Deleted
Posts: 0
Currently Offline
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2016 17:57:36 GMT -8
Hey all, I have been tossing the thought of having a rear bunk like the Compact had originally. I have always been amazed at the small metal support on either side wall designed to hold the bunk and was wondering how it could ever hold a lot. Is there a weight capacity on these? I know it can't be a ton but still curious. And what were these supports on the wall backed by behind the wall? I have none of the original hardware of walls that were there but I bet I could make something happen. I have 1x3 framing in the wall behind my cedar and 1/4 inch panels that are up. Thanks for any info. Been wondering this for a while. Mine is a 67.
|
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Oct 30, 2016 22:04:00 GMT -8
Whenever I have a bunk, I reframe to support it. Not sure what is in your walls. The bunks usually support 150 lbs WITHOUT jumping and wiggling. LOL. The cedar may give you a few more options.
|
|
Ten
3K Member
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 1,467
70 Shasta 16SC + 1964 Airflyte
Currently Offline
|
Post by Ten on Oct 31, 2016 8:21:20 GMT -8
The fold-down bunks in the Compacts as well as other models of the Shastas seldom left room for anyone much bigger than a 6-year-old. I really never considered the weight issue because of that. I have had the bunk down and climbed up on it myself in the 16SC, and it never gave me pause.
The wall framing is no different for the bunk than the rest of the trailer, still is 1X3 stick framing behind the walls, but remember that the strength of the walls comes from the integral layers of the wall, not just the frame, so the panel inside and the metal outside is also helping to support the load of the bunk. The aluminum support certainly should not ever break. The weakest link has always been the condition of the frame they are screwed into. If there is rot, then expect the screws to pull out at some point.
Another point to consider is the structural support that having the bunk in place gives to the upper rear of the trailer. With the bunk affixed in its place it helps give the upper structure support against swaying. The anchor part of the bunk is nailed in place from outside the paneling, just like the cupboards are, giving credence to the idea that it really should be there.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
Currently Offline
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 31, 2016 9:06:49 GMT -8
Thanks Ten and Vikx, good thoughts just what I was wanting to know. Never thought of the idea of having gained some stability and strength with the addition of the bunk too. Are the supports available on VTS or another place that has a reeommended support?
|
|
|
|
Post by vikx on Apr 14, 2017 20:03:05 GMT -8
Supports for the bunk must be built inside the wall (added framing) If the originals are rotted or compromised, you will need to re-frame before adding supports. Think of it this way: adding a board "inside" does not add much strength if there's nothing to screw into to support it. Make sense?
This type of reframing is done with the skins off or lifted. I would be sure to inspect the framing VERY carefully before trusting the bunk to support a child...
|
|
Ten
3K Member
Posts: 3,432
Likes: 1,467
70 Shasta 16SC + 1964 Airflyte
Currently Offline
|
Post by Ten on Apr 15, 2017 10:33:24 GMT -8
Hi jazw33We might be talking about two different types of "sway" here. When I mentioned sway in the post about the structure support of the bunk, I was referring to what might be better called "rocking", as in rocks side to side if pushed on while stationary. I believe the support is compromised when any part of the original design is changed, even if the design is decades old. I think the sway you are speaking of is most accurately described as "fish-tailing", and that particular definition of sway is not really effected by the same issues. Sway while towing is generally more effected by load distribution. The load of gear and structure has to be evenly distributed across the axle. You have to take into consideration the difference that water tanks and holding tanks, fuel and food, and gear and clothing can make. If it is not evenly balanced and is heavier behind the axle, it takes tongue weight off and causes the trailer to fish-tail. The sway bar will help to get rid of the handling issue, but evening the load can make a much safer and more stable solution. |
|
jazw33
Member
Posts: 38 
Likes: 6
1966 White Star
Currently Offline
|
Post by jazw33 on Apr 18, 2017 10:56:07 GMT -8
Ok, well we were pulling it empty. I do not have water or propane in the camper. It is for dry camping. I have never been a fan of propane. I may put in new lines for a heater next year. But for now we were pulling it empty. It could be "normal" for a camper, I have never pulled one--only large pop-ups. I will have the trailer guy take it for a drive and see what he thinks as far as the way it tows. I could just be paranoid and looking for something that is not there? With the bed now built and a mattress installed and some camping gear loaded it might tow completely different also, seeing as how it didn't even have a bed last tow. Thank you for answering. Hi jazw33 We might be talking about two different types of "sway" here. When I mentioned sway in the post about the structure support of the bunk, I was referring to what might be better called "rocking", as in rocks side to side if pushed on while stationary. I believe the support is compromised when any part of the original design is changed, even if the design is decades old. I think the sway you are speaking of is most accurately described as "fish-tailing", and that particular definition of sway is not really effected by the same issues. Sway while towing is generally more effected by load distribution. The load of gear and structure has to be evenly distributed across the axle. You have to take into consideration the difference that water tanks and holding tanks, fuel and food, and gear and clothing can make. If it is not evenly balanced and is heavier behind the axle, it takes tongue weight off and causes the trailer to fish-tail. The sway bar will help to get rid of the handling issue, but evening the load can make a much safer and more stable solution. |
|
