Foretravel Owners' Forum

I think that blaming the delamination or bulkhead separation on tongue weight is bogus and is shifting the blame from FOT to the owner.  I would be willing to bet that none or maybe one or two of the many, many bulkhead separations were from over-gross or over tongue weight situations.

IMHO, when they were building older FT's with the smaller engines, the "screws" that held the caps on were OK.  When they went to the BIGGER and MORE powerful engines with BIGGER and HEAVIER coaches, the inappropriate"screws" stayed the same.

Too much torque, too much power, too much load, not enough engineering for the changes and upgrades.  (Along with rust jacking, again, an engineering design issue where the fresh water overflow is designed to drain onto the cap seam).

It would be interesting to have a survey to see how many bulkhead separations there are/were out there and what they towed!

Again, as an engineer, IMHO.

 

Towing has nothing to do with bulkhead separation.

The bulkhead(s) is forward of the rear drive wheels.  When accelerating with a heavy trailer, the rear drive wheels are forcing the bulkhead together.  When braking with a heavy trailer, the trailer is forcing the bulkhead together.

So, what tries to separate the bulkhead, especially the rear one?

It is the retarder.  The retarder is slowing the rear wheels but not the front wheels as would the brakes.  So the rear bulkhead transfers the slowing effort to the front of the coach.  This is the force that tries to open the bulkhead joint.

The only way a heavy trailer could apply the same type of force is to slow the coach by using trailer brakes only, no retarder and no coach brakes.

Hope this helps you all understand the way forces are applied to the bulkhead and what might be the source of those forces.

The more I read about the newer coaches, the more I appreciate my Old Timer. So if I understand correctly, the Oldies that don't have a retarder shouldn't have Bulkhead separation problems. Is that correct?

I have been thinking about adding the Banks Power Pack so I can pull a 24' enclosed car hauler at around 8,000 lbs. I know it will put a strain on my tanny but I was also worried about the bulkhead issue.

Kent,

A properly secured bulkhead is perfectly capable of any trailer within the gross weight limits of the coach.  Our full mono-cock chassis is the strongest, lightest coach out there.

However, the rust jacking of the type of bolts selected to secure the bottom of the bulkhead compromised that system.  As long as no corrosion, no deterioration of the clamping system for the bulkhead; no problem.

Before my coach bulkhead became a concern, I had James Stallings re-do the bolts and corrosion protect the joint.  Plus I re-routed the fresh water tank overflow (per Barry & Cindy I think) to out the bottom of the coach and not down the back of the rear bulkhead right on the suspect joint.

The retarder exerts the same type of force on the bulkhead as would an exhaust brake or Jake engine brake.  One of the mentioned devices is needed on our coaches.  Just the retarder is the best of the three.  Driving without one is possible but much more challenging in the hills.

From what I have read, any of us with the UniHome, UniCoach and what ever it is currently called chassis do have to worry about Bulkhead separation.  I know on my '94 U225 that bad bolts have been found and replaced.  It is not a difficult thing to fix and luckily we have great instructions from Brett Wolfe.  I do think those of us who live and travel in snow country have to worry more that others, but we all have to keep watch on this!!!

Kent,

Unfortunately, not having a retarder doesn't prevent our old coaches from having bulkhead separation. 
My '92 U280 had significant rust jacking and separation and it only has a fairly ineffective exhaust brake. 
The previous owners did pull some sort of trailer, so that may have had an effect on the bulkhead separation.
 
I wish

Yes, the bulkhead issue applies to all Unibody and all but perhaps the latest Unicoaches (where I understand the method of attachment was changed).

Again, no reason to worry or speculate.

Grab a torque wrench and verify-- 250 INCH-pounds on all bulkhead bolts.  Visually inspect the joint for separation or rust.  Twenty minutes and you will have the FACTS. As always on air suspension coaches, block it before going under.

I do this on 100% of the Foretravels I do mechanical inspections on-- did one on Thursday.

The repair can range from a clean and apply a 1/2 can of undercoating to seal the bolts and joint area to an extensive repair-- but it is SO easy to determine what you need that speculating is kind of silly.

