Different frame design

[48Rob]

Found this picture somewhere on the Internet.
Don't know anything about it, such as is it a good, or bad design, but it is interesting.
Appears to be a 4 x 8 sheet of plywood.

Rob

[RandyG]

Minimalist? Except for the rotten plywood it looks like it worked for a good while, making me think my frame isn't such a crazy idea.

[Lgboro]

I think I would have left that one where I found it! The minimalist frame touted on the forum look much more substantial that the above frame to me. I guess if it was just to haul itself.......

[vincigj]

I had one. Apache Pop-up trailer. 1964 5x7 closed. 14x7 opened. Ragtop. The plywood was 5x7 and the trailer had aluminum front and sides that bent out a bit and came back in. The front and rear angle iron is missing and had stabilizer jacks in each corner.

[WizardOfOdds]

Ahhh yes, my 1964 Apache Buffalo trailer used this design. It was 6 by 8 closed,
opened to 6 by 16. Canvas tent top and rubberized canvas travel top. Except for the
travel top, I loved that trailer ... wish I never let it go. The nice thing about it was it
was completely open (no cabinets, no stove, no nothing). The frame was just as
in the picture above, but it had additional angle irons on the 8 foot sides right at the
edge of the wood floor (with corner leveler feet) and the same side-ways Vee aluminum sides
described above. Empty, it was 850 lbs. The frame held up very well, I kept it until
it's 20-th year with no problems whatever. I think it is a good design alternative that
should be given consideration for light weight designs.

[Nobody]

Yep, that's surely one of the Apache designs, probably from the 1960's. The 'X' members appear to be either aluminum or perhaps galvanized?? My 1964/65 Silver Eagle had regular steel 'X' members. Was a very nice little, lightweight tent camper that you could tow with almost anything. Was sort of a b!tch setting up tho as the top was all canvas & getting the 'tent' frame erected without tearing the canvas could sometimes be problematic. That frame bolted to good treated plywood was very durable without a lot of weight. The suspension leaf springs were loooong, with lots of flex hence the necessity for the stabilizing jacks at each corner. Mine had an aluminum cabinet on articulated legs inside at the front. My brother had one that we used quite a lot. I bought mine off eBay for a ridiculously low price, with no canvas or title. Ended up being too much trouble to get a title & replacement canvas cost more (much more ) than the trailer cost new in the '60's so I ended up selling it last year (made a few bucks on it ) to a guy who was 'into' restoration. He promised to keep me updated on his progress but I haven't heard anything from him .



Chassis

Close-up of one of the stabilizing jacks (one on each corner)

Aluminum cabinet on articulating legs

[48Rob]

Thanks for posting the pictures Harvey!

Rob

[angib]

What I find interesting about that frame is that the tongue is mostly just attached to the front of the body and only slightly to the main X-frame.

And the main X-frame is just carrying the load from the springs out to the sides of the box.

It's got a sort-of semi-monocoque/unibody thang going on.

[milliejohn]

http://www.synthx.com/articles/trailer-strength.html

Great read and a lot of knowledge, x frame, y frame, U frame!

[Nobody]

What I find interesting about that frame is that the tongue is mostly just attached to the front of the body and only slightly to the main X-frame.

And the main X-frame is just carrying the load from the springs out to the sides of the box.

It's got a sort-of semi-monocoque/unibody thang going on.

You're pretty well correct Andrew except, the tongue is really only attached at the main frame (with a 3/8" or perhaps 7/16" bolt that goes through the floor, tongue, & mainframe gusset). At the front 'rail' there are only 2 similar size bolts either side of the tongue, through the floor, the horizontal rail flange, & through a steel 'strap' under the tongue in a sort of clamping arrangement. It appears to me that the single bolt at the main frame probably bears if not the entire 'pull' weight of the trailer, at least a major portion of it... The bolts either side of the tongue at front appear to provide primarily horizontal stability

[angib]

At the front 'rail' there are only 2 similar size bolts either side of the tongue, through the floor, the horizontal rail flange, & through a steel 'strap' under the tongue in a sort of clamping arrangement.

An excellent system, since there is no bolt hole through the tongue that would weaken it and there is no weld that can eventually cause fatigue cracking.

Australian guides on trailers usually prohibit welding on the tongue at this point and the ISO international standard downrates tongue strength by about 20% if it is welded.