What caused front panel creases?

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by Woolecox

This has been discussed at length on other threads. Airstream admits the problem and is claiming that the 2022's will have a more ridged frame.

Here is a link to the post where I discuss the problem with the factory. You can see their response for yourself if you read down for a few post. See post 107 for the factory reply. I have saved the email in case legal action is needed.

https://www.airforums.com/forums/f44...ml#post2544157

I've done all the reading I need to, thank you very much.

I've never said that it wasn't poor design that has been causing damage.
Only that it's nothing new it's been around long before the front storage compartment was introduced.

Bob
🇺🇸

[Woolecox]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

I've done all the reading I need to, thank you very much.

I've never said that it wasn't poor design that has been causing damage.
Only that it's nothing new it's been around long before the front storage compartment was introduced.

Bob
🇺🇸

You are welcome. I am sure you are well read. The point was; did you happen to see the recent post where the factory acknowledged the problem and has supposedly reworked the frames from 2022 going forward?

This could be very important for those with problems.

[Life is a Highway]

Our trailer had no dimples and they soon appeared about 8k after towing. At that time a Ford 150 with 10k equalizer bars. I recently left the factory and a 18 trailer being towed with a gen x shock hitch. I introduced myself as I was curious about the hitch. The owners said we have this to stop shell separating issues and I then showed them the creases on either side of the locker door. They reported it and said the Factory has the repair down to one day now

My point is even with a hitch that allows the trailer to move free of the truck the problem still exists.

My dealership in Florida is now learning how to repair as per factory

[TexasVine]

Update:

3 months and my trailer is still not repaired at the dealer. They finally have the parts but now tell me they don't know ho to do the repair and Airstream is being difficult in assisting the dealer on the warranty repair. This has been an awful experience. so far.

[Octane1]

Our appt at JC is next week for the wrinkles, etc. Anyone know how long they keep the trailer for repair? Thanks - M

[nitzo]

Originally Posted by Life is a Highway

My dealership in Florida is now learning how to repair as per factory

We must be using the same dealership, I was told the same thing. They looked it over, talked to the factory, and are now waiting on parts. I needed to use my camper these last couple months of the year and am in agreement with them that we will get it in for repair right after the first of the year. The dealer has been really good to work with about this, so I have total confidence that they will fix it right.

[TexasVine]

Originally Posted by nitzo

We must be using the same dealership, I was told the same thing. They looked it over, talked to the factory, and are now waiting on parts. I needed to use my camper these last couple months of the year and am in agreement with them that we will get it in for repair right after the first of the year. The dealer has been really good to work with about this, so I have total confidence that they will fix it right.

Which dealer are you using?

Thanks,

M

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by Life is a Highway

Hope these helps to show how the shell is bolted on. This is not a front locker. It is a Demo in the Tampa Airstream Dealer. You can now see the shell off.



Attachment 407215

Attachment 407216

Attachment 407217

Attachment 407218

These are some great pics. My only question that still remains is the area where the body meets the "A" frame behind the battery box. Is that a steel frame member or an outrigger type cross member?

If it is a robust steel frame under the shell in that area, then the Airstream fix should work, but if it's an outrigger type cross, seem like a short term fix to a long term problem.

I have to assume that the A frame where the shell meets is in fact a steel frame cross member.

Can anyone verify this? I can't really tell by the pics.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by panamerican

These are some great pics. My only question that still remains is the area where the body meets the "A" frame behind the battery box. Is that a steel frame member or an outrigger type cross member?

If it is a robust steel frame under the shell in that area, then the Airstream fix should work, but if it's an outrigger type cross, seem like a short term fix to a long term problem.

I have to assume that the A frame where the shell meets is in fact a steel frame cross member.

Can anyone verify this? I can't really tell by the pics.

There is a steel member between the A frame members only. It does not extend to the frame rail tips. BUT, these pics clarify that there is a boxed piece welded from the A frame to the rail about a foot back from the front wall. This is better than I feared, but still allows a lot of A frame flex and upward pressure on the front wall.

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

There is a steel member between the A frame members only. It does not extend to the frame rail tips. BUT, these pics clarify that there is a boxed piece welded from the A frame to the rail about a foot back from the front wall. This is better than I feared, but still allows a lot of A frame flex and upward pressure on the front wall.

I must be blind bc I just can't see anything from the channel above what ever is below it where the shell meets the frame and looked again at those 3-4 posted pics of the cutaway located at a dealership.

I'm happy to take your word for it. It seems puzzling to me that they would place a boxed cross beam a foot back. This would seem to indicate to me that the fix as I understand it and read here on the forum is basically using the floor to support the "L" brackets they are installing to reinforce this area?

