Brian james assitor ramps ??

[gixermark]

HI Guys,

i have a brian james tilt bed trailer.. and have not quite managed to load the prosport on/off without the bottom of the splitter catching.. despite trying numerous angles... 13ft wooden ramps with shaved leading edges etc etc..

so - anyone got any pics of the brian james assitor ramps ?? or is it better to use the std long ramps ??

[SportsLibre]

have you tried a "starter ramp" i.e. a piece of wood to run up first to raise the front end so the splitter does not catch the ramp.

Personally I lift the front body to sit on top of the pegs run it up the ramps then replace the front body before finishing the load and tieing down etc.

[gixermark]

yep.. tried 'starter' ramps of all sorts of sizes....

would prefer to get a solution whereby i don;t have to take body on/off to load and unload the car - when its on the trailer there is very little room at each side to get the body on/off.

[sclemow]

I've got a Brian James tiltbed with the assistor ramps. They will go up nice and easily without hitting, and you can load them by yourself.

S

[gixermark]

thanks

i assume they are angled/curved in some way ? better to get them vs the long 2.5m ramps they do ??

[splitpin]

gixermark said:

yep.. tried 'starter' ramps of all sorts of sizes....

would prefer to get a solution whereby i don;t have to take body on/off to load and unload the car - when its on the trailer there is very little room at each side to get the body on/off.

Sounds to me that SportsLibre may have the same as me?; front bodywork with the splitter attached to that; may lack downforce, but it makes trailer loading a heck of a lot easier!

Recollect that yours is HD, so splitter stays put >

It might look a bit weird, but assuming you put it on nose first, have you tried putting it on tail first?; the rear overhang is a lot less period and with the right width/correctly positioned ramps, the tips of the rear undertray usually present no problem. Might another idea be to wind up the front suspension to 'nose high it' just for loading and transportation?

[nick997]

splitpin said:

It might look a bit weird, but assuming you put it on nose first, have you tried putting it on tail first?; the rear overhang is a lot less period and with the right width/correctly positioned ramps, the tips of the rear undertray usually present no problem. Might another idea be to wind up the front suspension to 'nose high it' just for loading and transportation?

On my SR4 with the old trailer the nose would scrape along the ground instead of the ramps if I loaded it tail first.

Mark - I found a set of folding ramps that I put under my trailer ramps which just about cured the problem, perhaps a bit of light scraping on the splitter. I think I have some photos of the ramps if you are interested, the ramps are surplus to requirements now I've replaced the trailer with an enclosed Brian James jobbie if they will help.

Cheers

Nick

[splitpin]

nick997 said:

splitpin said:

It might look a bit weird, but assuming you put it on nose first, have you tried putting it on tail first?; the rear overhang is a lot less period and with the right width/correctly positioned ramps, the tips of the rear undertray usually present no problem. Might another idea be to wind up the front suspension to 'nose high it' just for loading and transportation?

On my SR4 with the old trailer the nose would scrape along the ground instead of the ramps if I loaded it tail first.

Mark - I found a set of folding ramps that I put under my trailer ramps which just about cured the problem, perhaps a bit of light scraping on the splitter. I think I have some photos of the ramps if you are interested, the ramps are surplus to requirements now I've replaced the trailer with an enclosed Brian James jobbie if they will help.

Cheers

Nick

Nick: Simply out of interest, I had a quick look on BJ's website and they recommend putting rear or mid-engined cars onto their trailers tail first. Mind you, with something as light as a Radical, it probably makes little or no difference.........particularly as the front end wheel rack will balance that out a bit.

[SportsLibre]

splitpin said:

gixermark said:

would prefer to get a solution whereby i don;t have to take body on/off to load and unload the car - when its on the trailer there is very little room at each side to get the body on/off.

Sounds to me that SportsLibre may have the same as me?; front bodywork with the splitter attached to that; may lack down force, but it makes trailer loading a heck of a lot easier!

Yes, I would also prefer not to remove the body work starter ramps would work but haven't got round to making some.

Yes, an original Clubsport (No6 I think) but now fitted with larger front Splitter on bodywork and "quadrants" mounted off the nose box behind.The splitter overlaps under the quadrants slightly so giving an almost complete although not perfectly smooth front under tray effect. Also rear under tray and front dive planes. Oh and not forgetting the ZX14 engine

[nick997]

splitpin said:

Nick: Simply out of interest, I had a quick look on BJ's website and they recommend putting rear or mid-engined cars onto their trailers tail first. Mind you, with something as light as a Radical, it probably makes little or no difference.........particularly as the front end wheel rack will balance that out a bit.

Yep, purely down to getting a positive nose weight which as you say tends not to be a problem with a lightweight Radical with centre of mass between the wheels. They also contradict that advise for the RS3 trailer by selling the tyre rack and workbench we've been discussing which forces the car to be loaded nose first.

Nick

[gixermark]

thanks guys..

Nick - if you have pics that woudl be much appreciated...

although my car supposedly has the high downforce pack.. the splitter is actually attached to the front body... so in theory i coudl take off or at least partly remove and lift the front section to get on/off the trailer, but given i do it on my own lots of the time - i want a proper solution.

i had though a tilt bed and long wooden ramps with leading edge woudl have done the job.. but... !

