Taking the bikes along

[AnnArborBob]

Originally Posted by hahnstead

I'll second what Brian said. I installed a front mounted receiver and carry two bikes in front of my Tundra, making sure the handlebars are facing the curb side. After a few miles, I hardly notice them. One other advantage—if the bike rack gets loose or starts to fail, I can see it in time to prevent damage.

We briefly considered a front mounted hitch rack for our bikes but decided that the exposure to the elements (e.g., rain, road grime & bugs) would not be good for the bikes so we opted for the enclosed storage in the truck bed. If you are just hauling some casual "beach cruisers" the front mount could work.

[Mixter]

Originally Posted by AnnArborBob

Oh, one last thing. Given the RV industry's reputation for less than bullet proof engineering (Airstream and Thor are sadly included in this indictment) I would find little comfort in simply copying the "Airstream approved" bike rack design. It wouldn't surprise me to see them pulling that rack off the market in a couple of years due to some unforeseen issue with the design.

"Bullet proof engineering" was one reason why we opted to carry our bikes in the truck bed.

I've been intrigued since this thread started about this very thing, with the Fiamma. I've been looking at it more closely, and it does not appear to have as much vertical support to "unify" the shell and frame as I thought. The upper brackets look like they swivel- which is counter intuitive to what I thought was going on...

Maybe it's "Airstream Approved" because of the weight? i.e. 21 lb rack, with 77 lb max limit. The highlighted claim is that it is less than 100 lbs. I'm not getting the magic that i thought I understood.

Makes me think I should just work on my shell-to-frame reinforcement and go with hitch mount

[Wingeezer]

Originally Posted by AnnArborBob

We briefly considered a front mounted hitch rack for our bikes but decided that the exposure to the elements (e.g., rain, road grime & bugs) would not be good for the bikes so we opted for the enclosed storage in the truck bed. If you are just hauling some casual "beach cruisers" the front mount could work.

Good point, Ours are indeed "beaters!" A couple of cheapie mountain bikes that we bought almost 20 years ago. It would be nice to have fancy high tech road bikes, but in our case we really only use them on RV trips and even then not a whole lot.

I suppose one advantage of old bikes like ours is that it is unlikely people would choose to steal them - but if they did, I would likely just go to a local pawn shop wherever we happened to be and pick up a couple more for next to nothing!

Brian.

[AnnArborBob]

Originally Posted by Mixter

Makes me think I should just work on my shell-to-frame reinforcement and go with hitch mount

I'd be real careful with a frame mounted hitch for your bike rack. You may be able to reinforce the attachment point to the frame so that connection is "bullet proof" but you are still attaching to an Airstream frame that flexes as you bounce down the road. The problem with frame mounted hitches for bike racks (or any other cargo such as generators, etc...) is not that the hitch itself separates from the frame but rather than the added weight at the very end of the frame causes the frame's flexing to increase beyond Airstream's design parameters the result being that the body of the Airstream separates from the frame. 100 lbs of weight may not seem like much on a 5-6,000 lbs trailer, but try holding a 5 or 10 lbs weight at arms length in front of you for any length of time and you'll get the picture.

[millertimeUS]

Question, just curious, a 34' trailer has much more frame behind the rear axles than say, a 28'. Any load in the rear of these trailers would push down on the floor, thus the frame. The C channel being on top frame with bolts going through it, the floor, and into the outriggers.

How is a rear receiver with attachments any different on a 28' airstream than all the weight that would theoretically be well aft of this point in space if it was a 34'? Obviously the 34 would have more steel, but a longer moment arm.

I would think, the shorter the trailer the shorter the moment arm, and thus the less likely there would be any complications.

In my case I have a new frame made with 1/4 " tube steel main rails, i will have a receiver put on mine one day but that's a different animal altogether.






Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

76 'Airstream Tradewind

[dkottum]

Originally Posted by Mixter

I've been intrigued since this thread started about this very thing, with the Fiamma. I've been looking at it more closely, and it does not appear to have as much vertical support to "unify" the shell and frame as I thought. The upper brackets look like they swivel- which is counter intuitive to what I thought was going on...

Maybe it's "Airstream Approved" because of the weight? i.e. 21 lb rack, with 77 lb max limit. The highlighted claim is that it is less than 100 lbs. I'm not getting the magic that i thought I understood.

Makes me think I should just work on my shell-to-frame reinforcement and go with hitch mount

The Airstream bike rack holds the bikes cantilevered behind the bumper/frame attachment, so the force imposed by a dip in the road is felt as a rotational force, trying to roll the assembly away from the Airstream shell. The two upper supports attached to the shell do not resist vertical load, they resist rotational force away from the trailer.

