 |
|
|
| |
Subject |
Author |
Date Posted |
Forum
|
 |
RE: Bigfoot 2500 Front Fiberglass Delam Repair Questions
Most of the walls of a Bigfoot are fiberglass, glued to foam insulation/core, followed by 1/8" luan on the inside. This makes the "sandwich". Around the basement it is thicker plywood rather than foam. I've never been inside the front bulkhead, but if Bigfoot says it is plywood then it probably is.
The difference between this and boat construction is the use of contact cement. On a boat, the fiberglass would be directly laid up on the plywood (or foam), bonding to it with the resin. In some methods, the core is added after lamination using a wet bonding agent (like thickened resin). You will never see contact adhesive used for this purpose in a boat (well, perhaps a very, very cheaply built one).
The difficulty this creates when trying to fix delamination is that both surfaces (inside of fiberglass and surface of core) are covered with (failed) contact adhesive to which nothing will stick, except perhaps more contact adhesive. More contact adhesive will have solvents in it that may melt and reactivate the failed adhesive, or it may just make a mess. In a boat, the first attempt at repair is usually to inject epoxy into the void through small holes and clamp it together again. Epoxy will not stick to the adhesive in this case. The second attempt in a boat is to cut the delaminated skin off so the surfaces can be prepared, then either relaminate new glass, or bond the cut out piece back, then scarf the joint. That is a lot more work because of the finish work required. If the core is rotted due to water intrusion, then the core has to be removed to the edge of the rot and replaced with new.
if you have time, repairs of this sort aren't rocket science, the only hard part is the finish work to make it look new again. The bulkhead isn't that visible, so maybe a less than perfect job would be acceptable there.
I am surprised that you cannot get the door open on the jacks. For sure one thing that can happen is you can cross load the jacks, twisting the shell which will distort the door frame and bind the door. You can keep that from happening by watching the lower corner of the door carefully as you raise the jacks to keep the margin between door and frame the same on the side and bottom. The movement is fairly obvious.
|
HMS Beagle
|
07/27/23 09:39am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: switching to two 6 volt batteries?
I would never go back to flooded lead acid batteries, just due to the inevitable corrosion. However AGM batteries do have to be correctly charged, or their life will be short. That means correct voltages, and for sufficient time, somewhat frequently.
There is an argument for two 12V vs two 6V: if you run an inverter with high current draw, the two 12V batteries will have lower internal resistance than two 6V, and so lower voltage drop while running the inverter.
|
HMS Beagle
|
07/13/23 09:30am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Bigfoot 2500 Underbelly, Thoughts and Pics
My Bigfoot looks the same. The straps support the tanks fine, but by the edges mostly, the tanks are thin enough material that the middle sags down under the weight of the fluid in the middle where the straps really can't support it. I doubt more straps will help. You would need something to make the bottom of the tank stiffer, either beams between the straps and tanks, or perhaps plywood under the whole bottom of the tank. The straps support the tanks fine off the truck, even when full. I will say that isn't how I'd have designed it, but it seems to work OK.
On the Bigfoot - and every other RV I've owned - there is tons of space wasted everywhere. This tends to be better on the European builds for some reason. I'd estimate that fully 1/3 of the available storage volume is inaccessible air space.
|
HMS Beagle
|
07/07/23 11:32pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: HOST , LANCE , slide-outs fiberglass skin fatigue.
I've seen WAY too many problems with slides of all types to want one again. Had one once on a high end class A. I can't say they are more problematic than many other things on a typical RV, but that is a very low bar to clear. If you want the space, and you are willing to put up with the problems, then you are like 80% of the Rv buyers out there. Which is why they continue to offer them. But calling them generally problem free is a fantasy.
|
HMS Beagle
|
07/03/23 06:11pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: HOST , LANCE , slide-outs fiberglass skin fatigue.
It’s been my experience that when it comes to truck campers, the notion of ‘engineered’ is often generously applied…
3 tons
Not just truck campers, RVs generally.
When you knock the side out of a box, there is significant and heavy structure required to replace the stiffness that side provided. With small slides there is still enough wall area to maybe make up the structure, but with large slides the side is simply compromised.
|
HMS Beagle
|
06/26/23 09:28am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Best Sealant to re-seal RV side hatch covers etc.
