Posted 2006-03-12 4:32 PM (#38713) Subject: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Member
Posts: 9
Hi,
I've been lurking for some time, mainly looking up different brands and so forth. I narrowed down my search to Kingston and Jamco. Originally I planned to get a Brenderup, but moved to those two. Although I really like the Kingstons, I think it might be out of the question as I am not interested in having a trailer shipped out to CA. Right now I have an ML 430 but want to trade up for a Range Rover. I did a bit of research and learned that they can haul 7700 lbs. Obviously, I want to be well under that, but am concerned about length. The combined weight of my two horses is 2100 lbs.
That brings me to the Jamco. I am a competitive rider with two of my own horses- I want wide stalls (it seems 32" was std. in the trailers we hired last show season- yes, I measured), straight load, ramp, no mangers (I don't think they have that option ?). I don't know if I want a dressing room, as that would add several hundred pounds and quite a few feet. In the past, I have hauled all of my stuff in the car as I hired haulers, so it wouldn't be much different. I'm interested to know if you would recommend it to someone, based on the vehicle I plan to haul it with. Right now, I'm fine with no DR, but wonder if down the road I am really going to regret that decision.
Any advice you have would be most appreciated. Thanks
Posted 2006-03-12 5:53 PM (#38715 - in reply to #38713) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
Hi and Welcome.
I have a Jamco 2 horse bumper pull with dr/tack room.
It is under 3,000 lbs empty, I think I posted it's scale weight here about a year ago. I posted the MEASURED stall dimensions for someone, though that might have been another forum - I'll check. GVWR is 7,000, so (in theory at least) I could pack a couple of 2,000 lb horses in there (-:
I've pulled it with a 1-ton (a DRW type of 1 ton) and recently pulled it with one HEFTY horse (~1600 or 1700 lbs) behind a Dodge Durango. It was a windy day, but it pulled and handled well despite the uneven load and no load distributing hitch.
What is your concern about length ? I can measure mine if you want me to, it has the SMALL tack/dr that takes up most of the A-frame tongue space.
Posted 2006-03-13 5:01 PM (#38759 - in reply to #38715) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
I didn't find the Jamco dimensions post, here or on other boards that I post to.
I just went outside to measure it, the stalls are 39 1/2" wall to divider.
Certainly wide enough for a very pregnant Irish sport mare (-:
Let me know if you need other dimensions.
This is a J2000 series, I might have said that in the other post.
Posted 2006-03-18 8:11 PM (#39035 - in reply to #38713) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Member
Posts: 9
Hi,
Thanks for your reply. I suppose my concern with length was that it just LOOKS (to me) so much longer than many other BP trailers. Perhaps it isn't, but I just remember the Jamco my friend had and it seemed HUGE compared to the trailers we used (Kiefer Built, Kingston, etc).
I'm curious as to what the smaller tack room is- ie. which model that is. I really don't need a big tack room- we always get tack stalls at shows, but I do want something.
I also thought to get the 6' wide model instead of the 7'- that's a 36" stall by my calculations. I just don't want to get down to 32" stalls.
I'm still lusting over the B-up, obviously I skipped that idea in order to keep the peace with the trainer, but I am still going back and forth. Do you have an opinion on the trailer?
Posted 2006-03-18 9:01 PM (#39040 - in reply to #39035) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
Give me a day or two, I'll try to make some meaningful measurements and get the proper model number off it.
The tack/dr is about as space efficient as you can get, it takes up space over the tongue A-Frame that is normally vacant, which is part of how they make it pointy.
I don't think of it as particularly long, if anything it would probably be nasty to back up if it were much shorter.
I've had BIG horses in it, it has REAL escape doors on both sides.
It weighs barely 600 lbs more than the B-Up....
How to say this charitably ??? ...I certainly wouldn't trade it for a B-up.
Posted 2006-03-24 8:52 PM (#39478 - in reply to #38713) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Member
Posts: 9
Hi Reg-
Thanks for your input. I am all ready to tow- have the RR with the dealer supplied hitch and towing package- they did the electrical and so on. It came with three balls- the small one (1 7/8, I think), 2 ", and 2 5/8. It's kind of a funky design, I don't know if anyone has seen this. Please excuse me if I do not use the right terms. You put the ball into the hitch receiver, but at the end, instead of a ball, there is a cone. It looks like an upside down sugar cone with a flat top. You take one of the three balls and place it on the cone and lock it into place. I guess I'm set? I know I need chains (w/ trailer)... but what about "sway bars"? There are a lot of warnings about using non-land rover gear to haul and so on and so forth, and I think that they discourage the bars... not sure though. What is the difference between weight distrib. hitch and sway bars (I know, and have used when hauling with friends, the latter)?