I would have thought there would have been a boxed steel cross much closer to the marriage of the frame and shell in that area and that any "L" brackets that were added, would have been attached to said boxed cross.

If I read your post correctly, it would seem to me that the floor is not going to hold these kinds of stresses. Better than nothing? Sure, and I am sure some engineers on here could reassure us all that the updated design would be a permanent one with the boxed cross a foot from the location where the shell meets the frame.

The only other way I could see this holding is if a steel plate was added under that was tied to that cross a foot away, but I am no engineer.

I'm attaching a pic that I *think* you might be referring to. Is this the cross you are talking about. That seems a bit more than a foot away. I was hoping to see it right under where the shell meets or much, much closer.

Maybe they are drilling the "L" brackets on either side of the access door which might sink into either end of the "A" frame itself? As is, even considering the fix attaches directly to either side of the A frame, there might still be a lot of flex from the WD bars transferred to the area for that circled box beam to do a lot of good. I could be wrong.

[AirstreamInc]

Hi TexasVine,

We're very sorry to learn about the issue you are having. Please send us a direct message with your contact information, email and the last 6 digits of your VIN so we can share it with our Customer Service and Technical Support team. We look forward to helping you get this resolved.

You can also reach Airstream Customer Service and Technical Support at customersupport@airstream.com

Thank you.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by panamerican

I must be blind bc I just can't see anything from the channel above what ever is below it where the shell meets the frame and looked again at those 3-4 posted pics of the cutaway located at a dealership.

I'm happy to take your word for it. It seems puzzling to me that they would place a boxed cross beam a foot back. This would seem to indicate to me that the fix as I understand it and read here on the forum is basically using the floor to support the "L" brackets they are installing to reinforce this area?

I would have thought there would have been a boxed steel cross much closer to the marriage of the frame and shell in that area and that any "L" brackets that were added, would have been attached to said boxed cross.

If I read your post correctly, it would seem to me that the floor is not going to hold these kinds of stresses. Better than nothing? Sure, and I am sure some engineers on here could reassure us all that the updated design would be a permanent one with the boxed cross a foot from the location where the shell meets the frame.

The only other way I could see this holding is if a steel plate was added under that was tied to that cross a foot away, but I am no engineer.

I'm attaching a pic that I *think* you might be referring to. Is this the cross you are talking about. That seems a bit more than a foot away. I was hoping to see it right under where the shell meets or much, much closer.

Maybe they are drilling the "L" brackets on either side of the access door which might sink into either end of the "A" frame itself? As is, even considering the fix attaches directly to either side of the A frame, there might still be a lot of flex from the WD bars transferred to the area for that circled box beam to do a lot of good. I could be wrong.

I am talking about the short piece between the A frame and the longitudinal frame rail at about the 8 o'clock position on your yellow circle.

[dznf0g]

Perhaps this will clarify?

Frame_line_drawing.pdf

[panamerican]

Ah, I see.

So when they put in the bracket fix, are they being screwed/attached to the "A"frame itself? I mean I can't see how it's not because if it isn't, there isn't much in the area to provide anything more than a nice gesture...however...

Even with the fix, I guess what I am having a hard time getting my head around is if the "A" frame is flexing as we believe it to be, have they just kicked the can down the road? I say that not to be cute, but they way I see it- if the "A" frame was already flexing (based on the drawings and pictures, which would match some rigs still out there- unless a change was made at the frame manufacturer), they now have a reinforcement attached to an already flexing box frame, will they have solved it by the access door and pushed it further out? It would seem to me that what they are doing is better than how it was, but maybe I'm too old school, I would think that a boxed cross should be between the "A" frame proper, and within a few inches of the location where the shell meets the frame...or have I just over engineered this with my cracker jack engineering degree.

Guess time will tell.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by panamerican

Ah, I see.

So when they put in the bracket fix, are they being screwed/attached to the "A"frame itself? I mean I can't see how it's not because if it isn't, there isn't much in the area to provide anything more than a nice gesture...however...

Even with the fix, I guess what I am having a hard time getting my head around is if the "A" frame is flexing as we believe it to be, have they just kicked the can down the road? I say that not to be cute, but they way I see it- if the "A" frame was already flexing (based on the drawings and pictures, which would match some rigs still out there- unless a change was made at the frame manufacturer), they now have a reinforcement attached to an already flexing box frame, will they have solved it by the access door and pushed it further out? It would seem to me that what they are doing is better than how it was, but maybe I'm too old school, I would think that a boxed cross should be between the "A" frame proper, and within a few inches of the location where the shell meets the frame...or have I just over engineered this with my cracker jack engineering degree.

