Share Pics of People Hauling or Towing Something Wrong

[JohnDeereJoey]

...In the USA we "know" the bigger the number the better!...

Isn't that the truth!

I knew a guy who routinely loaded with way too much lounge weight. One day the trailer said "Enough!". The tongue on the trailer folded to about a 45-degree bend.

 

[Renze]

In the USA we "know" the bigger the number the better!

Ive seen the local farm machinery manufacturer slide from their No.1 position in silage trailers. They used to build a very robust silage trailer in the 80s and 90s by using the next size up in C channel that their competitor used. But they stuck with the mindset of using big beams. An apprentice was once told to stop beveling square tubing for weld penetration, farmers want to see heavy welds in sight, and when its full penetration, farmers dont see that...

In the short term, bigger is better, but when products and manufacturers get time tested, proper engineering wins over sheer dimensions.

 

[Renze]

Whoa... I'm just a simple engineer, not a trailer designer. But even with my total lack of experience on the subject, I can easily see that deck pivot and axle location (i.e. tongue weight) need not have anything to do with one another. You can place the axles aft of the deck pivot, to maintain target tongue weight, even if the pivot is at 50% of bed/deck length. There is the issue of hitting the rear axle at maximum pivot angle, if pivot height/angle don't allow for it, but that problem is solvable, or a compromise can be found somewhere between ideal and the extreme of placing the axles at 50% bed length.

Ive built tilt decks in the past but i only like them single axle behind a farm tractor with a mini excavator on top with 20 to 25% tongue weight. For high speed use and 5-10% tongue weight, torsion axle tandem, all they do is rattle. Built my own trailer on lower 195/50R13C wheels to get the deck at 25" with a heavy fixed towbar and a straight deck.

 

[4570Man]

Whoa... I'm just a simple engineer, not a trailer designer. But even with my total lack of experience on the subject, I can easily see that deck pivot and axle location (i.e. tongue weight) need not have anything to do with one another. You can place the axles aft of the deck pivot, to maintain target tongue weight, even if the pivot is at 50% of bed/deck length. There is the issue of hitting the rear axle at maximum pivot angle, if pivot height/angle don't allow for it, but that problem is solvable, or a compromise can be found somewhere between ideal and the extreme of placing the axles at 50% bed length.

You could in theory put the pivot anywhere you want but it realistically has to be centered on or slightly behind the axels to clear the tires when it tilts and you need enough bed behind the pivot to make a safe loading angle. A gravity tilt needs to be close to balanced as well. The bed would be too hard if not impossible to move by hand when the trailer was empty if it wasn’t.

 

[WinterDeere]

You could in theory put the pivot anywhere you want but it realistically has to be centered on or slightly behind the axels to clear the tires when it tilts and you need enough bed behind the pivot to make a safe loading angle. A gravity tilt needs to be close to balanced as well. The bed would be too hard if not impossible to move by hand when the trailer was empty if it wasn’t.

Yeah, got it. I really liked the concept of a tilt bed with a fixed bed extension forward of the tilt bed that you had mentioned earlier. Resolves the issue of tongue weight, without forcing the bed pivot forward.

 

[4570Man]

The last 10-15% of a tilting deck trailer isn't that useful. A normal trailer has the axles around 60-75% of the way back. A tilting deck needs to have the deck balanced & the pivot goes between the axles. So axles on a tilting deck are only 50% of the way back. Way easier to accidentally end up with insufficient tongue weight.

Only considering the trailer frame at least. Not the tongue, gooseneck or a fixed deck infront of the tilt.

I have a power tilt deckover these days rather than gravity tilt. The power hydraulics let it work unbalanced. But it still has axles further forward than a fixed deck.

I’ve never had any problems with the weight distribution on my tilt deck. Of course I can’t park my skid steer on the tail but there’s plenty of deck space to avoid that issue. Resting my trencher boom or tractor bushhog on the tail is no big deal.

 

[Grumpycat]

Cause i like to tow tongue heavy. With adjustable headlights, cops dont realise that i tow 7k when oncoming.

Well, that is what I said, Americans will put everything on the tongue they can. No matter it will tow much easier with a modest load on the tongue, they will never know for never trying.

Sure, install HD shocks and springs on the rear of a Subaru just to occasionally tow 2000 pounds! When properly balancing the trailer gets the job done without shocks, springs, or bandaids such as "weight" distributing hitches (which do not distribute any weight, only loads).

A load distributing hitch is useful with 8000 pound trailers on SuperDutys. But is a bandaid for many other situations.

When driving 500 mile days with my toy hauler I practiced moving the motorcycles inside for best tow. All the way to the front was not the best. I used bumper drop to guess at how much load was on the tongue, I know how much I weigh, how much the truck sagged under my weight, and then me and a friend, and guessed it would be approximately linear for greater loads.

 

[Grumpycat]

I’ve never had any problems with the weight distribution on my tilt deck. Of course I can’t park my skid steer on the tail but there’s plenty of deck space to avoid that issue. Resting my trencher boom or tractor bushhog on the tail is no big deal.

And I see you haven't tried to park your load on the trailer as far forward as possible. By eye, it looks like you have a good balance of modestly favoring load to the front with sufficient to the rear.

 

[Grumpycat]

Ive seen the local farm machinery manufacturer slide from their No.1 position in silage trailers. They used to build a very robust silage trailer in the 80s and 90s by using the next size up in C channel that their competitor used. But they stuck with the mindset of using big beams. An apprentice was once told to stop beveling square tubing for weld penetration, farmers want to see heavy welds in sight, and when its full penetration, farmers dont see that...

In the short term, bigger is better, but when products and manufacturers get time tested, proper engineering wins over sheer dimensions.

Made me wince. I cut my teeth at a drafting table working for Chicago Bridge & Iron. Every weld got bevels. CBI standards only permitted the most rudimentary weld symbols, all welds got a cross section drawing explicitly showing the bevels, depth, flat in the center, and a sacrificial pass in the center before the final pass outside and inside. Then again a 1" plate was thin for what we were doing.

About this time a platform collapsed in a hotel, in Missouri I believe. Revelers were dancing on a platform about the 3rd story that had another platform hanging from it on the 1st or 2nd above street level.

There were many construction goofs vs the architect's drawings. Square "tube" was made by welding two channels together. Simple surface weld, no beveling, certainly not full penetration. This failed, but might not have. The problem was something like a 40' rod was to be used, with a threaded section in the middle, the nut on these threads to hold the middle platform. A rod like that is crazy to procure, maybe get one threaded full length but 40'?

So without engineering approval the contractor purchased (2) 21' rods (for each of about 6 locations), threaded each end. Then put 2 holes through the now-square channel, right through the seams. One hole held the support rod from above, the other hole held the platform below. Now the square beam and it's lousy welds was carrying the load of 2 platforms. Nut pulled through, platform collapsed, killing many.

Had the contractor used a turnbuckle to extend the rod rather than use 2 holes in the beam he might have gotten away with it. The seams in the beam from making square out of two channels was also fishy.

 

[BigBlue1]

Well, that is what I said, Americans will put everything on the tongue they can. No matter it will tow much easier with a modest load on the tongue, they will never know for never trying.

That's a very odd generalization. While I'm sure there are some folks who think that way, that vast majority of people I know who tow are well aware of 10-15% tongue weight rule and at least attempt to honor it. I don't think I've ever encountered anyone whose mindset was "as much tongue weight as I can get".