mobeewan wrote:

I still believe it is all about cost. A single chain and a single attachment point through the middle of the chain is the cheapest way to go. How many times have people complained how manufacturere are cutting corners. They're making frames lighter on heavier trailers. How many complaints have we seen about frame failures. Why wouldn't they cut corners on safety chains too. Not all states require 2 crossed chains. The manufacturer or whom ever built the frame doesn't give a hoot. Once it leaves the lot the customer gets the ticket if state law reqires 2 crossed chains. He's the one pulling the trailer. He's the one responsible and he's the one who pays the fine.

tomman58 wrote:

Campinfan go ask a state cop! Yes here in Mich. it is the law to have them crossed on ALL trailers. It isn't like there is a difference between TT and others. In a LOT of cases the crosing of chains can be of major importance if something disconnects the trailer (like an accident)keeping the trialer attacted to the tow vieicle and not runnuing down the road on its own.

mobeewan wrote:

I still believe it is all about cost. A single chain and a single attachment point through the middle of the chain is the cheapest way to go. How many times have people complained how manufacturere are cutting corners. They're making frames lighter on heavier trailers. How many complaints have we seen about frame failures. Why wouldn't they cut corners on safety chains too. Not all states require 2 crossed chains. The manufacturer or whom ever built the frame doesn't give a hoot. Once it leaves the lot the customer gets the ticket if state law reqires 2 crossed chains. He's the one pulling the trailer. He's the one responsible and he's the one who pays the fine.

JimInMA wrote:



As I mentioned earlier, one of the reasons always given for crossing the chains was to control the TT's drift off of centerline if it breaks free. By crossing the chains you create a common center point between them and the trailer doesn't drift as much. That's the rational used by many states for the laws requiring that the chains be crossed. If you look at the WWW sites that go into explaining this particular issue they all show the example vehicles with seperate chain connection points on both the TT and the TV.

But if you think about the physics/geometry involved in all of this, even with the chains crossed, if the chains connect to the TT at seperate points and TT starts drifting that "common point" created by the crossed chains will drift slightly. That common point is at the "V" created by crossing the chains. (If you don't cross the chains you have a parallelogram to work with).

By attaching the chains to the TT at a common point to begin with you completely eliminate the problem of of the drifting common point. The chains are attached at two points on the TV and one point on the TT creating the same "V" without any need for crossing the chains. And by making that common attachment point as close to the ball coupler as possible they also eliminate any issues with the possibility of it not being on centerline. (That common point is on the the same centerline as the hitch coupler is...).

The net effect is that the single common connection point negates one of the two original reasons commonly given for crossing the chains to begin with.

LarryJM wrote:



You were O.K. with what I observed in my original post in this thread until the last para in the quota above which is just the opposite that I found when I did the test that started this thread. Even with a common "V" attachment point it's an ablsolute must to cross the chains or only one will ride in the center of the "V" attachment point and the other chain is allowed to drift up on the the side of the "V" opposite the side that is attached to the TV creating this unequal pull along the centerline of the trailer tongue. This issue is clearly shown in my first post from the underside for the chains not crossed. That's something I never considered since I have alway "crossed" my chains.

Larry