To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

20ft Car Trailer Build Planning Ideas

OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
The tongue would be 6" with a 3" stacked under it. So 9" tall. Im figuring a 4' long tougue and starting the 3" about 1 1/2' behind the ball and continuing the 3" channel to about 4-5' behind the tongue to frame seam.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
As for getting the airbags and components there's a place in sturtavent that is a semi junk yard. He goes by semipartsman on eBay and I've bought stuff from him in the past. He doesn't sell junk parts. Only good useable part
 

kerrynzl

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,054
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
Why don't you get rid of the airbag idea and use floating torsions.

If the whole torsion axle outer tube can rotate when lowering it the trailing arms behave similar to droppers.

All you need is a single hydraulic ram and linkages to move [and locate] the outer torsion tubes.
The geometry and maths would be a "piece of piss" to figure out!

http://www.garagejournal.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=362756&d=1407668046

Use thin wall rectangular tubing for the tongue ,main rails ,and cross members.
It is lighter weight for the equivalent beaming strength but has a higher torsional strength.

2 x 1/8" walls on a 4"x2" RHS has the same amount of steel as a 4"x2" x 1/4" C Channel, but is stronger because the top and bottom 2" flanges can't buckle.

Shape is more important than size!!!!
 
Last edited:

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
I'm not sure what you are asking. I'll try to infer what your question is. By stacking that tongue and running the "A" legs of the tongue back you are increasing the streangth of the tailer manny times. I can't think of an instance where you would **** weld the tongue to the frame. That is the most stressed part of a trailer.

The coupler on the trailer you show is actually an adjustable coupler. You can move it up and down to fit your tow vehicle. They are quite nice to use.

You are correct that you have to take into consideration the ride hight. Many things can be done obtain your desired height. Taller/shorter wheels, drop tube axles, taller spring hangers, shorter/longer equalizer links or taller steel. The planning stage is really quite imprortant.

I think we got off topic. Are we still leaning towards the air ride? My experience only involves spring ride trailers. I like them because they are 100% user repairable. Some of the other systems are not easily repaired. I'm not saying they are better or worse, its jsut what I prefer.
Later
Kirk
I understand what he is meaning about the double stacking question and have the same question myself. I am planning to build a similar trailer to what this thread is about. 20' long 10k capacity but I am running into issues that are similar to this thread. I understand that yes stacking the rails increases strength. But what I don't understand is if your concentration is on ride height and weight then why you couldn't go toward a more structural solution rather than using more steel to make up for lacking strength in design?

My idea is this (and I may be wrong): From a fabricator's standpoint C-channel is a great structural item but not the best. I have seen many people try to say that rectangular tubing has the same beam strength asC-channel but weighs more but this isn't true. There it's an increase in beam strength by closing that C into a rectangle due to two vertical side walls now acting as support. I can't give you engineering numbers or anything to tell you how much it is increased or by what percent it's increased I'm sorry that I can't provide that. I can tell you that this aside there is an added bonus to using rectangular tubing. You can use designs with torsional loads. C-channel is weak to torsion loading that's why you will see trailers twisting slightly when going over curbs and such from too shallow of a turn line. Also to sight past for instances on this idea, when you want to take an old truck and make it into an off-road rig one of the first things you do is box the frame making the frame "rectangular tubing". Now that I got the material explanation out of the way on to the design aspect. What if you took the V design of the tongue that runs back to the first axle and is usually the lower of the double stacked frames and sank the deck frame onto it? Here's what I mean. Two solid un-spliced rectangular tubes used for the tongue ran in a V shape directly to the inside edge of the rectangle tubes used for the deck frame and welded there. Now I'm not talking welding it open faced or anything I'm talking cut the end at an angle and "fit" on the inside of the rail and weld it up. Then since now all you have is two parallel beams and a V welded to them you close the front of the frame by cutting the leading edge cross member or leading beam to fill in the gaps and weld it in place. You can't do this with C-channel because the front of the trailer's structure is now reliant on the torsional strength of the front of the deck frame as well as the strength of the tongue beams.

This is my idea and opinion so please feel free to rip it apart lol. I will try to doa tough drawing off this to give a better view of what I mean but until then please let me know what you think.
 

