Suppport Thread for the TND 500, TND 700 or future Rand McNally products.

I don't see your email address at the bottom, like you stated.

 

I did some quick and dirty research- those two routes he has mentioned are nd5 and nd28. There are two different sets of weight rules governing segments of both routes- legal limit which is the standard 12-34-34 and a 8t rule which reduces tandem weights to 32k. So it is possible to be in violation with tandem weights exceeding 32k on parts of those roads.

But as I posted earlier. By forcing a shorter route scheme on the device, the device may go into a lesser of two evils mode depending on what othet road choices there are and the types of restrictions on those other hypothetical roads. Neither the 720 or 520 offers the ability to select axle weights so we're stuck with whatever gvwr we elect to use. Which is why the device probably used those roads, because the majority of segments is within the legal weight rule.

 

That's actually a good suggestion- the ability to enter axle weight. That could be a good feature. Once marks done with MATS this week hopefully he can look into that.

 

Mark Kling, where are you?

 

He's busy at MATS this week.

 

Wasn't a suggestion, just a statement of fact. I'm actually none too sure if that is something I would support given the amount of confusion it has the possibility of creating. This particular thread has touched on some of the that. I think that if push came to shove, I'd consider an axle group selector from 1 through 4 say. With an axle weight selector, I'd be willing to bet the majority of us would just leave it at 8.5t and never reset it as a 17t is 34k and the industry norm.

 

But is it that way like in Canada or Mexico? Do they have different axle weights? I've never ran canada or Mexico so I can't say either way. I know Canada has different hos rules and regs so I can only assume they might have different axle weight laws as well.

 

First- Mexico? And Canada, yes that's a valid point. And we here in the US have states and vehicles with non standard requirements. But I think one can cover for that in the gvwr setting. Chances are with higher axle ratings, probably will equal a higher gvwr.

 

One thing we need to remember is that we do not want to over complicate the device. We have all levels of knowledge using the thing and we want to keep on using it. Get too complicated and a certain segment will gravitate somewhere else. Hard part is figuring out where the middle ground is I guess.

There are other considerations as well but some of these probably get into proprietary areas like RM engineering and software/ hardware concerns. I do not- wish to step on Mark's toes here.

But sitting here just looking at my 720 sitting on my dash, I think re-engineering the whole set up to add just one more button would be a nightmare.

 

How many of you guys/gals have had multiple defective Rand McNally units? I've only been driving four years, but I'm now on my third RM unit because of defects. Although it's nice that they're willing to fix/replace the unit when we send-it-back, this process is both time consuming and frustrating. Shouldn't a unit last more than one year without going bad?