[SportsLibre]

I still say that if you have the tilt correct with the ramps and bed in a straight line then there can be no problem once the front wheels are on the up slope. My only problem is getting over the lip of the ramps.

I think you need to check you are getting the angle correct. Where does it hit? if you have a two angle slope, there's your problem.

I have a single axle trailer so balance is critical, Front loading is no problem as long as you have a full tyre rack to give the nose weight.

[sclemow]

gixermark said:

thanks

i assume they are angled/curved in some way ? better to get them vs the long 2.5m ramps they do ??

No they are straight and about 1.5m long. The biggest pain is that there is nowhere to stow them on the trailer unless you drill and fix them to it.

Which trailer do you have? We have a 5 year old tiltbed clubman and I can load it by myself front first on that.

I have to tilt it fully, winch it on until the splitter is on the trailer then drop the tilt a bit, finally winch it fully on.

S

[gixermark]

not sure which model of BJ i have... i assume a clubman, its been DIY'd to now have curtain sides, fiberglass front and roof.. and has the hydraulic yilt bed.. tyre rack inside etc etc..

i think part of the problem on mine is that teh actual traler bed has an angle where 'normal' cars woudl just use as a small ramp to get into the trailer bed.. so i think the key is probablyl to get straight ramps that sit over that so the angle is the same as the tilt bed, hence totally controllable whether on flat, downhill or uphill

[BertBert]

SportsLibre said:

I still say that if you have the tilt correct with the ramps and bed in a straight line then there can be no problem once the front wheels are on the up slope. My only problem is getting over the lip of the ramps.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Even with tilt such that the ramps and bed are in s straight line, the car is not following that line until front and back wheels are on it. I could have misunderstood the problem though. I thought it was the normal problem of the splitter hitting the ramp as the front wheels go up.

Bert

[ScottHughes]

I have been meaning to draw this to scale on autocad to see what angle ramps etc are required.. Bert is right that until the rear wheels are on the ramp the front splitter will dig into the ramp unless the angle is shallow enough not to cause a problem.

If you were to draw a line from the front bottom edge of the splitter to the point at which the front wheel touches the ground, that line would give you the maximum ramp angle.. but as the front ground clearance of the splitter is only 40mm and the front wheel contact patch is say 800mm back from that point the max ramp angle would only be.. 3 Degree's which if the back of the trailer was 300mm (1 ft/12") above the ground would require a ramp length of 5.7m.

if the 800mm is wrong and is only say 600mm then the ramp would only need to be 4.5m..

I will update on this tomorrow I have just realised that as the car travels up the ramp the angle of the splitter to the ramp changes and a gap will open up allowing the ramp angle to steepen.. this more complicated than I thought and will need to be drawn up to understand the exact interaction between the ramp and splitter and car etc..

Doh

[SportsLibre]

BertBert said:

SportsLibre said:

I still say that if you have the tilt correct with the ramps and bed in a straight line then there can be no problem once the front wheels are on the up slope. My only problem is getting over the lip of the ramps.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Even with tilt such that the ramps and bed are in s straight line, the car is not following that line until front and back wheels are on it. I could have misunderstood the problem though. I thought it was the normal problem of the splitter hitting the ramp as the front wheels go up.

Bert

Yes the gap will change, but only in a positive way, the worst will be at the start and the gap at the front will increase until the rear wheels are fully on and then it is no different to driving on the flat.

[BertBert]

SportsLibre said:

BertBert said:

SportsLibre said:

I still say that if you have the tilt correct with the ramps and bed in a straight line then there can be no problem once the front wheels are on the up slope. My only problem is getting over the lip of the ramps.

I don't think that's necessarily the case. Even with tilt such that the ramps and bed are in s straight line, the car is not following that line until front and back wheels are on it. I could have misunderstood the problem though. I thought it was the normal problem of the splitter hitting the ramp as the front wheels go up.

Bert

Yes the gap will change, but only in a positive way, the worst will be at the start and the gap at the front will increase until the rear wheels are fully on and then it is no different to driving on the flat.

Yep I agree with that, but as I see it, Mark's problem is that of the splitter hitting the ramp at the beginning which is to do with the ramp angle and not that of the bed.
Bert

[splitpin]

BertBert said:

Yep I agree with that, but as I see it, Mark's problem is that of the splitter hitting the ramp at the beginning which is to do with the ramp angle and not that of the bed.
Bert

That's what I sort of assumed, got to be right; that's why I mentioned "Might another idea be to wind up the front suspension to 'nose high it' just for loading and transportation?" Add unloading to that. Longer the ramps, better the chance of keeping the ramp gradient as shallow as possible to avoid the splitter 'digging in/scraping'. If the angle between the ramps and the bed is too sharp, the car would tend to ground at sills (i.e. towards mid point) rather than nose or tail. Even with an RS3 and 2.5m ramps, that can happen if the bed is not sufficiently tilted onto the rear pair of wheels via the jockey wheel. We usually finish winding the jockey wheel up as far as it will possibly go; into the 'maximum manoeuvring mode'; i.e. front pair of wheels completely clear of the ground.

[nick997]

gixermark said:

thanks guys..

Nick - if you have pics that woudl be much appreciated...

Sorry it's taken a couple of days, here's the ramps I used. You can see my old trailer in position to pull out the trailer ramp and place them on the extension ramp in the second photo.




Nick