I've pretty much decided on either the Contender I.5 or II, would love to find one used in the area (So Cal) but so far, no luck. I wish that it were more common to rent trailers in the area as I am going to have to continue hiring haulers until I figure out what to put behind the RR. (:))
Posted 2006-03-25 6:31 AM (#39489 - in reply to #39478) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
Originally written by dressager on 2006-03-24 9:52 PM
Hi Reg-
Thanks for your input. I am all ready to tow- have the RR with the dealer supplied hitch and towing package- they did the electrical and so on. It came with three balls- the small one (1 7/8, I think), 2 ", and 2 5/8. It's kind of a funky design, I don't know if anyone has seen this. Please excuse me if I do not use the right terms. You put the ball into the hitch receiver, but at the end, instead of a ball, there is a cone. It looks like an upside down sugar cone with a flat top. You take one of the three balls and place it on the cone and lock it into place. I guess I'm set? I know I need chains (w/ trailer)... but what about "sway bars"? There are a lot of warnings about using non-land rover gear to haul and so on and so forth, and I think that they discourage the bars... not sure though. What is the difference between weight distrib. hitch and sway bars (I know, and have used when hauling with friends, the latter)?
I've pretty much decided on either the Contender I.5 or II, would love to find one used in the area (So Cal) but so far, no luck. I wish that it were more common to rent trailers in the area as I am going to have to continue hiring haulers until I figure out what to put behind the RR. (:))
Thanks!
Like this ? http://www.jamcotrailers.com/trailers/model.php?series=Legend&model...
That is pretty much what I have, the picture shows the double wedge shape of the nose that squeezes a tack room out of what would otherwise be empty space over the tongue A-frame.
I also have a convertable tow ball with 3 different sizes, so easy to switch around between log splitter, snow mobile/jet ski trailers at 1 7/8, Ski boats at 2" and horse trailer and bigger boats at 2 5/16. Mine is an early design using a straight pin and a locking pin across, not the truncated cone that you described.
Be VERY SURE that you have the 2 5/16 ball on for your horse trailer.
I towed a car trailer with the 2 inch ball and it had a 2 5/16 coupler, oddly enough it held up until I unloaded the car, which flipped it. No damage, no injury, but scary.
I'll swing by next time I'm in your neighborhood, maybe November (-:
MY guess is that the Contender won't throw a Range Rover around, I'm not using a load distributing hitch or anti sway bars with mine behind the Durango.
Posted 2006-03-25 10:20 AM (#39498 - in reply to #38713) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Member
Posts: 20
Location: TN
Did your trainer read the review by Mr. Truck?http://horsetrailerworld.com/Home/contribute/Homepage/Mrtruckbrenderup/mrtruck.aspThe small Brenderup escape doors keep a horse from trying to dive out behind you. Plenty of room for an adult to step in and out. All of our dressage friends with warmbloods love em. I guess one would cost a bit more than a Jamco though. The big difference in the Brender and US is the tongue weight...not the total weight. The largest Brender only has 80 lbs of tongue weight. I'm debating on this or changing to a larger tow vehicle. I'm pulling an aluminum bumper pull with a 2005 Ford F-150 rated at 8-9K and I sure know it's back there. Just kind of heavy and lugging even with one horse.
Posted 2006-03-25 1:09 PM (#39501 - in reply to #39498) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
Originally written by halfpass on 2006-03-25 11:20 AM
Did your trainer read the review by Mr. Truck?http://horsetrailerworld.com/Home/contribute/Homepage/Mrtruckbrenderup/mrtruck.aspThe small Brenderup escape doors keep a horse from trying to dive out behind you. Plenty of room for an adult to step in and out. All of our dressage friends with warmbloods love em. I guess one would cost a bit more than a Jamco though. The big difference in the Brender and US is the tongue weight...not the total weight. The largest Brender only has 80 lbs of tongue weight. I'm debating on this or changing to a larger tow vehicle. I'm pulling an aluminum bumper pull with a 2005 Ford F-150 rated at 8-9K and I sure know it's back there. Just kind of heavy and lugging even with one horse.
I see low tongue weight as a BIG negative.
EXPECT a trialer to be unstable if you don't have 10% to 15% of the gross weight on the tongue. This is fundamental, sales/marketing copy can't get away from the mechanics of this.
