Cars and Trailers

[Vet1]

Hello to all,

I?m a newbie to the forum, but have been lurking and learning. Lots of info from experienced minds. We have been giving serious thought to an RV for retirement cruising and I have come across 2 conundrums in the RV community which I would like to belabor. These gaps exist because of my incorrigible need to reject the norm and embrace the different so bear with me as I cackle until my next scheduled medication.  ;D

The first is the lack of use of tow trailers on ?cars?. Why is that? I think that with today?s technology, cars would be excellent candidates if you stay in the guzzler range. To elaborate a bit, I have a 2007 Chrysler 300C which I consider an engineering marvel of power and efficiency. It boasts on the fly automatic and manual transmission combination; all wheel drive; abs, 4 of 8 cylinders shut down when in cruise mode or the load is low with immediate 8 cylinder response when demanded; 340HP and 390 ft/lb of torque, 3.5:1 gear ratio, etc etc. The tow capacity is only 2000# and it seems like the designer was very conservative in his calculations for a vehicle weighing in at a tad over 2 tons. Shoot...with self leveling shocks, a good trailer tow package, trailer brakes and authoritative use of manual transmission and brakes I bet that figure can be doubled without any problems at all on any grade. A larger transmission cooler would definitely seal the package.

The second is that trailers that do exist are minimalist trailers with very little privacy for owner and guests and not enough quality of life systems capacity for comfortable cruising outside of society?s prying eyes for an extended period unless there is in fact a sizable home being trailed. The weight appears to be the main issue which eliminates tow by cars. The collapsible and foldable trailers are incredible wonders of cloth walls and open plans with the only privacy between guests and your throne being a piece of cloth which is thinner than the paper used to wipe oneself. The non collapsible trailers which are capable of walls and doors double the gas consumption from poor aerodynamic design and suffer from a high center of gravity. In the smaller sizes, the living room and or the dining room seating is set up as ?dedicated? sleeping quarters. That means you can?t go to bed until guests are gone and forget about sleeping in late on a rainy day if the navigator wants breakfast.

I am in no way being critical. They are excellent as purpose designed. The problem that I see is that they are not ?mission? specific. For example, it appears that industry restricts accommodations to length because of width restrictions and greater accommodations can only be had with greater length, but I don?t agree because I can fit 4 single bunks in the same volume for 1 queen size bed.

Much along the same, it appears that weight is driven by the manufacturer?s profit margin, thereby the use of steel with little if any thought given to our current engineering knowledge of existing technologically superior construction materials and I disagree with that as well because a design can be mirrored in alternate materials with the same safety factors at 60 percent the weight and, engineered correctly, corrosion is eliminated or at the very least reduced to just the axle. This of course is classified as ?custom? and a custom price is added to the bottom line, but even those may be cost effective if they are one off because the savings come in sweat equity and fill the required need, but those builders are far and few in between as well since they are overwhelmed by the economy of scale from production line manufacturers.

Being a sailor with more than 20,000 nautical offshore miles under the keel, I can understand and indeed appreciate the minimalist and compact approach because maintenance costs increase by the cube for every additional foot of length overall, but even the smallest cruisers have dedicated sleeping quarters and a solid bulkhead for the head. Indeed, it is my observation that utilized volume based on floor area is usually 50/50 for comfortable living with approximately 70 to 80 square feet per person on board as all the area one could ever need and anything above that has a significant reason for existing or the owners are overcompensating. In all reality, you can only occupy so much space at any given time so why incorporate more?

Wanna talk tight? I put myself through school by driving a conventional tractor-trailer combination (doubles, triples, haz-mats, tankers) for more than 2 million road miles so we can definitely discuss a tight cabin with the top of the engine as my hot plate.

Does anyone feel the same or see the same limitations to the current trailers for cars? It seems that you just can?t get into a comfortable trailer above 15 feet because of weight if you want to tow with a car and you must either settle for the smaller camper, purchase a new vehicle to match the trailer or get the motorhome and tow the toad. Any thoughts and observations would be most welcome and I hope this doesn?t create more heat than light as a discussion.

Thanks
J

 

[Rick and Cheryl]

Not even sure I understand your question, let alone your logic.

And from the plethera of responses, I dont think I am alone.  Heck, just get a big truck and buy what makes you happy, and dont worry about reinventing the wheel,,retirement is too short to worry anyway.

