Red Trailer

[shortgmanp]

I was wondering if anyone has a preference in two trailer and tounge designs. The trailer from Red trailer has a better looking tounge than the northern tool trailer, but it is a folding trailer. The red trailer has a center tounge with diagnal supports. But the northern tool trailer is not a folding trailer. Does anyone have any preference between the two. Both are 5 x 8 trailers. I can not figure out how to post pics of the two, but I figured someone might have some knowledge of the difference in these trailers. Thanks Greg P

[clarkbre]

I think for our light duty purposes with teardrops it is really a matter of personal preference. However, owning two 4'x8' trailers identical to the Redtrailers I like that tongue design much better. Here's why:

On the NT trailer, the coupler is held by 2 diagonal members. Each member is held in place by one bolt through the front crossmember and one bolt through the siderail. Four bolts is not much to take the entire tongue weight of the trailer plus any pulling forces it might see.

The Redtrailers tongue design is much more traditional and seems more structually sound to me. The tongue is centered and crosses the front and 2nd crossmember of the trailer. On either side of the tongue, there are two heavy duty 2" angled steel pieces that center the tongue and also cross over and attach to both the front and second crossmembers. To help keep things more centered and to carry the load, there are the 2 diagonal pieces. Each piece attaches to the tongue via a plate with 2 bolts on each side. The diagonal pieces then also support the front corners of the trailer. These cross under the front crossmember and then bolt in at the union with the side channels and second crossmember.

In all, the Redtrailers tongue seems like a much better design for weight distribution.

Also, as far as the folding aspect of any trailer goes, the builder (you) can make it not folding. I did this on both of my trailers. I ended up bolting the crossmembers together at the middle of the trailer and it made the trailers very stout. Adding a single 4'x8' sheet of plywood as opposed to (2) 4'x4' pieces also helps.

[bobhenry]

I bet both models are a bear to back up. Kit trailers seem to be notorious for having short tongues. I have built 3 1/2 trailers ( yeah I am in the middle of another) and have replaced the centertube of all of them but "Chubby"



Yeah it is 2 handrails for the frame What can I say they were free

For $36.00 a stick of 12 to 13 foot 2x2x1/4 square tube is a good investment. I run clear from the rear crossmember to the coupler and try and leave a 4' + tongue Reuse any diagionals that were originally there for the added strength. The bonus is the rear tube will accept a 1 1/4 draw bar for a ball mount , bike rack , cargo platform, or other accessories. Plus you now have a well behaved trailer that backs up well.

[S. Heisley]

Clarkbre wrote:

I think for our light duty purposes with teardrops it is really a matter of personal preference. However, owning two 4'x8' trailers identical to the Redtrailers I like that tongue design much better. Here's why:

On the NT trailer, the coupler is held by 2 diagonal members. Each member is held in place by one bolt through the front crossmember and one bolt through the siderail. Four bolts is not much to take the entire tongue weight of the trailer plus any pulling forces it might see.

The Redtrailers tongue design is much more traditional and seems more structually sound to me. The tongue is centered and crosses the front and 2nd crossmember of the trailer. On either side of the tongue, there are two heavy duty 2" angled steel pieces that center the tongue and also cross over and attach to both the front and second crossmembers. To help keep things more centered and to carry the load, there are the 2 diagonal pieces. Each piece attaches to the tongue via a plate with 2 bolts on each side. The diagonal pieces then also support the front corners of the trailer. These cross under the front crossmember and then bolt in at the union with the side channels and second crossmember.

In all, the Redtrailers tongue seems like a much better design for weight distribution.

Also, as far as the folding aspect of any trailer goes, the builder (you) can make it not folding. I did this on both of my trailers. I ended up bolting the crossmembers together at the middle of the trailer and it made the trailers very stout. Adding a single 4'x8' sheet of plywood as opposed to (2) 4'x4' pieces also helps.

I agree. Many people feel that Harbor Freight is good enough. I bought a Red Trailer chassis because it was a better design and seemed to be built better. I am pleased with my purchase; however, if I were to build again, I would probably buy something less expensive and lighter weight.

There’s a poll on this forum that you may find interesting and seems to say a lot just by its tallies/percentages:

http://tnttt.com/viewtopic.php?t=31776

[clarkbre]

I am pleased with my purchase; however, if I were to build again, I would probably buy something less expensive and lighter weight.

Less expensive and lighter weight? I bought my trailers (identical to Redtrailers) at Fred Meyer. Both were on sale, one for $199 (4/2008) and the other for $229 (9/2009). I think they both weigh around 200#. For a full framed, light duty, brand new trailer I'd say that's a good deal.

[Thebigdirty]

I used the red trailer 5 x 8 that folded. The chassis has not given me any problems as of yet. It was very easy to assemble also.

However, the tongue that came with the trailer I found to be less than favorable. Prior to adding weight to the tongue of the trailer I was noticing a severe twist in the tongue. This was happening as it sat on the tongue jack in my garage. It was just U channel steel and twisted with hardly any weight on it at all. Well this raised a red flag right away. I replaced the tongue with a longer and more substantial tube steel. It made all the difference in towing and backing it up. I was going to add more length to the tongue regardless because I needed to make room for a tongue box.

If I were to do it all over again I would build my own chassis and get the axle and hubs I wanted to work with. The redtrailer has done the trick though if you do not want to go through the hassle of building your own. I just think some modifications are necessary with that model to make it work.

[S. Heisley]

Clarkbre wrote:

Less expensive and lighter weight? I bought my trailers (identical to Redtrailers) at Fred Meyer. Both were on sale, one for $199 (4/2008) and the other for $229 (9/2009). I think they both weigh around 200#. For a full framed, light duty, brand new trailer I'd say that's a good deal.

Mine is a 5x8' and it was shipped directly from Redtrailer @ 343 lbs. That's not awful but I would've liked it better if it had weighed 50 lbs or so less. Some of the weight may be the shipping package (I hope). It sounds like you got a good deal! ...I won't tell you what I paid.

Back to the trailer decision: If you do purchase a Red Trailer, please be certain to follow their instructions and clean and inspect the bearings before you assemble the unit. (That’s probably a good idea with any made-in-China trailers.) I suspect the Chinese factory doesn't do that before they ship them as I found some pretty nasty metal shards in mine.

...No problems with the tongue yet. It appears to be good and strong.

[shortgmanp]

I must say that I appreciate all of the feed back. I was leaning towards the Red Trailer because of the tounge design, but I am still trying to make up my mind. I have the ability to strengthen the frame if needed be. I just wanted a trailer that would not be a problem getting licensed in my state. So that kind of rules out building one from scratch. I will try and make a decision in the next couple of days. Thanks Greg