Tab 400 - Weight-Distribution Hitch Not Recommended Due To C-Channel Construction

JEB

robyn769 said:

I have a 4 door Wrangler. Do you think the fastway is too much additional weight for it? My dealer told me the distribution of the overall weight more than compensates for the weight of the hitch. Is your jeep also the wrangler?  If so perhaps we could chat via private message after you give it a go without the WDH.

I have a Grand Cherokee.  Different animal.  But I am very familiar with the Wrangler Unlimited, particularly the Rubicon.  Your biggest challenge is tongue weight.  Tongue weight is tongue weight.  It doesn’t matter whether you use a WDH or not.  You have 350 pounds to play with. That’s it.  The 400 is already at 390 dry, and that doesn’t include the weight of the hitch.  I hate to be blunt here, because you are enamored with the Wrangler.  Understandably.  It’s a great vehicle.  But it’s not a tow vehicle.  You will be overloading the tongue with the 400.  I am aware of the various techniques for redistributing loads to reduce effective tongue weight, but I doubt they will be sufficient to give you an adequate—or any—safety margin. The axle on the 400 is too far aft.

When I bought my first trailer I tried to tow it with a vehicle that was barely within the specs. I tried every trick in the book to get it to tow comfortably and safely.  Eventually, I had to just swallow my pride and admit that my tow vehicle was not up to the task.

I’m sorry. I have been in your predicament. And although I can talk you through a hitch that will fit, it won’t fix your real issue and I don’t have a solution for you.

Awca12a

I went though the same thing with our 25’ trailer believing the salesman who looked at my SUV  and said no problem.  Got pulled backwards going up a hill with a decent turn when we hit a pothole.    Also have to think about how you’d stop if for some reason the 7way disconnected.  My SUV was at limit and my spreadsheet showing load placement just didn’t help on the day I forgot I couldn’t take those few bundles of wood. 

BigGrover

Personally, I do not like to exceed 70% of either tongue weight or tow weight.  I figure the maximums are figured at best possible operating conditions which are pretty rare imho.

MandoBiker

I noticed that they have upped the tongue weights listed in the 400 specs on the nuCamp webpage.  They now say 457 lbs dry, 467 lbs wet, but still say 460 lbs fully loaded.

[Deleted User]

My dealer just called me back after many days of back and forth over NuCamps definition of clamp on versus bolt on.  I was understanding NuCamp to say the bolt on type (equalizer, Fastway, Husky, et al) was the correct bolt on type and safe, and clamp on (sits on top of the top rail of the frame) type like Blue Ox is NOT recommend.  NuCamp finalized their opinion today and said (through my dealer) that the ONLY style of WDH that is safe to use on a C Channel frame is the type of bracket that you drill through the side of the frame.  This requires purchasing separate bolt through brackets (pic below).  I was sure that they were telling me and my dealer that the "bolt on" type (inner and outer brackets, and bolts above and below the frame) were good, but now they are saying this can lead to a bent frame.  The only WDH my dealer is willing to install now is the Reese Pro Series with the optional bolt-through brackets. To me, with proper fitting brackets (4-3/8), I can't see why the bolt on (bolt above and below the frame) isn't the best one to use. I was really looking hard at the Fastway e2.  The Reese Pro Series requires the separate (and very annoying) sway bar that you can't back up with it hooked up, etc. 
These are supposed to be the only style bracket that NuCamp says is safe for the C-Channel frame, but this is told to me through my dealer.  Its seems kind of unfair of NuCamp to not want to get more openly involved in the discussion of which WDH works with the T@B.   They are the ones sending them off the line with a much higher that expected tongue weight (for a 2700 pound trailer).  I feel they should be more willing to put this in writing as to what will and what will not bend the C channel frame.  

[Deleted User]

Yea, they finally updated the website because I called them three times in the past two weeks about what the tongue weight ACTUALLY is on the 2019 models...my dealer called them several times too.  I think I am directly responsible for the updated information! hahahaha.  They should have updated this as soon as the T@Bs started coming off the line way over the advertised specs.  BUT the weights still don't make any sense.  460 fully loaded and 457 dry?