Guess time will tell.

It appears to me that their bracket fix is just reinforcing the c-channel-to-vertical rib joint. I believe it to be a "kick the can down the road fix". I believe the only fix is twofold: 1) a front hold down plate....like the old days. 2) a curved frame member, right at the front wall line, out to the frame rails....again....like the old days. I don't think this would eliminate ALL the flex (and you want some), but I do think it would greatly reduce the upward vertical force on the front wall. As to how much flex do we have? I have data on that.

A frame flex.xlsx

[GOUSC]

See the following thread and my post #145 for pictures of a 3rd party repair when the Airstream fix failed after 2 1/2 years. There are a number of pictures to show the repair process.


https://www.airforums.com/forums/f44...-227874-8.html

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by GOUSC

See the following thread and my post #145 for pictures of a 3rd party repair when the Airstream fix failed after 2 1/2 years. There are a number of pictures to show the repair process.


https://www.airforums.com/forums/f44...-227874-8.html

That is the proper fix. I would add that there needs to be an additional frame member added to really shore things up....just like in your other thread pic of the old frame from yesteryear.

[GOUSC]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

That is the proper fix. I would add that there needs to be an additional frame member added to really shore things up....just like in your other thread pic of the old frame from yesteryear.

I hope so. If I understand the repair that was done, the large steel plate that was added was also welded to the frame crossmember, if this is the shoring up you mentioned. That makes is similar to what was done in the past. The main reason it is taller is to tie into the original ribs that could not originally extend thru the front compartment opening.

[panamerican]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

It appears to me that their bracket fix is just reinforcing the c-channel-to-vertical rib joint. I believe it to be a "kick the can down the road fix". I believe the only fix is twofold: 1) a front hold down plate....like the old days. 2) a curved frame member, right at the front wall line, out to the frame rails....again....like the old days. I don't think this would eliminate ALL the flex (and you want some), but I do think it would greatly reduce the upward vertical force on the front wall. As to how much flex do we have? I have data on that.

Attachment 408687

So if I am reading this right there is a bit more than 1/2" of flex, but less than 3/4"? That sounds like a lot, understanding there is some flex expected, but is that a lot?

Reading the posts following yours, it sounds to me that my Cracker Jack Box engineering degree wasn't all that far off and that the current fix may not solve the issue. How very sad. I wonder if they silently told the frame builder to make changes...guess there too, time will tell, but agree, what I've seen here, seems more like a band aid than an actual root cause repair.

Just took a look at the linked thread. Was amazed at how the vintage has this massive plate up front....of course, those trailers maybe next to never had front end separation, but they sure did have a lot of rear end separation in those days.

This is the most telling post of all though in that 9 page thread:

Originally Posted by Merlintiaga

It seems to me that the solution that has been employed by AS to fix this issue has been to stiffen the shell and frame interface, not increasing the stiffness of the frame itself. I teach strength of materials and mechanical design at the college level. The frame appears to be deflecting too much and thereby transferring too much load into the shell. Stiffening the shell at the interface doesn’t help. This is a common undergraduate error. Forces are not “absorbed”. The deflection needs to be reduced by stiffening the frame so that the load on the shell is reduced. Beefing up the interface does not reduce the transferred load (because forces are not absorbed).

The question now is not if the fixes in the wild are sufficient, but if the new and improved solution on the line is better moving forward......anyone, anyone...Bueller, Bueller??

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by panamerican

So if I am reading this right there is a bit more than 1/2" of flex, but less than 3/4"? That sounds like a lot, understanding there is some flex expected, but is that a lot?

Reading the posts following yours, it sounds to me that my Cracker Jack Box engineering degree wasn't all that far off and that the current fix may not solve the issue. How very sad. I wonder if they silently told the frame builder to make changes...guess there too, time will tell, but agree, what I've seen here, seems more like a band aid than an actual root cause repair.

Just took a look at the linked thread. Was amazed at how the vintage has this massive plate up front....of course, those trailers maybe next to never had front end separation, but they sure did have a lot of rear end separation in those days.

This is the most telling post of all though in that 9 page thread:



The question now is not if the fixes in the wild are sufficient, but if the new and improved solution on the line is better moving forward......anyone, anyone...Bueller, Bueller??

To be clear, I don't know how much vertical flex there is...say...at the coupler. My measurements are from the top of the propane lid lip to the front wall (demonstrating tilt of the propane deck as flex moves coupler upward)



The "lid" measurements are to demonstrate front wall bulge with increasing WD. The lid was propped up to the level of the most pronounced bulge point.



Imagine what it does while bouncing down the road.