 

[Vet1]

Hello Rick and Cheryl,

I apologize if I created any confusion. Basically my question pertains to the lack of travel trailer with car combinations and I pointed out some of my observations leading to my thinking. In a way, your response is helpful. You know, buy a big truck and whatever makes me happy and be done with it. That pretty much settled that and I suppose settles everyones choices. I wonder how many RV'ers actualy just use that approach to retirement, even if their finances could afford it? How big a truck did you get and what trailer did you attach to it?

You are correct that retirement is too short to spend worrying so we won't do that when we retire. But we have a little time still so we'll look and plan (worry) now. What plethora of responses are you talking about? I only see yours?

Thanks again,
J

 

[Carl L]

Trailer towing vehicles need more than engine capacity to haul a few tons on a hitch.    First of all they need something to attach the hitch to.  An old fashioned ladder frame provides that -- does that Chryser have such a frame?  Trucks do. Then there is the suspension.  Passenger car suspensions are designed to smooth out roads and provide a comfortable ride, not to carry 500 - 1,000 lbs of tongue weight and stabilize a trailer.  Truck brakes are designed to stop a laden truck and towed weights within its ratings.  Passenger car brakes are not.

Accomodations?  Well there are slide outs but 8-1/2 ft maximum width does present problems.  Tho the larger trailers have private master bedrooms, generally speaking a trailer is more like a cabin in the woods than a real house.

 

[Rick and Cheryl]

I have a GM 3500 LTZ dually, pulling a 34.5 IKTG Hitchhiker.  The IKTG is actually closer to 36.5' long, and gross weight of the trailer is close to 15k.  Most who expect to use their rigs quite a bit, ranging up to full-time, are looking for a larger rig in general, 30' plus.  Most find the space in much smaller is just too confining, too little storage, and in general not suitable for extended living on the road.  For just weekend use, much smaller will do.
Regarding weight, to be adequate, a rig needs to have certain basic items, an ac, water heater, frig, stove, microwave, sink, tv, toilet, water and sewage tanks, and etc, and these mfg'rs of these items are fairly limited and not that sensitive to weight issues and arent likely to be in the near future.  So many components of rigs these days tend to be from the same list of mfg'rs.  Add in basic cabinetry, carpet/vinyl, tires, brakes, frame, batteries, countertops, chairs, sofa, dining table, bed, shower, etc, and you start to get an idea of weight thats being added that even the mfg'rs cant really control.  I am not sure what % of weight these add, but its a goodly portion of total weight. 
I think what the market is saying in terms of demand is that it needs the basic items and cramming all those items in a small area, still creates a 5000lb or more rig, and most opt for more "air" rather than cramming.  Once you have sat for 3 solid days of rain/bad weather cooped up in your rig you will understand better why "air" is worth it.
To offset the price, buying used is a common way to reduce the total investment and still get the space and amenities that you want.
Last, I just dont see mfg'rs being willing to change to advanced materials, molds, and extensive re-engineering anytime soon, perhaps when gas reaches $10 gallon but at 2.50, the buying public isnt going to demand a lighter rig.  Europe produces smaller rigs, but so far, very few have been imported for sale in the US.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

As Carl says, most cars are no longer designed for even medium duty towing. Your 300M may have a decent engine, but it is no doubt lacking other features of a good tow vehicle.  The transmission is often a limiting factor, as is the strength of universals and pinion gear. The robustness of the frame (or unit body) in the rear where the hitch must attach is another major consideration.

My GMC Acadia is a bit better in robustness, rated for 4000 lbs towing even though it is a unibody design. Engine is weaker than your 300, with 279 hp and 295 ft lbs in its V6, but it will handle a boat or small travel trailer ok.

As for alternative materials, there are such designs available but they are pricey. Here is one we discussed a few weeks ago:
http://www.rvforum.net/SMF_forum/index.php/topic,24546.msg236610.html#msg236610

 

[John From Detroit]

Darn few cars can match the towing ability of say a Ford F-150, and an F-150 is too small for many trailers.  That said, I have towed small trailers with cars.. Pop Ups, Teardrop and SCAMP trailers tow very nicely.. Most of these are under 2,000 pounds however.

With a larger car I might tow a Hi-Lo

But even in the gas guzzler range most of today's cars are not designed for towing, wrong rear end, not nearly enough oomph.


