Trailer Finished

A forum about Trailering, Launching and Retrieving the Telstar.
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

I think I've modified the Venture trailer to the point where it should have been on day one. The only thing I'd wish for now is that it was built out of aluminum, but that's obviously not possible now. That would knock off about 500 pounds. Here's a list of what I did do -

1. Replaced stock 2 wheel drum brakes with TieDown Engineering 4 wheel ventilated discs (with almuminm calipers and stainless cylinders/pistons). No one makes stainless rotors that fit behind 13 inch wheels.

2. Replaced old TieDown Engineering master cylinder with new disc brake capable units. Also TieDown, but now contains stainless rods & pistons.

3. Added TieDown Engineering disc brake backup solenoid (with brake pressure diverted back to master cylinder).

4. Replaced most of the brake lines with stainless tubing and added heavy duty rubber hoses to allow axles and floating calipers to move without stressing tubing.

5. Replaced lights with waterproof LED lights (much brighter and about 1/5 of the power). Sealed units - Totally waterproof.

6. Replaced standard front jack with heavier duty (1200 pound) Fulton saltwater capable jack. Much heavier construction - it looks like it could hold 10 times the weight of what Venture bolted on. Also has more adjustment - goes higher and lower.

7. Moved axles back 3 1/2 inches to increase tongue weight and reduce load on tires. Couldn't decide between 3 or 4 inches, so I compromised. I'll weigh the tongue in about 7 weeks when the boat is back on the trailer. The stock tongue weight is about 420 pounds with the 20hp motor in back - and is about 130 to 250 pounds too low for this 6500 pound trailer and boat.

The trailer and boat have always been hauled with an Equal-I-Zer weight distributing hitch on the back of my 1/2 ton Avalanche. I think this is a necessary option for anyone towing more than 50 miles at speeds above 50, and with anything smaller than a HD 1 ton pickup. I'd use it on the 1 ton too.

I would have liked to upgrade to 14 inch wheels and tires, but that would have forced me to raise the fenders, all of the bunks holding the boat, and the boat itself. An aluminum trailer would have larger beams and would have forced the boat up even more, so maybe galvanized is the better compromise. Graham Osborne (protypes #301 and #302) is building an aluminum trailer. I'm waiting to see what he winds up with.

I've posted a bunch of pictures over the last few months on most of the above. Most are probably in the members section.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

Just remembered trailer modification #8 - I replaced the stock emergency chains with heavier duty versions which have spring clips that close the open hook - so they won't accidently fall off the receiver. It scares me to think about one of the chains falling down and getting stuck on something on the ground (sewer cover, bridge expansion strip, etc. That would cause a nasty condition.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
luigisante
Posts: 319
Joined: Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:19 pm
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by luigisante »

My old trailer (the original one) has been sitting from its last move for nearly 5 years. It was in bad shape even then. I will be in the market for a new one, once I get my boat to a yard.

Does anyone think that the new trialers (if made stock - they should be a bit less expensive than a custom build - no?) will carry a Mark 1? I will be interested to see what Graham does so that I might copy it. I need something that can sail down I-95 at 55 mph every fall and back again in the Spring.

Lou
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

The trailer is probably ok, but the custom bunks and stands would probably all be in the wrong place. They can be moved forward, back and up (but not easily down). And you may have to fabricate the two big fiberglass curved bunks if the shape of the hull is not exactly the same.

I thought Venture had a good name, but after fixing all of the problems and mediocre materials that came with my trailer, I'd be hard pressed to recommend any Venture trailer. But that could be because it was spec'ed out wrong (e.g. 2 drum brakes vs. 4 discs). I would never have ordered it as is - I should have checked what PC was supplying, so it's partially my fault. I had no idea that Venture was putting brakes on only one axle - that's not even legal in half of the states, and definitely not safe in any of them. Lets see what Graham winds up with. He's going to fabricate aluminum beams and bunks that attach to the sides of the main beams (not go over the top), so that could lower the whole thing a drop. It won't be cheap though.

Note that I expect to be satisfied with what I have now. Every problem or questionable accessory has been replaced. You've got to order it this way. Venture would be happy to build it any way you want.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

The boat's on the trailer in my NJ driveway now. The empty boat (sails in house, 20 hp Honda in back) used to put just under 400 pounds on the tongue. With the 4 sails and everything else stored as far forward as possible, I had gotten the weight up to around 450. Now with the axles moved back nearly 4 inches, the empty weight is now around 460 and the loaded weight is around 510. Considering the tongue weight should be around 8 to 10 percent of the total weight (6500 pounds), it's pretty good now (around 8 percent). I expect to move the axles back another 1 1/2 inches in a few weeks, a total of 5 1/2 inches then, to get the tongue to around 560.