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
One of my main questions has to do with trailer width. On some of the websites I have been looking at it says that laws are in place that a trailer or vehicle cannot exceed 102 inches wide. With trailer tires usually being 9 inches wide add them together that is 18 inches of width that you will lose if your deck is sank to the same height as your tires not to mention a half inch clearance between the deck and the tires themselves add this all up and you will get 19 inches that is taken away from your deck width. This leaves you with only 83 inches of deck width. This being said I am seeing trailers that are rated at 10,000 pounds are 20 foot long and have a deck width of 84 inches and the deck is sank to the same level as the tires so am I looking at this wrong as far as the way the law is stated or is there wiggle room?
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
102" is the maximum legal width. But youd be hard pressed to find dot being able to eye ball the difference between 100" and 104" so if it goes a smidge over 102 I'm not overly concerned
 

Mr.N

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
2,222
Location
Mpls, MN
One of my main questions has to do with trailer width. On some of the websites I have been looking at it says that laws are in place that a trailer or vehicle cannot exceed 102 inches wide. With trailer tires usually being 9 inches wide add them together that is 18 inches of width that you will lose if your deck is sank to the same height as your tires not to mention a half inch clearance between the deck and the tires themselves add this all up and you will get 19 inches that is taken away from your deck width. This leaves you with only 83 inches of deck width. This being said I am seeing trailers that are rated at 10,000 pounds are 20 foot long and have a deck width of 84 inches and the deck is sank to the same level as the tires so am I looking at this wrong as far as the way the law is stated or is there wiggle room?
They make trailer with the deck above the tires, deck over is what they call them around here.
You have to stay under 102 unless you get a permit, so stay under it.
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
They make trailer with the deck above the tires, deck over is what they call them around here.
You have to stay under 102 unless you get a permit, so stay under it.

in the eye of the law yes, but in reality I doubt a cop would ever pull you over "just" to pull out a tape measure.

A deck over is completely out of the question for this application.

The way maxey trailers are looking at the pictures theres a 2x3 tube that runs just inside the tires on top of the deck. My guess is that they notch the channel frame under it for axle clearance and also it give the fenders a little protection. But they do classify their trailers as 83" wide so it should be doable.
 

APEowner

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2009
Messages
4,166
Location
Sunny, New Mexico
I doubt a cop would ever pull you over "just" to pull out a tape measure.

Probably not but if you're traveling around the country there are places where a cop will pull you over just because you're pulling a trailer. The laws on non-commercial trailers vary significantly from state to state and are often so convoluted that those who are enforcing them often don't understand them fully. It's hard enough to comply with the laws you don't know about when trailering without building a trailer that you know doesn't meet a federal regulation.
 

mark18mwm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
57
Location
northern WI.
102" is the maximum legal width. But youd be hard pressed to find dot being able to eye ball the difference between 100" and 104" so if it goes a smidge over 102 I'm not overly concerned


You might want to be careful with the width. Here in Wi. the DOT cops (Motor Carrier inspectors) will pull you over, even if you are not a commercial vehicle. The thing with them is they won't eyeball it, they will definitely measure it. Those guys are trained to notice things like length, width, height, load securement and weight at just a glance and will pull you over to check it out.
I really like your idea and am not trying to rain on your parade, I just thought I would offer friendly advise, I have dealt with these guys for over 30 years.
 

Mr.N

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 13, 2005
Messages
2,222
Location
Mpls, MN
in the eye of the law yes, but in reality I doubt a cop would ever pull you over "just" to pull out a tape measure.

A deck over is completely out of the question for this application.

The way maxey trailers are looking at the pictures theres a 2x3 tube that runs just inside the tires on top of the deck. My guess is that they notch the channel frame under it for axle clearance and also it give the fenders a little protection. But they do classify their trailers as 83" wide so it should be doable.
All it takes is once, and then you've a bad day.

I am also making a trailer with my brother for his off road buggy.

A couple popular options:
1 Make them so you can drive over, extra steel (harder for cars, easier for Jeeps & 4x4's)
2 Make them removable (Might be just enough space without driving over the wheels)
3 Hing them so they fold out
4 Create a ramp out of wood to raise the tire high enough to open the doors.
 

volleyball

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,127
Location
NY, not NYC
A deck over is the opposite of a low deck trailer. Sure it is fine for a rock crawler but not many of those have ground effects front ends.
I wonder how impractical it would be to add air bags to the race car to raise up the front and lessen the need for a low trailer?
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
Probably not but if you're traveling around the country there are places where a cop will pull you over just because you're pulling a trailer. The laws on non-commercial trailers vary significantly from state to state and are often so convoluted that those who are enforcing them often don't understand them fully. It's hard enough to comply with the laws you don't know about when trailering without building a trailer that you know doesn't meet a federal regulation.
Ive had the pleasure of dealing with DOT in a lot of states when I drove OTR and other than Indiana and Cali (which are terrible) most states understand that theres always circumstances to every violation. Burnt out headligths or corroded trailer connector they will normally be willing to work with you as long as your not a jerk to them and be kind.