Sound engineering I think, but then I have been just a poor working stiff with an inclination towards the arts, not an engineer.

[AnnArborBob]

Originally Posted by millertimeUS

Question, just curious, a 34' trailer has much more frame behind the rear axles than say, a 28'. Any load in the rear of these trailers would push down on the floor, thus the frame. The C channel being on top frame with bolts going through it, the floor, and into the outriggers.

How is a rear receiver with attachments any different on a 28' airstream than all the weight that would theoretically be well aft of this point in space if it was a 34'? Obviously the 34 would have more steel, but a longer moment arm.

I would think, the shorter the trailer the shorter the moment arm, and thus the less likely there would be any complications.

In my case I have a new frame made with 1/4 " tube steel main rails, i will have a receiver put on mine one day but that's a different animal altogether.

Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

76 'Airstream Tradewind

Having helped to disassemble a vintage Airstream and having had numerous conversations with Colin Hyde on the subject, I am familiar with how these trailers are put together and understand how the frame and body can get separated over time. Sometimes this results from a rusted frame or rotted floor which detaches from the C channel and, at other times, a perfectly good frame flexes so much that the bolts and rivets that hold the "C channel" to the frame and body fail causing those components separate. All things being equal, increased weight at the extreme rear of the trailer (such as caused by a loaded bike or cargo rack) increases the frame's flex and thus the chance that the C channel will fail.

You might be tempted to think that a trailer with a longer rear overhang would be subject to more flex and thus more separation than would a short trailer. However, the frames on longer trailers are stiffer than on short trailers. The stock frames on Airstreams of all lengths can and do flex. The amount of flex in any given frame is related to the length of the pivot, the weight applied and the strength of the steel used in construction. For this reason, it's too simplistic to think that rear end separation is not a problem that can happen with shorter trailers.

If you have significantly stiffened your frame during a frame-off restoration, it is entirely possible that you can carry the added weight of a loaded bike rack on the rear of your trailer and not suffer any ill effects. Best of luck!

[reelfastgreg]

Originally Posted by Mixter

I've been intrigued since this thread started about this very thing, with the Fiamma. I've been looking at it more closely, and it does not appear to have as much vertical support to "unify" the shell and frame as I thought. The upper brackets look like they swivel- which is counter intuitive to what I thought was going on...

Maybe it's "Airstream Approved" because of the weight? i.e. 21 lb rack, with 77 lb max limit. The highlighted claim is that it is less than 100 lbs. I'm not getting the magic that i thought I understood.

Makes me think I should just work on my shell-to-frame reinforcement and go with hitch mount

i have to say that after seeing the Fiamma at the dealership in full mock-up with the rear sheet metal, you are correct, it is bolted to the frame rails in pretty much the exact same position as what i fabricated. the two 'arms' that contact the rear of the trailer are pressure mounts, they are not through bolted to anything, maybe springs inside to keep them in contact, i don't know. if you check out the photos, you will see what i mean. i think these 'arms' are meant to eliminate fore-aft rocking but if that is true, your exterior sheet metal is going to take a beating.

when you bolt the Yakima rack i have into the receiver, there is no fore-aft motion. the bikes sit on arms with rubber hold downs and then are further secured to the rack with 'C' hooks through the wheels and back to the rack. i have used this rack over and over again and i can tell you the bikes simply don't move around.

true enough, my system moves the bikes back, probably 14-16" but composite bikes don't weight much and it gives me the option of putting the carrier on the truck and going someplace interesting to ride.

i will, however, be watching the rear frame rails closely.

[dkottum]

"i think these 'arms' are meant to eliminate fore-aft rocking but if that is true, your exterior sheet metal is going to take a beating."

The arms are attached through the shell into the aluminum frame supporting the shell. No beating at all in thousands of towing miles throughout the country since installing our rack.

You might consider adding them to your setup to resist the rotational forces caused by your bikes being mounted well behind the frame and bumper.

[reelfastgreg]

Originally Posted by dkottum

"i think these 'arms' are meant to eliminate fore-aft rocking but if that is true, your exterior sheet metal is going to take a beating."

The arms are attached through the shell into the aluminum frame supporting the shell. No beating at all in thousands of towing miles throughout the country since installing our rack.

You might consider adding them to your setup to resist the rotational forces caused by your bikes being mounted well behind the frame and bumper.

thanks for clarifying that for me.

