Don't remove the cap!!! On most if not all, that will set the spring free. Bad news, and possibly dangerous.
I had the same issue on my last TT when I needed to replace the fabric.
I read about a tip to make it easy on this forum.
Using a dremel with a cutting tool, and a grinding stone, I simply made the groove in the end cap. It is easier than it seems.
I find it interesting that several have said that their tanks were attached to the wood subfloor... That sounds like a accident waiting to happen in my eyes.
All of my TTs have used metal brackets that attached to the frame..( until now, I thought that was standard practice) A much more durable design, though I have had to reinforce them somewhat... Probably due to my off road excursions with full tanks.
OK some research then.
Dodge certainly sees it differently than you do.
They rate the 2014s wayyyy higher..
Perhaps you should get a job with Dodge as you seem to know more than they do.
You didn't do enough research, seeing a trend here, and yes they are rated higher but not much in the RAWR and FAWR department, just the GVWR.
None of those have any effect on what a DRW does over a SRW.. that comes down to tires right? I mean that's everyone's argument, width for stability and 2x the sidewalls. The 2014 is the SAME as a 2008, or even a 2003 in that aspect.
1,700lbs more GVWR is now wayyy higher, it's 13.8%. It's also not a BIG difference, it's a well deserved increase but it is NOT a reason to say a 2008 isn't comparable.
All of this info is out there from Dodge/Ram.. so research the whole thing, not just what you want to find.Yes I have read it ALL of it. And more importantly... I understand it.
Have a nice day.
2008 to 2014. BIG difference.
Not really, how about a little research.
The rear suspension and tire arrangements are the same. The frame is different, but there just isn't that much frame flex on a heavily loaded Dodge/Ram.
The front suspension is completely different, but that has no effect on DRW vs SRW so not valid and will only help make the '14 SRW better than the '08 (03-12 FWIW) DRW.
OK some research then.
Dodge certainly sees it differently than you do.
They rate the 2014s wayyyy higher..
Perhaps you should get a job with Dodge as you seem to know more than they do.
Sorry, not really buying that.. Just CYA from keystone... The roof is made the same as those with a ladder.I feel like a broken record.
Once again: The presence of a ladder means nothing as far as the roof being walkable. Many have ladders and a non walkable roof. And many do not have ladders, and the roof is walkable...
I know it makes no sense... But welcome to the TT world where lots of things make no sense.
It should be noted that though SKG hasn't said so - he towed that RV all the way from Canada to Florida and back with a 2008 RAM 3500/Cummins DRW before he bought the 2014 3500 SRW he has now, so he's very familiar with how a DRW and a SRW Ram pull his RV. If anyone can make a real world comparison, it's him. He has pulled the same RV with both. How many here can say that?2008 to 2014. BIG difference.
Wishful thinking? Nope... I have towed thousand of miles with a DRW and SRW so I have the seat time to make my opinion. I didn't say it was the same or better, I said its 90% of the stability of a DRW however we can disagree that's ok.
I also provided a "caveat" to my statement but by all means, ignore the context of that as well.I didn't ignore it. It wasn't relevant to the point I was addressing.
Sure a SRW is capable. But a DRW WILL be more stable... 4 tires vs. two on the rear will see to that.
It all depends on what your expectations are of your TV.
I have towed with DRW and my 2014 SRW provides 90% of the stability as your 2011 Ram DRW. Outside of a 5k pin requirement SRW is more than adequate for 95% of RV's on the road.....Wishful thinking. The stability comes primarily from the 2 extra tires on the ground. 8 sidewalls vs 4, and twice the tread contact to reduce the side to side movement.
One simply cannot change physics.
Has anyone ever had a wheel alignment on their dual axle travel trailer ?
I noticed the space between the front and rear tire on one side of the trailer was less than the other side. I contacted Camper World and set up an appointment for a laser alignment. I was told from there they could determine what the problem was and what needed to be done to fix the problem.That space is constantly changing. The axles are not fixed, but go thru a range of motions, when hitting bumps, and turning etc. There is no way to measure that space with any degree of accuracy and repeatability.
