Opinion on standard dual axles vs wide stance axles?

[okie joe]

Thinking about trading for new trailer, some brands now have the wide stance axles instead of standard dual axles. Would love to hear from those who have pulled similar trailers with each kind and which is best. Thanks,

[goduc]

Wide stance axles are just a way for the manufacture to make a light weight trailer and have a lighter tongue weight. I had the so called Wide Traxx axle spacing on a Heartland TT. It towed horrible. It came from the factory with a 9.5% TW. The axles were positioned closer to the center of the TT. That caused the trailer to not track straight. It would constantly wander. Our previous trailer had the normal axle spacing and the axles were placed more rearward. It towed beautifully. If it was such a great idea then they would all be doing it.

[geotex1]

In trailer design, axle spacing is based on on a few variables that are all dependent upon loading - on one hand to distribute the load better to the axles, on another to increase efficiency of the frame design to optimize member sizing, and there somewhere in-between in the consideration of behavior running down the road. There's absolutely nothing wrong with a wider spacing, and it has been used on trailers outside the camper industry far longer. The only real thing you can "blame" on spread axles is that you cannot "turntable" a trailer with them went backing a tight spot for which I'd argue you have no business doing a turntable with any trailer wearing ST tires in the first place.

The comment about too light of a tongue is a very good one, and the ~12% guideline good for consideration when shopping and looking at the axle configuration. You will often note spread axle models often have large front storage that the designer is pretty much aware campers overload like crazy so you can get tongue weight back. Our 232IS is a great example of a balanced, spread axle as we have two slides over the axles, two of the four holding tanks too, and a front bedroom layout but with front storage area. Right off the lot it had 12% on the tongue with a pair of 30#ers full and battery and tows much more smoothly down the highway, especially with road joints in the condition we have here. Conversely, if you are looking at a model like a lightweight camper with a murphy bed up front leaving no storage it might be a challenge to find the tongue weight for a good attitude running down the highway. I've seen some of the manufacturer's thinking about this too with the spare tire slung below the A-frame, pair of larger propane bottles, and a heavy power jack included.

To get to the point, just be conscious of the weight distribution when shopping - regardless if close or spread-axle - and don't fear one or the other.

[Papa GLS]

The trucking industry went to a lot of spread axles on trailers years back, but if you will notice, so are seeing less & less of them these days. Spread axles cause much quicker tire wear because the axle with the least amount of weight will drag the tires when turning, especially sharply. I have friends with TTs that have spread axles & they have had nothing but trouble. Rapid tire wear as well as bent axles. Just watch a TT with these axels when they turn sharply. Personally, I would stay away from anything with spread axles, although there are probably people out there with these that have had no problems.

[OldCoot]

So, with ST tires we should never turn table? What are we supposed to do, just tow and back straight and never turn? It was my impression that ST tires were built for the side loads in turning. Guess I was wrong again.

[vinmaker]

You can definitely see the tires dragging on these spread axle units when they back in really tight. In fact, I even see it happening to normal axles to a much lesser degree. It is just a factor of the design.

[OldCoot]

Originally Posted by vinmaker

You can definitely see the tires dragging on these spread axle units when they back in really tight. In fact, I even see it happening to normal axles to a much lesser degree. It is just a factor of the design.

All tandem axle trailers do it, it is just the design of wheels not steering/turning and the one with lesser traction has to slide while the one with the greater traction pivots somewhat. I have found that both will distort about an equal amount, on deflects in and the other deflects out.

[geotex1]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

So, with ST tires we should never turn table? What are we supposed to do, just tow and back straight and never turn? It was my impression that ST tires were built for the side loads in turning. Guess I was wrong again.

Simplest way to put it OC, the design of STs were originally based on generally lighter use in smaller diameter than where they have reached presently. Manufacturers have only scaled basic design up in large part. Further, the original design wasn't focused on use in multiple axle configurations. I'm sure that retired tire engineer that popped in here, and if still reading the forum, can take it further than I.

The issue is not true side loading that's at issue with turntabling. It's torsion working at the construction not designed for it. Sure, we've all turntabled but let's admit that at least 75% of those times we could have done a multi-point negotiation to get our rig in there... Let me share an experience I had with an old client. He bought a new TT that was 7 feet longer than his prior and was constantly blowing curbside rear tires on the tandem axle. Spent thousands between tires and alignments and even axle replacement before I was asked to look at it. After meeting him at his Houston home I began to see clearly why he was facing this constant problem. In order to negotiate the narrow street and driveway angle with that long trailer and pickup, he was binding the tandems so tightly (ugly too) he was spinning on that tire (on a broomed concrete drive) as it was taking nearly all of the load on that side with the forward axle lifting due to the slope and coupler fixity. He was basically pushing the trailer in place skidding the curbside front too. Worse yet, he was leaving the bind and just unhitching! He didn't realize any of this should be a concern, but anything that puts something in a state of stress other than its at-rest design condition is a concern.

We sent the tires to one of my sponsors at the time to have them cut and examined. Sure enough, this maneuvering was causing the tread to shear away from the carcass. These were 5 month from manufacture, big brand tires with less than 1500 miles on them. The same manufacturer is who cut them and examined.

So, I am in the camp of if your axles look really ugly negotiating backing in, readjust and work it in over forcing it in. YMMV.

He never had a problem with the trailer again after adjusting his backing habits and then moving 1.5 years later out in the countryside where he now has acres, a 5er, and a pole barn for it to sleep in that he can literally pull-through!

As I said before, I'd be willing to pay a premium for a well-engineered and manufactured trailer tire!

[Papa GLS]

Very well explained geotex1. I still think that spread axles are a problem & would steer clear of them. When we go to dealers or RV shows, we won't even look at a unit with spread axles. Call me crazy, but thats my opinion & we all know about opinions.