[hahnstead]

I might add that if you have more than one Airstream, having the bikes on the front of your TV means you don't need a bike rack on each of your Airstreams.

[JamuJoe]

Nice job by the OP on a receiver mount. So much misunderstanding and misinformation on this topic, without clarity from Airstream. Monocoque vs semi-monocoque is a significant difference. Old chassis design vs newer models. No mystique to the overpriced Fiamma rack - it is clearly supported by the C beams and stabilized by attachment (with sheet metal screws) to the body. Airstream is simply negligent in not providing a receiver mount with clearly stated load capacity.

This Engineer took a different approach, extending the C beams by 12" with a "swim platform" on which I can carry a bike or other light cargo. Moving the bumper back 12" added crash protection to the rear end. 100 lbs on the tail decreased the tongue weight on my 2011 FC23FB from 14% to 13%. No noticeable change in towing characteristics in over 10,000 miles and all sorts of roads. . No, the grandkids don't ride back there😉




Sent from my iPad using Airstream Forums

[B_Pi]

I like the idea of the rack and thought one in rear would be nice too. Hadn't heard about frame separations either.

We have carried two mountain bikes with us since we left 7,500 miles ago. We carry them in the trailer and it is a matter of 2 minutes to load and unload them at each end of a stay.
At this point, I have no intention of an outside rack because the bikes stay dry, safe and theft proof inside. What's not to like?

[dkottum]

Imagine a 10 long foot board extending out from the back of the Airstream and attached firmly to the frame. Jump on the end of that board and the board will try to twist (rotate) the frame down away from the shell.

Add support bars from the end of that board to high on the shell. Now when you jump on the end of the board the twist (rotation) trying to separate the frame away from the shell is minimized, maybe eliminated. This is because the shell now supports the end of the board.

As I understand it, that is the logic of the upper support bars on the Airstream bike rack. No mystery to it.

[Ronman]

This is not helping! ;-) While I do not like the Fiamma application due to the intrusion of the skin and the potential life expectancy of the plastic / rubber pieces, I tend to shy away from this application. Also, if you want to remove the apparatus, it does not look like it would be feasible.
I do like the theory of GPT's application but I heed the warnings of the several experienced Airstreamer's on this thread. So...I will wait for an alternate solution!
Thank you all for your information.
Ron

[SteveH]

Our "alternate solution" was simple, folding bikes in the back of the truck. DAHON Bikes:Â*Espresso D24

[Lily&Me]

Another vote for folding bikes.


Maggie

[airdreamers]

I opted for the front receiver from e trailer. Easy install. Practically invisible. Have yet to use it with the bike rack. I do not have the option of carrying inside the Suburban because of all the "stuff". As a potter my wife likes to take her potter's wheel, a hundred pounds of clay, a slab roller. Our WBCCI Unit members like to play in the mud! Our rallies are a blast!

[AnnArborBob]

Originally Posted by dkottum

Imagine a 10 long foot board extending out from the back of the Airstream and attached firmly to the frame. Jump on the end of that board and the board will try to twist (rotate) the frame down away from the shell.

Add support bars from the end of that board to high on the shell. Now when you jump on the end of the board the twist (rotation) trying to separate the frame away from the shell is minimized, maybe eliminated. This is because the shell now supports the end of the board.

As I understand it, that is the logic of the upper support bars on the Airstream bike rack. No mystery to it.

This explanation of how the Fiamma rack works makes perfect sense. Basically, it maintains the integrity of the body/frame connection by placing the same amount of stress on the body AND frame simultaneously.

[Wingeezer]

Originally Posted by airdreamers

I opted for the front receiver from e trailer. Easy install. Practically invisible. Have yet to use it with the bike rack. I do not have the option of carrying inside the Suburban because of all the "stuff". As a potter my wife likes to take her potter's wheel, a hundred pounds of clay, a slab roller. Our WBCCI Unit members like to play in the mud! Our rallies are a blast!

Presume this is for the front of your tow vehicle?

You mention that you have yet to use it - just a suggestion if you have not already tried this. I would fit the bike rack and bikes just to see if the bikes sit at a good height so as not to interfere with vision. Better to do this in advance rather than on the day you want to leave on a trip!

I used a front mounted receiver/bikerack on our GMC Sierra 1500, and all was well, but when we switched to a Sierra 2500HD, the design of the hitch receiver was much higher at the front of the truck and the bikes were way too high.

I cut down and re-welding the bike rack to suit.

Brian.