short tongue -- Why?

[Boxite]

Originally Posted by HowieE

The Jack E up is an interesting idea for lighter/smaller trailer. While it could be modified to work with an electric jack I think it would prove inconvenient.

Lets go back to the original question. There are 2 consideration in the placement of the ball ....

Well, ...that WASN'T "the original question".... (The original question was not about relocating the ball hitch..it was about the tailgate hitting the jack.) ... we digress...
... The Jack-E-Up has proven to be an excellent solution now on many trips. I no longer have to concern myself with the wife dropping the tailgate on the jack and damaging it, nor do I have to be too concerned about someone easily disconnecting my AS from the truck to steal it.
I did indeed take a few small pieces of steel and create "slots" for my other trailer and make a similar solution for my other trailer to simply "rotate" the jack into those slots. The solution is so simple I wish I"d thought of it a long time ago.
As for re-locating the ball... there's yet another concern on that: The distance from the trailer axle to the hitch is critical in backing and making tight turns (either backing OR forwarding) because the angle/distance of the trailer tongue can affect whether or not your TowVehicle rear bumper contacts the trailer tongue in a protracted tight turn. Your LPG bottle covers and any other stored items on the trailer tongue can hit the rear of the TV and then you've got potential for expensive damage to both.

[HowieE]

Relocating the ball by extending the shank on the hitch, and thus moving the ball, is the common solution to the tailgate hitting the jack.

[Boxite]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Relocating the ball by extending the shank on the hitch, and thus moving the ball, is the common solution to the tailgate hitting the jack.

Sorry solution, as already described.

[rostam]

I don't understand this obsession with rear overhang to wheelbase ratio. I understand the lower the ratio, the better for stability, but the difference when using a shorter vs a longer shank is really negligable sometimes.

I ran some numbers on a Ford Expedition EL (numbers come from Ford's website at http://www.ford.com/suvs/expedition/...ions/view-all/).

Wheelbase: 131"
Rear overhang: 51.1"

I am going to consider 2 different scenarios: 1) using a shank that adds 10" to rear overhang, and 2) using a longer shank that adds 12" to rear overhang

So, total overhang in these 2 cases would be 61.1" (51.1" + 10) and 63.1" (51.1 + 12)

Rear overhang to wheelbase ratio for these 2 cases would be 0.466 (61.1/131) and 0.481 (63.1/131), with lower rear overhang to wheelbase ratio being better for stability.

As you see the difference between these 2 scenarios is 0.015. If your combo goes from fully stable to completely unstable with such a minor change in this ratio, I'd say your vehicle is marginal to start with. I have personally towed with different shank lengths and did not notice any difference in stability. I would still use the shortest shank possible. I think the role of this ratio is towing stability is exaggerated. Its important but maybe not as important as some state.

[dkottum]

Think of the distance from hitch ball to truck rear axle as a lever. When trailer yaw force is placed on the side of the hitch ball, that lever pivots on the truck's rear axle and transmits yaw force forward to the truck's steering axle.

The longer the lever (distance from hitch ball to truck rear axle) the greater the yaw force transmitted forward to the truck's steering axle. It's as simple as that.

That is an ongoing problem with bumper-pull travel trailers, and the reason Hensley invented the pivot point projection hitch many years ago to eliminate the ball-to-truck rear axle lever and thereby eliminate trailer yaw forces leveraged forward.

After two other hitches we bought a Hensley/ProPride style hitch and the rock solid stability that comes with it. The hitch design places the trailer hitch ball about 12" further back from the truck (without increasing yaw force leveraged to the steering axle) so opening clearance of the truck's tail gate while hitched comes as a bonus.

[slowmover]

Originally Posted by rostam

I don't understand this obsession with rear overhang to wheelbase ratio. I understand the lower the ratio, the better for stability, but the difference when using a shorter vs a longer shank is really negligable sometimes.

I ran some numbers on a Ford Expedition EL (numbers come from Ford's website at http://www.ford.com/suvs/expedition/...ions/view-all/).

Wheelbase: 131"
Rear overhang: 51.1"

I am going to consider 2 different scenarios: 1) using a shank that adds 10" to rear overhang, and 2) using a longer shank that adds 12" to rear overhang

So, total overhang in these 2 cases would be 61.1" (51.1" + 10) and 63.1" (51.1 + 12)

Rear overhang to wheelbase ratio for these 2 cases would be 0.466 (61.1/131) and 0.481 (63.1/131), with lower rear overhang to wheelbase ratio being better for stability.

As you see the difference between these 2 scenarios is 0.015. If your combo goes from fully stable to completely unstable with such a minor change in this ratio, I'd say your vehicle is marginal to start with. I have personally towed with different shank lengths and did not notice any difference in stability. I would still use the shortest shank possible. I think the role of this ratio is towing stability is exaggerated. Its important but maybe not as important as some state.

Once you've driven a rig where all is optimized, you'll not forget it. Same for better suspension on that Avion; rather, a comparable Airstream against it.