Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

alaska teardrop wrote:

Most of the vertical strength is in the vertical side of the channel.

Fred

Nope, most of the strength comes from the top and bottom horizontal pieces/flanges of the channel. The vertical part mostly serves to keep the flanges apart.

Cheers,

Gus

Hi Gus,

PaulC from Australia & Andrew from England have been two of the most instructive forum members on the subject of tongue strength. Paul brought up the fact that welding vertically on the tongue rails at the point under discussion reduces the strength (no matter the structural shape). He also introduced the Australian tongue strength rules.

Andrew interpreted the rules here: http://www.angib.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/t ... tear84.htm

Take a look at the vertical & horizontal strengths of the various shapes as determined by the section modulus (in3) & see what you think. It's not the same as building a truss.

Fred

David & Phil, Have you seen this build thread by Tom in Bavaria? Maybe the company the manufactures his trailer could be a solution.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=54344&start=30

alaska teardrop wrote:

Hi Gus,

PaulC from Australia & Andrew from England have been two of the most instructive forum members on the subject of tongue strength. Paul brought up the fact that welding vertically on the tongue rails at the point under discussion reduces the strength (no matter the structural shape). He also introduced the Australian tongue strength rules.

Andrew interpreted the rules here: http://www.angib.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/t ... tear84.htm

Take a look at the vertical & horizontal strengths of the various shapes as determined by the section modulus (in3) & see what you think. It's not the same as building a truss.

Fred

Your statement makes no sense to me. From the chart you reference you'll notice that simple angle shapes have the lowest strength per weight of all the shapes. The strongest shapes are those with a top and bottom separated by vertical elements. This makes it clear that the horizontal pieces are very important.

If you look at the data, rectangular tubing can be made lighter and stiffer (even when using thinner material) by making the tubing taller. This is because most of the strength comes from the horizontal sections and how far they are separated from one another by the vertical sections.

If you look you'll note that the 2" x 3" x 3/16" channel is stronger per pound than the 2" x 3" x 3/16" tubing which supports the fact that most of the strength comes from the flanges/horizontal sections versus the vertical sections of the shape.

If you look at the "point under discussion" you'll note that the channel was cut halfway through and not welded to the piece inserted there which would have returned a lot of its structural integrity. I think that had the pieces been properly welded together, even with the poor design, the tongue would not have failed. I'd have left the tongue pieces intact (one piece) and made the cross member out of sectioned pieces (like they did) as that portion of the frame is subjected to far less stress. In fact, in Angib's super-light chassis design that part of the frame is not present at all.

Hope this helps your understanding.

Cheers,

Gus

I stand corrected, Gus. What was I thinking? I know better. Mostly I was thinking about the welds down both sides of the vertical & the break alongside the welds. I see what you're saying about cutting the flanges. That, I would suppose, would weaken the channel in the horizontal axis as well causing more stress. "In the point under discussion", I weld only longitudinally on the rail as little as needed.

Fred

alaska teardrop wrote:

I stand corrected, Gus. What was I thinking? I know better. Mostly I was thinking about the welds down both sides of the vertical & the break alongside the welds. I see what you're saying about cutting the flanges. That, I would suppose, would weaken the channel in the horizontal axis as well causing more stress. "In the point under discussion", I weld only longitudinally on the rail as little as needed.

Fred

Cheers,

Gus

Just got back from a 3,284 km round trip delivering 4 dogs north, south, east, and west so apologies to all for the late reply.

Firstly, I am most impressed with the level of technical knowledge on here, I don't pretend to understand every point made but it all adds to understanding and I am most grateful for the input.

As regards a CoC or IVA certificate, I haven't had either. All I got was a receipted invoice when I collected it. No confirmation order and therefore no chassis number. There is a VIN plate on the chassis so I suppose the number is stamped there but it isn't here at the moment so can't check. It is still down in Perigueux which is 50 kms away. Next time I'm down there I'll check but I know the caravan was completed on the day it was collected, April the 22nd, because I stood there watching them finishing it. However, I don't know when the chassis was made but within a few days I would have thought as putting together the 2 halves of the body and fixing them to the chassis wouldn't be more than a day's work. There was another chassis under construction on a table nearby, maybe yours Phil, I wish I had paid more attention to it now in the light of what has happened.

After a silence of more than a week there was another email from AVI yesterday to say that they are an honourable company (in answer to my suspicion that they want to destroy the evidence) and will fulfill their obligations to replace the chassis with another once they get the original back. They don't answer the specific point as to why they want to spend over 5,000 quid more than my local solution would cost them.

