elcoyote
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0004
The DOT cert is SAE J-684. Have an accident that involves other persons using a coupler that is not certified...the ensuing legal feeding frenzy will be ugly.
What multi axis hitch do you prefer?
- Thread starter Borrego60
- Start date
The DOT cert is SAE J-684. Have an accident that involves other persons using a coupler that is not certified...the ensuing legal feeding frenzy will be ugly.
Arya Ebrahimi
Adventurer
Curious about this too
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Thanks for the info. Interesting situation.
SAE standards are more of a way to absolve engineers or companies of liability should they "wing it" when doing a design. The SAE publishes standards that companies can use, instead of "reinventing the wheel". SAE specifications are design standards, they are not laws or regulations. Purchasing normal ball and pintle parts is not a guarantee of having SAE compliant parts on your trailer any more than home-built parts.
First of all, the manufacturer is not to apply any stamp such as "DOT" or "SAE". They only stamp their name, part number, and load ratings. So, any part available in a store with such markings MAY meet the SAE specifications, or they may not and the manufacturer elected to stamp those on there anyway. There is nothing stopping the manufacturer from stamping those details in the part even if they have not done the test.
A consumer shopping has no way of knowing the truth about the parts they are purchasing. This is a big weakness in the way North American vehicle laws work. For example, many of the cheap replacement brake pads available on the market probably do not meet the SAE standards, but they are sold anyway. Again, nothing dictates that consumers must use SAE or DOT parts.
Furthermore, I went and looked at some of my cheap trailer coupler parts. The coupler I used for my home built trailer has no stamping in it. It is not compliant to the SAE standard in that regard at the least.
Martyn
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Rob as an engineer involved in the auto business, in North America, you are well aware that the auto industry is governed by a series of laws and regulations. Manufacturers have the responsibility for reading the laws, understand the laws, keep updated with changes in the laws, and manufacturing in accordance with the laws.
The DOT specifies that couplers should be tested to SAE standards. The SAE is not providing design standards, it is stipulating that the coupler will be tested in the following manner, and for a coupler to be rated it must be able to withstand certain forces.
The coupler is then sent to an independent lab for testing. So it's not nearly as wishy-washy as you portray.
In North America the laws expect manufacturers of vehicles and parts to conform with the laws. The enforcement comes if there is a problem or accident involving the parts or vehicles. In Europe everything has to be tested prior to it being used in production. But they still have problems with counterfeit product being sold in the market.
The DOT specifies that couplers should be tested to SAE standards. The SAE is not providing design standards, it is stipulating that the coupler will be tested in the following manner, and for a coupler to be rated it must be able to withstand certain forces.
The coupler is then sent to an independent lab for testing. So it's not nearly as wishy-washy as you portray.
In North America the laws expect manufacturers of vehicles and parts to conform with the laws. The enforcement comes if there is a problem or accident involving the parts or vehicles. In Europe everything has to be tested prior to it being used in production. But they still have problems with counterfeit product being sold in the market.
ntsqd
Heretic Car Camper
A long time ago I interviewed for an Engineering Internship with Goodridge. During the course of our talk I asked about the DOT compliance (Goodridge was one of the first to offer DOT compliant braided SS brake hoses). What they told me is that the DOT does not certify or test anything. They only say that a mfg's part must meet certain standards and in the event of a accident where the part is suspect it is up to the mfg to prove that their parts meet those standards. The phrase "DOT Certified" is both misleading and erroneous.
The German TUV, OTOH, certifies and tests everything. The irony is that the TUV, for the most part, uses the same standards that the DOT specifies. So anything "TUV Certified" is automatically DOT compliant.
Found a pdf of J684 here:
http://www.expediter.com/natm pdf folder/B folder/B3 2-SAE J684.pdf
In reading through this it is clearly oriented at a ball type coupler. Nothing prevents the same tests from being applied to a multi-axis pivot design, but the author(s) obviously did not expect anything other than a ball type coupler would ever be tested.