I suspect that CW has determined that you have too much money, and want to solve that problem by taking some of it from you.:B
They are wanting to find out your credit record.
For one thing, this can tell them if you are capable of buying a unit... And just how bad they can stick it to you. Those with worse credit get worse terms... Much worse than they can really get. Dealers are aware that poor credit risks are just happy to get financed. And that great credit risks likely know that they are able to drive a very hard bargain because of it.
The dealer is an adversary. They know it, and realize that to beat the adversary, the first step is find out as much as they can about rhem.
Know your opponent.
When I bought my TV new back in 2010, the dealer started asking and writing down all of my info.. I asked if he was doing a credit app... "It's just a standard form"
I said don't bother with it, as I will be writing you a check, when the truck arrives.
Negotiations sped up dramatically. He knew that I had the ultimate power. CASH. Money talks, and can easily walk.... Right to the next dealer.
I would haul that trailer all day long with anyone of today's 3/4 ton trucks.
Many of the guys that swear dually all day long are really just a bunch of desk jockeys who pulled their first trailer after they retired. :)
Seriously- a 15k trailer is no big deal for a modern day 3/4 truck- especially a 15k fifth wheel. And as for the ratings- they are important but are for continuous duty. Pulling above them from time to time is not going to hurt anything...
I started out with a 76 Blazer. Then a 96 Dodge 2500HD, Then a 2001 Silverado 3500 dually, and now a 2011 Silverado dually. Each TV upgrade was signifignant.
From what I can see of those pics, the Dodge coils are NOT of the progressive design. If they are progressive, then it isn't by much.. Certainly not enough to make a difference in towing with heavy pin weights.
All Leaf spring paks are by design, progressive. Even if they do not have overloads, though that will make them even more so.
Unlike some of the others, I do not believe that picture showing equal squat when parked means anything.
What is important is how the springs act when actually towing.
A sway bar will not make springs progressive either.
Way to much camper for either truck, did noone notice how low in the back both were.
Did you not read the OP's post? The driveway slopes down and up, making the rear look lower than it is based on street/driveway angle.
They appear to have 5" or more of sag, but only have 2.5" based on the numbers....
Its kinda like a porn magazine. Some only look at the pictures:BThat is more true in this case than you may realize.
The 3500 should have overload leaf springs, that are just coming into play. What this means is that the more weight you put on it, the stiffer it becomes. A word for this is progressive.
It will handle towing heavy much better because of this.
The 2500 with coil springs will not stiffen up with heavy weight. It will tend to wallow when towing. It is somewhat possible to make a progressive coil spring, but I haven't heard of anyone doing it on a stock truck.. Even if they did, it would not have the overloads that are possible with leaf springs.
So just because they have equal squat...... Doesn't mean squat.:B
Apart from the possible structural consequences --
reducing TW by adding load to the far rear of a trailer, IMO, is a bad idea.
Adding load at that distance from the trailer's center gravity has a big effect on the trailer's polar moment of inertial.
Both the decreased TW and the increased polar moment of inertia tend to decrease the trailer's yaw stability and make sway more likely.
If you need to reduce TW it is much better to move load from the front of the trailer toward the center of the trailer.
This is the right answer… almost all the other answers fall under the category of I did it and got away with it, or is just blind luck…
In addition to encouraging sway there are other reasons why it’s a bad idea though…
Loading the extreme ends of a beam to balance the load on the beam is about as bad of an Idea as there is… you have to consider the magnitude and amplification of the dynamic loading when doing this… it is equivalent to trying to convert the beam into a spring to absorb and compensate for the shock of the improper loading… on a trailer this is magnified on the rear half of the beam that has no support design for this purpose… less problematic for the front load because it has 2 load points… it’s much more than just the bumper or welding a receiver hitch to the frame as so many want to believe and advocate…
The only correct why to balance the trailer is by relocating weight within the trailer by putting heaver items closer to the axles and lower, with lighter loads toward the front and rear and higher to achieve the balance you need…
While the 10% t0 15% TW is correct achieving that by over or under loading the other end is poor advice…
In addition to the battery relocation project I already mentioned on my last TT.. I did a generator install on the one before that on the rear. I extended the frame rails about 2' for it. And my present TT came from the factory with a multipurpose rack on the rear rated for 350#.
