Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
| [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger [message #77132] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 17:02  |
Mark Torgerson
Messages: 19
Registered: March 2010
Karma: 0
|
Junior Member |
|
|
Thanks Nelson for your input.
Sorry if I ruffled some feathers - I didn't mean to.
These were forwarded comments from Harrison concerning his air ride system for the GMC motorhome.
I have the old bag style myself right now - but they need to be replaced.
I am neutral concerning the pros and cons of each system. In my opinion I think both systems still have room for improvement: Although Harrison's system can support the coach with the loss of one rear tire - it has it's limits and looks like use for emergency only. It does need a little more center support for a good peace of mind for that emergency situation. Thankfully, as you pointed out, this can easily be fixed. The Harrison's system routes the air lines as far away from the tires as possible and in addition has steel shields mounted to protect the air bags from damage should a tire explode. The "Q bag" - just my opinion- should be designed with more protection in both of these areas. Heavens forbid - if a tire were to explode at highway speeds and take out 1 or 2 of the air lines running right next to it.
With an air system down it no longer matters if it can support the weight of one tire or not.
This also could be fixed for those who have the Q bag system. What ever system you go with is an improved set up over stock.
Really these issues are each a matter of additional peace of mind and safety in an emergency situation.
I admire and support the efforts of all parties involved in the designing of these systems - each enable these motorhomes to stay on the road now and for generations to come.
'73 Canyon Lands
Portland, Oregon
________________________________
From: Nelson Wright <f25ccapt@earthlink.net>
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Sent: Wed, March 17, 2010 1:49:34 PM
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
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 bagger
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
List Information and Subscription Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger [message #77153 is a reply to message #77132] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 20:33  |
jimk
Messages: 6734
Registered: July 2006
Location: Belmont, CA
Karma: 9
|
Senior Member |
|
|
Mark,
I have had origional bags blow out after a tire blew and cut it.It
happened twice.
If you think it went out of control, your wrong. The coach has such a
great stance that we do not have those problems. Maybe because I have
over million miles on the coaches and have faced many mishaps.
We might make a shield available for those that want more protection
on the Q Bag.
Harrison's are as exposed as ours.
We are always prepared to show you why our Q Bag is one we do not need
to apologize.
If you feel there is any changes we need to do to our design, lets
hear it. I will have our designer,Rick Flanigan go to his CAD unit and
see if it would be reasonable.
Some of you have not examined one on a table like we have and sat next
to a desigher work out the designs.
Jim Bounds will let you people know why we had to go with the Q Bag.
Dave Lenzie will probalyy throw out his 4 Bag unit for a Q Bag soon. He
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Mark Torgerson <a1nss@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks Nelson for your input.
>
>
> Sorry if I ruffled some feathers - I didn't mean to.
>
>  These were forwarded comments from Harrison concerning his air ride system for the GMC motorhome.
>
> I have the old bag style myself right now - but they need to be replaced.
>  I am neutral concerning the pros and cons of each system.   In my opinion I think both systems still have room for improvement:   Although Harrison's system can support the coach with the loss of one rear tire - it has it's limits and looks like use for emergency only.  It does need a little more center support for a good peace of mind for that emergency situation.   Thankfully, as you pointed out, this can easily be fixed.  The Harrison's system routes the air lines as far away from the tires as possible and in addition has steel shields mounted to protect the air bags from damage should a tire explode.        The "Q bag" - just my opinion- should be designed with more protection in both of these areas.  Heavens forbid - if a tire were to explode at highway speeds and take out 1 or 2 of the air lines running right next to it.
>
> With an air system down it no longer matters if it can support the weight of one tire or not.
>
> This also could be fixed for those who have the Q bag system.    What ever system you go with is an improved set up over stock.
>
> Really these issues are each a matter of additional peace of mind and safety in an emergency situation.
>
> I admire and support the efforts of all parties involved in the designing of these systems - each enable these motorhomes to stay on the road now and for generations to come.
