Eager Beaver trailer

My opinion is that they are ok as long as you don't load them to full capacity. I'd say don't exceed 80% of the capacity. Its been about 4 years since I was studying them and up to that time they did not use T1 steel in their flanges. It was 80k which turned me away. They did say they would use T1 for an additional $3k or so, but anyone crazy enough to not use T1 steel flanges or higher is ballzy to me.

 

There's quite a few running around here. Never seen one break or have any problems running heavy. I like them. They may not be a Fontaine or Trailking, but depending on what your doing with it I doubt you ever have a problem loading to rated capacity.

Those roto D-rings are kinda nice and the way the hydraulic neck pin is slick too. They do use T1 also.

 

We had a 37 ft 5th wheel trailer with flip up ramps, I hated that thing even though it was new. It was too high and made loading difficult and some of our equipment had the tricycle setup.
My boss sent me up to pick it up when it came into the dealership, when I returned , he was telling me how great it will be for our Elgin sweeper, I asked him if he knew the trailer was a 96 but the sweeper was 102 ? . The look on his face was priceless.

 

That was talking to them over the phone back several years ago. They could have made T1 std. now, but I just looked at their website and their specs on lowboy models up to 60tons says 80k steel beams. When you click on the 65ton it says 100k steel beams. So they are not using T1 60tons and below. Not sure what the webs are whether they are 50k or 80k...doesn't really matter what the webs are though.

 

I think you need to go back to engineering school if you believe this...

 

Why do you say this? If you are going to make a negative comment about it the least you can do is explain it to everyone.

 

I have, several times.
It's called common sense.
The frame is the most critical structural component of the trailer. The frame flexes vertically while absorbing shock load forces going down the road. The web you don't seem terribly concerned about is the component that absorbs the sheering forces that the flanges transfer when they are being linearly crushed (upper) and stretched (lower) on the downstroke, and inverse on the upstroke. This cycle repeats itself thousands of times per day. All metal, no matter the grade, only has a finite number of cycles it can tolerate before fatigue failure. Why would you even consider fabricating a component where one of the critical components is made from a material that will not last as long as the rest? Replacing a frame web is NOT a feasible maintenance plan.
Quite frankly, any equipment trailer that all structural components have not been made of a minimum of T100 steel is an inferior product, and I would neither own it, or recommend it.
Frame, cross-members, coffins, spreader bars, torque tubes, every single structured component. If it's not built from structural material, it is not truly engineered.

Smart decision.
Anything less is exactly that.

 

So you are saying that you don't recommend Trail King, Load King, Talbert, Fontaine, Etnyre, XL Specialized (can't confirm any other manufacturer off the top of my head) to anyone at all? As a matter of fact not only do they use either 50k or 80k grade webs (Talbert, Fontaine, Etnyre uses grade 50) they also do not use T1 crossmembers

Those manufacturers are the reason I am not worried about the web material insomuch...its because you have reputable people using it...and been using it for many years. Look how long Talbert and Trail King has been around. You must not own any of these trailers.

All the web's job is to do is to hold those top and bottom flanges perfectly parallel. The flanges to the work. The taller the beam is the more web you have to use, but the less the flanges are thus making the trailer deck less in weight. Go the other way, make the beams shorter then the flanges are closer together which is less web height, but you are adding weight because the flanges are thicker...they have to work harder.