Brian you get 10/10 that really made me smile.
On a rather more serious point, this thread could be giving some people the jitters. Opinions differ to such an extent that I don't understand anymore what a dangerous outfit is.What I do know is that the makers of caravans should spend more money on research to make surs none of us drive dangerous outfits.
Val & Frank
On a rather more serious point, this thread could be giving some people the jitters. Opinions differ to such an extent that I don't understand anymore what a dangerous outfit is.What I do know is that the makers of caravans should spend more money on research to make surs none of us drive dangerous outfits.
Val & Frank
I also thought Brian's comment was amusing Frank. As regards confusion over dangerous outfits if you follow the basic principles which are well documented by both major clubs towing should always be safe and pleasurable. Regardless of what you tow or how many axles it has.
Simple solution: "Driver Training" It should be made compulsory for all drivers to undergo suitable technical & practical training, followed by an appropriate test, and that entitlement added to there licence before they are allowed to tow unaccompanied on a public highway.
Allan.
Allan.
It's a bit like the "safe" claims from the likes of Volvo and Merc and people.
No one is saying that one is very dangerous!
But there are factors that ca make certain stules of van safer when things go wrong.
An air bag in a car is pretty dam useless piece of kit util you bang into something after all. Or split car braking system until one part fails.
No one is saying that one is very dangerous!
But there are factors that ca make certain stules of van safer when things go wrong.
An air bag in a car is pretty dam useless piece of kit util you bang into something after all. Or split car braking system until one part fails.
ris "I'm not prepared to comment Seth, as I don't have a piece of paper from a scientist or the like "
Remember Y2K don't believe what Scientists tell you, Air traffic control across the world may shut down was one, and hospitals will lose all power was another.
Val & Frank
Remember Y2K don't believe what Scientists tell you, Air traffic control across the world may shut down was one, and hospitals will lose all power was another.
Val & Frank
The whole discussion about single vs. twin axles seems to me to be reminiscent of a similar one back in the 70's when experts argued over whether twin engined commercial airliners should be allowed on transatlantic flights or whether, for safety reasons, one shouldn't stay with four engined 707's and the like on such routes.
I think you'll find that 4 engine commercial aircraft fly long haul and can continue to destination on 3.
3 Engines have to divert with a failure and 2 engine aircraft only fly long haul on routes where they are within 3 hours of an airport they can land as they must divert when an engine fails. Well that's what my pilot friend has just told me.
Of course a twin wheel caravan can't really go any where with one tyre failure ;-)
3 Engines have to divert with a failure and 2 engine aircraft only fly long haul on routes where they are within 3 hours of an airport they can land as they must divert when an engine fails. Well that's what my pilot friend has just told me.
Of course a twin wheel caravan can't really go any where with one tyre failure ;-)
Can't argue with that although it does seem rather odd that the technical conditions which must be fulfilled to be allowed to tow a 100% weight ratio outfit at speeds over 80kph (50mph) in Germany include ABS on the towcar, a stabiliser and hydraulic suspension dampers on the caravan but no word of twin axles.
Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Hello cris,Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
The centifical force is generated by turning of the mass. If the cog is lowered the force remains the same but its point of action is lower, and so the leverage it exerts on the suspension is reduced.
Nice fancy way of putting it, to a simpleton like me that translates as low weight = better stability ;-)Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
In essence it's why we find carrying within the car is better than on top as you get less roll effect that way
Shock absorbers are a good deal cheaper and more lightweight than a second axleWell no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
No real benefit re low down weight and C of G benefits though. And both my T/A vans were fitted with Alko shocks and when we get another so will that beWell no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Can't see how an inch or two lower C of G using smaller wheels on a twin axle is going make that much difference considering what heavy junk some people put in their overhead lockers.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
No doubt many of us are as good as you at keeping carried heavy goods low down Lutz or even better may be!Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
I think you'll find that the heavier 2nd axle and wheels etc will move the C of G more than you may think ;-)
Oh, so all that deadweight of a second axle is only to lower the C of G. Now I understand.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Sorry, I couldn't resist that comment. Don't take it too seriously.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
I still think you're overrating the importance of C of G height on a caravan though. Caravans are not F1 machinery and don't go through corners quite as quickly. If a low C of G were so decisive, there wouldn't be any roof mounted air conditioning units on the market (not that I'm in favour of them).Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Better Alive rather than being DEAD WEIGHT yourself as you have the higher C og G less tyre Grip and worse stability with the S/A ;-)Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Better dead than alive. Couldn't agree more. However, very, very few accidents involving caravans are actually fatal (in 40 years of motoring I have yet to see one). Most appear more spectacular than they are because of extensive property damage but as there are no occupants inside the caravan and caravans usually distintegrate on impact, they aren't usually a serious hazard to injury for following vehicles, either.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
I did mean better alive than dead. That was a typo error.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Just had second thought about this C of G thingy. If you have a twin axle with a MIRO of, say, 1550kg and an MTPLM of 1800kg, you've got 250kg of payload that you should, ideally have low down on the floor. If you have a single axle, also with an MTPLM of 1800kg but a MIRO of 1500kg, you've got 300kg that you can place on the floor, so the net result is the same. The advantage, if any, would therefore only exist if the caravan is not fully laden.Well no doubt your laws pander to your countries own
products
No doubt the shock absorbers are a step to combat the instability of your large single axle caravans compared the popular more stable British twins ;-)
My understanding is that if you take similar sized vehicles of the same weight but one has more weight nearer to the ground than the other that gives it a lower C of G and adds to stability. That being the reason for race car engineers to get weight nearer to the ground to aid cornering and reduce Centifugal forces that in turn reduce corner roll.
Caravans that have rooves that can be walked on and roof rack provisions seem to me to go against ideal stability as I would guess there is quite a bit of weight high up to give that strength.
Facebook
Twitter