Brett Wolfe

Well now that is as clear as mud. Seriously, my understanding is that separation is probably affected by both the climate in which the coach is operated and the forces exerted by both non-service braking and or pulling heavy loads.  I remember when this first came up and it sounded like a major flaw in Foretravels, but I really only heard about it on a few coaches. Last year both FOT and James Stallings told me that very few coaches showed signs of separation. Does this group know that a majority of the older coaches have this problem or is it still relatively rare.

I visually checked the rear cap bolts last year and what I saw looked fine but I am not sure I was looking at the right thing. I have not checked with the torque wrench. Brett, can you give me a link to your post on bolt inspection? I guess before I go investing in more horsepower, I should have it checked by a pro.

Here is the original post: 

Bulkhead Repair-- A Comprehensive Look

This is on a 1993 U240, but it is my understanding that most applies to Unibody and Unicoaches.

I am not sure bulkhead is a descriptive term here. The center part of the coach is built on a strong grid system with 1 1/2" box beams with 1/8" walls at the ends (front and rear) where they attach to the 1/4" angle that is part of the frame holding the drive train (rear) and front end (front).

From the factory, the two "areas" were attached using 5/16" Roloks: (http://www.semblex.com/files/Rolok-Semblex.pdf (http://www.semblex.com/files/Rolok-Semblex.pdf))

The Rolok's go through the ¼" angle and torque into 1 1/2" box w 1/8" walls.

After talking with Mark Harvey at Foretravel and an engineer at Rolok, I went under the coach. First, I looked for any separation in the area of attachment. NONE-- just some light superficial rust that I will sand and undercoat.

Next, I put a torque wrench on each of the Roloks. Check torque to 250 INCH (repeat INCH) pounds. Check torque CW and CCW. If they don't hold you need to know that. If it loosens, use that hole (drilled to 3/8") to install a thru-bolt.

What I found was that 5 Rolok bolt "heads with 4 threads" broke IMMEDIATELY-- at less than 20 inch-lbs. All the rest did not move at 250. In inspecting the failed Roloks, all had been broken for a long time-- light surface rust on the sheared surface. The "4 threads" mean they were broken where they started torquing into the 1 1/2" beam. Could have been broken at installation or from sheer stress afterwards. Not sure it matters.

The fix: As well described by others, the answer is to thru-drill and install 3/8"X 3", Grade 8 bolts and nuts on either side of the "failed" Roloks. Yes, you can use shorter ones, but the 3" ones made the job a little easier. Because I wanted to be able to torque the thru-bolts to 275 in-lbs without taking any chance of crushing the box beam, I made some 1 3/8" X 1 3/8"1/8" plates to install next to the beam (cost me a piece of steel and $10 at a machine shop). So on the rear, from the rear: the 3/8" bolt, washer, 1/4" angle, 1 1/2" bulkhead, 1 3/8X 1 3/8X 1/8" plate, washer and pinch nut. All hardware grade 8 (except plate). Torque 275 in-lbs.

I used good quality Cobalt bits, progressing up one bit size at a time, using plenty of cutting oil and keeping the bit cool. Then, to access the "inside" to install the plate, washer and nut, I used a 1 3/8" hole saw to cut through the very thin fiberglass bottom of the coach. Hole was centered on the bolt left to right and the closest edge of the hole was approximately 3/4" in from the inboard edge of 1 1/2" beam. This allows access with a screwdriver to easily remove the foam core, exposing the beam and also access for the 9/16" wrench to tighten the nut. When locating the thru-bolts, use a magnet to locate the other beams in the fiberglass "floor" to the basement. Since you need access to install the plate, washer and nut, obviously, avoid areas with beams in the floor.

I wanted a water-proof plug-- driving through rain could "challenge" plugs not designed to keep water out unless sealant, etc was used.

The largest I could find was the 1 3/8" Heyco plug PN 3837 (http://heyco.com/products/sec_02/2-09.html (http://heyco.com/products/sec_02/2-09.html)). This really gave plenty of access.