Thanks for the good info

[OldCoot]

Originally Posted by geotex1

Simplest way to put it OC, the design of STs were originally based on generally lighter use in smaller diameter than where they have reached presently...

So the tire mfgrs have not changed the design since the first ones built?

According to: All About Trailer Tires | Big Brand Tire & Service

they state the following:

[geotex1]

Originally Posted by OldCoot

So the tire mfgrs have not changed the design since the first ones built?

According to: All About Trailer Tires | Big Brand Tire & Service

they state the following:

IMO, do not rely on a website that amounts to information that is nothing more than someone's ungraded term paper. All but one reference is several hands-removed from fact. The Carlisle reference is the only one worth any weighting and theirs is actually a pretty good one that has hung out their qualifiers for public knowledge the longest (but they also had the toughest run with bad STs). Anyway, seek out conversations with the technical folks (definitely not sales folks) and review the product literature from the manufacturers directly for yourself.

Specifically in your highlight, the first two sentences are true outside of EU-code tires. The third sentence is not fact, it's a derived opinion and you will not find it in any ST-tire manufacturers technical summaries, specs, or sales sheets. This is because it's not that simple. It's a more complex interaction of the tire construction (more shoulder than sidewall), compound, profile, and tread that equate to cornering behavior. Further, cornering behavior is not the same stress condition as a turntable maneuver that I was specifically discussing, which is actually a design consideration to a steer tire.

That said, ST tires actually have not changed substantially since their introduction in terms of structure. Certainly some tread variation. The materials definitely have changed in terms of rubber compound and also the belting (sometimes for the better, sometimes not), but not really any fundamental departure from the traditional North American ST design approach. As far as the tire manufacturers see it, there's no demand and R&D is pennies in a bucket compared to passenger vehicle tires.

In these years, I am only familiar with some numbers from one major source of ST tires for a 5 year snapshot. The number of reported failures and complaints barely register a full percentage point versus number of collective units sold. Barely 1%! No doubt in my mind reporting is a gross underestimate because the end-users don't report the failures. One way or the other, they deal with it and move on or assume they did something wrong - how can't you when you read the stipulations of the ST warranties and all the conditions in the guides put out by Carlisle and the others, and I believe now all ST tire makers cut off life at 5 years in writing. It is actually a reason why you can often get compensation from one of the manufacturers as a result of failure provided you are within that 5 year ultimate window - i.e., because they deal with so few claims it's not big dollars to them so they'll appease to move on.

The actual manufacturing and its quality control is also another element into the durability/serviceability of STs (and any tire). I've seen many argue the "built to North American standards" or "built to US specifications", but with 3-5 year design lives that's not challenging when you also follow the laundry list provided with the ST tire maintenance and warranty guides. IMO, just all means of wiggling out of more responsible designs. Further, I have put my own two feet on the floors of tire plants in several parts of the world, and I would say that you see very little difference between plants in the same socioeconomic region regardless whose name is on the shingle. Frequency of quality control checks and testing is wide, and batches from a single production lot can differ. Only takes a few degrees of off-spec temperature in the Banbury to produce an inferior compound from the finest of constituents. Then with modern tire building done in a two-phase process, the final curing stage is critical and relies on careful temperature and pressure control to aid the chemical reactions along. Slight variation, inferior compound, and contaminants (even worker sweat) greatly effect this final, critical step and failures because of this appear no different that overload/under-pressure delamination...

There's no reason that a better trailer tire cannot be designed... The EU requires a better standard to be followed, but the market is far less and there's few sizes that work with North American trailers. Manufacturers just don't see the need or demand to improve.

Alright, now okie joe, I apologize for my part in rolling your topic down the sidebar of STs!

[thebrakeman]

After 7 seasons with a single-axle popup, we got the 261T. First time I backed it into my driveway, I was pretty impressed with myself, until I heard some screeching and looked at the tires. The entire tread looked to be shifted 2 inches sideways relative to the wheel.

From then on, I take as many times as necessary when on concrete, and never go past 45 degrees or so. On turf is different. But I still always watch the tires, to be sure they aren't shearing like that.

Turn-tabling?? No way! I don't care how well they are made, or how new is the technology. It's doing damage that just isn't necessary.

[OldCoot]

The main thing is to NEVER park the trailer with the tires in a bind. Always pull forward and back a couple of times to get the tires straight.

[tragusa3]

I just got my first 2 axle trailer and worried that my habits from my single axle are not good. There are sites that I don't know how I'd get in if I never exceeded 45 degrees. Can anyone link to a good video that demonstrates how to avoid these problems? Thanks.

[jriddering]

When backing my 5th wheel at home, I have a more than 90 degree turn on dirt. I have a pile of pea gravel that I will throw a bucket on ground to help let tires slide sideways. Works pretty good.

[Papa GLS]

The original question was about AXLES, not tires. This thread is turning into an out of control monster, IMO.

[Platokidd]

Originally Posted by jriddering

When backing my 5th wheel at home, I have a more than 90 degree turn on dirt. I have a pile of pea gravel that I will throw a bucket on ground to help let tires slide sideways. Works pretty good.

X2, I use sand pea gravel mix when backing in my drive. Towed with both wide track and shorter axle spacing units. The wide track axles performs very well for me on the road with no problems at all. Imo they tow much better then the normal spacing TT on the road. It may take a little more effort backing in a campsite, not a big deal if your good at backing up.

[okie joe]

Great discussion I started, thanks for all replies. I have been looking at a Jayco Whitehawk 27DRSL with weight of 5500# or so and only 510# tongue weight vs a Flagstaff 26RLWS with 5600# and tongue weight of 739#. One less than I would like and one more than I would like. Jayco has wide trax axle and Flagstaff conventional tandem axles.