As the man with the Peterbuilt in his sig file says "There is no replacement for displacement"  Actually, there is no replacement for a good TRUCK type many gear transmission.

 

[Vet1]

Good Morning to all,

I think I see the big picture. I used my 300C only as a comparison and was realy trying to establish a generality for al cars because it seems that a large population is excluded from the road lifestyle because they have cars, but I checked around a bit and came up with some information which I will share for perusal.

The 300C has a towing capacity of 2000# gross. With specialized equipment, the concensus appears to be 3800# . I was actualy shocked to see that it was done and much along the lines of my initial thinking as noted on my first post. It must have self leveling shocks and specific springs, anti-sway and load leveling bars and yes, as already pointed out, the tranni has to receive a larger cooler. Although called specialized, these are common upgrades with little experience required from a mechanic to perform the change out..so I read. The 300C is a unitized body frame which as everyone knows is a monocoque construction with both pros and cons. I'm attaching a picture of a 300C with a 25 foot TT and a very nice solution to a hitch that is "hidden" and does not break up the classical lines of the vehicle. I suspect that the 25 footer may exceed the 3800# gross capacity although the owner claims that the toy tows with "no problem".

http://www.wyckoffchryslerparts.com/20ch300hiac.html

Here is a link that explains the different chassis frame configurations as well since I was trying to figure out how many there actualy are. The ladder apears to be excellent because the load moments are spread out in width and because it can be easily cut and extended when length is required, but it apears that torsion could be a problem creating stressors along the conective points.

http://www.howcarswork.co.uk/modules/articles/article.php?id=16

I still believe that a lighter TT will allow the owner to reduce gross or conversely, increase payload, but again, it was pointed out that the trailer can be made lighter and stronger, but weights for stove, HWH, a/c etc, is pretty much industry standard and cannot be reduced unless their size is reduced. I suspect that these combined weights may be a significant percent of the trailer area where weight could be saved, so the point is well made and taken.

I may be beating a dead horse, and it is crystal clear that automotive design is the restricting and limiting factor for tow capacity but, I still think that a lighter trailer will reduce the stresses on the unit and it is always better to go lighter opposed to heavier for the same strength and that some thinking outside the box, and away from the industry norm might provide an acceptable happy medium for cars to tow a reasonably comfortable TT. For example, aluminum geometry must be bigger to meet the same geometry strength for steel, but it is significantly lighter. A steel plate with .083" thickness will weigh 6.73# and aluminum with a .125" thickness will exceed the strength of steel and weigh only 1.77#. So what if you need a 2x8 cross section for the aluminum instead of a 2x6 for the steel...that's a matter of volume and is not relevant if for example the trailer is a deck-on-top where the additional bulk is beneath the accomodation area.

Here is another area where thinking outside the box may assist in weight reduction. The axles and wheels. Wheels can be aluminum. Many trailers will carry 2 axles rated at say 2500# each for a 5000# trailer, when there are axles rated for 5000#. Why is that? You have half the components that can break or need replacement or maintenance; the weight is cut in half and with Continental tires that are self sealing in case of punctures, flats are a thing of the past until your next inspection where you can have it the nail removed and the tire repaired. Not to mention that tolls wil charge for the extra axle.

Yes, it is true that anything that I can possibly think of has already been thought, but I'm certain that most it may have been discounted as "too expensive" or "not enough profit margin" by manufacturer's acountants and subsequently excluded from implementation.

Any thoughts? Comments?

Everyone enjoy your weekend.

J

 

[RoyM]

When I was a kid, rv'ers towed trailers with a car because that was all they had. Trucks were work vehicles, very spartan with a single vinyl bench seat and few amenities. No crew cabs or vans with room for the family.
As was mentioned, trailers were smaller, simpler and lighter. Later, consumers wanted more comfort and versatility, the vehicle and trailer manufacturers took notice. Larger trailers and dressy p/u's and vans hit the streets. Fuel consumption and emissions became a major issue, cars were downsized making them even less suitable for the rv'er. 99% of car buyers will never tow anything more than a few sheets of drywall or a load of peat moss in a cheapo utility trailer anyway so why would the manufacturers try create a new market? That is what trucks are for.

 

[Vet1]

Larger trailers and dressy p/u's and vans hit the streets. Fuel consumption and emissions became a major issue, cars were downsized making them even less suitable for the rv'er. 99% of car buyers will never tow anything more than a few sheets of drywall or a load of peat moss in a cheapo utility trailer anyway so why would the manufacturers try create a new market? That is what trucks are for.