The other suggestion is that, at least on the coaches I have seen, there isnothing keeping water from migrating in past the head and threads of the Roloks-- i.e. the 1/4" beam is drilled larger, so the Rolok threads will torque in the 1 1/2" beam. That leaves room for water to migrate in along the side of the Rolok where it goes through the 1/4" beam. I will solve that by wire brushing the beam and short metal "skirt" just inboard of it. Then put masking tape on the head of the Roloks (where a socket would fit) and use automotive undercoating to seal the area, making sure the Rolok to beam joint is protected.

I suggest to everyone that this is ROUTINE PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE AND THE ROLOKS NEED TO BE CHECKED ANNUALLY.

It wasn't a fun project, but neither was it mechanically challenging or expensive.



Brett Wolfe

Brett, my biggest issue is to know exactly what I am looking at. The next time you are under your coach, could you take a photo of the area and the holes you drilled and email it to me. I think your U240 chassis is the same as my U225. Or, the next time I am in SE Texas, which could be in the next couple of months, I can hire you to do the inspection. I had FOT check it last year but the way they down played the issue, I was not convinced that they did a thorough job. 

There are some photos here of a couple of Foretravels Bulkhead issues
http://beamalarm.com/Documents/bulkhead_separation.htm (http://beamalarm.com/Documents/bulkhead_separation.htm)

Barry, those were great. However, if I need the repair it looks like quite a job. As Brett said, challenging in effort more than skill.

Thanks!

Check it early and often before it becomes a problem.

Barry is correct.  It usually starts as a single or pair of broken bolts.  If replaced, no big deal.  But if two in a row are broken it puts more stress on adjacent bolts and it progresses from there.

If you go under your coach and (looking at the rear bulkhead for example) look where the white fiberglass floor for the basement ends, there is an angle beam with bolts going straight forward.  THOSE are the ones that we are talking about.  Very easy to see and put a torque wrench on.

Kent, put a torque wrench on them and take a photo and post here.  If you don't have a torque wrench,  apply only reasonable torque (like you were installing a spark plug in an aluminum head) on the bolts.  You will likely find that they either are OK, or the bolt head falls off in your hand  with little more than hand torque.  I have yet to "break" a Rolok in checking a bulkhead.  The bolts have either been good (torque up) or they were already broken.

The way you can tell they have been broken for awhile is that the surface where the bolt is broken is  rusted.  And they usually break 3-4 threads in from the bolt head.  THAT is where the Rolok torques into the "near side" of the box beam.

Brett

Here are some pictures of it from the photo/files section as well .... complements on Don Hay



And if you are not sure what the heck is a huck bolt is

Remember!
      Safety block the air springs BEFORE you go under the coach , for any reason.

I have a torque wrench and it appears that I checked the correct bolts last year. I will do so again tomorrow just to be sure and I will chalk the wheels.

Thanks to all.

Yes chalk the wheels but also block up the coach so it can not lower on you as well.

John,

While I am certainly not recommending against blocking it up, Kent's U225 has the torsilastic suspension and mechanical jacks.  Even if the jacks failed, there is still plenty of room under the coach.  And the torsilastic suspension has solid metal shims for ride height adjustment-- no ride height valves or air suspension to fail. Same applies to the U240.

Your warning is absolutely on target for any air suspension coach.

Brett

I just finished my inspection of the Roloks. Although they all looked good with very little sign of rust, I did found two Roloks in the front and five in the back that would not take the torque. Of the five in the back, there were only two adjacent to one another but I will be replacing all of these bolts this week.

I do have a question. Not having air suspension, when I first read about blocking the coach I couldn't figure out what blocking meant because with the suspension on our U225's and U240's they don't squat down like the rest of the Foretravels with air ride. See, there are advantages to simplicity. That being said, with air brakes can the coach roll if for some reason the air pressure is released? Is chalking the coach really necessary? 

Kent,

NO.  Loss if air pressure has no effect on the parking brakes.  The parking/emergency brake is SPRING applied, AIR released.  That is why you can't release the parking brake until air pressure has built to 60 plus PSI.

Brett Wolfe

I like the idea of a survey to see how many and what model, and year and length of coach etc.
has been affected.

Steve,
Is that a hard thing to do, put some sort of survey/questionaire in the forum?

To many variables on causes.
I don't know what it will really tell us.
The key is to inspect often so it does not happen.

