Trailers for Tear builds

[vairman]

My TD sits on a frame very similar to that one. So do a lot of other TDs on this forum.

I am sure there are ways to make any frame stronger, but is it needed?

Also, bear in mind that this is not a flatbed trailer that will be hauling loose weight. The TD structure will provide stiffness. The sidewalls and bulkhead on mine added a lot of stiffness to the TD.

BTW, I know Madjack well, but don't know ronaldito from Adam. Maybe we could hear from Andrew or another trusted source.

I also know Greg, and know him to be a good TD builder. I have no doubt that his intent is to build a good product. If it needs improvement, I'm sure he'll make those improvements. But, I think it is a bit presumptuous for someone to come out and call this frame "unsafe" without having some pretty good forum credentials.

CD

Thanks Caseydog, Building a good product is indeed my intent. I appreciate the positive feedback and I am always open for suggestions. The trailer I built for Wes was based on my orginal design, though I did miss the receiver reinforcement. That will be corrected. I will build trailers to anyones specs. unless they appear to be unsafe or not practical.

Thanks again Greg

[madjack]

OK, this is how I see it...there is nothing inherently unsafe about the the trailer frame...for my own personal preference, I would run the tongue back to the first crossmember BUT the way it is done, locks the front corners into place...I also like a "Y" design but the "A" is more than adequate and acceptable...the only tongue I strongly discourage is a single tube tongue...as CD pointed out, these are not utility trailers which may haul a ton or two at a time and are subject to extreme abuse...these frames do not need the same kinda strength to be safe...if you ever get a chance, checkout the frame on a Camp-Inn, the #1 bestest commercial TD on the market(my not so humble opinion)...most of y'all know my experience level but if a second or third or ??? additional opinion is needed, ask Doug, Rich or especially Andrew...as I stated previously, the only thing I see as needed, is an additional crossmember, to catch the back of the rear receiver, to prevent it from twisting under load...and that is my take on this deal!!!!!............
madjack

[mechmagcn]

While I don't think the design is unsafe, I would go with Jack's suggestion to run the A-frame members all to way to the first crossmember. It just doesn't seem like enough of the frame is connected with the corners like that. Just my Opinion.

[angib]

(I'm not putting myself forwards as some sort of judge - just one more guy stating his opinion...)

I can't see any problem with the A-frame on that trailer. I disagree with Madjack's desire to see the A-frame go back to the first cross-member - that serves no structural purpose that I can see. It looks to me like there is 6-8" of overlap between the A-frame and main frame and that's quite enough - though I wouldn't want to see much less.

If I had to find fault, I would be happier if the inside face of the A-frame overlapped the side rail a bit more.

So, looking from underneath, instead of the three green welds between the red A-frame and the blue side/front rails now:



....there would be space for all four green welds:


This would help avoid a joint that is a bit weaker than the parts it is connecting together, but what's there in the photos is likely quite strong enough.

And just incidentally, the Australians forbid the use of welds where the A-frame crosses under the front rail of the frame - they say the welds are stress raisers that cause cracks. I think that may be true of the welds that run across the A-frame tubes, but I would keep the ones that run along the A-frame tubes. In this design, the welds across the A-frame tubes are the ones on top of the tubes that you can't see in these views.

However in case Madjack feels he's under attack, I will support 100% his comment about putting in something to stop the receiver from twisting the rear rail/cross-member - once you put a receiver tube there, folks will think it's strong enough to carry a big load.

Andrew

[madjack]

...under attack...who...me...nawwww...me, I think I stated(plainly) I saw nothing wrong with the setup but stated a personal preference...much as we all do whenever we build sumthin...heck I was just waitin' for verification of adequate strength from our resident engineer(practical or otherwise)...........
madjack