Lifting towball coupling on 16.49OB

[Tailor]

I can understand why Jayco won't get involved in discussing modifications, particularly in writing so they don't leave themselves open to claims from low lifes. I emailed and asked about changing the axle, and also asked for the bearing and seal numbers. Jayco catalogue lets them off the hook by saying the dual axles are underslung, and the single axle not.

All I wanted was a yes/no/no comment on the axle, and a list of the bearing numbers. I have the cup numbers, but would like confirmation of the cones and seal if anyone knows.

I'm still undecided which method to use on the ball height. Getting a 10mm plate cut shouldn't be too difficult or expensive. Possibly have to modify the handbrake, although stormpatrol could advise on that.

Yes i am keen to get an answer on this as well and i think many others will be too. It would be good to get an answer from someone at the transport department. The hard part i bet would be to get them to put the answer in writing.

Getting blood out of a stone comes to mind. However I think any opinion from a good lawyer would suffice, and at least show intent to abide by the rules. Must work on this.

 

[straydingo]

Out with the tape measure and back to the drawing board. I'm wondering if they forgot about 4X4s when they did the design rules.

The theory is that a light trailer with certain design characteristics (eg caravans with one or two central axles etc) are at their most stable when the towing pivot point is located in the adr height range. (The question is which adr height range)

Referring to StormPatrols posting about the VSB then it seems there is scope to adjust the hitch height. My thinking is that from Jayco's point of view they can't know which vehicle any one person is going to tow with. The VSB references two versions of the ADR - 61/01 and 62/01. The 61/01 is for vehicles after Jan 1998, and 62/01 for vehicles after Jan 2009. So who does Jayco market to? If I have a stock Landcruiser 100 series, according to the ADR it was built under, it should have a tow ball height of no more than 420mm. Likewise a GU Patrol, 120 Prado, Ford Falcon AU or BA, Territory SX etc etc etc. Although the current ADR may allow a higher hitch height, Jayco will alienate potential owners if it is too high for their vehicles. Technically, any 4wd owner who has raised the suspension in their vehicle, would then require a lower towball to be legal.

So if we assume that it is purely a business decision chosen by Jayco for their hitch height (as per an earlier suggestion re lost sales), then should Jayco offer a raised hitch height upon request? I think so - they offer options for everything else (but items not covered by ADR). So is there a potential legal aspect at question here - ie a van (constructed under ADR 62) sold after a couple of years to someone with a tow vehicle built under ADR61? What happens if...... or when..... etc etc etc.

As a building designer, I need to now start taking into account OHS for the 'life' of the building - what is an OHS consideration when the building is constructed? When occupied? When a repair is needed? When possibly modified for an alternate use? When deconstructed in 50 years time???? Litigation is such a huge industry - it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Jayco made a decision based purely on what will provide least liability.....

for my 2c worth

 

[Tailor]

As a building designer, I need to now start taking into account OHS for the 'life' of the building - what is an OHS consideration when the building is constructed? When occupied? When a repair is needed? When possibly modified for an alternate use? When deconstructed in 50 years time???? Litigation is such a huge industry - it honestly wouldn't surprise me if Jayco made a decision based purely on what will provide least liability.....

I would have to agree that Jayco would be seriously concerned about potential legal liability, but would also take into consideration the impact on market share. Offering the Expanda Offroader with the option of over or under drawbar for tow coupling seems to indicate they can get the best of both worlds.

This would then leave the liability issue squarely in the hands of anyone modifying the towing height outside the "recommended" heights.

OHS is a very good example of intent to provide a safe environment, but is awash with conflicting viewpoints, depending upon the thoughts of the official making a judgement. In many circumstances it is very difficult to get an official direction on how to do something, rather they want a plan put forward they can accept or reject. Comes back to "All care and no responsibility" on the part of the OHS official. The worst thing is one can get numerous conflicting answers to the same proposition. Still, understanding the basic rules and knowing the legislation can be a winner. We are in the roofing industry and have had a couple of wins against bad decisions, purely because we have researched and can quote the relevant act. I believe for us as users, the same can apply here. However, as I expressed earlier, a proper legal intrepretation of the section of the act would be of considerable assistance should anything bad happen.

 

[straydingo]

yes. To you and I that is the logical argument. But logical doesn't apply to legal/government/councils/regulation etc etc etc.

What I'm getting at tho is that liability isn't always in the hands of the one who modifies. If I have to document potential hazards for the life of the building, how can I possibly know what or how will occur in the future, yet I am liable if it isn't taken into account :doh: The ADRs VSBs Australian Standard and everything else refer to so many clauses or 'other' documents and regs and the like, I reckon the only proper legal interpretation will come when it comes to a case in question. And ignorance is no excuse in law....

In a public forum like this, where I believe the moderators/owners can be held liable for expressed 'recommendations' of the posters, (another :doh I wouldn't make recommendation as to what height others should have theirs, but mine is raised, and I am likely to change the hitch on the car to be much higher again, and will thus need to mod the van. And I have no problem with that. Read into that any way you want

 

[Tailor]

yes. To you and I that is the logical argument. But logical doesn't apply to legal/government/councils/regulation etc etc etc.

What I'm getting at tho is that liability isn't always in the hands of the one who modifies. If I have to document potential hazards for the life of the building, how can I possibly know what or how will occur in the future, yet I am liable if it isn't taken into account The ADRs VSBs Australian Standard and everything else refer to so many clauses or 'other' documents and regs and the like, I reckon the only proper legal interpretation will come when it comes to a case in question. And ignorance is no excuse in law....

I agree with your point that logical doesn't always (shoulr I say often) work against officialdom, and the fact is that "common sense" is not too common.