Mike,

I believe I have it set up so any member can set up a poll should they choose.  When viewing the boards topic list, next to the new topic button there should be a new poll button ... this will open up a page that looks a lot like a new post but will allow you to ask you question and any number of answers to the question, how long the poll is open etc ....  The way polls work is you can supply your vote and also post about the poll like a regular topic, its a rather nice feature.

As Barry noted not sure at what point anything will become statistically relevant .. as the saying goes, lies, damn lies and statistics :)

barry
with all respect, inspecting it will not stop it from happening, but I think a poll on who has had
bulkhead separation on what year and model of coach may be of interest.
when brett wolfe says that "every unihome and unicoach should be inspected", that leads me
to believe that the problem may be lurking in every coach.  I think a survey of owners will at least
give some indication of how widespread the problem is.

Wayne,

While I am not opposed to a survey, I agree with Barry that sample sizes like we will get, particularly as  those who have experienced a problem are much more likely to follow and participate in the thread/survey, the results will not be a reasonable reading of the issue.

And indeed, all Unibodies/Unicoaches should be inspected for this.  BUT, same can be said for checking ride height, SCA level if using non-extended life coolant, etc, etc.

 View this as more a Preventive Maintenance item (20 minutes a year) than a huge issue.  Sure, if multiple bolts in a row break and are not replaced, one could certainly allow it to develop into a major problem.  But the same can be said for most of the systems on most coaches.



Brett Wolfe

What about the owners that don't read the forum?

Do you think that this is a serious enough matter that, if left un-inspected, could cause a fatal accident? 

Checking coolant is far different from floor mats stuck on gas pedal, or fuel tanks engineered dangerously(pinto).

I believe that, IMHO, people are downplaying the under-engineering of the cap connection, especially with the increase with horsepower and weight.  If they are replacing the roll-lock with bolts, why weren't they used in the first place?  Claim's that it is caused by trailer weight is ludicrist.  Coaches without trailers have had the problem.

Everyone say that it was only a few coaches that were affected, however, there seems to be enough to generate enough posts to make it to near the top or top post count.

FOT has claimed that it is not an engineering problem, but possibly age,  and their fix is varied.  I've seen replacement bolt patterns from different fixes and they are varied.  More like patches.  We don't expect a lifetime warrantee, but neither did the Pinto drivers.

Do you get under your toad and chech the engine mount torques regularly?  Or, are you waiting for your engine to jump through your windshield (or someone elses) before you check them.  What about the other bolts on your coach?  Do you check them?  Do you know what to check, or do you come to this forum to learn from other owner mishaps?  Where is the factory lead?

Do we wait for a rear cap to fall off and hurt someone before we say "Gee, there has been a history, I wonder why FOT didn't tell us about it?"

I understand that it would be expensive for FOT to infer that there might be a problem, but, if they are lucky the "big one" doesn't happen.  I don't think that anyone expects FOT to buy everyone a new coach who has this problem, but their refusal to acknowledge that it is a widhspread problem and not put out in writing a bulletin with exact inspection procedures and a fleetwide standardized fix smacks of "fear of litigation".

Why should we, as end users, have to come up with out own inspection procedures and fixes in this, a so serious issue.  In my case, my rear cap was coming off.  The floor in the bath was uneven, the gaps were excessive, and the bolts were sheared.  I was told that I would foot the bill because the coach was older, I was pulling a trailer, and there was not an engineering issue.

I said "then I'll drive the coach without the fix.  If it falls off, we'll let the courts, lawyers, engineers,and insurance companies decide."  It got fixed.

I am an engineer and licensed aircraft mechanic .  If something like this happened on aircraft, the whole fleet would be grounded until a fix was approved and completed. And, in fact, it has.

Are we chopped liver? 

IMHO

I'm an engineer, too.  And understand your position. And agree with part of it.
 
But let's not go over the top on comparisons.
 
The DC-10 fleet was not grounded after one went down on take off, even though there were design defects identified in the crash review.
 
The DC-10 lost one engine on take off. But THAT should not cause a crash because commercial airliners must be able to takeoff and land after losing an engine.
 
The engine mounts failed, and the engine rotated and severed hydraulic and electric lines in the wing leading edge. There was lack of redundancy in the power system for the computer. And the flaps failed in position which caused the DC-10 to spiral into the ground killing all on board.
 