This is interesting:
"Distortion or bending of the ball or of a coupling assembly component occurring during testing does not constitute a failure as defined herein unless actual separation of the ball from the coupling socket occurs prior to the designated test loads indicated in Table 2."
As is this:
"6.4 Hitch Identification—The hitch shall be permanently marked by the
manufacturer to show the following:
6.4.1—Hitch manufacturer's name, initials, or trademark.
6.4.2—Part, style, or model number.
6.4.3—Maximum trailer GVWR to be drawn.
6.4.4—Maximum vertical tongue weight to be imposed on the ball or other
point of connection."
The German TUV, OTOH, certifies and tests everything. The irony is that the TUV, for the most part, uses the same standards that the DOT specifies. So anything "TUV Certified" is automatically DOT compliant.
Found a pdf of J684 here:
http://www.expediter.com/natm pdf folder/B folder/B3 2-SAE J684.pdf
In reading through this it is clearly oriented at a ball type coupler. Nothing prevents the same tests from being applied to a multi-axis pivot design, but the author(s) obviously did not expect anything other than a ball type coupler would ever be tested.
This is interesting:
"Distortion or bending of the ball or of a coupling assembly component occurring during testing does not constitute a failure as defined herein unless actual separation of the ball from the coupling socket occurs prior to the designated test loads indicated in Table 2."
As is this:
"6.4 Hitch Identification—The hitch shall be permanently marked by the
manufacturer to show the following:
6.4.1—Hitch manufacturer's name, initials, or trademark.
6.4.2—Part, style, or model number.
6.4.3—Maximum trailer GVWR to be drawn.
6.4.4—Maximum vertical tongue weight to be imposed on the ball or other
point of connection."
Last edited:
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Martyn, I agree with what you just wrote for the most part. Vehicle manufacturers are required to meet certain standards when they design and build vehicles. Those may be SAE, FMVSS or DOT. These laws and regulations are very strict, but only control the manufacturer of new, whole, vehicles. They are not wishy-washy at all.
There are no regulations or laws controlling the manufacture of replacement parts, or parts used in home built vehicles. In Europe, all replacement parts require TUV approval, and it is illegal to use parts without it. In Britain, they have Single Vehicle Approval for home built or heavily modified vehicles. We have nothing like here, in most jurisdictions. I find it amazing that California puts so much effort into CARB regulations, but nobody has done anything about safety related replacement parts.
So, it would be illegal for Adventure Trailers to manufacture a trailer and use non-SAE compliant couplers, for example. It is not illegal for a trailer parts vendor to sell non-compliant couplers, or for private owners to use them in a scratch build or repair. This IS a massive hole in our legal system.
That is not to say that a private owner couldn't be sued for liability should something go wrong. You can sue anybody for anything in the US. But you cannot be sued *because* they used a "non-compliant" part. There is no such law. The only benefit to a private user, for using an SAE compliant part, would be that they could probably be absolved of liability in the case, and pass it on to the manufacturer. Even if they do not purchase an SAE compliant part, they are likely to be able to pass on the liability to the manufacturer of the part, or the store that sold it. The only time you're really on your own, is a purely a home-built coupler. But sometimes it seems like... in the US, it doesn't matter what you do you're going to get sued anyway, so why bother trying, but that's another matter...
NTSQD brings up a very good point, because brake hoses are so contentious. When I worked at Dana, they manufactured brake hoses for OEM's, and as I was buying SS hoses for my car I asked the questions. I was told first of all that there was NO WAY that ANY SS braided hose could ever pass the DOT testing. Period. The SS brake cannot withstand the fatigue during the "Whip Test". Now, that was several years ago, and the person I spoke with may not have known all the latest developments in SS brake hoses because Dana only made rubber hose. But I find it interesting that some SS brake hoses claim to be DOT compliant, and I wonder... But I also found out that it just doesn't matter. No replacement brake hose you can buy is "DOT Certified" because there is no DOT certification process for replacement brake hoses. The DOT certification goes with the vehicle, as a whole, manufactured by an OEM. There is no DOT Certification process for replacement hoses, thus you cannot buy them certified, thus there is no legal requirement to use certified hoses.
