AT trailer fails the test

[HenryJ]

... I think not making these issues public have hurt everyone in the long run.

Amen! We learn much more from our failures, than our success.
I ripped the axle out from under my trailer on its maiden voyage:

Stuff happens. Just like the "Six Million Dollar Man" , rebuild it stronger, faster and better than before.

It is tough to build an offroad trailer that is ready for any conditions and have it priced to what the market will bear. I sympathize with the AT trailer. It is marketed as the best that the US has to offer in an "off the shelf" off road trailer. Hopefully they will learn from the failures , adjust , improve, and prosper.

 

[reece146]

Fox shocks and the like look great on dedicated trail buggies and blingtastic magazine build up trucks.

They have no place in the bush where you need to rely on the equipment to get you home. OEM style equipment rules in this space. I don't care what anyone says.

I don't know much about the AT equipment in this thread. To me it sounds like the coil over failed and it wasn't repaired. Can hardly fault the rest of the trailer for that.

 

[Maximus Ram]

As far as the failures, it seems that it is certain parts that are being used and not the craftsmanship of the trailers.
As othrs have said, parts fail and that just means that you get to upgrade and imporve for a better , more reliable product.
I believe even highly modified vehicles/ trailers will at some point have failures when they are out on the trail or wherever....logic would tell you to fix it correctly to avoid future failures and not throw a bandaid on it.

 

[Scott Brady]

Lance,

I believe the failure on the moto trailer was the hub, which is not an AT engineered component. Is that not true? A spindle clip maybe?

i.e., the AT assembly or their manufactured components did not fail.

It is good to talk about these things, but it is important that the facts be presented in their entirety.

 

[1leglance]

On the AT moto trailer the spindle nut retainer was not properly put together. It struck me as a quality control issue. Unless AT really buys the axles and never takes anything regarding the hub apart at which point I could understand saying it had nothing to do with AT.
This is exactly why I would rather talk openly about things. It keeps from having any misconception.
The funny thing is I was actually happy it happened to me instead of to James -Trailmonkey when he might have been going down the highway with his moto's loaded up.

Justin-Gear told me at the time that he had something along the same lines happen to his trailer which is why he knew how to fix it.

I know on the Overland Training run the air bag/shock combo failed repeatedly. Not sure what else went wrong. I am pretty sure that was their current suspension setup and it was the Teardrop part that was the prototype. Again if we openly talked about these things then we would not have people whispering stories around the campfire.

On the other Baja Media trip I mentioned I was told it was suspension issues but those folks will have to decide if they want to talk about that or not.

Again I really like Mario & Martyn, but it has really chewed my gut not to talk about the Devils Highway trip for fear I might mention the trailer failure. It was a central part of our adventure learning to deal with breakage on the trail. That is part of what we teach in Disabled Explorers.
The same with the Overland Training trip, those were great teaching moments and I think it should have been documented and talked about.

I have no doubt that every issue AT has ever been presented has been looked over and improved. That is another reason to be open about this, so that customers can see how great the service side of AT is.

 

[Patman]

As with any manufactured product that uses parts supplied by outside vendors, quality control can be a constant battle.

I'm not surprised to hear of AT failures, as I am not surprised that it appears to be component failure and not failures of the vehicle design or manufacturing.

As with any product, you are 95% more likely to hear of the bad, than you are the good.

I don't doubt for a second that Mario and Martyn stand behind their products, and will do so better than 99.9% of the vendors out there.

I'm in agreement with Scott, information such as this is great, but does us no good if it is incomplete. When you're in the middle of nowhere, you don't care what broke, just that it did. However when reporting on it to the community and calling out a manufacturer on their quality, or lack there of, any information is worthless unless it is complete.

 

[Scott Brady]

My only point is that the failures I have seen were as a result of supplied components failing, not the manufacturing, engineering or assembly of the trailers themselves. Ultimately, AT is at the mercy (at times) of the quality control systems of their suppliers. The hub failure on the moto trailer was as a result of a quality failure of the supplied hub.

Imagine the cost of the trailers if AT had to disassemble, inspect and reassemble every supplied component. In the end, AT has produced hundreds of trailers and they are somewhat at the mercy of the quality control systems of their suppliers.

I think this would be a different conversation if people were finding broken chassis, bad wiring, cracked welds, etc.

