AT trailer fails the test

[JPK]

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.

AT selected and incorporated the outside supplied, or "bought in," components. That are as responsible for those components and their performance - good, bad or indifferent - as any component they make themselves.

The Fox shock failure was a failure of assembly: the stainless steel braided line was installed and attached in a manner that allowed it to rub against the body and wear through. Bad assembly and install by AT. Betcha $20 that that won't happen again!

The weld failure on the tire carrier is the result of a poor weld. Use a certified welder and you will reduce, but never eliminate imperfect welds. For that you need Xray or ultrasonic weld inspection. And that would be ridiculously expensive for the application. That AT changed the carrier design says it has learned from its experience.

Air Bag failures are the failure of bought in parts, which AT selected. They are responsible since they selected the supplier and also even more fundamentally, they selected the air bag suspension... IMO, too much, too many failures with air bags...

JPK

 

[Hill Bill E.]

AT selected and incorporated the outside supplied, or "bought in," components. That are as responsible for those components and their performance - good, bad or indifferent - as any component they make themselves.

The Fox shock failure was a failure of assembly: the stainless steel braided line was installed and attached in a manner that allowed it to rub against the body and wear through. Bad assembly and install by AT. Betcha $20 that that won't happen again!

The weld failure on the tire carrier is the result of a poor weld. Use a certified welder and you will reduce, but never eliminate imperfect welds. For that you need Xray or ultrasonic weld inspection. And that would be ridiculously expensive for the application. That AT changed the carrier design says it has learned from its experience.

Air Bag failures are the failure of bought in parts, which AT selected. They are responsible since they selected the supplier and also even more fundamentally, they selected the air bag suspension... IMO, too much, too many failures with air bags...

JPK

Did you read the thread?

I haven't read the article so I can't comment directly on the article.

I do know the tire carrier had a weld failure. The current design we use is a different design. I don't know if that would make any difference. Sometimes you just get a bed weld and it's impossible to see from the surface.

The Thule rack system has a quick release system on it. I suspect that the towers were not latched on correctly, or the release button was depressed. It's never been a problem before. It may have something to do with the vibration caused by the damaged suspension.

This trailer did not have the standard AT suspension system. We upgraded it from an air system to a coil over system with a remote reservoir. The reason for this was the trailer was going on expedition to Far East Russia and would have a constant load. The system is also bullet proof. Or so we thought.

There is a stainless steel braided hose from the reservoir leading to the shock. It rubbed up against the underside of the trailer body and wore a hole in the hose.

The on trail fix was to disconnect the reservoir, fill the shock with oil and cap it.

AT offered to Priority air freight out a replacement coil over or air system to replace the damaged parts. At this point I started to understand that this wasn't an "expedition" as I first understood it, but a support trailer for a "quick" road test through Eastern Russia. So the emphasis was on moving on at the scheduled rate, not doing full repairs, or slowing the pace.

The un-pressured shock didn't perform at anywhere near the same level as the pressurized side. The bump stop was ripped off at some point. The repeated hits on the 3/16th wall cross member caused the wall to start to fold in. We recommended double plating the wall as a temporary fix.

The trailer is now back in the USA and we will rebuilding it up to original specs.

What did I learn from this?

Find out what type of "expedition" your customer is going on, and provide them with the right spares for the style of trip.......

There are consequences if your equipment is damaged and you are unable or unwilling to take time to fix it, or slow your pace down in response to it.

.

AT stepped up and attempted to fix it during the run, and they are now fixing it.

If they had been using the "King Of the Hammers" special edition AT I might expect more.

There is a difference in 'Off Road capable' and 'High speed Baja or KOH capable'.


But the fact is, they used it, IMO, beyond what it's designed for. (yes, it's designed for that trip, but not at that pace with no maintenance)

And they refused to do any adequate trail repairs, but rather they "Dragged it the rest of the way"

.


My beef, isn't that it broke, but the way it was reported, making it sound like the AT trailer is a real POS.

 

[honeyb413]

AT selected and incorporated the outside supplied, or "bought in," components. That are as responsible for those components and their performance - good, bad or indifferent - as any component they make themselves.

The Fox shock failure was a failure of assembly: the stainless steel braided line was installed and attached in a manner that allowed it to rub against the body and wear through. Bad assembly and install by AT. Betcha $20 that that won't happen again!

The weld failure on the tire carrier is the result of a poor weld. Use a certified welder and you will reduce, but never eliminate imperfect welds. For that you need Xray or ultrasonic weld inspection. And that would be ridiculously expensive for the application. That AT changed the carrier design says it has learned from its experience.

Air Bag failures are the failure of bought in parts, which AT selected. They are responsible since they selected the supplier and also even more fundamentally, they selected the air bag suspension... IMO, too much, too many failures with air bags...

JPK

I couln't agree with you more because choice of selected components determines the overall product design. Component failure equals poor component choice which eqauls poor design and engineering. Blaming component failure at the same time as praising design and engineering makes no sense, especially with repeat failures.

 

[Maximus Ram]

Hmmmm....the trolls are creeping in ^^

So because a component fails, the whole concept is flawed....interesting.
I would hate to have sold a car or even a lawn mower to some folks in this discussion.

 

[chasingdreams]

<<<<<Quickly sprays himself with "Troll Repelant":sombrero: and then the nozzle sticks! I better go wash it all off,.... because of a sticking nozzle.... "it's a flawed product":coffeedrink:

 

[fangars]

Wow, only 2 post and both in the same thread.

 

[campausa]

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?

As a manufacturer of a product it is important to get all perspectives and then weigh them accordingly for their merit. Granted stuff happens all the time and various people have various opinions on what happened and why.

Making fun of what an individual's posts suggests that some on this forum do not feel that others’ opinions count. I realize we do not live in an ideal world and look forward to a meaningful exchange of ideas and opinions absent the patronizing facetious remarks.

 

[Scott Brady]

Hmmmm....the trolls are creeping in ^^

Unfortunately, it is much, much worse than that.

Anytime someone with just a few posts starts attacking or attempting to discredit someone, there is almost always foul play at work. We have encountered this in the past.

In this case:
honeyb413
and
twisted63 are the same person.

They have the same IP address. And because of that IP address, we know who the real individual is, and what their real username is.

I am now faced with the decision of what to do with this information. We are in touch with our attorney, and as a result, this thread is locked and the two user accounts are locked until we can talk this through with the party involved.

If the original poster would like to start a new thread on this subject, or if Lance would like to continue with his experience and comments on AT, that is fine, but this thread needs to remain locked for the moment. . .

This is shocking and very sad.

 

[Scott Brady]

Clarification

Just to ensure there is no confusion.

honeyb413 and twisted63 are the same individual, and that person also has a regular username.

I banned both accounts at the same time right before closing the thread.

These accounts were being used by another member who stood to benefit financially by discrediting AT. We know who the member is that created these posts and know the name of their business.

It is against ExPo rules to have multiple usernames without permission.

This thread was not closed as any favoritism to AT, we would do the same for any other vendor where misconduct was being directed. We have done this in the past. We would never close a thread where honest information is being posted by real people. In this case, false information was being posted via multiple user accounts by ONE PERSON and that person stood to gain financially by the negative posts.

In this case, the multiple usernames were used solely to create multiple posts in this thread and give the impression of many people being upset at AT. These usernames were created to cause harm to AT by manipulating the content of this thread.

I have chosen to keep the identity of the member who created the multiple accounts confidential until an appropriate course of action is determined.

Update:

I have been in discussion with the business owner and was assured that the posts were made by an employee of the company from an off-site location and during their personal time. The owner of the company had no knowledge that the posts were being made by their employee. The opinions posted by the individual was theirs alone.