The fixes were not made for years. I never flew a DC-10 again....
___

best, paul
"Thriving not surviving" <(*¿*)>
Paul Schaye (at 2008 NYC Marathon)
See our blog at LazyDazers.com
 

Paul,

How many bulkhead separations do we need to say that it is a problem.  And, we don't have 2 or 3 more caps in the back to pick up the slack.

And, I do think that the Pinto is a good comparison! 

You would put your name to any of your work, as I did, and feel proud and responsible for it.  I'd like to see the signature on the print that OK'ed the increase in length and weight on the coaches and the increase in horsepower without a change in structure.  That bulkhead configuration might have been OK for the initial builds, but, I believe, it is being severly tested in the later builds, with the results of separation.

The water draining on it doesn't help, pulling heavy trailers may contribute (although debatable as the specs allow it), retarder might increase the risk, and on-and-off the gas might create torque changes to flex the area, and overweight GVWR (how many of us weigh our coaches) test the limits.

There have been many heated discussions on this issue.
Reading some of the old posts might answer some questions on how widespread it might be and what was determined after all the discussions.
Just want to slow down what might be another frenzy on a topic that has been very thoroughly explored.
Not trying to end the conversation but put some insight on it.  ??? :D

I for one have had to have mine repaired & at the time was pretty upset having to drive from CA.

Mark Harvey issued a "1988 thru 2005 Unibody Module/Subassembly Inspection" paper to John Lang to be posted

At the end of all these discussions it was determined that there is no way we will get any additional response from the factory regarding them being responsible.
Several people wanted to have a recall which of coarse would kill the company.
Would we be better off ??

bulkhead (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=8518.msg37517#msg37517)

Bulkhead separation (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=9190.msg40674#msg40674)

Costs for Bulkhead Repair (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=8652.msg38052#msg38052)

Headlight Conversion & Bulkhead Repair (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=8787.msg38785#msg38785)

Trip to Nacogdoches (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=8584.msg37760#msg37760)

Neal Pillsbury '98 U270 36' Exeter, NH and, Ft Denaud, FL gave this explanation on a post.

The last 5 days have been interesting and a challenge. As I mentioned before, I have been keeping an eye out for this problem for several years.  New England friends with a 2000, U320 had evidence of the problem many years ago and Bob repaired it himself, with through-bolts, that are holding up well. The last time I closely inspected my bulkheads was in May when we got back from winter in FL.  There was some surface rust but no separation. We have used the coach on four, one-week outings this summer.  Other than that,  it has been in the warehouse the rest of the time.  I had gotten complacent because of (?) ! Your posting prompted me to go inspect the bulkheads again (as well as get fine tuned for our departure for FL next week). What I discovered was shocking, to say the least.  I had 2 Rolok boltheads missing, 6 other broken  Roloks and several 3/16" gaps in the rear bulkhead joint.  And 1 Rolok bolt-head missing and 2 other broken Roloks , as well as two 1/8" gaps in the forward bulkhead joint. I have elected to go with 3/8" X 3", grade 8 throughbolts, washers, lockwashers, and fenderwashers, 8 in the rear and parts in hand for three in the front to get me to Nac for more permanent repairs.  All in place, waiting for torque and access hole cover-up tomorrow. What was really scary was how rapidly this manifested itself.

So............... I have a retired Mech. Engr'g college professor friend that is an authority on metallurgy (and still runs his own machinist shop today at age 84).  I dragged him under the coach and asked him for input/advice.  He took one look and said "This is too easy -- Rust Jacking".  The trucking industry has dealt with it for years and now, even midwestern skyscrapers are dealing with it. Essentially, although I haven't driven the coach in salt since January of 2006, we had a wet trip north from FL and we drove in rain on all four separate outings this summer.  I've washed the coach 5 times since May and I put it away with a wet undercarriage (powerwashed) each time. We've also had an unusally wet summer in the North East.  These all helped to  accelerate the "Monster that is eating all of our rigs, if we drive, or have driven, anywhere north of I-10 from Nov. through May". LIQUID DE-ICERS  ARE HYGROSCOPIC, and once they get into the lattice structure of a metal, they will absorb moisture from any source.  If oxygen is available, the chlorides will generate rust and swelling and CAN place static loading on bolts great enough to fracture them, even grade 8 and Huck bolts,  if there are too few, without any additional dynamic (vehicle movement) loading on the bolts. 