Hello RoyM,
Regrettably, I agree emphatically and could not have said it any better. This pretty much hits the nail on the head dead on target and this is exactly the reason why my focus is on the travel trailer. Cars will always be left wanting and trucks are as you pointed out, the supply that fills the need. Still, would you agree that a lighter trailer, notwhitstanding the restrictions imposed on it based by the profit margin will always be better for the same strength? I'm going to keep pondering. My bigest problem is that I'm always thinking and testing the water depth.

Gotta go...it is a beautiful day and I need to fire up the boat and terrorize the fish once again. Fish fear me!

J

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Vet1,
Everything you say is true and there are more than a few trailers using aluminum or other alloys instead of steel in structures, wheels, etc. There are also trailers with aluminum sidewalls instead of heavy fibergass, e.g. Holiday Presidential. However, since these add to the cost, they are generally found mostly in higher end models that are already heavy with features and amenities, so they extra cost is a small bump in the already high price tag. There are some modest priced ones, though..

Here is a brand that specializes in light weight trailers, including use of aluminum frames.
http://www.trail-lite.com/trail-lite-lightweight-travel-trailers.asp

Here's one source that summarizes the brands of ultra light weight trailers, but these may be mostly too small for your needs:
http://www.johnweeks.com/random/campers/


Older trailers (1970-1980's) are considerably lighter than their new counterparts, but they have fewer amenities, no slideouts, small water tanks, etc.  They actually use wood frames and tin siding but end up fairly light.

 

[rbell]

Our first trailer was a Trailmanor. They have a very clever way of folding up and the top parts can be raised with 1 hand. It's all hard sided, but it's not real good in cold weather because of all the seams. It is still the best pulling trailer I ever had. It's a small company in Tenn. about 1/4 mile off of I-75. But as we stated using it more it got too small.

Trail-lite was owned by Monaco which is just recovering from bankruptcy, they have been bought up by Navistar. The Trail-lite plant is still closed though.

 

[Vet1]

Hello to all,

Rbell, that Trail manor is outstanding. Right now it is without a doubt my favorite. I think the foldable does a god job of separating the accommodations, but there is no privacy. The 2720 is my all time favorite.

RVRoamer,
Thank you for the link to the different TT summary. It was quite a source of reference. Those are all really nice solutions that appear to have been given some thought for their purpose. I liked almost all of them. I will look it over closely and make some observations to discuss.

Thanks
J

 

[Vet1]

Hello to all,

Okay. Here is what I have calculated and observed from the summary provided for perusal.

As already noted in prior posts, accommodations are scant at best and it would be extremely difficult for full timers or even extended campers to live in harmony unless you live outside, literally. This may of course, be a good thing depending on the person or area. Being a larger than normal person, I would definitely suffer from cabin claustrophobia. It?s like they say, a boat can be small because you live ?on it? and not ?in it?.

It appears that the weight per foot of length based on dry weight ranges from a low of 57# to a high of 133# averaging 99#. Some designs fared well for payload capacity and others not as well. They average approximately 1.8#?s of payload to every # of dry weight with worst case being 1.2# of payload to every # of dry weight for (R Vision Cassette) and, best case being 3.44# of payload to every # of dry weight for (Nik-Nat 17). Notice that the Nik-Nat 17 has solved the weight issue I discuss by the use of aluminum but, like I have already mentioned, dining accommodations are dedicated sleeping quarters and the bathroom and all other quality of life amenities are optional and excluded, so I suspect that the 3.44# ratio will be reduced quickly. I think that the Nik-Nat would be an excellent subject to study for use as a ?car? trailer. The question now becomes, which cars would be able to tow 3500# Gross. I see the chart for trucks, but not for cars. Even the Trail Manors don?t mention cars. Anyone know of any chart for cars?

Thanks
J

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Prior to 2003, the Trailer Life Towing Guides listed passenger cars as well as SUVs and trucks, so maybe you could get some clues there.

http://www.trailerlife.com/output.cfm?id=42175

New "crossover" SUVs are car-like but generally have higher tow ratings than cars. My GMC Acadia is rated for 4500 lbs. In general,  you would be better off looking at SUVs than sedans.