You might want to be careful with the width. Here in Wi. the DOT cops (Motor Carrier inspectors) will pull you over, even if you are not a commercial vehicle. The thing with them is they won't eyeball it, they will definitely measure it. Those guys are trained to notice things like length, width, height, load securement and weight at just a glance and will pull you over to check it out.
I really like your idea and am not trying to rain on your parade, I just thought I would offer friendly advise, I have dealt with these guys for over 30 years.

WI is one of the most reasonable states ive ever been pulled over in Commercial and NON commercial. Heck both dual axle trailers Ive used for the last 10 years dont even have license plates on them. And Ivenever been even questioned about it when dealing with cops. Yes I know how luck goes, but cops seem to do things more by the INTENT of the violation rather than just because its the law. You can talk your way into warnings instead of tickets by what your intent was. If it was a 10 foot wide trailer thats INTENT to be leagal, vs being 103" it could be as simple as changing wheel offset after the trailer is built and being stuck with what you got.
 

mark18mwm

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2014
Messages
57
Location
northern WI.
Ok, I'm glad you have experience dealing with them (DOT), then you know what I was talking about. I'm sorry if I came off as some guy playing a expert, I just wanted to help give you some info if you may have been unaware. You are right about Wi. being a little more easy going with the DOT than some other states, I never ran Cal. (by choice) but been around a lot over the years and seen some interesting things with the law. To me it seems like if you get pulled over, you can get off with murder if you are curtious and make the cop feel like he is teaching you something with out having to wright a ticket. Personaly, I think 103"/104" may never be noticed but was just trying to say it could be at some point. I hope you took no offense to my preaching, lol. Like I said I think it sounds like a cool project and look forward to your future posts on it. By the way, what kind of racing do you do? I just "hung up my helmet" 2012 and sold everything, I had a dirt modified.
 
Last edited:

koditten

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
5,528
Location
Midland, Michigan
I love this thread! I do find it interesting that not 1 piece of iron has been cut and you got near a 100 comments. I build an entire trailer and I'm lucky to see half that:)

Like I've said, I'm subscribed to the end. Make it happen, Cap'n!

KO
 

kerrynzl

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,054
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
I love this thread! I do find it interesting that not 1 piece of iron has been cut and you got near a 100 comments. I build an entire trailer and I'm lucky to see half that:)

KO


That's because you build basic uncomplicated conventional trailers [This is a compliment ]

One thing I've learned over the years with trailers and customers is "everybody thinks they are an expert"
They come up with these new fangled ideas at "re-inventing the wheel" but in the end it is the conventional designs that outlast and outsell.

Nobody wants to pay for all these Hydraulic ,Air-bagged ,sliding deck, ground loaders. They cost more than a basic enclosed trailer.

You spend more time on the road, than you do loading them.
So money would be better spent on making the trailer tow nice [handling] than on how to save 30-45secs because the buyer doesn't want to slide out the ramps.

The famous Lee Iacocca once said "Don't sell them technology, sell them leather" which rings true.
If the time was spent on style and workmanship, it will be a better investment in the long run.
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!

koditten

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 10, 2008
Messages
5,528
Location
Midland, Michigan
Yep. Wasn't sure what you were asking. Just got my progressive lenses, so I don't read long paragraphs so well. Wasn't sure if you were for or against channel iron.

I like channel for longer trailers. To give it torsional strength I use boxed cross members. It really stiffens up a long trailer. Flex is not a bad thing, so a bt isn't hurting anything.
 

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
Ok I can understand that. What I'm going for is trimming the fat essentially. I wantitstrong but light weight did using rectangle tubing in a structural design. What did you think about the non-double stack idea? Sorry to make you read the long paragraphs.
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
That's because you build basic uncomplicated conventional trailers [This is a compliment ]

One thing I've learned over the years with trailers and customers is "everybody thinks they are an expert"
They come up with these new fangled ideas at "re-inventing the wheel" but in the end it is the conventional designs that outlast and outsell.

Nobody wants to pay for all these Hydraulic ,Air-bagged ,sliding deck, ground loaders. They cost more than a basic enclosed trailer.

You spend more time on the road, than you do loading them.
So money would be better spent on making the trailer tow nice [handling] than on how to save 30-45secs because the buyer doesn't want to slide out the ramps.

The famous Lee Iacocca once said "Don't sell them technology, sell them leather" which rings true.
If the time was spent on style and workmanship, it will be a better investment in the long run.