I've said this before, the only replacement part I'm aware of which has an iron-clad DOT certification process is tires. They have a stand alone certification, and private users are required by law to use DOT certified tires.
There are no regulations or laws controlling the manufacture of replacement parts, or parts used in home built vehicles. In Europe, all replacement parts require TUV approval, and it is illegal to use parts without it. In Britain, they have Single Vehicle Approval for home built or heavily modified vehicles. We have nothing like here, in most jurisdictions. I find it amazing that California puts so much effort into CARB regulations, but nobody has done anything about safety related replacement parts.
So, it would be illegal for Adventure Trailers to manufacture a trailer and use non-SAE compliant couplers, for example. It is not illegal for a trailer parts vendor to sell non-compliant couplers, or for private owners to use them in a scratch build or repair. This IS a massive hole in our legal system.
That is not to say that a private owner couldn't be sued for liability should something go wrong. You can sue anybody for anything in the US. But you cannot be sued *because* they used a "non-compliant" part. There is no such law. The only benefit to a private user, for using an SAE compliant part, would be that they could probably be absolved of liability in the case, and pass it on to the manufacturer. Even if they do not purchase an SAE compliant part, they are likely to be able to pass on the liability to the manufacturer of the part, or the store that sold it. The only time you're really on your own, is a purely a home-built coupler. But sometimes it seems like... in the US, it doesn't matter what you do you're going to get sued anyway, so why bother trying, but that's another matter...
NTSQD brings up a very good point, because brake hoses are so contentious. When I worked at Dana, they manufactured brake hoses for OEM's, and as I was buying SS hoses for my car I asked the questions. I was told first of all that there was NO WAY that ANY SS braided hose could ever pass the DOT testing. Period. The SS brake cannot withstand the fatigue during the "Whip Test". Now, that was several years ago, and the person I spoke with may not have known all the latest developments in SS brake hoses because Dana only made rubber hose. But I find it interesting that some SS brake hoses claim to be DOT compliant, and I wonder... But I also found out that it just doesn't matter. No replacement brake hose you can buy is "DOT Certified" because there is no DOT certification process for replacement brake hoses. The DOT certification goes with the vehicle, as a whole, manufactured by an OEM. There is no DOT Certification process for replacement hoses, thus you cannot buy them certified, thus there is no legal requirement to use certified hoses.
I've said this before, the only replacement part I'm aware of which has an iron-clad DOT certification process is tires. They have a stand alone certification, and private users are required by law to use DOT certified tires.
lowenbrau
Explorer
It shouldn't surprise anyone who knows us when I agree with Charlie. I once stayed at his place and when he showed me where I was sleeping he handed me that year's issue of 'Jane's Military Vehicles and Logistics' It's a catalogue of virtually every military vehicle in the world that an army could buy new or used. It's hard copy and about the size of an encyclopedia. He' said there'd be a test in the morning.
Getting back to topic, old school pintles and lunettes have served me very well. They are silent on the highway and clunk just enough off road to remind you that the trailer is back there. The trouble with a lot of commercially available lunettes is that they are too small. The thicker military versions move smoother, bind less and don't clunk. The upside is that they are very, very strong. I have a photo here somewhere that I'll add of my rig half way up a snowy cutline on a failed climb where I slid backwards with the trailer jack knifed for 20 yards. No damage to the coupler, but some significant carnage to a taillight and quarter panel.
Getting back to topic, old school pintles and lunettes have served me very well. They are silent on the highway and clunk just enough off road to remind you that the trailer is back there. The trouble with a lot of commercially available lunettes is that they are too small. The thicker military versions move smoother, bind less and don't clunk. The upside is that they are very, very strong. I have a photo here somewhere that I'll add of my rig half way up a snowy cutline on a failed climb where I slid backwards with the trailer jack knifed for 20 yards. No damage to the coupler, but some significant carnage to a taillight and quarter panel.