They all worked well.
Also most all of the toy haulers on the road load the toys in the rear.
There must be a lot of luck and getting away with it going on out there.
But what do I know. I have also been getting away with running LT tires, since 2006... In spite of your dire warnings of the consequences.
Some are just lucky I guess.
I am heavy. We always boondock in remote locations, sometimes for as long as 3 weeks. Going to get something that we happen to "need" will take most of the day.... Yes I have done it more than once. The latest was when the propane regulator failed...400 hundred miles round trip to get one. We now carry a new spare, since that isn't the first time it has happened in my TT career. Many other things, as well. We are always prepared for any weather, complete with extreme cold weather clothing... It has come in handy more than once.
I especially love the I never carry water thoughts.... Many people must carry it, as all TTs come with FW tanks... Maybe one can get a delete the FW option to save a few bucks, and a few pounds.:B
"Perhaps you need to re-check your weights.
Ron and Peeps, you're correct, I didn't read my own notes, it should have been 50 gallons (not 30) for 417 lbs. (not 240).
The fresh tank is, in fact, in the rear of the trailer (the fill is about 2 1/2 feet forward the rear corner, and I can see the tube and the pump line where they go down into the tank from the inside).
The weights were obtained with a Sherline LM2000 belonging to the service mgr. at a local RV dealership that we placed under the tongue jack foot, first with the tank full, then drained. He and I both looked at the dial.
While my first water quantity and weight numbers were incorrectly posted, the illustration is still valid, eg. adding weight to the "rearend" CAN still add weight to the tongue.
This is a common question, and there are many threads on this. The common theme seems to be that the Barker owners are very attached to their jacks, almost all of them rave about the fantastic customer service.
I cannot attest to Atwoods customer service as in 14 years of use, I haven't needed any. I also haven't read about it here either. At any rate, look the features of both styles over closely and decide which one makes sense for you. Spend the money. Then enjoy it. I hope this helps.
Well the two here are 20 and almost 30 years experience and it's not so much about being attached to our jacks, it's just when something does happen it's refreshing to get satisfactory C.S. especially on things probably well past their normally expected life span.
Here CLICKY is just one discussion of ATWOOD C.S. with mixed reviews so now you can now say you have read at least one comment on ATWOOD C.S.
I guess in Atwood's defense like almost all C.S. good service is more common than bad and if you run across one where the bad service is non existant that is what stands out and my read is that Barker is one of those companies. I personally also like the U.S. based support and talking to someone that can communicate well in English ... something that with many companies is becoming harder to find.
LarryAh yes, the camper jacks, not tongue jacks... I think that Atwood is the only one that makes those.
I am very famailier with them. Have used some for well over 10 years. Those can be abused in ways that the Tongue jacks in this discussion cannot.
I won't get into it on this thread, which is about TONGUE JACKS.. Other than to say that ours have been trouble free on the CAMPER.
I've done exactly what you suggest however I followed a process to insure it was safe. First, in order to mount the box on the rear of the Trailer, I took it to a machine shop where they fabricated and installed a receiver hitch welded to the trailers frame and it's good for 300# to 500#. Next I loaded my stuff in the rear box and went to the CAT scales for 3 weights (a-truck with trailer attached and WDH active, b-truck with trailer took off the WDH and c-truck alone). The difference between truck alone and truck with TT is imputed gross weight of the loaded trailer. The imputed gross trailer weight minus the CAT scales weight of the trailer is the tongue weight. First check is to make sure the imputed gross trailer weight is within the trailer mfg. stated weight capacity. Second check is to divide the tongue weight by the imputed gross trailer to see if the percentage is between 10% to 15%. If either check fails, make adjustments. If you are over the total weight, take stuff out of the trailer and put it in the truck (assuming you have surplus truck payload). If the second check fails, move stuff from the rear toward the front.