If you are just planning on smearing some around the outside, use whatever is cheapest - it won't last very long regardless. If you are going to remove it, clean it up, and seal it under the flanges, then I'd use a good polyurethane or polyether marine caulk. Then you won't have to do it again next year, or for the next 10 at least.
|
HMS Beagle
|
04/13/23 09:06pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Happijac issue
Did the remote come with the controller board? It sounds to me like the encoding of the remote does not match the controller board. Different hardware revisions, different software revisions, or the like. If you bought them separately, I'd think you'd have to check with Happijac to see if they are compatible, probably need pn or serial numbers for each to tell.
|
HMS Beagle
|
03/28/23 08:04pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Swingout extensions?
Don't have a dog in this, never loaded a camper in a pickup. (Is it similar to loading salt spreader in dump truck?)
My question is how much tolerance do you have between camper and inside of bed? Could using the extra space fender/jack put extra strain on mounts when bed hits camper?
I have about 1" or a little less each side inside the tailgate, and about 3/4 or so each side between the jacks and dually fenders. It is a little fiddly, but I've done it dozens of times. I actually don't want too much clearance outside the fenders, because it is a pretty good guide to what's happening in the box, and much easier to see in the mirrors.
Someone will make a nice dual wireless camera setup to make it easy. Pretty cheap these days too. I should do it but not motivated enough I guess.
|
HMS Beagle
|
03/11/23 06:46pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Swingout extensions?
3/4" is plenty :). That is about what I have. On my previous truck and camper (F350Dually and 1996 BigFoot 25C9.4), the Happijack swingouts were insufficient for any clearance. I made extensions, by bolting a piece of 2 x 2 steel tube between the jack mount and the swingout bracket. My concern was that the further out the jacks are, the more torque is put on the jack mounts, trying to twist them off. They are not well designed to resist this kind of load. The stock swingout puts them out about 6" or so, adding 5" will nearly double that offset torque.
On my extensions, I welded 1" tube across the camper from one extension to the other, so that the offset torque was resolved between the two extensions and not transmitted to the camper jack mounts. It worked without problems for 15 years when I sold the camper to someone with singles, and he took it off.
|
HMS Beagle
|
03/09/23 09:57am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Happijac motors
I also spoke with Bigfoot Industries regarding the clearance issue for the new jack motors and they had to alter the jack mount to the swing out brackets to achieve clearance. This lowered the jack height to the road a few inches. Happijac says the new style motors are 8” above the top of the jack
I have a Bigfoot 10.4, 2008, same as you. I recently replaced the jacks with 4800, and at the time measured the motor clearance thinking I might need new motors. As I recall, I decided they would fit. My old motors still worked so I didn't change them. I'll measure them again but pretty sure you don't have an issue.
I replaced my front jacks with4800’s. The rear jacks are original 4150’s from 2008. If the clearance is ok for the fronts to swing in under the cab over that would be great. Does the control board need to be changed? Mine is original,with the cord.
OK, I just measured it again. I have 8 1/2" from the top of the jack tube to the camper overhang. From the PantherRV website (where I bought the 4800 jacks):
"Will not work with every camper
Requires 8-1/2" of clearance from the top bolt to the top of the motor. Some cab overs don't allow for the clearance necessary to install the motor on the front jacks. Please measure carefully before ordering."
The top bolt is the one fixing the motor to the jack. From that bolt, I have 9 1/8. It is the same both sides. From that description I'd say I have enough. What you posted shows 9 1/8 for that measurement, not 8 1/2". If that description is correct it would just touch. You might be able to drill new holes on the dually bracket, probably need to be 3/4 down to have clearance betwen the two 3/8 hole sets. It might be fine just touching - this is in the folded and unloaded position after all.
The board doesn't really care, it just puts out a reversing current. From the descriptions of everything, the 4800 jacks with the new motors might draw more current at the limit, and might blow fuses in the old board (15A vs 20). The old motors have a ball clutch in them which slips in the event of overload. Apparently the new ones don't, and rely on a current sense scheme in the board to prevent overload. This would not bother me, I'd just be careful at the ends of travel - I am anyway. The 4800 jacks may require a little more current than the 4150 as they are Acme rather than ball screw. But they seem to run just about as fast as the 4150 that I took off. The load rating on the 4800/new motor is quite high, and a 10.4 doesn't push that limit at all.
|
HMS Beagle
|
02/15/23 03:40pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Happijac motors
I also spoke with Bigfoot Industries regarding the clearance issue for the new jack motors and they had to alter the jack mount to the swing out brackets to achieve clearance. This lowered the jack height to the road a few inches. Happijac says the new style motors are 8” above the top of the jack
I have a Bigfoot 10.4, 2008, same as you. I recently replaced the jacks with 4800, and at the time measured the motor clearance thinking I might need new motors. As I recall, I decided they would fit. My old motors still worked so I didn't change them. I'll measure them again but pretty sure you don't have an issue.
|
HMS Beagle
|
02/13/23 11:11pm |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
OP: are you sure you're not just seeing the camper rock back and forth, the spring loaded Fastguns doing their job?