Martyn
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
Rob
Adventure Trailers has always provided exception equipment, and in keeping with this approach to business we sell SAE certified couplers. In doing so we understand the testing procedure that they have been through, and feel that they will provide exceptional service to our customers. So fundamentally it's not done for any legal reason, or to avoid liability, it's done to set a standard for service and reliability.
Regarding European standards. Europe has moved to community wide EU standards in all vehicles except trailers. These standards are based mainly on TUV standards and UN standards. Yes the UN has vehicle standards as well.
For the past 4 years I've been told that the European Standards for trailers will be passed, and each year they are not. Right now if you are exporting to Europe the trailer is subject to each member States individual requirements. Which for us has been a big negative on exporting to Europe.
REasley
Adventurer
Rob
You are a little off base on the brake hose issue. All brake hoses for over the road use must meet both DOT and SAE standards (DOT FMVSS106 & SAE J1401. The SAE number is printed or or embossed on the hose. Since you can't print on Stainless Steel hoses, there is a collar that must be applied during the production process that contains the standard number. You can buy or have made SS hoses or any brake hose for that matter, without the standards, but for offroad use only.
I am the buyer for an ag and industrial supply company and among the many things that we do is build custom hoses of all types, including brake hoses. We could build a hose that did not meet standards, but if it failed, all of the liability would fall on us and our insurance company would bail.
You are a little off base on the brake hose issue. All brake hoses for over the road use must meet both DOT and SAE standards (DOT FMVSS106 & SAE J1401. The SAE number is printed or or embossed on the hose. Since you can't print on Stainless Steel hoses, there is a collar that must be applied during the production process that contains the standard number. You can buy or have made SS hoses or any brake hose for that matter, without the standards, but for offroad use only.
I am the buyer for an ag and industrial supply company and among the many things that we do is build custom hoses of all types, including brake hoses. We could build a hose that did not meet standards, but if it failed, all of the liability would fall on us and our insurance company would bail.
Last edited:
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
REasley, you bring up some good points and I was wrong on a few things. Did a little research, this was a little while ago for me and it was not my direct responsibility, and the situation is a bit convoluted with brake hoses. You're right, there is a DOT approval process for replacement brake hoses, I was wrong about that. There are few things that do have this.
I believe the hose manufacturer is required to emboss on the hose, printing with ink is not allowed. Further, for replacement hose assemblies, the hose assembler is required to stamp their mark or name on a ring around the assembly, or on one of the fittings. For the OEM market, this is not required because the certification goes with the vehicle, thus the confusion. I was working in a facility testing for OEM applications so the person I was speaking with must not have known about the aftermarket rules.
I believe the hose manufacturer is required to emboss on the hose, printing with ink is not allowed. Further, for replacement hose assemblies, the hose assembler is required to stamp their mark or name on a ring around the assembly, or on one of the fittings. For the OEM market, this is not required because the certification goes with the vehicle, thus the confusion. I was working in a facility testing for OEM applications so the person I was speaking with must not have known about the aftermarket rules.
R_Lefebvre
Expedition Leader
Yes, I wasn't suggesting anything else, and I think we all appreciate your business model and participation here.
Arya Ebrahimi
Adventurer
So back on the subject of the max coupler, what allows the coupler to pivot on the ball mount? Is there a bushing or bearing of some sort?
Martyn
Supporting Sponsor, Overland Certified OC0018
I think the correct name for the part is a crush bushing, it stops the coupler from being tightened down beyond the point at which it can't rotate. Mario will probably have a better term and explaination for the part, but I'm having a middle aged moment right now :ylsmoke:
ntsqd
Heretic Car Camper
It is considered bad form to pivot directly on the shoulder of a tension bolt. Shoulder bolts are made to be used that way, but I'm not sure that one large enough for this use is made.
The solution is a bushing. Puts the pivoting action on the body of the bushing and allows the bolt to remain in tension. Setting the width of the bushing correctly also allows the bolt to be torqued to spec without pinching the pivoting joint.
The solution is a bushing. Puts the pivoting action on the body of the bushing and allows the bolt to remain in tension. Setting the width of the bushing correctly also allows the bolt to be torqued to spec without pinching the pivoting joint.