Wolf Creek 850 roll over story

[anutami]

Well, Since I opened this can of worms here is the entire story.

First let me say I have been a long time truck camper owner and I am no rookie. I have gone trough several truck campers. I recently had an article published in truckcampermagazine.com about me and my family
Here is some more background on who I am and how long I have been truck camping.

http://www.truckcampermagazine.com/camper-lifestyle/four-season-truck-camping-in-southern-california

If you read the article you can see in the pictures I used the same tie down system with both the Northstar Laredo and Eagle Cap 800.

The week before Christmas I was driving home from a great camping trip in the anza borrego desert (trip report here http://www.anzaborrego.net/anzaborrego/Forum/messages.aspx?TopicID=694 and was traveling on BLM land road named EC085. I was traveling at approx 25 mph on a straight section of the road, when a strong gust of wind came up and caused the camper to become separated from my truck and rolled over the truck bed rail! The road was also a bit bumpy but not too bad. I had my 6 year old son Brett and 8 year old daughter Brenna in the truck with me. It is a miracle we are all okay. The crazy part of the situation is I did not really feel the truck do a huge sway or anything. It was my daughter in the backseat who said "dad the camper just fell off". Upon further inspection I noticed the cause of the camper becoming separated from the truck was my Wolf Creek was manufactured with a spliced in piece of plywood where the front passenger anchors are installed and this spliced plywood separated from the skirt. When the front tie down became separated I noticed my bumper was tweaked a bit upward and believe the rear tie down became separated by pulling up on my bumper. Before starting to travel on EC085 I called my wife to tell her we were going to stay one more night. Knowing I was about to be driving about 20 miles on a dirt road I specifically checked all my spring loaded turnbuckles to make sure they were nice and hand tight snug. I am fully aware of keeping the turnbuckles hand tight and not using a tool to tighten them down.

Here are some pics from the incident

The spot where I called my wife took a pic and checked the tie downs


The spot where the camper rolled out


My wolf creek in the middle of the desert. Notice the turnbuckle still attached


closer look at splice




My truck








The torn off jack


Underside separation


Nose cap damage


rescued by Dickerson Towing








Moderator edit: Please note, maximum photo width=640.

[kerry4951]

anutami wrote:
Northwood agreed to reinforce the tie down anchors on a new custom build 2014 wolf creek 850 and I pulled the trigger.

It may be in their best interest to start doing this to all their new campers from this point forward. No need to do just one. Anyway, glad you have your new TC ordered and overall Northwood builds a great product.

[anutami]

Well, I have been searching high and low for "the perfect rig" to replace my 2012 wolf creek 850 and I keep going back to the wolf creek. This camper seems perfect for a family of 4 that prefers 4wd roads. It is hard to beat a hard side non slide 8' camper with an aluminum frame structure, larger holding tanks, light weight, huge dinette, beautiful interior, perfect fold down bunk for my 5 year old, massive storage cabinets, that you can take off road to almost as many places as a pop up camper. Is there another 8' camper that can compete? My only beef is with the tie down anchors. Northwood agreed to reinforce the tie down anchors on a new custom build 2014 wolf creek 850 and I pulled the trigger. Props to Kevin Baker owner of apache camping center in portland as he negotiated on my behalf. The wolf creek held up great rolling out of my truck and holding up even better when the tow truck driver rolled it back upright, so the frame and structure are obviously above par.. Northwood has been great on helping me out and I can't wait to get on the road again. I guess I have what you you call the truck camper blues as it is prime desert season right now in so cal and looking forward to feeling free again. I am going with the new torklift talon tie downs so I should have no more worries of my camper becoming separated from my truck.

[sleepy]

This has been a good discussion...

1)so far I've been reminded that I can't spell I'll bet that 99.44% of the Truck camper regulars knew it already

2) and that I'm not an engineery that's right, I'm a retiree

3) I read that some one else noticed the lack of wind blown dust in the air in the pictures But Janet and I, while in bed in our TC survived a 108 mph down draft straight line shear wind in Sandusky, Ohio. it hit us in the rear drivers side corner... for a miniute or so it shook us in every concievable way. The happijac's held. (I posted on it at the time... it was fall of 2005)

What the OP could have had is a sheer wind that was over in seconds.

Since we don't have a wind tunnel to repeat the same conditions over and over making only one change at a time using different tie down systems we can't say with any certainity what is best, or if there is any difference in the tiedons at all... at this point it is just conjecture.

I do understand research methadology. And I understand when a guy claims to be a quarterback... armchair of course.

Even an educated guess... is still a guess!

sleepy

[wnjj]

BradW wrote:

Redsky wrote:
I did a rough calculation of the wind force side load on my 845 camper and with a 50 MPH gust the force is about 844 lbs., which is not all that much and countered largely by the weight of the camper. But with a 70 MPH gust the side load nearly doubles to 1660 lbs. of force. It's the gusts that will get you.

