So it does indeed increase the effective weight being carried by the trailer's wheels; however because that additional "weight" (or more precisely downward force) is being applied only 2 feet from the end of the tongue, I would argue that the location of the trailer's CG actually moves forward .

Small point. The force applied to the frame by the spring bars creates a moment around the hitch which rests on the ball. That moment is canceled by the increased reaction force at the tire point of contact. Action, reaction. Moments cancel. CG is not affected.

Ah...good point. I was right the first time...a WDH has little to no effect on the trailer's CG.

As for the tow vehicle, if a WDH is properly set up so the increased weight is equally applied to front and rear axles (e.g. both ends settle an equal amount after the trailer is hooked up), then the TV CG location does not change at all! The amount of force on the TV tires does increase, but it's an equal increase front/rear.


Here's an example, with numbers, from my 2720 and 4Runner setup.
Assume: Tongue WT = 510 lbs; Find--> Spring bar load to distribute approx. 170 lbs to each of the 3 axles.
Dimensions: Hitch to RA (rear axle) = 4.33'; Hitch to FA(front axle)= 13.8'; Hitch to TM(TM axle) = 13.5'.

Add 170 lbs to FA: Moment(centered at WDH) = FA * Arm = 170*13.8 = 2346 lb-ft.
Force on TM = Moment/Arm =2346 lb-ft/13.5 ft = 166 lbs.
Force on SB(Sping bars) which has 2.25 ft arm; SB = 2346/2.25 = 1042 lbs or 521 lbs per bar.
Wt on RA; RA = Tongue wt - FA - TM = 510 -170 -166 = 174 lbs.

Equal distribution. Vehicle weights are irrelevant for isolation of moments and forces applicable to the WDH. Tongue weight is the only REAL weight. Resultant is forces and moments. BTW, w/o the WDH, the front axle is unloaded by 160 lbs. So the WDH represents a 330 lb difference (160 +170) in front wheel down force. I sneer at crosswinds.
<**cheers loudly**> Oh but I do love the sight of properly applied math! Haven't done a weight/balance calculation in about 13 years (quit when I stopped flying) but do enjoy seeing one done well. Bravo, Bravo!

I can definitely testify to the pleasure of having increased downforce on the front tires...once I finally got strong enough WDH springbars on my rig last fall (after that scary slide partway into an intersection :o)...and put increased (rather than decreased) downforce on my Jeep's front wheels, it was amazing not only how much better it rode (no more boing-boing over bumps) but also how much better directional control I had...and how much better the front brakes worked. 'twas just plain 8)
:D.

[G-V_Driver]

Couldn't agree more with your philosophy and didn't mean to throw cold water on your plans. I heard the rock story from a guy that I know wouldn't make it up (and who still remembered the cost of replacements) so I thought it was worth passing on.

Regarding the Canadian Rockies, one of our highlights was the drive from Banff up to Jasper. I'd do it again in a heartbeat. We try to escape from Dallas for 6-8 weeks starting in July so anywhere north of here sounds wonderful.

At one time I bought some black rubber matting in rolls about 1/4" thick and three feet wide. Wonder if some of that stuff and some duct tape would help solve the trailer ding problem.

[Frenchy]

I drove to Alaska in 1998 via the AlCan highway in a Pontiac minivan. We tent camped. At that time there was about 50 miles of unpaved road that was under construction. The rest was all great roads. We probably averaged 75 MPH on the paved section. Had to slow down quite a bit on the unpaved portion but even it wasn't too bad. I would advise you to avoid the Denali Highway between Denali National Park and Richardson Highway. It is unpaved and pretty rough. Very slow going. I'm thinking of going to Alaska again in the summer of 2005 with my TM. Maybe I'll see you there.