Its not about the ramps. Its about approach angle. That's the biggest reason I can't use simpler designs. But unless you've EVER pulled an air ride trailer you have no idea how smooth they ride compared to springs.
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
Yep. Wasn't sure what you were asking. Just got my progressive lenses, so I don't read long paragraphs so well. Wasn't sure if you were for or against channel iron.

I like channel for longer trailers. To give it torsional strength I use boxed cross members. It really stiffens up a long trailer. Flex is not a bad thing, so a bt isn't hurting anything.

Hopefully this week I'll be able to order the steel for the frame. I'm still getting hung up with doing the axles because nobody makes 6" drops and I haven't found a supplier that will sell just the spindle and drop arm from a torsion axle. If I build them from scratch to the length and drop I need I'm at about $350-370 a piece
 

kerrynzl

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,054
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
Its not about the ramps. Its about approach angle. That's the biggest reason I can't use simpler designs. But unless you've EVER pulled an air ride trailer you have no idea how smooth they ride compared to springs.

A spring is a spring regardless of whether it is air, torsion, leaf, etc.
The reason air-ride trailers are smoother is because they are not over-sprung like the majority of leaf spring trailers.
Whenever somebody offers advice, they always say "make sure you uprate to 7000lb axles and springs" Blah blah !
If you know your payload [racecar?]weight, go as soft as you can. And keep the weight closer to the suspension on the trailer.
Too much weight on the tongue causes "porpoising" because it lowers the frequency of the tow vehicle suspension [ similar to an adult jumping on a kid's pogo stick ]
I do road-racing so I hate dismantling the car just to load it. The biggest issue is the front overhang.
A simple gravity tilt trailer with a 40-48" dovetail ,and pull out ramps would load a road race car.
The idea is to have the dovetail and ramp at exactly the same approach angle, so a 48" dove with a 48" ramp is exactly the same as a 96" ramp.

Here is a photo with a 36" dove and ramp . you'll notice a metal "height limiter" underneath [that is attached to the ramp, and slides in with it ]
The height limiter acts like a wooden chock, and sets the angle of the tilt.

This particular trailer had a van door gas strut on the tongue, so the owner could tilt it by himself [and it stayed up ]
When the car was loaded ,gravity levelled the deck onto the tongue.

No Hydraulics, airbags , or helpers needed.
 

Attachments

  • DSC04867.jpg
    DSC04867.jpg
    141.5 KB · Views: 251

pwhittle

Well-known member
Joined
May 9, 2011
Messages
252
Location
Woodstock, GA
I built a trailer for my 1600lb Brunton SuperStalker. No suspension between the 3500lb axle and the trailer, tilt bed held up with gas struts from my Roadmaster Wagon hood, electric brakes. 15x7 wheels with the same stud pattern as the Stalker. Tows great and is light enough that we can easily tow the Stalker on the trailer with a Mazda Tribute (rebadged Ford Escape).

Paul

ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408198595.549432.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408198606.717086.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408198616.767991.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408198626.467597.jpg
ImageUploadedByTapatalk1408198635.511792.jpg
 

kerrynzl

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,054
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
6x2 by .120 rect tubing has slightly less strength than 5" channel

what wall thickness?
And are you comparing weight for weight?

In the school of "Cowshed engineering" it is better to add more and more weight/steel until it "looks" strong enough.

With car haulers it is easy because the weight is loaded over 4 patches [ up to 120" apart x 60" wide ]
so a 20' deck can have the loads approx. 60" each side of the centerline [ 3 support points off the suspension ]

Also the tyre footprints are close to the outer edges ,so the x-members can be lightweight.

Dropping a heavy load of timber down the centre of the trailer is a different scenario
 

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
Stiffness comparison:

2x6x.120<thickness - Strong axis section modulus: 2.97 in^3

C5x6.7<weight which channel is measured in - Strong Axis Section modulus: 2.99 in^3

I'm not trying to be a jerk but where did you get those numbers because that makes no sense at all... C5x6.7 channel is only 5" in height which already puts it at a disadvantage then it's width or flange is only 1 3/4" which really isn't of to much consequence but it is smaller dimensionally than the tubing. The web of that channel or thickness of it is .190... So the dimensions are smaller and the thickness is only .070 thicker so how would it be stronger? Let's also remember that strength of any material loaded in the vertical plane is based on the height measurement and strength it carries. Look at it this way the more height of a beam the stronger it is right? But also this is reliant on the thickness or web of that vertical element... So looking at just this the channel has a .190 wall 5" height whereas the rectangular tubing has two vertical elements that are .120" wall each and 6" tall which equates to .240"x6".... This is all not to mention torsional strength into the equation or anything... What am I missing?