The problem is that all that force needs to be resisted by the two windward hold downs on the camper. The turnbuckles are designed to provide 300 lbs. of holding force or 600 lbs. per side so even a 45 MPH gust could overwhelm them.

Just so no one is confused, 1,660 lbs side force does NOT translate into 1,660 lbs of force on the tie downs. The force on the tie downs would be MUCH less. I assume your calcs are based on the wind being exactly perpendicular to the camper side? What are the odds of that?

Also, if there had been 70 mph wind gusts, you would have seen a LOT more dust blowing around in those photos.

Brad

Yep. Consider the lower left edge if the camper as it sits in the truck bed the pivot point. Multiply the wind force times the average height of the wall above that point (so maybe 1660 x 5 feet?). That's the rotational force hurting you. Now subtract off the weight of the camper pushing down at it's side-to-side center. I'll use a conservative (3000 x 2 feet).

1660 x 5 - 3000 x 2 = 2300 ft-lbs. This means a wind like that could start to tip over an unsecured camper.

Figuring the tiedowns in, they are about 6 feet horizontakly away from the left edge. That means even with only one tiedown, it need only hold 384 lbs to stop 2300 ft-lbs.

The truck was either tilted, bouncing or that tiedown was already compromised before the wind hit or some combination of these.

[bcbigfoot]

One would also likely need to calculate in the low pressure area generated on the leeward side of the camper, compounding the force of the wind.

In one of pictures there is dust blowing across the road/field. I lived in area's of Saskatchewan that is like that, one minute 40/50 mph wind gusts the next few minutes relatively calm. It's the nature of wind gusts in some locals.

As a armchair quarterback my guess is a combination of events to create a perfect storm. Wrong tie down system, typical poor truck camper tie down mount design/engineering, perhaps poor workmanship to boot. A big gust of wind and a little over correction of steering to keep the truck going straight (like skipro3 pointed out) and throw in a rut or two of soft powdery dirt. Walla the formulation for a 1 in a 1000000 flying camper. Or not?

[CAJW]

I'm no engineer, but I have stayed at a Holiday Inn (before we got our TC), but I agree with Jefe 4x4 in that centering guides may have helped prevent this.

Another thought to ponder is, would a DRW truck have helped keep the unit from tipping past the point of no return vs. the SRW the OP had? IMHO, it would have put the rotation point farther out and may have kept the truck from leaning over that last little bit to allow the camper enough lean over stressing that tie down mount to the failure point and fall out.

I'm in agreement that the OP (Nolan) was caught up in the perfect storm, literally. When teaching classroom for motorcycle training, we discuss accidents as having many links in a chain and if any link is broken (a contributing factor removed), the crash (accident) doesn't occur. In his case, it appears that Nolan was in the wrong place at the right time for all these things to come together to create this situation. Thankfully no one was hurt, which is the bottom line.

[BradW]

Redsky wrote:
I did a rough calculation of the wind force side load on my 845 camper and with a 50 MPH gust the force is about 844 lbs., which is not all that much and countered largely by the weight of the camper. But with a 70 MPH gust the side load nearly doubles to 1660 lbs. of force. It's the gusts that will get you.

The problem is that all that force needs to be resisted by the two windward hold downs on the camper. The turnbuckles are designed to provide 300 lbs. of holding force or 600 lbs. per side so even a 45 MPH gust could overwhelm them.

Just so no one is confused, 1,660 lbs side force does NOT translate into 1,660 lbs of force on the tie downs. The force on the tie downs would be MUCH less. I assume your calcs are based on the wind being exactly perpendicular to the camper side? What are the odds of that?

Also, if there had been 70 mph wind gusts, you would have seen a LOT more dust blowing around in those photos.

Brad

[bcbigfoot]

sleepy wrote:
bcbigfoot

the Lance is designed for a 6 point tiedown...

2 of the strut dampers provide the forward attachments

2 of the Happijacs provide the center attachments

2 of the happijacs provides the spring loaded rear attachments on the rear bumper

I'll take 6 point attachments over 4 point attachments any time

sleepy

Ok, and you did. (What's your point) As I might of as well if I owned a Lance that was engineered to use the happijac system however I don't.

I own a Bigfoot and the happijac tie down system would compromise the camper tie down mounts strength. The happijac pull in at a steep angle, under a situation were the camper were to try and separate from the truck, that angle would put force on (pull in, think lever) the side of the camper tie down mounting plate causing it to start ripping through the mounting structure on one side, like a claw hammer pulling a nail out, or pulling Velcro apart starting at a side or corner.

Pulling straight down (or less angle) on the camper mount tie down would load the mounting plate evenly across the mounting structure increasing it's ability to resist being pulled out much like pulling a nail strait out with a pair of plier's, or separating Velcro from the center. Basic engineering sleepy.

[pezvela]

sleepy wrote:
bcbigfoot

the Lance is designed for a 6 point tiedown...

2 of the strut dampers provide the forward attachments

2 of the Happijacs provide the center attachments

2 of the happijacs provides the spring loaded rear attachments on the rear bumper

I'll take 6 point attachments over 4 point attachments any time

sleepy

And yet the struts are an option? Doesnt sound like it belongs in the same category as an anchoring system. It's a ride control option, not a necessary safety device.