As I said above, the STOCK setup puts under 400 pounds on the tongue and, at 6 percent, that is too LOW. You're probably approaching 5 percent with the heavier 50 hp motor out in the back of the boat. Add some batteries back there and it will be even worse. It will cause the back end of the truck to jump around a lot. It's not really a hard job - you need a jack, maybe a few stands, and a socket set. Loosen up the 12 nuts (or so) and slide the whole assembly back, a litte at a time on each side, to a tape mark on both sides that's maybe 5 inches away. There should be more than enough slack in the coiled up brake line. It would be a lot easier to do this with the boat off of the trailer.

If you're not sure how to measure the weight, take a look at the photo's below. Rig a balance beam with a bathroom scale on one side. Put the tongue 1/4 of the length from the stationary side. If you put it in the middle, you might break the scale. Lower the tongue. Multilply reading by 4. In my case it was 127 x 4 = 508.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

Boat and trailer are now down in Florida. 1300 miles and absolutely no problems at all, even in the rain. The 4 disc brakes more than double the stopping power of the 2 stock drums and also work much better when wet. The truck's brakes no longer have to help in this process - each end takes care of itself. Hit the brake pedal and it just gracefully and quickly stops. I guess that I'm taking at least 100 feet off of the 60 to 0 stopping distance now (that's 5 to 6 car lengths). The temperature of the 8 ventilated brakes and hubs never even got over 120 degrees. 6 months ago I was up to 400 degrees with the two trailer drums, and about 30 degrees higher on the truck.

Getting the tongue weight over 520 pounds and distributing some of it to the trucks front axle also markedly improved the tow. Other than some blocked rearward vision and horrible gas mileage, I wouldn't have even known that there was 6500 pounds of boat and trailer back there. Like a Sunday drive thru the park.

This is the way Venture should have built the trailer. Not sure who to blame for this one, but I will never let anyone else ever spec out a trailer again.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
dcsailing1
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: Bandon, Oregon
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by dcsailing1 »

Ron: Thanks again for all the info on the brake setup you ended up with. I earlier said I would stick with drums, but that was before the last haul home from the marina last fall and backing in the shed with one wheel stuck and dragging. Four Tie Down disks + new actuator and lines are on the way.

Oh by the way, my earlier recommend of switching to synthetic brake fluid for boat trailers is frowned on by Tie Down in bold print. Guess it's a compatibility problem with their components, so back to DOT 3 for the new setup.
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

Dave -

I've seen some complaints about silicone brake fluid. Numerous manufacturers advise to stay away from it. It's actually DOT 5, not 4. Did TieDown say to stay away from 4 as well? DOT 4 is glycol based (like DOT 3) with some additives, not silicone, and would not have the same side effects. I'm building a tube frame 63 Corvette race car with a heavy duty Wilwood disc brake setup - made for racing cars only. They strongly advise against putting DOT 5 into the system. It's not even allowed in most classes. I got the following from a google search and it might explain some of the DOT 5 differences -
-------------------------------------------------------
Strengths:
1) It has a high boiling point since it does not absorb water. Therefore, there's no so-called wet boiling point.
2) Doesn't absorb moisture.
3) Doesn't remove paint.
4) The viscosity is more stable over the extremes of temperature.
5) With the exception of some formulations used in external boots, silicone brake fluid is compatible with all standard brake components.

