Wide Stance Axles Vs. Conventional

Have to be over a 10' spread to get 20,000# per axle.

I think it is a flash in the pan, wee will see. When you mount them individually you no longer have the load sharing like in tandem. So how does that work if you go over a big woop de doo?

FYI, If I can foggily remember when scaling out the semi the limit on the tandem axle is 34000. so you have to adjust the axles or vary the load to comply with that. So if you mount two axles independently on the semi each one is good to go for 20000, so you have more flexibility for making it across DOT scales.

True the trailer does not tow better. I was taken by the ' secure stance ' gimmick and am now trying everything to get it to sop wandering.....UGH! Gonna get the 2nd friction bar put on this week. Have to say with out any big rigs around it tows ok.

Phil ( in Tenn on vacation ) Montana

Rollover ratings 2011 – newer

click


Rollover ratings, 1990 – 2010

click

wa8yxm wrote:

Artemus Gordon wrote:

I read this twice ( time I can't get back ) I have one question? What?:h. You got Fords rolling all over around you?

Several years ago (About 1990-1995, not sure just exactly what year) Ford Explorers were nicknamed "roll-a-matics" there were several reasons for this,, Ford Blamed Firestone for defective tires.. I disagree.. Here is my theory.

Ford, built the ting on a chassis that was too small for the body. Ford likes to do this it seems.. This makes it easier to flip.. And since they knew that folks wanted to use these SUV's to replace the Grocery Getter" wagon, they wanted a softer ride so they reduced tire pressure 5 PSI from what Firestone recommended for that tire and load.. There are thousands (I think) of threads around here on the importance of proper inflation,

At the last oil change the technician missed a step (Check tire pressure) and the owner.. Well new tires don't leak.... Much.

So he's not 5 psi low, he is 5PSI period.

now he hits the famous {Voice of doom mode} POT HOLE {/Voice of doom mode} and of course when he hits the far edge the rim slices the sidewall like a knife through hot butter.

now, Mr Yuppie is not an Operator, he is a Point and shot driver, so what does he do,, Stand on the brakes with both feet.. What is the #1 worst thing to do when that happens,,, Stand on the brakes with both feet.. Whats #2.. Roll over and DIE.

And thats how they became Roll-a-matics.

Ford has since fixed that model.

I just so happened to be an insurance adjuster in those years,and I will tell you you are wrong,I wrote just as many S-10 Blazers,Sonomas and Cherokees as any Exsplorers,it was caused by people driving a light SUV like it was a sports car,way too fast,and not paying attention to what they were doing!I had tons of rollovers in those years and there wasn't one any worse than another.

Not all fords. but There have been a few studies, when it comes to rollover Ford does not do as well as GM..

For example there was a study on "Airport Limousine" type vehicles. These are generally about 15 passenger buses. ONLY GM passed the rollover test.

However as I said above, this was some time (20 years give or take) ago and Ford may have re-designed since.

wa8yxm wrote:
Why are Fords easier to roll over than GM's... Cause WIDE TRACK is a road in Pontiac of course (it really is)

GM (Specifically Pontiac division but since GM often makes the same car in several lines) is just an inch or two wider in the axle than Ford, gives a much more stable ride.

Now, that said, YOU can roll a GM product, same as a Ford, And that is not the only reason that the car I sometimes calla "Roll-o-matic" was made by Ford (There is more to it but that's part of it).

Science project

Take a common Styrofoam cup. Tapered so the top is larger than the bottom and try to push it over on it's side (NOTE: EMPTY cup please no need to make a mess.)

Now turn it over so it is top down and do it again, See how much more effort you needed.. That is what a wider wheelbase does for you too.

Fords are easier to roll over than GMs..GIVE US A BREAK! That's about the dumbest thing I've seen on here in awhile. Where's your scientific proof?? I guess that would explain why Ford sold so many Crown Victoria Police cars. The cops liked the fact that they rolled over so easily...

B.O.'

Artemus Gordon wrote:

I read this twice ( time I can't get back ) I have one question? What?:h. You got Fords rolling all over around you?

Several years ago (About 1990-1995, not sure just exactly what year) Ford Explorers were nicknamed "roll-a-matics" there were several reasons for this,, Ford Blamed Firestone for defective tires.. I disagree.. Here is my theory.

Ford, built the ting on a chassis that was too small for the body. Ford likes to do this it seems.. This makes it easier to flip.. And since they knew that folks wanted to use these SUV's to replace the Grocery Getter" wagon, they wanted a softer ride so they reduced tire pressure 5 PSI from what Firestone recommended for that tire and load.. There are thousands (I think) of threads around here on the importance of proper inflation,

At the last oil change the technician missed a step (Check tire pressure) and the owner.. Well new tires don't leak.... Much.

So he's not 5 psi low, he is 5PSI period.

now he hits the famous {Voice of doom mode} POT HOLE {/Voice of doom mode} and of course when he hits the far edge the rim slices the sidewall like a knife through hot butter.

now, Mr Yuppie is not an Operator, he is a Point and shot driver, so what does he do,, Stand on the brakes with both feet.. What is the #1 worst thing to do when that happens,,, Stand on the brakes with both feet.. Whats #2.. Roll over and DIE.

And thats how they became Roll-a-matics.

Ford has since fixed that model.

JaxDad wrote:

Rvpapa wrote:

Without digging out the relevant sections to quote chapter & verse, I'm quite sure that's false.

All vehicles (TT, m/h, car or whatever) must comply to the FMVSS. The minimums for yield strength of frames is based on weight, not axle position or spread.

is this a part of the FMVSS 49 CFR Part 571… I surely haven’t read all of it but don’t remember seeing that…

I would think this can be accomplished in different ways, like spreading the weight out over a larger area… it would be on the mfg. to determine how to achieve compliance of that, not FMVSS…
I could see a lot of rules like that on things like joint and pillar strength for school buses and crush proofing roofs but not RV trailers…

JaxDad wrote:

Rvpapa wrote:
And the builder can get away with a lighter frame rail when the suspension is farther apart.
Art.

Without digging out the relevant sections to quote chapter & verse, I'm quite sure that's false.

All vehicles (TT, m/h, car or whatever) must comply to the FMVSS. The minimums for yield strength of frames is based on weight, not axle position or spread.

I'll wait to believe it when you can show the relevant sections and quote chapter & verse.