Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

by **SteveH** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 2:30 pm

About stup axles and sway, I have several friends that have small lugage trailers they pull behind street rods and all have stub axles. None have any sway problems at all. If I were to build another teardrop, I would definately use stub axles, but that is just my opinion.

by **madjack** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:06 pm

yes, let me clarify...it will not necessarily sway if it has a straight tube...the bend is in there to help alleviate a possible problem and Nitetimes is right about options
madjack

by **asianflava** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:13 pm

I'm just taking a guess here but: Without the camber, loading would be more important because sway is easier to induce. Am I right in this assumption? You all know about assumptions.

by **madjack** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:19 pm

asianflava wrote:I'm just taking a guess here but: Without the camber, loading would be more important because sway is easier to induce. Am I right in this assumption? You all know about assumptions.

...knowing only too well, all about assumptions, I assume your assumptions are correct...sir

..................

by **SteveH** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 5:55 pm

I would think heavy duty stub axles would be the mutt's nuts for off road use because it improves the clearance under the trailer. The good ones are also ride height adjustable.

by **Sonetpro** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 6:57 pm

SteveH wrote:I would think heavy duty stub axles would be the mutt's nuts for off road use because it improves the clearance under the trailer. The good ones are also ride height adjustable.

Steve I thought about that seriously. But decided against it. From what I've read they don't take heavy abuse that well. And if they bottom out that sure is a lot of stress on one point of the frame.

by **SteveH** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:01 pm

Steve,

Well, you do have to build the frame to accept and be suitable for the stub axles. If I were building a frame for stubs, I'd put two crossmembers where the stubs go and tie them together in the center. That way, the whole assembly would be just as strong as a full length tortion axle, would not have any twist, but be smaller, and lighter. Anyway, just my opinions.

by **Sonetpro** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:15 pm

Steve (Off the topic) I just noticed your a Retired Telecommunications Engineer. Who from? That's what I do. If you don't mind me asking.

by **SteveH** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 7:23 pm

Steve, PM'ed you.

Sonetpro wrote:Steve (Off the topic) I just noticed your a Retired Telecommunications Engineer. Who from? That's what I do. If you don't mind me asking.

by **Sonetpro** » Thu Dec 29, 2005 8:48 pm

Thanks Steve :shake hands:

by **angib** » Fri Dec 30, 2005 8:04 am

madjack wrote:...knowing only too well, all about assumptions, I assume your assumptions are correct...sir

Relevant quotations:

"Assumption is the mother of calamity", unknown.

"Assumptions are the termites of relationships", Henry Winkler (yes, that one).

So far it has been assumed that half-axles have the spindle parallel to the mounting plate. They probably are, but it wouldn't be difficult to build in some camber.....

Andrew

by **schreimaster** » Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:34 am

Well the Holidays have passed and my axle showed up, 2 axles showed up, bit of a shipping snafoo. So here's my frame.

The outer frame and toung is made of 2x2x1/8 tube, cross members are 1x2x1/8 tube. Has a flexride torson axle, 2 rea stagilizers and a rear reciever hitch. It has been primed and then painted with black hammer finish paint. Yesterday I finished the floor and attached the sides.