 

[Lou Schneider]

Weight is just one factor in determining towability.   The other is the increased frontal area a boxy trailer adds to the combination.

Modern cars are geared for optimum fuel economy.   This means the gearing is set so the engine is runs at the optimum speed to develop the power needed to move the car down the road.   Increasing the frontal area by placing a large, boxy trailer behind the car increases the load on the engine, either lugging it or making the transmission downshift, moving the engine out of it's most efficient operating range.

Another factor is how the trailer handles the wind.  Those long, high sidewalls present a lot of cross area to sidewinds and the suction created by passing trucks.   All else being equal, a heavier trailer will be buffeted less than a lighter one.

 

[Vet1]

Prior to 2003, the Trailer Life Towing Guides listed passenger cars as well as SUVs and trucks, so maybe you could get some clues there.

http://www.trailerlife.com/output.cfm?id=42175

New "crossover" SUVs are car-like but generally have higher tow ratings than cars. My GMC Acadia is rated for 4500 lbs. In general,  you would be better off looking at SUVs than sedans.

RV Roamer,
I went, I saw and I was most unhappy. :'(
The 2000 and 2001 guides have most of the information for cars. It appears that the engineering baseline is 2000# and aproximately 1.6 to 1.9 times greater for towing ratings with special towing packages as I mentioned in a prior post. I calculated it in my head because there were just way to many to go through and I didn't do them all, but I feel confident it is close. The smallest I saw was a  2.8L V6 Volkswagon Eurovan at 4400#!

I understand your point that it probably isn't a good idea to come in at less than 4000# and generaly, that appears to be the case. But I'm not convinced that cars can/should be excluded altogether just yet. I think that a good trailer design with a good tow package on a recent model in the guzzler range is still in the race. Yes I know, you have to compromise with either a boxy and "public" afterthought for accommodation or a flimsy trailer.

Weight is just one factor in determining towability.  The other is the increased frontal area a boxy trailer adds to the combination.
Modern cars are geared for optimum fuel economy.  This means the gearing is set so the engine is runs at the optimum speed to develop the power needed to move the car down the road.  Increasing the frontal area by placing a large, boxy trailer behind the car increases the load on the engine, either lugging it or making the transmission downshift, moving the engine out of it's most efficient operating range.

Another factor is how the trailer handles the wind.  Those long, high sidewalls present a lot of cross area to sidewinds and the suction created by passing trucks.  All else being equal, a heavier trailer will be buffeted less than a lighter one.

All true. Drag comes in many forms and loads from drag due to windage is especially high because they are not linear. They increase in proportion to the wind speed squared. For example, consider a frontal area of a trailer (above the car) of 4x8 feet for a total of 32 sq ft. At 30mph, the loads are 3.88# sq ft for a total of 124.16#. At 55mph, the loads are 13.4# sq ft for a total of 428.8# on that same 32 sq ft. Wind velocity did not double, yet the loads almost quadrupled. This can be streamlined so that the wind "wraps" and "attaches" around like an airfoil. Which in my opinion does not happen often enough for uprights. There is just something easy about a square for construction purposes even if the additional penalty gets carried by the consumer. Sidewind loads increase proportional to the square for the vertical center of gravity and the suction is a vaccum which is created when a low pressure force is exherted against a high pressure force and the forces want to equalize the pressure differential. It "sucks" it up.

The gearing issue is also a concern as you have pointed out, but that can be mitigated if the vehicle also has a manual transmission...as does my 300C.  ;D You meant to say  a heavier trailer wil be buffetted the same as a light trailer, but it will experience less flex because of greater "inertia", or resistance to change in velocity due to mass. ;D Right?  So..., keep it light but strong. Streamline it. Lower the center of gravity. Put it on a wide base and you have an excelent TT!

I'm beginning to think it may be a good idea to doodle up a general floor arrangement and do a preliminary weight study to establish the feasibility of designing a TT. Anyone interested in collaboration ??? I would only inconvenience you for information and advice.

Thanks
J

 

[Lou Schneider]

You meant to say  a heavier trailer wil be buffetted the same as a light trailer, but it will experience less flex because of greater "inertia", or resistance to change in velocity due to mass. Grin Right?  So..., keep it light but strong. Streamline it. Lower the center of gravity. Put it on a wide base and you have an excelent TT!

Flex has little to do with it.  A heavier trailer has more inertia, so it takes more side force to push it out of line.  Side forces are directly related to wind speed and the square footage of the trailer's walls.