JEB

robyn769 said:

My dealer just called me back after many days of back and forth over NuCamps definition of clamp on versus bolt on.  I was understanding NuCamp to say the bolt on type (equalizer, Fastway, Husky, et al) was the correct bolt on type and safe, and clamp on (sits on top of the top rail of the frame) type like Blue Ox is NOT recommend.  NuCamp finalized their opinion today and said (through my dealer) that the ONLY style of WDH that is safe to use on a C Channel frame is the type of bracket that you drill through the side of the frame.  This requires purchasing separate bolt through brackets (pic below).  I was sure that they were telling me and my dealer that the "bolt on" type (inner and outer brackets, and bolts above and below the frame) were good, but now they are saying this can lead to a bent frame.  The only WDH my dealer is willing to install now is the Reese Pro Series with the optional bolt-through brackets. To me, with proper fitting brackets (4-3/8), I can't see why the bolt on (bolt above and below the frame) isn't the best one to use. I was really looking hard at the Fastway e2.  The Reese Pro Series requires the separate (and very annoying) sway bar that you can't back up with it hooked up, etc. 
These are supposed to be the only style bracket that NuCamp says is safe for the C-Channel frame, but this is told to me through my dealer.  Its seems kind of unfair of NuCamp to not want to get more openly involved in the discussion of which WDH works with the T@B.   They are the ones sending them off the line with a much higher that expected tongue weight (for a 2700 pound trailer).  I feel they should be more willing to put this in writing as to what will and what will not bend the C channel frame.  

Interesting.  What nuCamp is now saying about C-Channels seems consistent with what the folks at eTrailer say as well.  https://www.etrailer.com/question-129768.html.  I did not know this about C-Channels.  I too thought clamps would be ok.  Guess not.  I'm going to avoid using a WDH like the plague now if I can get away with it.

[Deleted User]

Yea, the new tongue weight and the news on the WDH is the final straw for me....I'm tapping out.  I will be looking at buying a different tow vehicle, or a different camper, or stick with the 320 model! 

I'm not an engineer, but just looking at the design of the U-Bolt design (metal bars inner and outer and bolts above and below) look like they would be perfect for distributing the weight equally on the frame...but what do I know. 

MandoBiker

eTrailer is not entirely consistent about that.  For example, https://www.etrailer.com/question-279263.html

[Deleted User]

Yea, I see that now too. Depending on which question and answer you pull up at eTrailer you get a different answer.  Par for the course on every aspect of my research on using a WDH on the T@B.  I mean literally I could ask 10 people the same day and get 10 different answers all quite contradictory of the others. 

[Deleted User]

How about this idea....I will call the manufacturer of the trailer frame itself! I've heard its something BAL...does anyone have the exact maker of the frame? I will call them and ask them directly.

Awca12a

@robyn769 I sent an email to tech support at nuCAMP based on your post above.  If the dry is that high, I have a serious problem myself.  

BAL Norco 4-3/8" frames
http://norcoind.com/bal/howto.shtml

JEB

robyn769 said:

How about this idea....I will call the manufacturer of the trailer frame itself! I've heard its something BAL...does anyone have the exact maker of the frame? I will call them and ask them directly.

BAL Norco.  Only manufacturer I know of that makes the 4-3/8" frame.  Lance uses the same frame. 

As for inconsistency on the use of clamps on the C-channel, inconsistency abounds.  Andersen seems to think it's fine to use its WDH, which uses clamps, on C-channel frames as long as you drill a hole for the set screw.

JEB

MandoBiker said:

eTrailer is not entirely consistent about that.  For example, https://www.etrailer.com/question-279263.html

This actually isn't inconsistent.  If you read the answer, the "expert" says you can use a clamp on a C-channel IF you weld metal to the inside of the frame where the clamp goes.  Effectively, you turn the C-channel into a tubular frame at the clamp point.

[Deleted User]

I found it, BAL Norco

MandoBiker

JEB said:

MandoBiker said:

eTrailer is not entirely consistent about that.  For example, https://www.etrailer.com/question-279263.html

This actually isn't inconsistent.  If you read the answer, the "expert" says you can use a clamp on a C-channel IF you weld metal to the inside of the frame where the clamp goes.  Effectively, you turn the C-channel into a tubular frame at the clamp point.

I saw that too, but he's talking about the clamp style for the welding, he then goes on to recommend the equalizer style with plates on either side and doesn't say to weld extra material on for that.

[Deleted User]

To me the style of bracket like the equalizer is good because it does make contact with the inner upper and lower lips of the C channel frame.  I don't see why it would matter that the center doesn't have metal on metal contact.  The bolt through brackets don't seem sturdy to me.  I'm going to call BAL-NORCO maybe to see what they say. 

JEB

MandoBiker said:

JEB said:

MandoBiker said:

eTrailer is not entirely consistent about that.  For example, https://www.etrailer.com/question-279263.html

This actually isn't inconsistent.  If you read the answer, the "expert" says you can use a clamp on a C-channel IF you weld metal to the inside of the frame where the clamp goes.  Effectively, you turn the C-channel into a tubular frame at the clamp point.

I saw that too, but he's talking about the clamp style for the welding, he then goes on to recommend the equalizer style with plates on either side and doesn't say to weld extra material on for that.

I read too quickly.  I see what you're saying.  Makes sense.  You certainly can't use a WDH on a C-channel frame that requires some kind of bolt contact on the inner part of the frame.  But there still seems to be a strong difference of opinion about whether link plates need metal to metal contact on both sides of the frame.

Personally, I think link plates should be fine on a BAL Norco frame.  In fact, Equalizer says on its website that the 4-3/8" link plates are made specifically FOR the BAL Norco frame.  For what it's worth, here's a discussion from Equalizer:  https://www.equalizerhitch.com/manuals-guides/installation-guides/bal-narco-chassis.  The disconcerting part of this discussion, however, is that even Equalizer is counting on points of contact on the inside of the frame, which would undercut their use on a c-channel.  So, maybe I'm wrong about link plates being ok on ANY BAL Norco frame.

How's that for equivocation?

BigGrover

Ok, it sounds like folks adamant about using a WDH just need to box in the frame on the tongue. That's what old timers used to do in order to strengthen old car frames for hotrods with high HP motors to decrease flex.  A plate of same thickness steel 12" to 18" long where the brackets mount  ?  My Jayco 16xrb had a c channel frame and I used an equalizer wdh on it for 2 years with no problem.

JEB

BigGrover said:

Ok, it sounds like folks adamant about using a WDH just need to box in the frame on the tongue. That's what old timers used to do in order to strengthen old car frames for hotrods with high HP motors to decrease flex.  A plate of same thickness steel 12" to 18" long where the brackets mount  ?  My Jayco 16xrb had a c channel frame and I used an equalizer wdh on it for 2 years with no problem.

That is a common fix.  You are essentially turning a C-channel frame into a tubular frame at the link plate contact point.  The one wrinkle—other than the fact that you have to know how to weld or hire someone to do it for you—is that the modification could void your frame warranty.  So, better check with the manufacturer first.

Awca12a

Curious why you say "folks adamant about using a WDH"   Given the tongue weight and generally light duty vehicles most here seem to use for towing, doesn't that give rise to sway control and WDH?  Not challenging but trying to absorb experience.  I'm used to a much heavier trailer so perhaps I'm blinded by my expectations.

N7SHG_Ham

I am not sure why Bal decided a C channel is a good idea but I suspect it revolves around weight savings. IMO it is also a weaker frame member than a fully boxed tube. Having said that, obviously it works on the NuCamp Tabs which are fairly lightweight compared to many other RV's.

Could it be that even reinforcing the channels at the WDH is still only a band aid for mounting and the issue is increased stress on the C channel elsewhere? One of the primary functions of a WDH is to move weight to a different axle, it is a possibility that the C channel is not engineered for those stresses.

Even if the channel can take the stresses, I belive that Bal may be specific about not modifying the frame by drilling, cutting or welding?

While NuCamp ultimately is who takes responsibility for the frame and entire Tab, I would think the only people who really know about the frame and what you can and can't do would be the engineers at Bal who designed it. NuCamp buys those frames and trusts that Bal designed them properly. I am guessing there probably is no one at NuCamp that can authoritatively answer frame questions without 1st consulting with Bal on the matter.

The design of the Tab IE distance from hitch to axle, placement of NuCamp installed equipment on that frame and so on probably did have some weight and balance design considerations to make it safe to tow without a WDH given an adequate tow vehicle. As long as the owner doesn't screw that up by overloading or improper loading, those design parameters should remain in place with a safe towing experience. When weight and balance is messed up or the TV is inadequate, adding a WDH may just be a band aid to fix those other issues.

Awca12a

@N7SHG_Ham
Since most WDH provide the sway control as part of the package, how would a 400 owner deal with that?

MandoBiker

I don't think most of us are talking about compensating for an inadequate tow vehicle or improper loading of the trailer or TV.  The fact that the tongue weight of the 400 is over 450lbs without gear, means that even TVs that are well within their ratings to tow a trailer of this size (midsize trucks & SUVs) may sag in the rear putting undue stress on the rear axle, and reducing steering and braking control on the front axle.  WDHs are not designed as band-aids, but as the proper tool to fix these situations. 

Awca12a

@MandoBiker
This is my problem exactly.  TV can handle 5000# but Toyota doesn't publish tongue ratings on their hitch so with 10% rule of thumb on tongue, that gives 500#.  Wasn't expecting the 400 to weigh so much given the spec sheets we had at ordering so like others here, trying to figure out how to pull the 400 without using a WD hitch and that doesn't seem possible.

JEB

MandoBiker said:

I don't think most of us are talking about compensating for an inadequate tow vehicle or improper loading of the trailer or TV.  The fact that the tongue weight of the 400 is over 450lbs without gear, means that even TVs that are well within their ratings to tow a trailer of this size (midsize trucks & SUVs) may sag in the rear putting undue stress on the rear axle, and reducing steering and braking control on the front axle.  WDHs are not designed as band-aids, but as the proper tool to fix these situations. 

Correct. Moreover, some manufacturers specify use of a WDH for towing weights short of the maximum limits. For example, my Jeep has a towing max of 7200 lbs and 720 lbs on the tongue. But a WDH is “mandatory” according to the owners manual for gross trailer weights above 3500. 

N7SHG_Ham

The primary reason the 400 has a heavy hitch weight (for the size of the trailer) is by design with the trailer axle placement. The often quoted 10% hitch weight is a minimum for stable towing (I imagine most of us have all seen the model demo and how weight distribution affects stability). Being 500 rather than the minimum 350ish (10%) should provide an even more stable trailer.

I may have a very unpopular opinion here, but if your TV is sagging enough to need some means of correcting that, I would say the TV or at least the hitch weight spec is too low for a 400. Stouter TV will not sag, will be more stable and will equal a better towing experience.

Could it be that NuCamp had a frame designed that shouldn't require a sway or WDH to be used? Frame not designed for it, axle placed so it has a heavy (proportional to gross) weight and therefore towing better than a light weight on the hitch.

To those trying to reduce weight on the TV rear axle, where do you suppose the weight goes? You have three axles on the ground for ALL the weight, remove it from TV rear axle and it either goes to TV front axle or the trailer. Which one of those is now overloaded at the expense of the TV being level? A Tab 400 doesn't have a ton of extra load capacity, not looking at my trailer right now, but it is around 700 pounds total. That would include any hitch weight you transfer to the trailer axle via a WDH.

It comes down to you can't overload any one piece of the total, tires, axles, frames, hitch, etc. If you do then you are towing unsafe in my opinion.

MandoBiker

N7SHG_Ham said:

The primary reason the 400 has a heavy hitch weight (for the size of the trailer) is by design with the trailer axle placement. The often quoted 10% hitch weight is a minimum for stable towing (I imagine most of us have all seen the model demo and how weight distribution affects stability). Being 500 rather than the minimum 350ish (10%) should provide an even more stable trailer.

I may have a very unpopular opinion here, but if your TV is sagging enough to need some means of correcting that, I would say the TV or at least the hitch weight spec is too low for a 400. Stouter TV will not sag, will be more stable and will equal a better towing experience.

Could it be that NuCamp had a frame designed that shouldn't require a sway or WDH to be used? Frame not designed for it, axle placed so it has a heavy (proportional to gross) weight and therefore towing better than a light weight on the hitch.

To those trying to reduce weight on the TV rear axle, where do you suppose the weight goes? You have three axles on the ground for ALL the weight, remove it from TV rear axle and it either goes to TV front axle or the trailer. Which one of those is now overloaded at the expense of the TV being level? A Tab 400 doesn't have a ton of extra load capacity, not looking at my trailer right now, but it is around 700 pounds total. That would include any hitch weight you transfer to the trailer axle via a WDH.

It comes down to you can't overload any one piece of the total, tires, axles, frames, hitch, etc. If you do then you are towing unsafe in my opinion.

Yes, the weight gets distributed to the other axles, but part of the problem with so much weight on the rear axle is that takes weight off of the front axle, which reduces steering and braking, so putting some of that weight back on the front axle is desirable.  Of course you want to make sure you don't overload any of the axles but just because you use a WDH doesn't necessarily mean you will.  If nuCamp directly stated that the tongue weight was by design it would be one thing, but they actually seem surprised and they have updated their spec sheets multiple times with increased tongue weight.

BigGrover

I have a trailer tongue weight scale.  I will weight my 2019 400 BD Lite tomorrow and post it here just to get a real reference .It will be loaded but the tanks are dry.

[Deleted User]

I called NuCamp twice last week and my dealer called as well and we got a different weight every time, 390, 457, and 475.  I asked why haven't they updated the website because people are making MAJOR decisions on the published tow weights, and the next day the new numbers were up but they still seem out of sync.  I think I said this somewhere above, but my dealer was texting with NuCamp and had me on the phone when NuCamp said 475.  I asked my dealer to confirm this as I had just been told 457 the day before. NuCamp responded, "I know they are coming off the line at 475 because we just weighed them and we are concerned." The last I heard they were "trying to figure out what to do."