That's apparently what has happened to me, because I haven't even towed a car since May and I've certainly had light loading and driving this summer. It all makes a great deal of sense, and it fits exactly with FOT, Wayne's warning that we all need to understand that the corrosion in the joint must be neutralized and the WHOLE joint surface must be coated to starve it from future moisture and air.  Or the problem will continue If one Googles "Rust Jacking" , there is a wealth of information on the internet, albeit largely focused on the heavy trucking drum brake phenomenon (which is probably the greatest safety associated issue). Here's a quick link to a good trucking industry article published in late 2007 

At any rate, I believe that there needs to be much more emphasis placed on the eradication of the ROOT CAUSE of this bulkhead separation  issue. The residue from LIQUID DE-ICERS.............and their hygroscopic properties.  The interstitial, absorbed chloride molecules have to be neutralized and starved of oxygen.  The invasive and corrosive properties of the de-icers are not just related to our bulkheads but to anything else exposed to the Chloride mist and residue dust from these chemicals, including all electrical connections that are outside of the coach and even all internal volumes that "breath in air" such as our air systems.

I was commenting only that your comparison with aircraft was a bit over the top. Not Pinto's.
 
I happened to be familiar with why the DC-10 crashed (and why it should not have crashed even after the engine mount failed).
 
I flew a lot in those days. SFO to DC twice in one week was not unheard of, and I refused to fly on DC-10's because they were taking years to make the fixes.
 
More to the point, would a FOT offer to perform free annual inspections, but not free repairs, be an acceptable policy?
 
Last April MOT inspected and only had to make minor repairs on my 1999 U320, and I'll probably have them inspect annually.  MOT might even find free inspections were a good customer appreciation policy.
___

best, paul
"Thriving not surviving" <(*¿*)>
Paul Schaye (at 2008 NYC Marathon)
See our blog at LazyDazers.com
 

Bulkhead Separation can be an issue, so I took my coach to Xtreme in Nacogdoches and I think James puts a permanent fix to the problem.  Best money for such a repair.  I didn't need it but had James put in the bolts as preventative maintenance. I know Rudy had his coach done at the same time I was there. Peace of mind.  Dan Stansel 99 U270 36 Bullard, Texas

I recommended the free inspections when I was having the discussions with them about mine.  They felt that it encompassed a very few coaches so it was insignificant.

What about the coaches that never visit FOT?  Or, too far away just to come for a check?

FOT would not even comment about the issue especially in writing.  I believe that it is to limit liability?  Admitting that it is a problem opens them up to a problem.

You know that there is a problem with a piece of inventory so you don't fly it.  Some people who know a Pinto was a problem and didn't drive it.  But, how people flew the A/C and drove Pintos that did not know it?  What is your duty to inform?  What is FOT's duty.  I know that we are not Ralph Nader and airplanes fly in spite of the engineering, maintenance, and pilots,  but, ignorance is not bliss.

This great forum helps keep the followers out of harms way, but only when the collective knowledge is able to uncover, evaluate, and fix the problems.

Should the problem be resolved at the source, or should we add torque checking of every bolt on the coach to our daily oil level check and walk-around.

Again, my coach bulkhead is fixed.  I don't think that I will die that way.  How many are there out there might be a problem?  What is the OFFICIAL fix?

IMHO 

With all the discussion on this topic, I went out and checked my coach.  With moderate torque (I don't have a proper wrench so I was tender with the pressure) I found 3 in the rear bulkhead and 1 in the front, all widely separated and with very little rust jacking.  Now where is the best place to mend my baby??  MOT?  FT? of Extreme. 