The center of the force in relation to the trailer's axle is another factor.  Side forces centered behind the trailer's axle (the bow wake of an overtaking truck hitting the rear of the trailer, for example) will rotate the trailer around the axle - pushing the front in the opposite direction and creating sway.  A longer rear overhang creates more leverage to rotate the trailer.  Side forces centered ahead of the axle will push both the front and rear of the trailer in the same direction, which is a more stable situation.  That's why commercial box trailers have their axles all the way at the rear of the box.

 

[Vet1]

Flex has little to do with it.  A heavier trailer has more inertia, so it takes more side force to push it out of line.  Side forces are directly related to wind speed and the square footage of the trailer's walls.

The center of the force in relation to the trailer's axle is another factor.  Side forces centered behind the trailer's axle (the bow wake of an overtaking truck hitting the rear of the trailer, for example) will rotate the trailer around the axle - pushing the front in the opposite direction and creating sway.  A longer rear overhang creates more leverage to rotate the trailer.  Side forces centered ahead of the axle will push both the front and rear of the trailer in the same direction, which is a more stable situation.  That's why commercial box trailers have their axles all the way at the rear of the box.

Hello to all,

You are of course 100% correct on all points. I wrote flex but I meant to say motion or better yet, displacement from centerline. Thanks for the catch and excellent observation. Side forces are as you said, directly related, but more in wind force than area because wind force squares with velocity, and, there is also a relationship attached to the center of gravity as I mentioned. The minute that the wind force pushes the CG outboard of perpendicular to vertical, there is a couple formed by the arm, which just means a moment due to the distance from the vertical to the new cg positionat x-degrees. Righting moment will always equal heeling moment and are equal and opposite until the heeling moment exceeds the righting moment and then...well, only a miracle can keep her from tipping on to her ears.

I wanted to mention that I did a general weight estimate for a TT concept and I wasn't sure what some manufacuterers consider "dry weight" because some provided a box and others included other things. I know that it means structure, empty tanks etc, but are there certain things included such as microwave, heaters, a/c, etc? What would normally be the minimum included in a TT, say 18 to 21 feet, for two to full time or boondock for a reasonable period of time with ocassional guests? No sleeping or keeping stores in the car is allowed.

Thanks

J

 

[Vet1]

Good evening to all,

I made found time today to doodle a bit along the lines of my initial thinking about a car towed trailer. I have attached the file with my thoughts on weight estimates and the preliminary sketches. Any input or comments on the layout would be most welcomed just bear in mind it is a first sketch to just look at general arrangement and anything can change.

As you can see, I have tried to incorporate two design elements which must have been thought about, but either not incorporated in current designs or I haven?t found them. If anyone knows if it has been done, please advise. The first is visible in the sketch. The problem. Mother nature?s call must be answered and when you can?t make the next stop on time, you gotta go. So, the choice is squat and go on the side of the road or set up and telescope the trailer and use the bathroom. Where the latter is an inconvenience while you hold it in, the former is unacceptable. With this design, you only telescope the bathroom and not the whole trailer. To keep this process simple, it can be done manually since it is light compared to the whole rig, or the battery from the car can be used.

The other design element you can?t see because I haven?t finished working out the details but here is a brief description. There are several ways to telescope a trailer, but in general, it is done by way of cables on pull/pull geometry. That can be done manually or by way of a dc motor. In this design, the wires are still used but the telescoping does not take place by way of motor or manually. No it isn?t magic. Envision a plate/chock system where the wires are attached to a plate which has a forward fixed chock and a rear removable chock. The rear chock is removed and the plate is placed in front of the trailer tire. As the trailer gets pulled forward, it climbs the plate and secures it from moving. As the trailer continues to move forward, the wires are pulled taught and the telescoping takes place until the tire hits the front chock (full telescoping height is attained). Then the rear chock is pinned in place and minor up/down adjustments  can be made to the telescoped trailer by way of a turnbuckle. I estimate about half of a tire rotation (3.5?) to telescope the trailer, but I have to work out the calculations, dimensions and geometry. I will have something drafted up for a visual explanation since this sounds a bit confusing. This system can be carried in the car for additional weight savings to the trailer and it reduces battery use along with tire chocking as well. Any thoughts on this system is welcomed as well.

Okay. Everyone have a safe weekend.

Thanks
J