|
|
06-01-2008, 04:37 PM
|
#41
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land O Lakes
Posts: 2,751
M.O.C. #7753
|
Cool Beans, nice pics. I may try to find another rear electric jack system tp put right where you have the jacks or I could do jacks too. I still have my drill and my big socket so I could do that too but only for long stays. Thanks for the idea... Dave
|
|
|
06-01-2008, 06:07 PM
|
#42
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
|
If your goal is to stop up and down bouncing on the suspension I'd think you wouldn't want the angled telescoping stabilizers. You'd probably want something that goes straight up and down, wouldn't you?
|
|
|
06-01-2008, 06:24 PM
|
#43
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Land O Lakes
Posts: 2,751
M.O.C. #7753
|
Good point Steve, the longer I think about it the more the jacks make sense. I like the telescoping stabilizers because I just hit a button and they drop and all I have to do is tighten the T-bolts. But for the suspension I would need a vertical lift instead of the diagonal with the stabilizers. I guess I will just track down a pair of the scissor jacks and go that way. Thanks for the input.. Dave
|
|
|
06-04-2008, 07:15 AM
|
#44
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 708
M.O.C. #6958
|
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sreigle
Now what, Bill and Lisa?
|
Steve,
Now we continue to enjoy our rig. Speaking with the manufacturer there is no reason to change my set up to their recommended configuration if I am happy with the current install. As a physics major it still makes more sense to me to stabilize the rear of the unit in two different directions instead of twice in the same direction. Maybe the rear of our monty (due to the rear kitchen) is different from the others in that the rear stablizers are very far back on the unit and mounting the Plug-It-Rights (PIR)as recommended would only result in a difference of about 3 inches in where the connection to the frame occurs. As those that attended the NE Rally can attest, our rig is solid even with 5-6 adults running around inside.
I do find that the after market stablizers work better when "loaded" - a strain placed on the stablizer arms. I level the unit. Lower the front landing gear 3 secs, lower the rear stablizers and tighten up the PIR handles in the rear. I then raise the front landing gear for 6 secs, tighten the front PIR handles and finally lower the landing gear 3 secs to return to level. You do have to be careful not to over extend the rear stablizers in this process or you can overload them when raising the 6 secs. Either way, you need to find a way to put a strain on the after markets so take some of the movement out of the rig.
Bill
__________________
Bill and Lisa Rearick
2023 Grand Design Reflection 367BHS
2020 GMC SIERRA 2500 Denali, 8 ft bed, SRW, Duramax Diesel w/10 speed Alison Transmission.
|
|
|
06-04-2008, 05:27 PM
|
#45
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
|
Thanks, Bill. I do understand what you're saying. My Physics is limited to classroom study many years ago but some of it actually stuck!
What's happening here is that on our Montana the telescoping rear stabilizers do not do a good job of stopping tail wagging no matter how hard we dial them down. The Eliminator stabilizers hopefully add to that function, stopping tail wag. The Tech told me if my rear stabilizers are doing their job, then put the arms fore-aft. If not, put them crosswise. So I guess he's saying use them to do the most good for my particular situation. Makes sense to me.
Our foreaft stabilization is good with the Eliminators, the front landing gear and a small amount of fore-aft protection from both the rear stabilizers and the scissor jacks.
Bottom line is we need tail wagging reduction more than we need fore-aft movement reduction. I hope that makes sense.
The Eliminator tech told me he knows of a situation where three guys went together to buy an extra set of Eliminators. Like the JT's, a set consists of six arms. Each guy got two arms and added them in the other axis on their rear stabilizers.
|
|
|
06-05-2008, 03:18 AM
|
#46
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Pagosa Springs
Posts: 3,711
M.O.C. #3120
|
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sreigle
The Eliminator tech told me he knows of a situation where three guys went together to buy an extra set of Eliminators. Like the JT's, a set consists of six arms. Each guy got two arms and added them in the other axis on their rear stabilizers.
|
Steve, just goes to show you, there's at least one salesman in every crowd!
|
|
|
06-06-2008, 03:16 AM
|
#47
|
Montana Fan
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location:
Posts: 176
M.O.C. #6077
|
Quote:
quote:Originally posted by sreigle
Thanks, Bill. I do understand what you're saying. My Physics is limited to classroom study many years ago but some of it actually stuck!