Pulling heavy trailers may be a problem for some of us.  On my '94 U225, the Gross Vehicle Weight Rating is 22500 lbs, and I am very close to that number when loaded for travel with full fuel tank and 1/2 loaded fresh water tank.  My Combined Gross Vehicle Weight Rating ( The amount specified by the manufacturer of the tow vehicle as the maximum weight that a combination of tow vehicle and trailer can safely weigh when fully loaded.) is 24,000 lbs.    That allows for me to pull a trailer that weights 1500 lbs, including load.  Not exactly a heavy trailer.  In fact, towing my Ford Focus without a trailer puts me over the allowable CGVWR that Foretravel has set for the motorhome.

By the way, my '94 U225 has had bulkhead seperation repairs.

One day, the powers above will start to weigh vehicles other than trucks (heading north through Maine or New Brunswick, there was a sign at a weigh station that said "trucks AND busses must weigh").  Its getting closer!  At that time, RV vacation sites will be empty.  The roads will be clear.

I've talked to numerous RV & 5th wheel owners who talk about 4 or 5 or more tire blowouts on the same rig with not a clue how it happened.  Tire inflation might be a culprit, but when you see these guys going down the road with the top of their coaches/trailers bobbing back and forth with the motorcycles on top of the tow hitch, and the car/trailer behind and the coolers on the roof, that scary.

I hate regulation, especially against stupid!  But, "there oughta be a law"!  Weigh us, too!  Or maybe we need to have a document that says we did weigh it recently and we are good to go.  Sure, you can falsify it, but I think if you saw what you weighed, you would use common sense and regulate yourself.  Random checks would keep you honest.

Look at the NCC (net carrying capacity) of your vehicle.  This includes occupants, fresh water (gray & black if you didn't pump out), personal belongings, food , propane, and everything you put in it including dealer provided accessories PLUS hitch load.

Mine is 3120 lbs.  Different model have higher or lower limits.

1/2 ton water (at least),  copious amounts of storage space inside and out filled with stuff (and I hear people complain about not enough storage), fridge & freezer packed, passengers (some of us are diet challenged), added freezers or spare fuel tanks in the bays, spare tires, tools, parts, and other "stuff" and there is no way that you are not overloaded.  (I saw new 5th wheelers at many shows with NCC's at 1200-1400 lbs.  Once you buy it, its your problem.  No one looks at THAT number! They look at "shiny!"

Back to the bulkhead problem.  Unless you weigh and keep yourself under the "numbers", it could help to cause the separation and other problems.  But, this overweight/structural problem is not just a user problem, but also a manufacturer problem.

Why do they build them so close to the limits with low usable cargo capacity?  They almost build it for you to sin.  Good thing that these things don't fly, because most of them probably couldn't.  And then they put 1...2...3...4...and full wall slides........

Again...IMHO

Boy I'm sorry this ever got started again. This particular discussion is why I stopped reading the old Yahoo site. The bottom line is that no one knows of an instance where the bulkhead caused a dangerous situation or accident. Therefore the NTSB will not get involved, thank goodness. Foretravel and us Foretravel owners need to keep Foretravel solvent so they are not going to open themselves up to incredible liability by admitting an underestimation of the engineering requirements for bulkhead attachment. My coach is 17 years old and just now has had bolt failure due to the Rolok bolts. Remember I checked them last year as did FOT. Is this really a deficiency or just a maintenance issue?

I understand the impact this sort of thing makes on an engineer but as a businessman, I can tell you LET'S MOVE ON. Only bad things will come by trying to get Foretravel to do anything other than inspect every coach that comes into their facility for paid service. We just need to make sure that our members know to check the bolts yearly.

I think all of the points that Mike B made are very pertinent to this issue.  We had MOT do some preventive bolt additions.  Was it the preferred method?  I don't know since I don't think the factory ever issued any guidelines? But the work MOT did has given us piece of mind as well as additional structural strength.  The previous owner also added a few through bolts, so I believe we are past this issue.  But, I will examine the bulkheads from time to time.

To address the issue of rust jacking would a product like Corrosion Block work?  While it is easy to apply it would have to be reapplied at least twice a year.  I cannot imagine anything that would permanently coat the steel to keep out corrosion, especially if there is any movement at that location.

Rudy,

I meant to add to your post that Corrosion X is available in a spray can or hand-operated squeeze bottle.  The can would be ideal for getting Corrosion X on the bulkheads and into the gap.

Corrosion Block / CorrosionX (https://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=10680.msg50618;topicseen#new)