I always get a kick out of these sorts of comments. :)
So a flat hard object sitting flat on another flat hard object is "rocking"??!?!??! hahahahahahahaha
.
Clearly you have little knowledge of material science. "Hard" and "flat" are relative terms. Steel is quite flexible, fiberglass very flexible, and any rubber map between them extremely flexible. Neither the bottom of the camper, nor the bed are flat, nor do they stay flat running down the road.
Granted nothing is hard/flat like a rock or chunk of concrete and almost everything has 'flex'.
The $64 question is how much? So flat camper sitting on flat bed on top of flat side of frame rails.
Is the camper compressing/expanding? Not likely.
Is the bed compressing/expanding? Again no. However given the support is in the center of it surely if enough force were applied to ether far side or single corner it might 'twist' or 'rock' side to side.
Is the camper 'rocking in the bed'? Again no. (unless it is on a thick soft rubber mat (horse stall mat comes to mind here)
Is the bed moving around on the mounts to the frame? Maybe, many have rubber mounts (to account for frame flex/twisting, see the side2side above).
Is the frame flexing/twisting? Sure, they are known to do that.
IMHO: Given the pivot point is the center of the frame and the camper nose is ~6-8' forward of that what the OP is seeing is minor frame flex amplified by the distance between pivot point and tip.
- Mark0.
Does the camper flex? Absolutely. A Bigfoot probably more than some other brands due to the construction method. You can sit one on rigid supports or concrete, and get the nose bouncing a bit just with your hands. Does the bed flex? Again, absolutely. I carry machine tools in the bed, about the same weight at a camper, CG much lower, the tools themselves are VERY rigid being cast iron and designed specifically for rigidity, yet you will see them visibly rocking forward and backward as you drive. That will be true even when placed on 6x6 sleepers directly over the frame. The bed is after all just thin sheet metal, supported by sheet metal hats of low section. On an F350, no rubber, bolted directly to the frame. The cab supports have rubber.
I'd agree the question is, how much? It is easy enough to test, just tape a piece of wire onto the overhang so that it comes close to the windshield or mirror or some other point of reference, mark that with some tape. Movement is pretty easy to see, how much is difficult to estimate without a close reference.
|
HMS Beagle
|
02/01/23 11:02am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
OP: are you sure you're not just seeing the camper rock back and forth, the spring loaded Fastguns doing their job?
I always get a kick out of these sorts of comments. :)
So a flat hard object sitting flat on another flat hard object is "rocking"??!?!??! hahahahahahahaha
.
Clearly you have little knowledge of material science. "Hard" and "flat" are relative terms. Steel is quite flexible, fiberglass very flexible, and any rubber map between them extremely flexible. Neither the bottom of the camper, nor the bed are flat, nor do they stay flat running down the road.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/31/23 09:52am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
Actually fatigue isn't typically from (permanent) deformation of the metal. Most metals (and most materials) will suffer loss of strength and stiffness even if cycled well below the yield stress. Steel is almost singular in having a critical stress value (well below yield) that if the max stress in cycling is under that value, you can cycle it indefinitely. Almost no other material has this characteristic, which is why steel is so popular with engineers!
Making a frame stiffer, and then hitting it with the same shock impulse, may increase the peak stress that it experiences. The stiffer frame resists immediately and over a short deflection, the floppier frame may flex over a longer deflection and the stress can be less. It depends on how the stiffness was added. One big difference between 1999 and 2016 is that in 2016 I'm quite sure the frame was subjected to extensive FEA engineering, in 1999 probably not.
Boxing a frame mostly increases the frame's stiffness in torsion, it does not increase the frame's stiffness in bending (other than that due to metal added). In other words if the boxing metal had instead been added to the C section, the bending stiffness would be increased the same amount, but torsional stiffness increased only a fraction. The infamous Chevy commercials of a few years back demonstrated torsional stiffness, and nothing else.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/26/23 09:43am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
I have added an air dam to the front of my Bigfoot overhang, it is within about 2 inches of the cab right at the top of the windshield. This makes any motion very obvious. There is a fair amount of motion, more so when the frame twists due to uneven roads (for example exiting a service station ramp at an angle) but also just up and down over bumpy roads. It never hits or comes close to hitting, so less than 2" of motion.
