 |
|
07-26-2016, 11:07 AM
|
#61
|
Rivet Master 
2008 22' Sport
Spicewood (W of Austin)
, Texas
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,582
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
__________________
2012 Ram 1500 Crew Cab 4.7L 4X4
Rambox
WBCCI 14676 TX ALAMO UNIT
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:48 PM
|
#62
|
Rivet Master 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton
, New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,035
|
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.
__________________
__________________
WBCCI 12156 AIR 3144 WACHUNG TAC NJ6
2004 Excursion 4x4
1991 34 ft. Excella +220,000 miles, new laminated flooring, new upholstery, new 3200 lbs axles
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 12:53 PM
|
#63
|
Rivet Master 
2008 22' Sport
Spicewood (W of Austin)
, Texas
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 1,582
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
2012 Ram 1500 Crew Cab 4.7L 4X4
Rambox
WBCCI 14676 TX ALAMO UNIT
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 01:14 PM
|
#64
|
Rivet Master 
Vintage Kin Owner
N/A
, N/A
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 995
|
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.
|
|
|
07-26-2016, 02:08 PM
|
#65
|
Rivet Master 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake
, Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
|
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.
__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles
The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
|
|
|
08-29-2016, 05:40 AM
|
#66
|
Vintage Kin
Fort Worth
, Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,014
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
|
|
|
 |
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
Search this Thread |
|
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|

Recent Discussions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|