Out west here, I've known two people who have used their struts on simple dirt roads and destroyed them.

[bcbigfoot]

sleepy wrote:

12V Cummins wrote:
I don't think cab over struts would have done anything in this circumstance. If a camper has a good COG it does not need struts and you do not get "porporsing". If i recall the cog of a 850 is pretty good especially on a long bed.

These are actually oil filled piston dampers (strutts are rigid)

Have you ever driven a truck and Lance Truck Camper with the dampers?

Actually in the transportation engineering, struts are very similar to shocks. By the way strutts are spelled with one t. I guess a engineer would know that, wouldn't he?

[jefe_4x4]

I know the exact spot where the OP went over. It on the last curve before a long straight away. It's next to the Plaster city narrow gage (3') railway. In years gone by, it's just a slightly undulating sandy desert RR service/BLM road. Me thinks the OP was inordinately unlucky and simply got into the 'perfect storm' as mentioned above.
I use Happi jax and find them well engineered. The fronts are spring loaded at a 40 deg. angle or so and that's to keep the box on the bed (and no slide out the back) up front where most of the weight resides. The plate tied to the bed is vertical so lots of sheer. The rears are tied to the factory bumper, which, on a Dodge is pretty sturdy. i cannot vouch for Ford or GM. It is made to flex the bumper, with no spring utilizing the bumper instead. I've heard that some mfgr's bumpers have a one-way trip with flex: Up.
There is a lot less stress on the rear tie downs.
IMHO, THE most glaring mechanical misjudgement in this scenario is the lack of centering guides on the truck bed. In nasty situations like this, much of the sheer could have been transfered to bottom and side plates of the TC and to the centering guides making it difficult, nigh impossible to slide sideways at all and snap the tie downs. The wind would have to crush the bottom box of the tc or lift it straight up at least 6 inches to launch the thing as shown in the pix. There was obvious shock loading going on at the start of 3 seconds of all hell breaking loose. This is a basic tenant of my XTC spiel: the rougher the road, the looser you run the tie downs. This ONLY works if you have centering guides that act as a keyway. Transfer that sheer.
O.K. , so I still had a probably typical response and said, "Oh No!", over and over again as i read the post. It's easy to pontificate if you were not on site and just looked at a few very descriptive pix. The other thing is: a hardside is luckily (maybe not in this case) quiet and noise resistant to things outside, as are modern pickups. I can see why the OP had no idea what was happening.
I'm glad all were safe.
regards, as always, jefe

[Reddog1]

mike mck wrote:
anutami

Wow as I look at the photos I am trying to picture what kind of a wind gust would push a 4000 lb camper over or thru a bed rail.
Tiedowns or not.

If you were in an off camber situation going up that berm. I could understand the forces required to create that situation.

As to camper tiedowns and construction the question becomes design intent. I do use torklift tiedowns and have no expectation they will hold the camper weight while of camber enough for the camper to roll over the bed. My expectation is it will hold the camper in place from sliding forward or back in the bed.

It appears the wind gust was enough overcome the ability of any tiedown system or rig was so far off camber the weight of the camper overcame the design intent of the tie down area of the camper.
just my 2 cents

From my perspective and experience, you have got it. There comes a point that you and I have to take responsibility. This does does not mean we were purposely negligent.

[mike_mck]

anutami

Wow as I look at the photos I am trying to picture what kind of a wind gust would push a 4000 lb camper over or thru a bed rail.
Tiedowns or not.

If you were in an off camber situation going up that berm. I could understand the forces required to create that situation.

As to camper tiedowns and construction the question becomes design intent. I do use torklift tiedowns and have no expectation they will hold the camper weight while of camber enough for the camper to roll over the bed. My expectation is it will hold the camper in place from sliding forward or back in the bed.

It appears the wind gust was enough overcome the ability of any tiedown system or rig was so far off camber the weight of the camper overcame the design intent of the tie down area of the camper.
just my 2 cents

[12V_Cummins]

sleepy wrote:
bcbigfoot

the Lance is designed for a 6 point tiedown...

2 of the strut dampers provide the forward attachments

2 of the Happijacs provide the center attachments

2 of the happijacs provides the spring loaded rear attachments on the rear bumper

I'll take 6 point attachments over 4 point attachments any time

sleepy

Ill take a lighter, better balanced truck camper with 4 spring loaded turnbuckles and frame mounted tiedowns and outperform any 6 point lance.

Sounds like lance had a pact with happijac and they now realize that torklift is the better way to go with heavier campers. Why does lance recommend air lift? Whats wrong with firestone?


Back to the op. I still think that this is a whole sort of unfortunate events: rough roads, wind, failed tiedown, and the corner of the WC separating.

[RZAR66]

Here is the link showing Lance now endorsing using Torklift or Happijac.

http://www.lancecamper.com/truck-support.php