There are many flexible parts in the system: the camper itself, the camper sitting on the rubber mat or bed spacer, the bed, and the frame. The overhang is about 7' from the front bulkhead, the bulkhead 4' from the middle of the bed which we might guess is the center of rocking motion. If the ends of the box rock 1/4" (4' away) then the front of the overhang will rock nearly 3/4 of an inch (11' away). "Everything is made of rubber", some parts (like steel) are stiffer rubber than others (like fiberglass). You might remember back when some campers had cowl braces from the overhang down to the hood cowl to try to control this.
I think I would ignore it, unless excessive.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/25/23 10:23am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
That contrasts with the 1999 with Max Payload for the Crew Cab Dually Long Bed 2x4 appears to be 5355lbs and the 4x4 is 4910lbs.
https://www.xr793.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/1999-Ford-Super-Duty.pdf
So, with basically the same frame, how did they manage to get another 1500+ pounds of payload capacity out of it?
You should go by the Ford bodybuilders manual that I referenced, not by that brochure. The bodybuilders manual gives the specific configurations, in California - less, diesel engine - less. Because the empty truck weighs more. The bodybuilders manual does not give the diesel 4x2 DRW crewcab, but does give the 6.8L, and the diesels are less by about 500 lbs in all models. You could just weigh the empty truck, the GVWR is 11,200 for all models of DRW pickups in those years.
The frame configuration and layout is nearly identical between 1999 and 2015, but the material may be thicker. That is also listed somewhere in the bodybuilders manuals, haven't bothered to look. You probably can't go from 11,200 to 14,000 without doing something.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/24/23 09:30am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
You can still download the bodybuilders manual for the 1999, though I'd suggest instead the 2000 year model as it is far more complete.
https://fordbbas.com/publications
It lists a 4x2 DRW 6.8L V8 crew cab for California at 4610 max payload. It does not list the 7.3L, but in the chassis cab for example, that takes about 500 lbs off of the payload vs. the 6.8L, so probably 4100 lbs.
You do have to weight the Bigfoot to see what it really is - I've owned three, every one has been substantially over the sticker weight. In fact every RV I've ever owned has been over the sticker weight.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/23/23 09:49am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Frame Stiffing to reduce Porpoising?
A crew cab truck has a long frame, and it is going to be more flexible. I've had a 1999 Supercab, followed by the current 2015 Supercab which is identical in almost all respects except the powertrain. One thing I found on both of them was the porpoising was greatly reduced by increasing the shock resistance on the front. Even though the front carries very little of the weight of the camper. With the camper onboard, when cyclical pitching starts it contains a lot more energy, not so much from the longitudinal position of the CG, but the vertical position.
I had (have) Rancho 9000 shocks, when I loaded the camper I'd leave the front ones on 4 or 5 and dial the back ones up to 9. I found that putting the front ones up to 8 significantly helped the porpoising. If it is caused (or aggravated) by suspension movement, then the shocks are the only way that movement is dampened.
|
HMS Beagle
|
01/22/23 10:13am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: Any Ideas to RepaIr Loose Ceiling on NLcamper?
You may be able to do a careful, straight knife cut around the panel that needs to come down and put it back without is being that noticeable. I don't remember the headliner in an NL but I think kinda like indoor/outdoor carpet?
The advantage of using new foam (beyond using better foam) is it starts clean with no old adhesive. The fiberglass can be cleaned even with very harsh chemicals, it won't be hurt by it (acetone, MEK, laquer thinner, etc.). The luan plywood will be a little more of a challenge but can probably be cleaned up. You should test whatever adhesive you are thinking of using, polystyrene of both types is quite chemically sensitive.
|
HMS Beagle
|
12/06/22 09:53am |
Truck Campers
|
|
RE: DC to DC charger
How large is the LFP bank again? It sounds like the DC-DC is severely limiting the charge that could be put into even a reasonably large bank.
On a boat, where this stuff is much more advanced, you'd have an external regulator on the alternator, large cables to the house battery, and be charging them at 100A. The charge profile can be set for LFPs and is close enough that an AGM start battery will tolerate it. Even with a 160A alternator, you'd still only charge at around 100A because the external regulator has a temp sensor on the alternator, and will derate it at about 100 deg C frame temp to keep it from frying itself.
A big advantage of LFP over AGM is that its charge acceptance does not fall off rapidly as it gets close to full. It is actually that, not any ability to accept more maximum charge (often less than good AGM in similar sizes) that allows faster recharge. If you are sitting in a campsite running low and want to start the engine to charge, you want to put in 100A for half and hour, not 25A for 2 hours.
|
HMS Beagle
|
12/06/22 09:47am |
Truck Campers
|
|
|
|
|
|