This is the way to do it. Weld to the frame, and add enough weight to lighten the hitch to the 10%-12% range (no less than 10% though).Be sure to leave a cushion for shifting of weight.
Unless of course you will be checking the TW every time.
This is a common question, and there are many threads on this. The common theme seems to be that the Barker owners are very attached to their jacks, almost all of them rave about the fantastic customer service. My take on that is that it can't be all that reliable if customer service is needed so much. That said, there are two basic designs. The front side mounted motor ie: Barker, Ultrafab etc. And the top mounted motor ie: Atwood. Most of the front side mounted motors offer a built in level on the top, which at least on some of them doubles as the plug for the backup hand crank. The front side mounts have many drawbacks. On many TTs using the backup hand crank will require either removing the propane tanks, or turning the crank 1/2 turn, removing it, turning it 180 degrees, reinserting it and repeat this process. Very inconvenient. My concern here is not the need to use the handcrank due to a jack failure so much as a dead battery Due to the motor being mounted on the front side it almost always will result in interference with the tailgate. A common solution is to rotate the jack so that the motor is on the side. But then the hitch light points in the wrong direction. The front side mounts also have several penetrations (holes) in the housing for the switches and backup crank that is a common source of water intrusion into the motor. This is so common that many have posted here that Barker has supplied them with a free cover for the jack. This style of jack really needs to be covered, to eliminate the risk of water intrusion. Owners report that they can operate the jack without removing the cover by feeling the switch through it. But then the light is useless. Owners report that they don't use the light anyway. Probably because most of them have rotated the jack for tailgate clearance, so it points in the wrong direction. I would have a concern that the light switch would get turned on accidently and since it was under the cover go unnoticed and drain the battery. Then the hand crank would need to be used. See previous concern. If your TT has a front slide, then you may have to use a front side mounted motor as they are a little shorter and less likely to interfere with the slide. The top mounted motor, (Atwood) has no pentrations in the housing for water intrusion. So it doesn't need covering. The backup crank inserts in the front, so there is no propane tank interference. And the motor will not interfere with the tailgate. So the jack can point the light at the hitch where it is needed. The only complaints some have is they don't like the sound of the motor as much as some of the others. That's got to be a personal thing, as mine sounds like music everytime I press the button and it does it's work without me breaking a sweat. And I cannot attest to Atwoods customer service as in 14 years of use, I haven't needed any. I also haven't read about it here either. At any rate, look the features of both styles over closely and decide which one makes sense for you. Spend the money. Then enjoy it. I hope this helps.
I relocated my batteries on my last TT to reduce the TW. It worked well,BUT.... My TW was a lot due to my generator and 26 gallon fuel tank install.
TW questions appear here often. They always generate a lot of opinions. Most of them are right,,,, and wrong.
The reason is simple. Everyone bases their opinion on their experiences.. But someone could have the exact TT as I, and have TW that is hundreds of pounds different than I have. No two peoples usage, gear and loading will be the same.
8-10% may work for a light utility trailer, but is not a good idea for a TT.
TTs need more TW because when they start to sway, the box catches the wind like a large sail and makes it worse, AND many TTs weigh more than the TV... With those two factors working against a smooth tow, it is foolish to try to make the TW as light as possible.
And then there is another factor unique to TTs. During a trip, the weight in the TT shifts around quite a bit. FW gets used and ends up in the grey/blackwater tanks. Food/drink gets eaten and ends up in the black tanks. Propane gets burned and disappears from the TW. Clean clothes get worn and end up in the hamper etc... Other things may ride home in a different location for many reasons. So cutting it close on TW can be really bad.
TTs generally need 10-15% TW. More is better. But as a practical matter, 15% is usually the limit due to hitch and TV limitations.
I have a stout TV, so I like my TW heavy. I also have 4 42 gallon waste tanks that are full for the return trip... So my TW can really change a LOT.