What's happening here is that on our Montana the telescoping rear stabilizers do not do a good job of stopping tail wagging no matter how hard we dial them down. The Eliminator stabilizers hopefully add to that function, stopping tail wag. The Tech told me if my rear stabilizers are doing their job, then put the arms fore-aft. If not, put them crosswise. So I guess he's saying use them to do the most good for my particular situation. Makes sense to me.
Our foreaft stabilization is good with the Eliminators, the front landing gear and a small amount of fore-aft protection from both the rear stabilizers and the scissor jacks.
Bottom line is we need tail wagging reduction more than we need fore-aft movement reduction. I hope that makes sense.
The Eliminator tech told me he knows of a situation where three guys went together to buy an extra set of Eliminators. Like the JT's, a set consists of six arms. Each guy got two arms and added them in the other axis on their rear stabilizers.
|
My thoughts exactly, I have no issues with up and down but without the stabilizers we had lots of tail wagging. Our previous SOB 5th wheel used the BAL jacks on the rear that had one leg on each side that dropped down. It made for a much more solid rig than the scizzor jacks.
|
|
|
06-06-2008, 06:55 AM
|
#48
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia Beach
Posts: 708
M.O.C. #6958
|
Steve, one final thought. Recently at the NE rally I saw this alot. The rear of the sites tended to fall off into a little bit of a valley and then up again to the sites on the next row (our backend and their's faced each other).
Several of the rear stablizers I saw were nearly straight up and down and as you can imagine there was a huge amount of tail wag in these units whose back end was basically balanced on a pogo stick. I had to use some 4x4's stacked 2 high and my extra leveling blocks to keep from over extending my rear stablizers. I try never to get greater than a 45 degree angle between the bottom of the rig and the stablizer arm so that I still get some good side to side stablization out of the rear stablizers.
Even with JT's or the knockoffs the farther you are from having the arms vertical the better the results will be. Even scissor jacks will lose much of their functionality if they are fully extended and approach a straight up and down vertical shape.
__________________
Bill and Lisa Rearick
2023 Grand Design Reflection 367BHS
2020 GMC SIERRA 2500 Denali, 8 ft bed, SRW, Duramax Diesel w/10 speed Alison Transmission.
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 02:22 PM
|
#49
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
|
Thanks, Bill. CountryGuy pointed out the same thing to me in Mission in the RGV winter before last when I asked why he had so many blocks under his. We took it to heart and do the same thing.
We have eliminated most of the motion but we still have a little bit. I really thought we'd not have even this much motion. So I guess in a way we're a little bit disappointed even though they do take out a lot of motion. For now, we're experimenting with different ways of positioning the stabilizers/landing gear, blocks, etc.
Another thing that helps is to run the landing gear down as far as I can without bottoming and still have enough leg left to lift off the truck and then to level the rig. Someone pointed out a year or two ago that the more inner leg exposed the more movement. We also use blocks to help with this.
|
|
|
06-07-2008, 03:28 PM
|
#50
|
Montana Master
Join Date: May 2003
Location: New Bern
Posts: 4,294
M.O.C. #311
|
I am in the process of installing the JT Stabalizers. After one of the post I am thinking that it is more beneficial to have more leg extended with the stabalizers than without. I do agree the smallest leg should be as minimum as possible. Currently I use a 6x6 block under the front legs. I will have to experiment to see what happens.
Cheers,
|
|
|
06-08-2008, 07:27 AM
|
#51
|
Montana Master
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Oceanside
Posts: 20,028
M.O.C. #20
|
Again, I am not a physics expert so maybe someone can jump in and help us with this. Since the movement is side to side, it seems to me that having the arms closer to that same plane would be more beneficial. But, that's with the arms connected as close to the feet as possible. But I really don't know.
John, we currently have minimal blocking and have a fair amount of leg extended. However, we also have the inner leg extended more than I normally like. We're experimenting, too. I think next stop, which is an overnight stop, I'll try minimizing extension of the landing gear, especially the inner legs, if the terrain permits. It's easier to experiment on overnight stays where I don't have to hitch up to change the landing gear extension.
Anyone out there with experience setting up with these stabilizers please feel free to tell us what you've found works and what doesn't.
on edit -- yesterday I raised the rear stabilizers, removed the slim yellow plastic square we had put under them and inserted one stack of three 2x10's that I have already set up and screwed together. That's about 4 1/2 inches of height as opposed ot maybe 3/8 inch. It did seem to help. Still more movement than I like but better.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
|
» Recent Threads |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|