If rectangular tubing isn't stronger than channel then why do you box a frame in on an older truckwhen you want to make it stronger? Also why do all newer trucks come with rectangular tubing frame rails when the main focus of pickup truck engineering is strength and light weight?

Elvenhome this may not apply to your class but what type of frame rails does your race car have? If it isn't all round tubing then it's rectangular tubing am I wrong?
 

volleyball

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,127
Location
NY, not NYC
Not all newer trucks have tube framing. And I don't know any medium size that do.
Boxing makes it stiffer. Is that stronger? Maybe, maybe until it snaps.
And you have to look at the rest of the trailer to figure what is best.
 

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
Not all newer trucks have tube framing. And I don't know any medium size that do.
Boxing makes it stiffer. Is that stronger? Maybe, maybe until it snaps.
And you have to look at the rest of the trailer to figure what is best.

Ford F150 vs Toyota Tundra - Frame Strength:

Check this out...

In addition you say until it snaps but if we are still using just mild steel then it won't be brittle and snap but this is also dependant on ability to weld...
 

Dragon1987

Member
Joined
Aug 14, 2014
Messages
12
Location
Houston, TX
All new 2014 half ton trucks except Toyota tundra are boxed frames (rectangle tubes).
That includes:
RAM 1500
GM/Chevy 1500
Ford F-150
Nissan Titan

I have pictures of all of these except the Nissan cause Nissan won't release pictures of their naked frames...
 

kerrynzl

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 8, 2013
Messages
5,054
Location
Tauranga, New Zealand
Stiffness comparison:

2x6x.120<thickness - Strong axis section modulus: 2.97 in^3

C5x6.7<weight which channel is measured in - Strong Axis Section modulus: 2.99 in^3

C5 x 6.7 in not a size I am familiar with [ everywhere else in the world is metric ] so I looked it up here
http://www.pscqatar.com/mediafiles/1304330494_5. Channels Standard.pdf

It weighs 9.971 Kg’s per linear metre

150mm x 50mm x 3mm [ 6” x 2” x 1/8”] weighs 8.96 Kg’s per linear metre so there is 10.13% less mass for the 0.66% less modulus.

But the real importance is with the torsional strength. Any bending loads on the crossmembers are torsional on the main rails.
Any lateral forces on the spring hangers [ leaf spring ] become torsional loads.


A pair of 100 x 50 x 3mm frame rails is easily strong enough for a 6500lb payload [ we’ve actually had 13,000 lbs on a trailer which had the same rails ]

Build your trailer from “Galv” 100 x 50 RHS with 75 x 50 crossmembers and zinc paint the welds. Then glue 5mm aluminium tread-plate on the deck
It’ll be strong, shiny and permanent [and cheap]
 

volleyball

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 29, 2011
Messages
4,127
Location
NY, not NYC
Does ford use the same style frame on their super duty's? No. Why not? Because it is not always better.
Doing a specific test that doesn't mean anything gives you what?
I would not put the same frame under a box trailer as I would an equipment trailer or an expedition trailer.
The right design for the application is what is important.
 
OP
E

Elvenhome21

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
467
Location
Sheboygan WI
I'm not trying to be a jerk but where did you get those numbers because that makes no sense at all... C5x6.7 channel is only 5" in height which already puts it at a disadvantage then it's width or flange is only 1 3/4" which really isn't of to much consequence but it is smaller dimensionally than the tubing. The web of that channel or thickness of it is .190... So the dimensions are smaller and the thickness is only .070 thicker so how would it be stronger? Let's also remember that strength of any material loaded in the vertical plane is based on the height measurement and strength it carries. Look at it this way the more height of a beam the stronger it is right? But also this is reliant on the thickness or web of that vertical element... So looking at just this the channel has a .190 wall 5" height whereas the rectangular tubing has two vertical elements that are .120" wall each and 6" tall which equates to .240"x6".... This is all not to mention torsional strength into the equation or anything... What am I missing?

If rectangular tubing isn't stronger than channel then why do you box a frame in on an older truckwhen you want to make it stronger? Also why do all newer trucks come with rectangular tubing frame rails when the main focus of pickup truck engineering is strength and light weight?

Elvenhome this may not apply to your class but what type of frame rails does your race car have? If it isn't all round tubing then it's rectangular tubing am I wrong?
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/tow-rigs-trailers/1560498-hd-trailer-design-tech-tubing-vs-channel.html
about half way down
 
To avoid these ads, REGISTER NOW!
Top Bottom