Jamcos are price comparable to Elite, 4-Star, etc., if the B-Up is more than that it is WAY overpriced. I don't think there is a price at which I would buy a B-Up for my own use. If I had a victim lined up waiting for it and I could turn a quick Buck, that would be different (-:
Posted 2006-03-26 8:29 AM (#39518 - in reply to #38713) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Member
Posts: 20
Location: TN
They aren't unstable..I have pulled one. I don't think Mr. Truck would have stated it was a super trailer if it wasn't. I would certainly pull the largest trailer my vehicle permitted..the Brenderup doesn't have a large tack area, but for the people who don't want to go into a large truck, etc., they work fine. It all depends on what you want to tow with. I'd like a Jamco better..you just need to make sure you have the HP. If the Range Rover tows 7700lbs, trailer weighs 3500, two 1100 pounders and 500 in tack/feed/water, you are getting close.
Posted 2006-03-29 2:06 PM (#39729 - in reply to #39501) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Regular
Posts: 59 Location: Colorado
Originally written by Reg on 2006-03-25 1:09 PM
[I see low tongue weight as a BIG negative. EXPECT a trialer to be unstable if you don't have 10% to 15% of the gross weight on the tongue. This is fundamental, sales/marketing copy can't get away from the mechanics of this. Jamcos are price comparable to Elite, 4-Star, etc., if the B-Up is more than that it is WAY overpriced. I don't think there is a price at which I would buy a B-Up for my own use. If I had a victim lined up waiting for it and I could turn a quick Buck, that would be different (-:]
Reg, How many B-ups have you pulled? I find it interesting most everyone who has pulled one claims they pull very well, curious how you experience is different?
Also was wondering if you can explain to me why ALL trailers must have 10-15% weight on their tongue regardless of axle angles, axles spacing, and toe-in, etc...
I see you are an expert on this board, and must be an expert on vehicle dynamics too. Maybe you can enlighten myself as well as the engineers at B-up on why 10-15% is always required on every trailer. I am an engineer too, so I will try my best to keep up!
Posted 2006-03-30 9:46 AM (#39780 - in reply to #39729) Subject: RE: Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
Expert
Posts: 2689
Originally written by Flush on 2006-03-29 3:06 PM
Originally written by Reg on 2006-03-25 1:09 PM
[I see low tongue weight as a BIG negative. EXPECT a trialer to be unstable if you don't have 10% to 15% of the gross weight on the tongue. This is fundamental, sales/marketing copy can't get away from the mechanics of this. Jamcos are price comparable to Elite, 4-Star, etc., if the B-Up is more than that it is WAY overpriced. I don't think there is a price at which I would buy a B-Up for my own use. If I had a victim lined up waiting for it and I could turn a quick Buck, that would be different (-:]
Reg, How many B-ups have you pulled? I find it interesting most everyone who has pulled one claims they pull very well, curious how you experience is different?
Also was wondering if you can explain to me why ALL trailers must have 10-15% weight on their tongue regardless of axle angles, axles spacing, and toe-in, etc...
I see you are an expert on this board, and must be an expert on vehicle dynamics too. Maybe you can enlighten myself as well as the engineers at B-up on why 10-15% is always required on every trailer. I am an engineer too, so I will try my best to keep up!
Ummmm, lets see now....
What do I know and how do I know it ?
Is THAT what you're asking ?
Maybe where did I graduate and in what ?
Have I designed/built stuff and learned the hard way that physics is... physical ?
The "expert" rating is based purely on the number of times I've tried to answer questions and/or opined on stuff - that is all, no quality factor is applied, just quantity. It is NOT a self proclamation.
The 10 to 15% is "generally accepted" as being necessary for stability.
It is some representation of where the center of gravity is relative to the area of support (bounded by the 2 rear tires and the coupler).
As an engineer you'll acknowledge that stability is some function of the relationship between the center of force and the distribution of support - yes ? Also the height of the center of force above that support area.
A hypothetical zero tongue weight puts the center of force over a small area, about 8ft by 3ft., not good in a dynamic situation. More tongue weight reflects C of G closer to the tow vehicle, more "in the triangle" with less leverage against the tow vehicle.
Somewhere around my third or fourth trailer I decided to build my own.
Tongue weight was one thing that I had read and thought about, but didn't pay enough attention to. The most unpleasant experience was when I loaded the back of it so heavily that it had "negative" tongue weight, i.e. LIFT !
I didn't discover just how much until I unhooked the coupler while standing astride the tongue - I took a ride and figured out why it had been so squirrely on the way home.
SUMMARY: Where the center of force (C of G if you're only considering a static model) is relative to the support area MATTERS ! Tongue weight as a percentage of total weight is a representation of where the C of G is, it is also a fairly easily measured metric (it is convenient, accessible).
B-Up engineering dept can't change this with weird fysiks, their marketing dept can't change it with ad copy.
80lbs is just ridiculous, even if it makes a lightweight tow vehicle look good.
Yes, camber, caster and toe in/out can be used to affect tracking, but they will not make a 'tongue light' trailer stable.
Jamcos, Range Rovers, etc
