more scary things

[Stuff]

i dont know what is worse. the condition of that poor RV or the thing he is towing..

[lornaschinske]

Oh please don't let them be seen in a Wal-Mart Parking lot!

If you look closely at the Class C, above the rear wheels you will see what is one of the biggest problems with those long overhangs... It's breaking down! You can see the bulge in the metal siding from the bending. How can I tell this??? I have the same problem with our Class C! And it doesn't have a long overhang. The rear extensions are just welded on at the axle... doesn't go any farther up. Sticks-n-staples! For the Finest(?) in Rving! A standard we should all aspire to?

[M1031]

Smitty;

Very true. However, we can see structural failure in two key places. One noted as before, and another just behind and above the cab. No matter what the situation is for the owner personally, we can identify the Rv has critical structural failures where they would not exist (unless in an accident, or through utter and severe neglect) in a Skoolie. S&S are not engineered nor intended to have a shelf life much beyond 10 to 15 years for the average owner. There is a 1984 Pierce Arrow RV near the farm that looks like it's seen severe use. Yet the odometer reads less than 30K miles! That S&S was pricey when new, but now is salvage (for me) and only worth scrap and parts. My Skoolie has already outlasted that S&S. Just sayin'.......

[lornaschinske]

Originally Posted by cincinnati_kid

It all has a frame under it. There are frame rails that go the entire length. Nothing is welded to the axle except for suspension parts

Not necessarily! Would you like to crawl under mine and look? I know what mine looks like and it is similar to all the others that we looked at (1970's thru 1990's). And based on what the folks on one of the RV forums for Vintage RV's, they are all pretty much built the same (even down to the brand of electric panel). We've all rebuilt a good deal of our RV's. A few stripped down to chassis, rewelded and rebuilt.

Smitty, the bulge is outward not inward. An outward bulge indicates the frame is sagging. The roof line behind the AC unit drops down... no they are not supposed to... not like that. Enlarge the picture and you can see if you know what you are looking for. Those Firestone Airbags from JC Whitney would go a long way to lifting the rear end off the ground... but it still wouldn't fix the "sag". Improves the ride greatly (wonderful things.. and I partially level front-to-back with them as well).

After all the work we put into ours (and we have only partially rebuilt the front cabover and the rear section... and rebuilt the cabinets), we know how they were built and it makes us very uneasy. I hope I never get into a wreck in this thing. And it's better built than the newer ones (which is why so many are rebuilding the vintage RVs').

I'm not saying that the RV manufacturer's lie but we have looked at some of the new RV's at shows and looked underneath (they don't like that). The glossy literature that shows pictures of the chassis are not the same as many that we looked at. We've seen an awful lot of long overhangs and just wondered how they were supported... it's often not like the pictures shows!

[M1031]

Smitty;

Just a suggestion, try lining up the bottom of the rv on a straight line. From my computer screen (using on of my father-in-law's engineering software programs) there seems to be about a 2" to 3" sag (in scale - i.e. real-world sagging, not easily measurable in the picture) at the rear of the rv in comparison to the front (taking into account the weight and other engineering factors - my father-in-law is retired, and bored - so I sent this to him for analysis). There is another clue the back is over-stressed, look just above the lettering mid-line on the rear of the rv, there is another buckle. He (Dad) concurs there is a "dimple" in the middle as well. However, the roof line appears to be relatively straight. It's the bottom of the rig that gives away the stress damage. The roof can stretch to a limited degree and help stabilize the load, but not be able to bear much twisting or torquing stress. So long as the stress is linear (front to back or visa versa) and not a tearing/ripping torque, the roof can still maintain some continuity. The picture is actually an optical illusion making most of us (including me at first - I admit it!) believe the roof is not in a single plane. The software analysis theorises the back is sagging under an extreme load, or an over-the-limit load. The concave buckling of the side allows the roof to remain in a single, though tilted, plane. It's a very interesting photograph. Oh yeah, the sofware originally freaked out because we did not include the datum of the screen window between the photographer and subject. That really gummed up the works.

[M1031]

Originally Posted by mightybus

Pizz on the class c. That sounds like a good program. I want it. See if you or your father in law can use it to analyze the stress, buckling and dimpling of this;
http://www.henrymakow.com/911_-_nukes_c ... evast.html
Thanks,

I was told the program relates to simpler civil/mechanical engineering questions and problems. That link you provided goes for abstract theories the program doesn't cover. What my father-in-law told me was he has access to an accident/stress management analysis program based upon multiple rail car accidents, bridge failures, and small scale (depending upon the material involved) hazmat reactions. I don't know much beyond this synopsis of the program besides it's proprietary and rather pricey (i.e. waaaaay to much for my beer & water budget [more water than beer - it's cheaper ]).

I suspect there are cheaper structural programs available on the market to purchase if you're interested.

[Diddly]

I agree with the chincy motorhome frames. Almost ever mid '80s to early '90's Class C and class A that I looked at , the factory heavy frame rails ended shortly after the rear axle. There were often cobbled light guage extensions to hold the rear bumper and floor up but definatley nothing I would feel safe attaching a hitch to without serious re-enforcment. that was the entire reason i decided to buy a skoolie, my trailer is nearly 7500lbs loaded with about 800lbs tongue weight.

[lornaschinske]

Originally Posted by cincinnati_kid

I'd love to look at it because if your saying the frame ends at the axle then your motorhome defies the laws of gravity. Do you have a trailer hitch on your motorhome? If you do you have a frame that extends all the way back. or maybe they attached it to the wood floor.

I didn't say that. Our frame was extended.... from the rear axles to the bumper. And it has a trailer hitch on the bumper. The extended section is what is sagging. I will pull the food cart but not my 5500lb Jeep! I know what is under my floors. I'm not an idiot who has never been up under a vehicle. I can see the difference between the original GMC Vandura chassis and the lighter weight added on section.