Drawbacks:
1) It's hard to pour without entraining air bubbles--hence an application will generally have a softer, spongier pedal feel.
2) It doesn't absorb water, so any water already in the system accu-mulates in the lowest point of the system and stays there, causing rust.
3) Glycol fluids begin to compress near their boiling points, whereas silicone fluids begin to compress at around 300-350 degrees Fahrenheit.
4) Additives in the fluid can vaporize at comparatively moderate temperature, increasing the spongy feel.
5) Silicone fluids expand significantly when hot.
6) Silicone fluid is functionally incompatible with systems that have held glycol-based fluids for any length of time, requiring flushing and seal replacement (there are counter opinions on this, which state that the modern silicone formulations are in fact compatible with only a flushing, rather than a complete reseal). The actual DOT specification requires chemical compatibility, so as far as that goes, the two fluids won't cause reactions if used in the same system, but they certainly won't mix, either.
7) It's pretty much incompatible with anti-lock brakes because the silicone fluids tend to be more viscous, which can cause problems with the timing of the pulses that are intended to work with the thinner glycol-base fluid. This sometimes leads to damage of the ABS valving. The rapid pulsing necessary to anti-lock functions tend to cavitate the fluid, as the tiny bubbles collapse and coalesce into larger ones, and then collapse and reform into smaller ones. This tends to counteract the ABS effect and can diminish the actual effective braking. This condition also heats the fluid and can lead to even more sponginess and possible damage to the ABS controller. Thirdly, silicone brake fluid tends to foam when expressed from a small orifice under pressure, reducing its hydraulic effectiveness greatly.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
dcsailing1
Posts: 47
Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2009 8:01 pm
Location: Bandon, Oregon
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by dcsailing1 »

Ron, Makes some sense, though my own experience is:

New boat trailer in 95 for a heavy 25’ I/O powerboat. Had trailer builder put DOT 5 in the new tandem brake system hoping to keep water out. Many salt water launches over the years with pressure rinses for the drum brakes most of the time. It worked fine until a couple of years ago when I “popped” a seal in the brakes when winch failed and I couldn’t get the boat the last foot ahead on the trailer. Short run and jammed the truck brakes, boat was now here it needed to be but no brake fluid or brakes. Boat has been sitting in the shed every since so have not explored what let go. But system wise the surge brakes seemed to work just fine for several years with the DOT5, a pressure rinse most of the time and no other maintenance other then keeping the hub savers full of grease and no “hot - axle/brake” launches.

The prior to 95 boat and trailer needed quite a bit of brake work from time to time, usually around internal water/rust in the brake system causing dragging or no brake on one wheel. Thus my choice and I guess successful trial with the DOT5 for the new 95 trailer.

I will however use DOT 3 in the new Venture disk brakes.
Ron
Posts: 1136
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 6:15 pm
Location: SW Florida
Contact:

Trailer Finished

Post by Ron »

Dave -

Not sure if the silicone DOT 5 was responsible for the lack of trouble on the new brake system. I think DOT 3 or 4 would probably have worked as well. It was all new so you avoided any of the mix and match 3/4 and 5 fluid problems. The new parts could have been substantially better than what was replaced too. I suppose 3, 4 or 5 will work in most cases, but 5 is not necessarily better than 4 and it could cause some problems in some applications. One should definitely not mix the two though, and you're really got to clean out the brake system if you want to "upgrade" to 5, and possibly change some of the rubber fittings and covers. I copied the following from a motorcycle web site -

"In years past, all brake fluids were glycol. Then D.O.T. 5, a silicone fluid having a higher temperature rating, emerged, initially to meet the higher boiling point requirements of racing use. (Race car brake systems include oil-cooler-like heat exchangers and ceramic pads.) Silicone fluid was able to withstand the most heat of any brake fluid, so it earned a reputation as a racing brake fluid. However, silicone brake fluid has properties very different from glycol fluid, and has its own pros and cons. On the advantage side, silicone fluid will not harm paint or plastic, and does not aggressively attract additional moisture as glycol fluid does. On the disadvantage side however, silicone fluid aerates easily. Harley-Davison, one of the sole current OEM users of silicone fluid, warns buyers to let the fluid sit at least an hour before using it. The trip home in the saddlebag is enough to aerate silicone brake fluid until it looks like a freshly poured soft drink. Silicone fluid is also slightly more compressible than glycol fluid, does not change color to tip the user to its moisture content, and worst of all, neither accepts or disperses moisture, making systems using it more corrosion prone, and requiring much more frequent fluid changes. Silicone brake fluid also lacks glycol fluid's naturally occuring lubricity, making it incompatible with the mechanical valving in some antilock braking systems."

Note that a number of companies that make braking systems for race cars are starting to shy away from DOT 5 because of the above and the soft pedal that the fluid causes. The newer DOT 5.1 is a glycol based fluid with the high temperature ratings of the silicone DOT 5 but with none of the dis-advantages. You can also get a high temperature rated DOT 4 as well.
Ron Marcuse
Telstar 28 #359 "Tri-Power"
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest