Off Road Dump Trailers Revisted...

RobS · Jul 15, 2005

Again, excellent post rswyan, thanks for reposting here.

I guess I missed it before that yours is the "trailer" version with a tonguejack. I was thinking more along the lines of the wagon version with the wheels at each corner. Do you think that would fare any better being tied down to a flatbed trailer?

Nice pics, thanks again /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif

have_blue · Jul 15, 2005

( ... and away .... )

Sweet!

For that price, anyyone that even remotely needs a wagon should jump on the Country Mfg. deal. If something for heavier hauling is needed, get another brand or perhaps beef the CM frame a little bit.

That self-driving tractor is cool too.

rswyan · Jul 15, 2005

Rob,

You're quite welcome.

Yup ... it is a trailer not a wagon. I've heard that wagons are more difficult to control when backing up ... I haven't really used my E-ZTrail wagon running gear enough to see the difference ... but I can tell ya the Country trailer is very easy to control when backing up .... might be something to consider, depending on where your operating.

The tongue jack has no problem supporting the weight of the trailer tongue when loaded .... I specifically asked about this when I ordered the unit. The trailer is made so that the tongue takes 15% of the weight (600 lbs) of the trailer when loaded to stated capacity.

As far as faring better with wagon when tying it down .... yes, I'm sure it would (four contact points instead of three) .... BUT I still believe that it is not a viable solution ..... BigEddy's followup post to my original got into the actual dynamics of doing it .... like him, it's not anything that I would attempt either.

rswyan · Jul 15, 2005

blue,

( For that price, anyyone that even remotely needs a wagon should jump on the Country Mfg. deal. )
I definitely agree ... /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

( If something for heavier hauling is needed, get another brand or perhaps beef the CM frame a little bit. )
Yup - I haven't scoped it out totally but three areas I would hit are the bed frame crossmembers (stock they are angle), the hinge mount, and the hinge bracket itself ..... all of these would be very easy to beef up .... it wouldn't cost much either.

The tires definitely seem fairly decent .... I've been runing them over sticks and large protruding roots in the woods ..... the wheels aren't as heavy as the setup on my E-ZTrail, which has actual 4 bolt hubs on a spindle, with tapered roller bearings. The Country unit's wheels are just slid over a shaft and cotter-keyed on .... no bolts .... dunno whether there are bearings or just bushings inside the wheels.

( That self-driving tractor is cool too. )
That's how I can get so much work done ..... divide and conquer /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

737800 · Jul 15, 2005

Great discussion gentlemen. Quick question. I am a single tractor operation, and from the size of the dirt loads in some of these photos of the tandem axle, I am assuming you are using a second tractor for loading after you hook up the trailer. I need to haul the trailer to the work area, disconnect to load it with the tractor, then hook up and tow. Have any of you 'all tried loading the tandem this way? I am thinking I may be forced to buy the wagon version so I can load it while it's not hooked up.

Any advise, techniques would be appreciated.

rswyan · Jul 16, 2005

( I am a single tractor operation, and from the size of the dirt loads in some of these photos of the tandem axle, I am assuming you are using a second tractor for loading after you hook up the trailer. )
Nope (although that would be nice :grin)..... I just flip the tongue jack down and run it out so it's supporting the weight of the trailer's tongue, unhook the hydraulic lines from the tractor, and pull the hitch pin in the drawbar .... and I'm off to load the trailer .... with the tractor that was pulling the trailer.

When the trailer is full I back up the tractor to it, lining up the hole in the tractor drawbar to the holes on the trailer tongue (which is actually very easy), set the brake, shutoff tractor, hop off, reconnect hydraulic lines, drop the hitch pin into the drawbar, flip the tongue jack up and I'm on my way.

( Have any of you 'all tried loading the tandem this way? )
Yes .... I have it done perhaps 20+ times, with heaping loads, exactly that way.

( I am thinking I may be forced to buy the wagon version so I can load it while it's not hooked up. )
Nope.

In addition to the advantage of the tandem trailer being easier to back up (versus a wagon) here's another advantage: because the trailer uses a tongue jack and is designed to place 15% of the load weight on the tongue, it functions somewhat like an anchor (although I wouldn't tempt fate, thinking it would hold a loaded trailer on any kind of an incline) .... so it is less inclined to roll than a wagon.

With a wagon you absolutely gotta chock the wheels or there is nothing stopping it from rolling off ... with the trailer I'd say it is far less likely using the tongue jack .... if you are on fairly level ground, you could probably get away without chocking the trailers wheels. I generally throw a 4 x 4 behind the wheels on whatever appears to the downslope side just for safety's sake.

737800 · Jul 16, 2005

Thanks again. Exactly what I needed to know. Just ordered the Tandem from Northern Tools. They had it in stock and it's on sale in their catalog (Flyer #1519, $949.99). Shipping was much less than Country Manufacturing, so the total price worked out $200 less. It'll be here next week. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

rswyan · Jul 18, 2005

Glad to be of help.

I found the first thing that definitely needs reinforced /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif .... the mount for the tongue jack. I was loading another trailerload of sheep doo and went to hitch the cart back up ..... I've been real lucky with this ... usually I can line the holes up so close when backing the tractor up to the cart that only a very minor amount of jiggling is needed to drop the hitch pin in and hook up. This afternoon I went to jiggle the tongue and and the one side of the tongue jack mount came loose. Headed back home, dumped the load, and then pushed the trailer into the shed for a closer look.

On inspection I find that the one side (the side with all the vertical force from the loaded trailer) had only a single spot weld holding it on (the piece is about 4" long where it meets the trailer tongue) I think the mount itself is heavy enough ... it's like 5/16" or 1/4" plate ... it's just the weld was (woefully) inadequate.

I slapped the wire wheel on my r/a grinder and knocked the paint off and then fired up the mig and ran a bead on the underside of the mount where it attaches to the trailer tongue and then another one on the other piece of plate where it attaches to the tongue. I'd definitely check this on your unit when you get it and make sure the weld is substantial enough to hold the weight of the trailer when loaded.

I'll be emailing Country to let them know that if they are going to telling people that the tongue jack with hold up a loaded trailer they better make sure the welds are adequate to the job.

As of this afternoon I estimate that I have moved 70,000 lbs of sheep manure, (plus another 25,000 lbs of dirt from neighbor who tiled his foundation.)

DMF · Jul 18, 2005

( All I'm saying is that treated with some care these units are fine and will probably do alot of work ..... but I don't think they are heavy enough to take a whole lot of abuse. YMMV. )

Well, I said the same thing a few posts back. The wagon is out of commision as of Saturday. The tounge gave up the ghost. I really don't feel I was abusing it either; I was moving 1 to 1-1/3 yards of fill which should be well under the 4K limit. I ended up moving 15 yards of fill for my wall project with my 3/4 pick-up; no dump but I had one of those roller things on the tailgate to crank the stuff out of the truck (load handler I think it's called). I noticed the same type of flexing, etc. as rswyan noticed with his trailer while dumping. These trailers/wagons are inexpensive to buy, and I'm not saying that they are total junk, but you get what you pay for. My wagon will be going through an overhaul/rebuild shortly. Stay tuned for further info... /forums/images/graemlins/frown.gif

rswyan · Jul 18, 2005

( The tounge gave up the ghost. I really don't feel I was abusing it either; I was moving 1 to 1-1/3 yards of fill which should be well under the 4K limit. )
Where exactly did it fail ?

I was looking at mine today while I was loading it and could swear that the entire drawbar/tongue was bowed ..... hafta take a better look tommorrow and see if my eyes were decieving me or not.

( These trailers/wagons are inexpensive to buy, and I'm not saying that they are total junk, but you get what you pay for. )
Yup - there's no doubt that they could be constructed much more heavily.

I'm going to try and take some pictures of where the failure occurred and the repair. Keep us posted.

DMF · Jul 19, 2005

Where did it fail? How about "entirely"? Drawbar is bowed, tabs that attach to the center steering knuckle bent, and the tabs that attach to the drawbar of the tractor bent. The center steering knuckle bent and the tube welded below it that is the pivot point for the wagon drawbar collapsed as well. I'm buying some material today to repair it and I'm going to go to my BIL's machine shop to make the repairs. I'll try to remember to bring along my wife's digital camera to document the repairs...

PBinWA · Jul 19, 2005

Wow - timely posts as I was considering buying one of these. Do you both have the trailer style or does either of you have the "wagon" style. I would suspect that the wagon style would have less issues with the drawbar bending.

Pictures are good.

MadReferee · Jul 19, 2005

The drawbar is 3" x 4.10 bar channel which is fairly strong and rigid stuff. It's the same stuff I use on when I build clamp-on pallet forks. It's good for taking loads on the top and the sides but not from the bottom, which would happen if you are backing up (it would tend to bow up from the bottom).

The hitch on the end is only welded on the end of the tab and will probably fail sooner than later. I think we have already seen one failure there.

On construction, I would not have used 2" x 1/4" angle for the h-frame but would have went with 2.5" x 1/4" or used the 3" x 4.10 bar channel. What I don't like is the cross members for the bed. They are 1.5" x 3/16" angle sitting with the edge up. I would have gone with 1/4" and the flat side up. However, they did use 3" x 4.10 bar channel for the long members on the bed.

What gives these units their weight rating is the axles, the wheels, and the bottom frame design (h-frame). The Kory has smaller wheels but slightly larger axles but uses a weaker x-frame design to get their 3000 lb rating as opposed the the Country Mfg's 4000 lb rating.

From my perspective, for the price you cannot build one cheaper. What you can do is make a few minor mods and make these wagons real workhorses. They were not designed, nor are they marketed as substitutes for full blown construction dump wagons. These are light estate wagons and should be treated as such.

DMF · Jul 19, 2005

I have the wagon; and the bent drawbar.

I agree with Mad's comments above; they are estate wagons not full-blown construction wagons however there are some serious design flaws.
One of the ones I tried to fix this weekend was the upside down king pins I mentioned in a previous post. Now I know why they did it that way; you can't install the pins from the top down as the support for the dump frame gets in the way. I'm going to have to look at that again as I can't see having the pins supported solely by a cotter pin...?
For the money you get something that is usable for light duty work and it definately gives you a base to build upon. However, if I had paid the full and not the sale price I think I'd have a different opinion...

rswyan · Jul 19, 2005

( What I don't like is the cross members for the bed. They are 1.5" x 3/16" angle sitting with the edge up. I would have gone with 1/4" and the flat side up. )
Yeah ... or just used some 1.5" x 3/16" box tube ... probably would have made the bed frame less prone to flexing.

I think the bed hinge mechanisim could be a little heavier on the mounting .... three or four V's instead of two .... and it could be a little tighter fit on the hinge pin (and make it greasable) .... this would probably eliminate some of the tendency to flex and move around.

( They were not designed, nor are they marketed as substitutes for full blown construction dump wagons. These are light estate wagons and should be treated as such. )
Spot on ...... however you would think that someone would build a product that was a little heavier duty without being huge ... dunno .... maybe someone does .... I just haven't seen it.

( However, if I had paid the full and not the sale price I think I'd have a different opinion... )
Exactly my thoughts - for the sale price, it's reasonable product ..... at the normal price, they come up way short in my opinion.

rswyan · Jul 19, 2005

Trailer here.

MadReferee · Jul 19, 2005

( Yeah ... or just used some 1.5" x 3/16" box tube ... probably would have made the bed frame less prone to flexing. )

Probably not much. It would depend on which direction the forces come from. Box tubing is not always the best answer although it is always the most expensive answer. /forums/images/graemlins/blush.gif

In a lot of applications bar channel (aka c-channel) will give as much and sometimes even more strength than than tubing. Most, if not all, heavy duty construction trailers use bar channel for their frames.

BobB · Jul 19, 2005

I just had a go at making my own wagon.
Winter/Spring project
Here were my thoughts when building

1-1.5 ton capacity
Hydraulic dump w/o using tractor hydraulics
(Didn't want to hook and unhook Hydro cables)

Made from 2" square tubing 1/4" wall
3x12" hydraulic cylinder--$58.00 Northern
12V Hydraulic Pump...E-BAY, Camper Manu. $190.00
Handheld remote (rocker and momentary switch) $10.00
Hobart Handler $650.00 (most expensive part!)

Have yet to try it out.
Half the fun is trying to build it. [image]

Gotta be green!

Picture1 picture2

rswyan · Jul 19, 2005

( Probably not much. It would depend on which direction the forces come from. )
My bad .... I should have said "twisting" since that is what I really meant. I doubt that it would do much to handle the "sag" that occurs as a consequence of the bed being pushed up by the hydraulic cylinder - that sag is occuring in the c-channel and box tube crossmembers would do little if anything to handle it.

( Box tubing is not always the best answer although it is always the most expensive answer. )
It's definitely true that box tube is probably more expensive than other types structural steel ..... however it certainly is far less prone to twist and flex than angle is.

( In a lot of applications bar channel (aka c-channel) will give as much and sometimes even more strength than than tubing. Most, if not all, heavy duty construction trailers use bar channel for their frames. )
Do you think that is because of economics or because it's just stronger ?