Half-ton owners... REJOICE!

[SkyPiGG]

In the last two RV shows I was at (Hershey/Philly), there seemed to be a major trend towards increasing the half-ton towable market. Using wider stances and lighter material, TT builders are making 30-footers with more than just one slide out light enough for the half-tons. I was amazed at how many coaches there were that targetted the smaller trucks.

Now, grant you... if you browse these forums, you'll find that what a half-ton can tow is all very subjective. But my general guideline is < 700 hitch / < 7K dry.

Anyway, I thought it was remarkable.

[JRTJH]

You're right. RV's are getting bigger and lighter across the board. The number of ultra lite's and lighter "heavy weights" is growing. Trailer Life just did a comparison article on the Heartland North Trail King Slide 33TBUD. It is 37' long (yup, I didn't mistype that) weighs 7500 lbs empty with a GVW or 9600 lbs. Strangely, the tongue weight (dry) is 624 lbs. Normally, tongue weight range should be 10-15%, and this one is being produced with a tongue weight of 8.3%. So, unless there's some "sleight of hand" going on, either the stats are being marketed "conservatively" or the conventional rules of towing are being challenged..... TL matched this 37' trailer with a Toyota Tundra and reported that with the wide spaced axles, it tows "steady as a rock"

I think we are in for some growing pains in trailer tow ratings with the upcoming SAE guidelines being implemented by the automotive manufacturers which will dramatically lower truck/suv tow ratings and trailer manufacturers building bigger (but lighter) "half ton" trailers that are being designed to match the current half ton tow ratings, not the SAE ones that will apply next year.... I'm not sure if the cart is before the horse or if we're going to see some "oops" coming down the pike in the next year or two.

[TAZ23]

Another reason trailer manufacturers are going to lighter trailers is that there are a lot more half tons out there than three quarter or one tons. If you only make big heavy trailers, you limit your market share. Its a big segment of the market they dont want to miss out on.

[KJcachers]

I'm worried that ligher will also mean cheaper when it comes to construction quality. Won't affect the MSRP though I bet.

[Bob Landry]

I'm worried that ligher will also mean cheaper when it comes to construction quality. Won't affect the MSRP though I bet.

I thought the same thing. With the cost of labor and materials being relatively the same at a given level, the only way to sell a product cheaper and still maintain a profit margin is to build it cheaper. Economics 101. To build it cheaper, you have to reduce the quality or the quantity of materials used, or the quality or quantity of the labor used. Any combination of those does not equal a better product for consumers. Inflation will still raise the price of everything so the end cost is not likely to go down in spite of the introduction of any cost-cutting methods.

[Ram189]

To build a lighter trailer you have to use lighter material.

Lighter material usually means more expensive, higher cost products.

This will definitely drive up the cost of trailers over the next couple of years I am sure.

I just bought a 38' 5th wheel with 3 slides and a bunkhouse that weighs the same as my 2001 30' travel trailer with 1 slide out.

Go figure.

[JRTJH]

Older aluminum framed travel trailers were built on 10"x2" square tube 3/16" thick steel frame members. They used .063 rigid wall square tubing and welded in place, 3/16" luan glued/screwed to the outside, fiberglass insulation stuffed in the cavities and 3/16" luan installed on the inside. Then .040 aluminum was riveted to the outer shell on expensive RV's, .020 ribbed aluminum was used on the cheaper models and sheet fiberglass was used on some select models. The bottom was insulated with rolls of fiberglass insulation and sealed with .032" rolled aluminum sheeting screwed in place. They weighed "a bunch" !!!!!

Newer models are using 8"x2" or (10 x 2) 5/32 thick steel frame members that are drilled and cut away at "strategic points" to lighten the load. They are built with .032" hardened (for rigidity) aluminum square tube frame members. Foam is applied under pressure with a 1/8" luan interior wall and a 1/8" filon outer wall. Then a vacuum is applied to form a "single component sidewall". The bottom is sealed with coroplast, a lightweight substitute for the bottom insulation and aluminum underbelly.

There is an article in Trailer Life's current issue answering a reader's question about sidewall construction/durability. The answer pretty much states that the older aluminum frames were welded and occasionally a weld would break causing some problems but the "newer" model walls are "held together with the foam and much less likely to come apart".....

So, in "layman's comparison" it appears to this layman, that the thicker older aluminum walls would bend some, welds would hold better and any damage from wear would occur at "an occasional stress produced weld spot". On the newer ones, the tubing is thinner, more at risk of breaking (rather than bending) because it's hardened tubing in a flex type use, and the foam pretty much holds it all together preventing the welds from breaking. I don't know for sure, but it seems to me that "as" (or "if" for the optimists) the foam deteriorates, the frame will be more likely to flex and crack because of the lack of ability to flex caused by the rigid wall thinner tubing.

Of course, I'm sure this will all occur well after the 1 year manufacturer's warranty.

Older wood frame trailers were constructed with clear spruce 2x2 frame members with 2x4 and 2x6 components in key stress locations. Today's are built with 2x3's in key stress positions with some 2x2's in places where components are mounted and 1x2 frame construction. More "space age" adhesives and less screws/staples are being used. Good or bad??? I don't have a clue.... In a couple of places where I could see the wood frame members in my Springdale, they were anything but "clear spruce". In some of them, it would be hard to find a place to fasten anything without hitting a knot or split/void.