My way is clear now I think. First I will ask the insurers today if their legal department has got anywhere and has any advice. If not, I will write to AVI and give them 2 weeks to agree to pay for the local chassis and my expenses to date, around €1,800 in total. Failing that I will get the work done here anyway and sue them for the money via the courts in England. County Court first, hopefully a favourable judgement, if they don't pay Send in The Sheriffs. I should point out for our American friends that this is an ancient post in England, they are the enforcement arm of the High Court here and they go in with a van, force entry if necessary, and take away computers and anything else of value in order to pay me.

At the very worst I will be 1,500 quid down but at least will have my Teardrop back on a reliable chassis, and within a couple of weeks. It has been extra work this week doing without it.

Spardo wrote:Just got back from a 3,284 km round trip delivering 4 dogs north, south, east, and west so apologies to all for the late reply.

Firstly, I am most impressed with the level of technical knowledge on here, I don't pretend to understand every point made but it all adds to understanding and I am most grateful for the input.

As regards a CoC or IVA certificate, I haven't had either. All I got was a receipted invoice when I collected it. No confirmation order and therefore no chassis number. There is a VIN plate on the chassis so I suppose the number is stamped there but it isn't here at the moment so can't check. It is still down in Perigueux which is 50 kms away. Next time I'm down there I'll check but I know the caravan was completed on the day it was collected, April the 22nd, because I stood there watching them finishing it. However, I don't know when the chassis was made but within a few days I would have thought as putting together the 2 halves of the body and fixing them to the chassis wouldn't be more than a day's work. There was another chassis under construction on a table nearby, maybe yours Phil, I wish I had paid more attention to it now in the light of what has happened.

After a silence of more than a week there was another email from AVI yesterday to say that they are an honourable company (in answer to my suspicion that they want to destroy the evidence) and will fulfill their obligations to replace the chassis with another once they get the original back. They don't answer the specific point as to why they want to spend over 5,000 quid more than my local solution would cost them.

My way is clear now I think. First I will ask the insurers today if their legal department has got anywhere and has any advice. If not, I will write to AVI and give them 2 weeks to agree to pay for the local chassis and my expenses to date, around €1,800 in total. Failing that I will get the work done here anyway and sue them for the money via the courts in England. County Court first, hopefully a favourable judgement, if they don't pay Send in The Sheriffs. I should point out for our American friends that this is an ancient post in England, they are the enforcement arm of the High Court here and they go in with a van, force entry if necessary, and take away computers and anything else of value in order to pay me.

At the very worst I will be 1,500 quid down but at least will have my Teardrop back on a reliable chassis, and within a couple of weeks. It has been extra work this week doing without it.

I think your right Dave don't let them have it. I would only let them have it back when they have paid for your sleeper to be repaired or chassis changed over in France. I think then after your's has been paid for by them it would belong to them, but i would definatly take loads of pictures just in case you see any more tales of woe on the forums. I would hope they settle this soon for you , I think you are being more than fair in this matter.

Went down to Perigueux yesterday to pass on a request from the insurance legal people that the trailer man who has the wreckage write an appraisal of the damage and what, in his opinion, caused the failure. I must admit I don't have much faith in this legal department, the only reason I involved them over a week ago was because I wanted a recommendation for an independant expert. Now, all they have done is ask me to ask a, not independant, expert to comment. Going round in circles it seems.

While there though I took this picture of the VIN plate. The chassis number is not clear because yet another AVI clown popped a rivet through it. At first I thought it was 001 and thus maybe even an experimental one. On looking again it seems more like 11-, so anywhere between 2 and 10 before yours Phil.


I also took the opportunity of snapping (possibly not the best colloquialism ) the jockey wheel. This because they had half accused me of not securing it and that it had dropped to the road thus ripping off the A-frame. I think that this demonstrates ably that it wasn't the case.




I will wait to see what the trailer man reports but am almost decided now that I will give AVI 14 days to agree in writing to re-mounting on a new chassis here. Failing that I will go ahead anyway and sue them in England for reimbursement of all my costs. I am determined that they will not get the existing vehicle back to tamper with and I certainly don't want a replacement from that factory.

By the way, the intransigent individual that I have been dealing with and who I was led to believe was a director is not in fact listed as such after a company search. In fact the most senior director appears to be the man that I first spoke to on the phone to order, so it will now be to him personally that I will direct my letter.

I would imagine if it had been the jockey wheel that had come down first it would be bent in some way or other to have caused the a frame to snap. Yours looks very healthy to me so they will have to try again with another cause like faulty workmanship perhaps. I just can't understand why they are arguing the toss here, it's cheaper less hassle to you both and the job is done to your satisfaction at a cost less than its most probably going to cost for transport to and from your house. Then there's the return trip to factor in absolute madness if you ask me.

philh24 wrote:

Penfold wrote:

philh24 wrote:

Penfold wrote:

philh24 wrote:I must admit I never got any of what you did and it does make you wonder if yours had indeed been finished. I never got past the reception area I was told Friday originally then they phoned me and told me Monday. When I arrived at about 2 it was ready outside they showed me around it took my money and photos of the trike with it on and wished me well and safe trip home. My total time there was about an hour ,listening to the way they get them down off the mezzanine it's a wonder they don't damage more. Have you heard of any other sleepers with the a frame fracture.