My only cause for pause is that I used a Chaser trailer for 10,000 miles in some of the most remote and harsh environment in the world. From +100F on El Camino Del Diablo for its maiden voyage to -57F in the Arctic and we did not have a single failure. Of course, we kept the load light and did daily inspections. We did not modify the trailer. It is still on the road today - problem free

It is impossible to know the conditions that trailer in Russia was exposed to, how it was loaded, how it was towed, the experience of the towing drivers, etc.

We know that the moto trailer was a hub failure from a supplier. That hub is properly rated to the trailer.

We know that the trailer on the OT run was a thread failure on the airbag strut assembly. Again, a supplied component.

It is just important to provide context and the root cause of the failure modes.

 

[AFSOC]

This is one of the reasons I in a love/hate relationship with sponsorship when I comes to Disabled Explorers.
What do I do when a company offers a product as a sponsorship and that product fails?
Do I be honest with the public that holds an expectation that I be honest and protect them from wasting hard earned dollars?
Or do I keep quiet to protect the sponsor who holds an expectation that I help them sell more product?
Do I risk future donations from the public if they find I wasn't open about the failures?
Do I risk future sponsorships from companies that don't want to risk me telling about product failures?

Well in the end I have to be honest with myself more than anyone else and it has been eating me up on this issue in particular.

Hats off to you Lance. Your honesty is very refreshing. I applaud your post for its honesty and forthright reporting of mishaps actually experienced in field conditions. It isn't easy to juggle a desire to shield sponsors from exposure to “bad press” and the need driven by personal integrity to provide honest, objective reports. There are some with a relaxed morality whose outlook is their own personal gain who can make that decision without remorse; you clearly are a man of integrity.

For quite some time on Expedition Portal there has been an undertone of backlash that stems from the perception of many members that credibility of equipment reviews is compromised by the need to protect sponsors. The threads like Is ExPo Snobby, How to tell a forum is dying elude to the idea that professional alliances influence what is touted to be objective reviews. There's a perceived mobilization against anyone who posts an experience that speaks negatively to products by ARB, AT, EarthRoamer, Viking etc. Excuses seem to be made for the behavior of supporting sponsors and concealment of failures and defects of sponsor's products.

It's a breath of fresh air to see your accurate recap of an experienced trail failure of an Adventure Trailer product. I personally don't see how honest and accurate reporting of an AT failure can do anything to tarnish their reputation as industry leaders. IMHO the ExPo membership has the maturity and intelligence to understand that all mechanical devices and products are susceptible to failures. Deliberate concealment of such failures is far more damaging to a company's reputation than accurate disclosure of a failure on the trail. As someone receiving sponsorship, your credibility and integrity is occasionally pitted against a desire to insulate the sponsor from negative review. I firmly believe your choice of disclosure is better for your sponsor's reputation than if you would have tried to “spin” the situation or propagated an outright falsehood despite how noble your intentions.

This is kind of a wordy post so let me sum up by repeating what so many have already stated, “stuff happens”. Good on Lance and others who value honesty and believe integrity not excuses is the basis of good business.

 

[Life_in_4Lo]

lot of excuses thrown around by "objective" people.
Since AT doesn't have the trailer, and they are at this point guessing as to the failure; why is the bandwagon jumping on that as "the facts"?
Why omit talking about the spare rack failure?

This doesn't hurt AT. Everyone with half a brain knows 'things happen'.

What it shows is that honest feedback, whether spit-shined or raw, is going to be marginalized here unless it's positive.
That sucks.

 

[Hill Bill E.]

lot of excuses thrown around by "objective" people.
Since AT doesn't have the trailer, and they are at this point guessing as to the failure; why is the bandwagon jumping on that as "the facts"?
Why omit talking about the spare rack failure?

This doesn't hurt AT. Everyone with half a brain knows 'things happen'.

What it shows is that honest feedback, whether spit-shined or raw, is going to be marginalized here unless it's positive.
That sucks.

Martyn already adressed the rack issue, and knows what went wrong on the suspension.

The point is, the magazine article from the OP's post, is not honest feedback. And that is what the discussion is about.

They slammed the trailer, but left out the fact that they not only abused it, but refused to repair it, and just kept dragging it along.


If the article in the magazine had been honest and complete in it's feedback, rather than a blurb about "The AT sucks, we'll never take it on another run like that" chances are good this thread would have been only 2-3 pages long.



Read the blog, look at what they did to the trailer, more importantly, look at what they didn't do to the trailer.

I could take any piece of equipment or gear out, and beat the snot out of it, and make it fail. Then say "Look at this piece of garbage, I'll never use this again" With only a couple of bad pics, and no backstory.

The difference is, when that opinion is put in a 'respected' rag.

Every manufacturer has problems at some point, both in house of from sourced parts.

The guys at AT tried to solve the initial problem-no takers, it would slow them down-so keep beating the trailer.

Also, Martyn and Mario are always on top of any problems brought to thier attention. I've only known one other company that jumps on a customers problem as fast and effecient as AT.

I don't own anything from AT, nor have any affiliation with them, but have seen thier work. It's quality.

 

[campausa]

Speaking from a manufacturer's point of view I can certainly appreciate issues surrounding the quality of "buy" components, being those one buys from a vendor and incorporates in what one makes. All manufacturers face that problem and one that must be constantly and diligently monitored.

The issue that I think is really important here is what Lance raised, viz. an honest and open approach that best serves us all, manufacturers and consumers alike. He suggested that not publicizing product failures hurts us all. I agree.

If information of failures is not published, regardless of the reason for the failure ["make" or "buy" component], then we are deceiving ourselves and others. Ultimately as manufacturers we are responsible for both “make” and “buy” components incorporated into our products. Revealing failures in a fair and objective manner is what results in overall improvement and this is what benefits us all.

 

[Ryanmb21]

I applaud the honesty in this thread, VERY refreshing.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy an AT if I needed a trailer because I was totally blown when I saw the product in person. I respect the company because of their ability to innovate and create.

 

[deepmud]

I don't think anyone should hold back from reporting the failures of a product, out of respect, or fear of repercussion, or whatever. Stuff happens. If it didn't happen, new cars would never break, and there wouldn't be millions (billions? maybe?)of dollars spent every year to repair them under warranty.

I'm saying talk about what happened, look into the causes, and keep it in context. When your trailer breaks, in Baja, Alaska, Magadan, or Michigan it's good to talk about it, explain what the causes might be, what the fixes might be, what the results of the failure or damage meant to you in that application or trip or expedition. This is true for an AT trailer, a Harbor Freight trailer, or your own home-brewed trailer.

 

[Momrocks]

I don't think anyone should hold back from reporting the failures of a product, out of respect, or fear of repercussion, or whatever. Stuff happens. If it didn't happen, new cars would never break, and there wouldn't be millions (billions? maybe?)of dollars spent every year to repair them under warranty.

I'm saying talk about what happened, look into the causes, and keep it in context. When your trailer breaks, in Baja, Alaska, Magadan, or Michigan it's good to talk about it, explain what the causes might be, what the fixes might be, what the results of the failure or damage meant to you in that application or trip or expedition. This is true for an AT trailer, a Harbor Freight trailer, or your own home-brewed trailer.

While I certainly agree with everything you're saying, sadly I think the notion is too idealistic to see with regularity.

We are living in the information age and though dinosaurs like me don't fully grasp the nuances of business based largely on the internet, I have observed that one strategy for success is carefully crafting a persona, image and perception in order to create a reality. This is somewhat out of order from the norms of 20th century business where reputations and images were earned by the realities of performance.

I think whether you are forthcoming in fully disclosing mechanical failures or whether you conceal them, there is risk to the brand. Just as positive perceptions can aid in building credibility, perceptions of deception and dishonesty can erode a brand or products reputation.

I would never hold a company ethically responsible for the actions of an individual customer. It's only when there is an institutionalized policy for representatives to deceive customers that ethics are breached. If individual customer or reviewer chooses to conceal a product defect it is a matter isolated to that individual's integrity.

I would hope something like this forum would be a venue for the open discussion you described but maybe it isn't. Like I said, I don't fully understand some of the subtleties of internet based business, this may not be the right platform for open and honest discussion.


`

 

[honeyb413]

Like I said, I don’t fully understand some of the subtleties of internet based business, this may not be the right platform for open and honest discussion.

Perhaps I don't understand the subtleties either, because it appears that certain members can no longer post after expressing their honest opinions. Could it be there is bias here?