The end result, I think, is that as RV's get bigger and lighter, whether the components cost more because of technology, or cost less because of thinner/cheaper materials, the end result will be either put together faster to keep pace with inflation or constructed similar to what we have and cost more but probably not be as durable. I suppose time will tell......

[Festus2]

I'm not so sure that the foam helps reduce the weld from breaking but it might help prevent the stud from moving or separating. A crack in the weld may still occur but the aluminum could still be held in place by the foam. From that standpoint, its structural integrity has been comprised - it just doesn't look that way because it appears to be "still in place". I could be "out to lunch" with more layman's thinking.

Does anyone know if the wood that is used in today's studs is the "finger joint" variety or is "one piece" and whether or not one is any stronger than the other?? Finger joint studs are common in today's stick houses......

[jsmith948]

Another reason trailer manufacturers are going to lighter trailers is that there are a lot more half tons out there than three quarter or one tons. If you only make big heavy trailers, you limit your market share. Its a big segment of the market they dont want to miss out on.

I agree that the manufacturers are targeting the lighter truck market - but putting a "1/2 Ton Series" sticker on the side of a trailer does NOT make it 1/2 ton towable. This is a marketing ploy just like the "Polar Plus" sticker. Our "1/2 ton towable" Cougar, when loaded for a 2 wk trip, weighs 10,000# with a 2100# pin weight. But it says '1/2 ton series' right next to the 'Polar Plus' sticker. FWIW :D

[JRTJH]

I agree that the manufacturers are targeting the lighter truck market - but putting a "1/2 Ton Series" sticker on the side of a trailer does NOT make it 1/2 ton towable. This is a marketing ploy just like the "Polar Plus" sticker. Our "1/2 ton towable" Cougar, when loaded for a 2 wk trip, weighs 10,000# with a 2100# pin weight. But it says '1/2 ton series' right next to the 'Polar Plus' sticker. FWIW :D

This example of how pin weight "grows" is exactly what I was talking about in a recent post about half ton towable fifth wheels. The 282RES is advertised as "half ton towable with a shipping weight of 7920 and a pin weight of 1470. It grows to over 2100 lbs when ready to travel, just as mine grows to well over 1700 lbs and not even "fully loaded" at 8300 lbs total. Lighter than the "old ones" yes, but "light enough to be called a "lightweight" ??? Not in all cases, that's for certain......

[Randy_K]

Has anyone seen the ratings on the new Ford F150 ? I have read that it is 700 lbs lighter with the new construction. < and stronger they say > I would expect if this was all true then the payload would be increased .

The new " 1/2 ton " trucks can carry more then ever.

[jonbiker]

A lighter trailer or 5ver can be great, BUT: Last summer we spent 2 1/2 months out west where the temps were 99 degrees during the day. The 30 amp 13,500 btu a/c was just not adequate and the insulation on a Cougar 28SGS was also inadequate. It was a great trailer and our 2012 2500 did a great job. We stepped up to a 34' Montana HC with double the insulation and 2 a/c units. the 2500 did not have enough payload capacity to handle the new 5ver. If you can accept inadequate insulation and a/c, go for it. We were not comfortable.

[JRTJH]

Has anyone seen the ratings on the new Ford F150 ? I have read that it is 700 lbs lighter with the new construction. < and stronger they say > I would expect if this was all true then the payload would be increased .

The new " 1/2 ton " trucks can carry more then ever.

All the information I've seen says that the 2015's will be lighter and carry more. My guess is that means they are cutting some 700 lbs of the weight out and installing lighter suspension, etc for fuel savings and leaving some of the "lighter build" for payload... Sort of a "best of both worlds" ????

[PT RV`er]

To build a lighter trailer you have to use lighter material.

Lighter material usually means more expensive, higher cost products.

This will definitely drive up the cost of trailers over the next couple of years I am sure.

I just bought a 38' 5th wheel with 3 slides and a bunkhouse that weighs the same as my 2001 30' travel trailer with 1 slide out.

Go figure.

I`m with ya on that one. My new 32ft Passport with 2 slides weighs the same as my old 26ft Dutchman with one slide.
Talking about lighter and more durable material - HEMP is where it`s at. If our gooberment would separate Hemp from the MJ category, we would have a wonderful, sustainable, very durable, number one cash crop that could be used in a million different applications.
Sorry, got a little carried away

[audio1der]

Weight is one factor; length is another. Don't be talked into buying a super long TT just because it is towable based on weight.
Pulling a "long, empty balloon" behind a half ton brings its own challenges.

[JRTJH]

Weight is one factor; length is another. Don't be talked into buying a super long TT just because it is towable based on weight.
Pulling a "long, empty balloon" behind a half ton brings its own challenges.

The same can be said for 3/4 ton trucks too. Our 35' Holiday Rambler pulled great behind our long wheelbase 93 F250 and was "squirrely as heck" behind our short wheelbase 99 F250. The trailer was the same, the trucks were "essentially the same" except for wheelbase length.

Your image of a balloon bouncing along behind a truck is a great way to describe what pulling that HR was like......