Any thoughts? I already have the trailer parts so basically they will be just used as building material to build a super HF trailer

bobhenry wrote:CHUBBY IS 5'6" X 10'
Found an old junk handrail and the rest is history...........
Bunch more pics in the very back of my album !
Camp4Life wrote:What happens when you extend the frame past the hubs, is that you exert downward force outside the track width, using the tires as a fulcrum. You might think that it's ok because the other side sticks out as well so it balances out. This is all fine when the trailer is sitting level and not moving. But when you apply lateral force on the trailer, ie; taking a turn, or getting hit by a side wind, the trailer tilts to one side, and now you have the weight outside of the track width adding to that imbalance because of the weight that's being exerted outside of the track width. The further out you're extended, the worse it gets. It's the same concept as basic leverage.
Andrew Herrick wrote:Disclaimer: I would not but a 6x10 build on a 4x8 trailer due to overloaded weight, trailer balance and aerodynamic issues, but if you go forward:
- You've probably already planned for this, but you'll need to build your floor subframe out of 2x4's rather than 2x2's. Use pressure-treated wood. Secure with lag bolts, not deck screws. Or it sounds like you might be planning to weld on extra members, which could work too
- Upgrade to ST-rated 12- or 13-inch tires with a Load C rating. Also, if you build wheel wells, you have to allow space to change the tire in the future. You'd be surprised how many people miss this![]()
- Do some math before you build to make sure 10% of your trailer weight will be on the tongue. If you extend the trailer towards the rear, you're almost certainly to off-balance it. If you extend it towards the front, you'll risk crushing your trailer if you jackknife.
- Limit the maximum vertical drop of the teardrop rear. That will improve its aerodynamic stability.
I'm curious, though: Two Super Heavy-Duty HF trailers, what, about $700? You can get a brand new 6x10 utility trailer for $1000. Maybe it's worth the extra $300 in exchange for your saved labor and higher quality parts?
KCStudly wrote:Camp4Life wrote:What happens when you extend the frame past the hubs, is that you exert downward force outside the track width, using the tires as a fulcrum. You might think that it's ok because the other side sticks out as well so it balances out. This is all fine when the trailer is sitting level and not moving. But when you apply lateral force on the trailer, ie; taking a turn, or getting hit by a side wind, the trailer tilts to one side, and now you have the weight outside of the track width adding to that imbalance because of the weight that's being exerted outside of the track width. The further out you're extended, the worse it gets. It's the same concept as basic leverage.
I respectfully disagree with this suspicious analysis and bold sweeping conclusion. If the loads can be estimated with reasonable accuracy, a moment diagram can be solved and that would determine if the trailer will tip or not. Same for the wind statement.
The only two reaction points (if we ignore the hitch for simplicity) are the tires, so that is the only place where "downward force" can be transmitted. In a stable body, statics, loads are directional and lines of force travel along structural axes as tension or compression. In a moment diagram/calculation, symmetrical loads will be offsetting. That's just how it works; the sum of the forces trying to rotate... yada, yada. It's the non-symmetrical loads (wind/centripetal/lateral/traversing uneven ground) and the CG above the ground that matter. (For side hill scenarios we could also get into traction and coefficients of friction, soil analysis, etc.; but let's not.)
The big question is what are the loads and what are the operating conditions. A trailer OEM can't control where the end user ends up putting the load, or what terrain they drive on, so they must design for that factor. That, to me, is a more likely reasoning for why you don't see too many UT's or CT's built much past the outer side wall of the tire. There is also a matter of useful space (ergonomics) and economics of manufacturing.
Look at any semi or deck-over trailer. They all have side walls/decks that or slightly past the outside of the tires.
So I say, if the OP wants to build over the tires, so be it; just analyze the estimated loads, do some math and see if it still makes sense first. If that is beyond their capabilities, then there is always the option of emulating somebody else (many people) who has taken this approach and been successful. If this "doesn't fit in" a particular person's "box", then maybe play it more conservatively rather than less.
aggie79 wrote:Take a look at this design for a semi-standy trailer with a 10' body length, 6'-6" body width, 6' body height built on a near stock 4' x 8' HF trailer: http://tnttt.com/Design_Library/The%20Wanderer%208%20and%2010.htm. It uses the stock HF axle and tires. The floor is 1/2" plywood. The only floor framing is a 1x6 at the front and rear of the floor.
The trailer was designed by Andrew Gibbons. Andrew has designed a plethora of boats, teardrop trailers, tiny travel trailers, motorcycles, etc. Many of his designs have been constructed by TNTTT members. He put together the Excel spreadsheet for axle placement and tongue loading and design.
Return to Trailer and Chassis Secrets
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests