Timbren axle less suspension question (2 Viewers)

[Layonnn]

I'm looking for some opinions on the weight ratings of the Timbren suspensions.

I'm guessing my trailer will be around 1200-1300 empty or so based on similar builds. When going out for the weekend though I'll have a full cooler, food, two water cans and probably a fuel can.
So my guess is getting close to 2000lbs when loaded up.

Would I be better off going with the 2000hd setup or the 3500 setup?

From what I've read the HD setup has the 3500 spindles and a little more travel.

One of the reviews I read had a guy with a similar build and said that his suspension was bottomed out when loaded nearly at 2000lbs.

http://timbren.com/products-page/2000hd/asr2khds03/

http://timbren.com/products-page/3500hd/asr35hds02/

 

[ntsqd]

IF the 3500 spindles use bigger wheel bearings it's a no-brainer.

That design will require a cross-member in the trailer frame at the point of attachment that is sufficiently strong enough to resist the torsion it will put on the frame rail. Can't say I'm a fan of the design.

 

[noahfecks]

Working on a trailer myself and have the 2000HD on its way

2K# is a lot of weight, not sure what size trailer you are building, keep in mind your wheels and tires don't count in that (unsprung weight).

The 2KHD does in fact use the same spindle as the 3500# so you do get the bigger bearings. Not sure placing a cross member before or aft of the mounting point is an insurmountable design task. The weak point in the system is more likely the spindle riser, I could see this bending or breaking long before deflection in 2x3 box steel became an issue

 

[ntsqd]

The design of the suspension puts a rather large torsional load on the tube it is bolted to. Loads that would have no hope of bending the tube can easily twist it with the leverage that design has. Shock loads (potholes, ledges, etc.) can easily be 3 to 5 times higher than the weight of the trailer + load and will be the real loadings, the normal use loads aren't likely to do much of anything. the only way to negate the design's inherent leverage is to design in a greater leverage on the opposite side. That either requires a cross-member centered at the attaching point or that the suspension itself be one contiguous assembly.

If you're suspecting that I'm not a fan of the design you'd be correct. None the less, there are things that can be done to offset it's short-comings and I hope I've clearly laid out those that I can think of.

 

[Douglas S]

The design of the suspension puts a rather large torsional load on the tube it is bolted to. Loads that would have no hope of bending the tube can easily twist it with the leverage that design has. Shock loads (potholes, ledges, etc.) can easily be 3 to 5 times higher than the weight of the trailer + load and will be the real loadings, the normal use loads aren't likely to do much of anything. the only way to negate the design's inherent leverage is to design in a greater leverage on the opposite side. That either requires a cross-member centered at the attaching point or that the suspension itself be one contiguous assembly.

If you're suspecting that I'm not a fan of the design you'd be correct. None the less, there are things that can be done to offset it's short-comings and I hope I've clearly laid out those that I can think of.

Can you cite any examples of this being an issue in actual use?

 

[ntsqd]

No, what I posted is based on my ~30 years experience designing equipment with an Engineering degree backing the last 20 of those years. Analyzing any bought-in component's short-comings and designing to best offset them seems to be what I'm paid to do. Secure and robust bolting to the frame coupled with a frame cross-member located mid-span of the attaching points should stop or mostly stop any twisting induced in the frame rail.

 

[furbucket]

Trying to decide between the 2000HD and 3500HD myself- what did you end up going with? And just to add my two cents in:

The design of the suspension puts a rather large torsional load on the tube it is bolted to. Loads that would have no hope of bending the tube can easily twist it with the leverage that design has. Shock loads (potholes, ledges, etc.) can easily be 3 to 5 times higher than the weight of the trailer + load and will be the real loadings, the normal use loads aren't likely to do much of anything. the only way to negate the design's inherent leverage is to design in a greater leverage on the opposite side. That either requires a cross-member centered at the attaching point or that the suspension itself be one contiguous assembly.

If you're suspecting that I'm not a fan of the design you'd be correct. None the less, there are things that can be done to offset it's short-comings and I hope I've clearly laid out those that I can think of.

Have to agree with ntsqd, sufficient strengthening of the frame and/or the addition of a crossmember is called out as mandatory in the install instructions direct from timbren...

 

[2fpower]

Looks like three versions of these axle-less timbren things. The last one, marked as for offroad tires. I want to use 6 lug tires in toyota/gm pattern, I think all would accept this.

Any comments on what to get?

Timbren Axle-Less Trailer Suspension System - 4" Lift Spindle - Regular Tires - 3,500 lbs Timbr

Timbren Heavy-Duty Axle-Less Trailer Suspension - 4" Lift Spindle - Regular Tires - 3,500 lbs T

Timbren Heavy-Duty Axle-Less Trailer Suspension - 4" Lift Spindle - Off-Road Tires - 3,500 lbs

 

[noahfecks]

The "offroad" pushes the spindle out further from the frame rail to run a wider tire. If you are going to run something wider than about 7" you need the offroad spindle

 

[2fpower]

Any other options out there for independent suspension that I should look at?

 

[ntsqd]

Dexter Torsion axles?

 

[scrapdaddy]

What would be the pitfalls of using the #5200 Timbren axles? if a guy is close to #3000 better to go higher, yes.