GMCforum
For enthusiast of the Classic GMC Motorhome built from 1973 to 1978. A web-based mirror of the GMCnet mailing list.
Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger [message #76964 is a reply to message #76959] Wed, 17 March 2010 15:49 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Nelson Wright is currently offline  Nelson Wright   United States
Messages: 147
Registered: May 2004
Karma:
Senior Member
Mark,
I think that your statement that the "Dual Bag" is unsafe is
unfounded. If one bag fails you still have over 50% with the
remaining bag that can be overinflated and possibly will enable you to
continue causally. As for the Harrison system being able to support
the coach with one bag I can attest that there have been failures due
to the under designed support structure. If you have a Harrison system
and you experience a failure and try to go on one bag be very careful
as the slightest bump or overload and that support structure WILL
bend. If you have a 23' coach and keep things light you may be OK, but
others should give serious consideration to the "Quad Bag". The extra
cost will be money saved in the long run.
BTW. There is a crutch being developed to enable those that already
have the old "Harrison" system to strengthen the support .
Also, your last statement that you can run a straight edge through the
center of the bags and the holes in the bogeys is false as the
Harrison bags are offset to allow the mounting hardware to miss the
bogey. The modification will also address this issue.

Nelson Wright
Orlando, Fl.
78 Royale rear bath

On Mar 17, 2010, at 4:10 PM, Mark Torgerson wrote:

>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: "leighharrisongmc@aol.com" <leighharrisongmc@aol.com>
> To: a1nss@yahoo.com
> Sent: Wed, March 17, 2010 11:49:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
> Gary The center hinged support "Dual bag" is an unsafe design. If
> one bag goes down that side will drop so that you cannot
> drive Whoever wrote that the "4 bag" (Harrison system)
> bracket will not support that side with one bag is not telling the
> truth. About 10 years ago when our 4 bag system first came out one
> of the members of the Sunshine Statesman in FL took the two center
> wheels off and drove into the convention just to see the members
> jaws drop. Five members have called me back to say they had a
> flat tire or a wheel bearing went out. They put the opposite bag
> in the full raised position and drove some 20 miles and one 200
> home. When our bags are at the proper ride height you can
> run a straight edge right thru the center of the bags to the center
> of the bolt holes in the swing arms. It is laser straight.
>
>
> -Sent: Wed, Mar 17, 2010 2:31 am
> Subject: Fw: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Forwarded Message ----
> From: Jim Kanomata <jimkanomata@gmail.com>
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Sent: Tue, March 16, 2010 10:29:45 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] 2/4 bagger
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 16, 2010 at 6:08 AM, Gary Casey <casey.gary@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>> I've been reading all the posts on the rear spring options and here
>> is what I've concluded with some remaining questions:
>>
>> 1. Dual bag - functionally replaces the OEM by using a hinged
>> center support. With this design you are not able to take the load
>> off any one tire if the need arises, but the design looks simple
>> and light-weight. About $800
>> 2."4-bag" system - Center support is rigid so that each wheel is
>> supported by its own spring. But I read that the center support is
>> not strong enough to hold the total load of one side of the coach
>> with a single wheel (one bag pressurized, the other not). Except
>> for that problem it apparently works fine and is relatively light-
>> weight. Price?
>> 3. "Quad-bag" - functionally the same as the 4-bag, but with the
>> center support beefed up so that it can reliably support the total
>> weight with only one bag pressurized. About $1600 and
>> substantially heavier than either the dual bag or 4-bag.
>> 4. OEM bags - still available new for about $350-$400.
>>
>> Questions: I read various opinions about the relative handling
>> benefits of each design. But...they all appear to have the bags
>> attached at about the same radius - they are all spaced up a little
>> from the standard location. And I read that they all use the same
>> Firestone bag part number. True? Therefore, they should all have
>> the same spring rate, unless some are compressed more (to a
>> different length) than others at the nominal ride height. Are
>> they? The nominal compressed length will be the only control over
>> spring rate since the radius of action is about the same for all.
>> Apparently all the aftermarket designs have a higher spring rate
>> than the OEM bag. True?
>>
>> Conclusions: I read in some of the ads that one design eliminates
>> "80%" of the braking imbalance. I think that's impossible, since
>> the geometry hasn't changed. One says that it eliminates the
>> "buffeting from passing truck." Oh, yeah? It is only a spring and
>> maybe the new designs have a higher spring rate that the original,
>> but that is the only difference that can effect handling. One says
>> it will "track better." Same comment as above. And I don't think
>> having the bags "independent" makes any difference for 99% of
>> driving. The common bag approach (OEM, dual bag) might have a
>> slight advantage climbing over a curb, but on the road there should
>> be no measurable difference.
>>
>> So, my conclusion is that it mostly depends on whether one wants to
>> be able to drive with one tire flat (and is willing to plumb the
>> bags so one can be inflated without the other). The dual bag, of
>> course, can't be used that way and the 4-bag is reportedly not
>> structurally able. . Is my conclusion ill-founded? Disclaimer:
>> I have no personal knowledge of any of the protagonists and don't
>> have a dog in the fight.
>>
>> Gary Casey
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> GMCnet mailing list
>> List Information and Subscription Options:
>> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Jim Kanomata
> Applied/GMC, Fremont,CA
> jimk@appliedairfilters.com
> http://www.appliedgmc.com/
> 1-800-752-7502
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> List Information and Subscription Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> List Information and Subscription Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist

_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist

Report message to a moderator

[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: GMC MH Belt Buckle
Next Topic: Re: [GMCnet] GMC MH Belt Buckle
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Mon Jun 17 03:32:29 CDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01116 seconds
.:: Contact :: Home ::.

Powered by: FUDforum 3.1.1.
Copyright ©2001-2021 FUDforum Bulletin Board Software