I like the fact that this forum has pointed to the actual ADR documents etc and we can make our own decisions.

My wife cheerfully pointed out that if we undersling our axle, the nice new annex we have will be too short. Another factor to consider. Looks like the plate on top is the practical option.

 

[stormpatrol]

Just another funny thing about my top plate mod, the handbrake assembly looks to suit being up top more so than were it was ex factory on the bottom . Ther is no mods to do to the handbrake it just bolts up under the hitch , the cable angles are better as i have already stated . Should tell u guys my van is a 12month 2011 16.49.2 outback so you would think suit a 4wd , I did tow it home was not good towed really bad, now it sits level its pretty good EVEN AT 110 KLMS:smile:

 

[boots33]

Yep stormy i think this will be the way i go too. Just have to find a good local engineering works to do the job.

 

[Tailor]

Hi boot33,

Looks like I will be following suit. When do you propose to get your van modified? I'm going to make up a template and ask a couple of contacts with profile cutters if they can handle 10mm plate, and maybe drill the holes for the Alko coupling, although I can do that myself without too much trouble. Then it just a matter of getting it welded, although I'm beginning to justify getting a mig again. From time gone by I have a bussbar in my garage into which I can plug 1ph 2ph and a couple of variations of 3ph so am not limited in the choice of machine.

If I'm successful, and you are not in too much of a hurry, and the price is right, I could get a couple of extra plates made at the one time.

Cheers

John

 

[Greg]

Ive been reading this post with interest, can someone tell me (ive probably missed it) what is the the best tow hitch height for the 16 series outback model that you have found to tow the van. A measurement from the ground to the base of the towball.

Greg

 

[stormpatrol]

Ive been reading this post with interest, can someone tell me (ive probably missed it) what is the the best tow hitch height for the 16 series outback model that you have found to tow the van. A measurement from the ground to the base of the towball.

Greg[HI Greg your cloes mate down at blacksmiths nice , tow ball height is really a matter for each car / 4wd , in my opinion the van should be level as it can be so should the tow vehicle . I run the tregg hitch and h/d springs plus air bags sit nice and level tows pretty good , but then my 4wd is a bit out there , and i might add fully eng and legal

 

[Tailor]

Hi Greg,

A number of factors are involved. As stormpatrol says, the van should ride level. This can be influenced by the position of the coupling on the van. In my case it's under the drawbar, and sitting level is about 370mm from the ground, where my toyota tow ball is around 430mm to the bottom of the ball, so I need to make some mods. Having said that, the van still tows well. If the coupling is on top of the drawbar, height would be about about 500mm to the bottom of the coupling. Whatever mods I make, I want to get the vehivcle and van to ride level. I'll get my van back from my son tomorrow, so will be deciding what to do then, and have a lot of fun with other things which need tidying up.

 

[Greg]

Maybee I should have asked what is the coupling height of the 16 series OB when they have not been modified, and the van in level. I measured my ball height on my hilux today and it is 430mm , Im trying to work out if that will be to high as I have to pick the van in Melbourne.

Greg

 

[Tailor]

Greg,

Just picking up the van shouldn't be a problem. When you get it home you can decide if you need to modify anything. I presume you have measured to the bottom of the towball on your hilux? If so, thats the same height as my cruiser. Even a bit out of level my van tows without any problem. Have recently returned from a round trip Bris to Sydney, and didn't have a worry. I'm being a bit picky about the level of my van because I like to get things as perfect as possible.

Have fun when you get it.

 

[stormpatrol]

Well towing from melb might be a problem lol, greg if you want you are welcome to visit me, bring your tape and camera just shoot me a pm, mate im in cameron park 15 mins away, we may even be able to do sum mods when you tow her home cheers stormpatrol .

 

[cruza driver]

Just to put it out there :tinfoil3: what about increasing tyre size to lift the height of the Expanda. This might help solve 2 problems, one with the hitch height and the other giving more clearance under the axle.

 

[Moto Moto]

I have been thinking the same thing Cruza, but do caravans fall under the same rules with tyre size increase as cars?

In NSW the fun Police limit it to 15mm in diamter i think. I am probably wrong with that figure, but you get my drift, check the road rule for tyre size for your state as well:mod:

But an axle flip and 33's on the single axle OB's would look pretty sweet

 

[cruza driver]

But an axle flip and 33's on the single axle OB's would look pretty sweet

What also made me think this was a 16 I passed going the other direction on the hwy last weekend had at least 31'/32's They looked massive and tough :smokin: It was getting towed by a lifted Patrol, if we were going the same way I would have tried to have a chat to them.

I'd say it had a spring over due to the size of the tyres.

 

[stormpatrol]

The thing with bigger tyres and spring over conversion is you move the centre of gravity upwards for me i did a lot of thinking about this and in the end just went with the hitch setup , tyres will help but not much for every inch in diameter you only gain half , as for the spring over seemed to much work , and may cause more trouble than good . not to mention cost , just thinking for a start mudflaps too short drop down jacks may be ok , step height ? my van will still fit under my carport , have a good 300mm left , shocks too short , walls too short , and what height gain do you get , NOT AGAINST THIS MOD but it was a bit much for me at this point in time .

 

[cruza driver]

I hear you and totally agree totally SP I dont think I would do a spring over as where we have taken our Expanda I have never had a problem with the overall factory height of the Expanda.

I think the only issue I have found is the overhang of the rear factory bar which should be upswept not straight out.

I have nothing against people doing it but for me personally I'm happy with ours :thumb:

 

[stormpatrol]

Yes cd my rear bar should of been finished , but was too miserable here today 15 degrees and crappy ,will post up a few pics when i fit it tomoz