radman1,
The reason that I'm down on dually trailer axles is the same reason I won't have a dually vehicle when off-road (not on a boat ramp, but rather down some badly rutted farm/forest track), which is where my tow vehicle spends about 50% of its life, having the rear wheels that follow exactly in the front wheels track is virtually an essential requirement for traction and progress (forwards or backwards).
And since this trailer has to be able to go wherever its tow vehicle goes, the trailer wheels must follow (or very closely follow) in the tracks created by the tow vehicle wheels.
Now, I could always just increase the trailer wheel size to 20 inches which would enable me to carry the weight with only 4 tires (20 inch tires with 7,000 lbs capacity each would have plenty of safety margin).
This would negate the need for the tri-axle setup which is necessary using 16 inch tires (ie. the tires are the limiting factor in carrying the load in question).
However, my gut tells me that a tri-axle trailer (where the axle cl spread would be at least 9 feet) would offer a higher level of pitching stability than a dual axle trailer (with only 6 feet of axle cl spread) would.
crazyal,
While I'm certainly no proponent of leaf springs for vehicular use, I certainly recognize that a great many people either feel differently, or at least tolerate these (IMO) abominations.
However, if the bracketry and walking-beam designs that I've seen on numerous trailers from name brand manufactures is indicative of the bulk of the trailer industries take on appropriate leaf spring locating design, I for one do not get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think about these trailers ability to withstand sideways forces (or any other forces for that matter). I'd never sign off on any of the engineering approaches I've seen so far!
Any manufacturer who touts the fact that they are using 25 lb per foot (or heavier) I beams in their trailers, and then uses 1/4 inch thick steel to fabricate the suspension bracketry from should be hounded out of existence!
The reason that I'm down on dually trailer axles is the same reason I won't have a dually vehicle when off-road (not on a boat ramp, but rather down some badly rutted farm/forest track), which is where my tow vehicle spends about 50% of its life, having the rear wheels that follow exactly in the front wheels track is virtually an essential requirement for traction and progress (forwards or backwards).
And since this trailer has to be able to go wherever its tow vehicle goes, the trailer wheels must follow (or very closely follow) in the tracks created by the tow vehicle wheels.
Now, I could always just increase the trailer wheel size to 20 inches which would enable me to carry the weight with only 4 tires (20 inch tires with 7,000 lbs capacity each would have plenty of safety margin).
This would negate the need for the tri-axle setup which is necessary using 16 inch tires (ie. the tires are the limiting factor in carrying the load in question).
However, my gut tells me that a tri-axle trailer (where the axle cl spread would be at least 9 feet) would offer a higher level of pitching stability than a dual axle trailer (with only 6 feet of axle cl spread) would.
crazyal,
While I'm certainly no proponent of leaf springs for vehicular use, I certainly recognize that a great many people either feel differently, or at least tolerate these (IMO) abominations.
However, if the bracketry and walking-beam designs that I've seen on numerous trailers from name brand manufactures is indicative of the bulk of the trailer industries take on appropriate leaf spring locating design, I for one do not get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think about these trailers ability to withstand sideways forces (or any other forces for that matter). I'd never sign off on any of the engineering approaches I've seen so far!
Any manufacturer who touts the fact that they are using 25 lb per foot (or heavier) I beams in their trailers, and then uses 1/4 inch thick steel to fabricate the suspension bracketry from should be hounded out of existence!