Did either of you receive a certificate of conformity to show it has been type approved or even an IVA certificate?

I recieved a bill of sale and an order confirmation with the chassis number on. There is a vin plate on the chassis with date of manufacture and the unladen weight max weight and who made it. The chassis number is also on there which mine is 000121 so I am presuming they have made 121. I am not sure what number David's is it would be interesting to see how many they have churned out between his and mine.
I would presume David only got the same paperwork as me?

What was the date of manufacture? If it was after October 2012 and it hasn't been type approved then they have just sold you an illegal trailer as it should have been IVA tested at least. To avoid this until October 2014 it would have to be classed as a caravan which needs to have storage, a bed and cooking facilities... which the sleeper doesn't have.

It has a date of manufacture of May this year, they can probably get away with that then because its called a sleeper caravan. It does have a bed a small double matress and there is storage space at the front. The only thing it doesn't come with is a cooker but I am sure they would throw in one of those £10 gas ones to comply for now if they needed to. I would presume Daves was the same aswell as all the others that's been built.

They can call it what they like but it's still just a covered trailer, not a caravan, and still needs to be at least IVA tested to be sold in the UK. This has been discussed at length over on the UK teardrop forum and confirmed by emails from VOSA and the DFT and also by our resident trailer Type Approval expert Doddpa.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons for me seriously thinking of giving up building teardrops as there's too many "manufacturers" out there who blatantly disregard the law while the rest of us are spending loads of money to comply. Many of them don't even bother to fit the triangle reflectors on the rear, if they can't do something as simple as that then what other laws are they ignoring?

Spardo wrote:Went down to Perigueux yesterday to pass on a request from the insurance legal people that the trailer man who has the wreckage write an appraisal of the damage and what, in his opinion, caused the failure. I must admit I don't have much faith in this legal department, the only reason I involved them over a week ago was because I wanted a recommendation for an independant expert. Now, all they have done is ask me to ask a, not independant, expert to comment. Going round in circles it seems.

While there though I took this picture of the VIN plate. The chassis number is not clear because yet another AVI clown popped a rivet through it. At first I thought it was 001 and thus maybe even an experimental one. On looking again it seems more like 11-, so anywhere between 2 and 10 before yours Phil.


I also took the opportunity of snapping (possibly not the best colloquialism ) the jockey wheel. This because they had half accused me of not securing it and that it had dropped to the road thus ripping off the A-frame. I think that this demonstrates ably that it wasn't the case.






I will wait to see what the trailer man reports but am almost decided now that I will give AVI 14 days to agree in writing to re-mounting on a new chassis here. Failing that I will go ahead anyway and sue them in England for reimbursement of all my costs. I am determined that they will not get the existing vehicle back to tamper with and I certainly don't want a replacement from that factory.

By the way, the intransigent individual that I have been dealing with and who I was led to believe was a director is not in fact listed as such after a company search. In fact the most senior director appears to be the man that I first spoke to on the phone to order, so it will now be to him personally that I will direct my letter.

That welding looks shocking!

Any outcome to this yet David, did they get back to you.

Not so far Phil, I sent the registered letter on the 19th of June and know by tracking online that it was signed for on the 25th. I gave them 14 days from receipt to agree to reimburse me without claiming the whole lot back, which I rejected, so that gives them till the 9th of July before I go ahead independantly and simultaneously contacting an English solicitor.

The trailer man sold the particular trailer with the softer supension that I wanted in Perigueux but has ordered another which he reckons to have by the 2nd or 3rd week in July. So whatever happens with AVI I should have my Teardrop back on the road by the end of that week.

I also have a time served welder and coach builder here who is willing to strengthen the old chassis and make a light weight sleletal trailer as a local runabout for timber and other long sections of whatever - if AVI pay me but don't want it back for 'investigation' that is.

How's yours doing? Have you used it on the road and are there any signs to worry about? If anything does crop up be sure to let me know straight away, it could help both our cases if it became necessary.

I thought they might have seen sense and just paid up by now. Mine is behaving itself at the moment no signs of any cracks or welds breaking on me although it hasn't been used for a couple of weeks.. I will be using it in about 3 weeks at Driffield and again in Kelso mid August so that will put some miles on the clock. I will let you no if anything happens with it.