>
>
> '73 Canyon Lands
> Â Portland, Oregon
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nelson Wright <f25ccapt@earthlink.net>
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Sent: Wed, March 17, 2010 1:49:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
>
> Mark,
> I think that your statement that the "Dual Bag" is unsafe is
> unfounded. If one bag fails you still have over 50%Â 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 bagger
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Jim Kanomata
Applied/GMC
jimk@appliedairfilters.com
www.appliedgmc.com
1-800-752-7502
|
|
|
|
| Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger [message #77154 is a reply to message #77153] |
Thu, 18 March 2010 20:37 |
Len Novak
Messages: 676
Registered: February 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Karma: -3
|
Senior Member |
|
|
On a different note.............
There is a small rally in Temecula CA this weekend. I'll have my coach with
the dual bag setup there.
I'm sure there will be a Quadra Bag coach there also.
Cheers,
Len and Pat
78 Kingsley, The Beast II with dash lights that work
Fallbrook, CA
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
-----Original Message-----
From: gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org
[mailto:gmclist-bounces@temp.gmcnet.org] On Behalf Of Jim Kanomata
Sent: Thursday, March 18, 2010 6:34 PM
To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
Mark,
I have had origional bags blow out after a tire blew and cut it.It
happened twice.
If you think it went out of control, your wrong. The coach has such a
great stance that we do not have those problems. Maybe because I have
over million miles on the coaches and have faced many mishaps.
We might make a shield available for those that want more protection
on the Q Bag.
Harrison's are as exposed as ours.
We are always prepared to show you why our Q Bag is one we do not need
to apologize.
If you feel there is any changes we need to do to our design, lets
hear it. I will have our designer,Rick Flanigan go to his CAD unit and
see if it would be reasonable.
Some of you have not examined one on a table like we have and sat next
to a desigher work out the designs.
Jim Bounds will let you people know why we had to go with the Q Bag.
Dave Lenzie will probalyy throw out his 4 Bag unit for a Q Bag soon. He
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 3:02 PM, Mark Torgerson <a1nss@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks Nelson for your input.
>
>
> Sorry if I ruffled some feathers - I didn't mean to.
>
> These were forwarded comments from Harrison concerning his air ride
system for the GMC motorhome.
>
> I have the old bag style myself right now - but they need to be replaced.
> I am neutral concerning the pros and cons of each system. In my
opinion I think both systems still have room for improvement: Although
Harrison's system can support the coach with the loss of one rear tire - it
has it's limits and looks like use for emergency only. It does need a
little more center support for a good peace of mind for that emergency
situation. Thankfully, as you pointed out, this can easily be fixed. The
Harrison's system routes the air lines as far away from the tires as
possible and in addition has steel shields mounted to protect the air bags
from damage should a tire explode. The "Q bag" - just my opinion-
should be designed with more protection in both of these areas. Heavens
forbid - if a tire were to explode at highway speeds and take out 1 or 2 of
the air lines running right next to it.
>
> With an air system down it no longer matters if it can support the weight
of one tire or not.
>
> This also could be fixed for those who have the Q bag system. What ever
system you go with is an improved set up over stock.
>
> Really these issues are each a matter of additional peace of mind and
safety in an emergency situation.
>
> I admire and support the efforts of all parties involved in the designing
of these systems - each enable these motorhomes to stay on the road now and
for generations to come.
>
>
> '73 Canyon Lands
> Portland, Oregon
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Nelson Wright <f25ccapt@earthlink.net>
> To: gmclist@temp.gmcnet.org
> Sent: Wed, March 17, 2010 1:49:34 PM
> Subject: Re: [GMCnet] Fw: 2/4 bagger
>
> 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 bagger
>>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
Len and Pat Novak
1978 GMC Kingsley
The Beast II with dash lights that work and labels you can see!
Las Vegas, NV new email: B52sRule@Gmail.com
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/showgallery.php?cat=4375
www.bdub.net/novak/
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Mon Sep 30 13:23:43 CDT 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00960 seconds
|
GMCforum
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
