G
Guest
Guest
Matt & Jon
Well, 25" seems to suit me, and it still leaves a visible upwards slope of the running boards towards the rear (when looked at from the side), ie it doesn't look down at the back vs the front.
In fact, if anything, it leaves the horse trailer a little nose up with a tendency to lock the brakes on its front axle when empty. I've been tempted to move the towball down to the lowest set of holes on the hitch, but that will take it below the reinforcing plate behind, and increase bending moment on the hitch assembly. And I've never had stability problems towing the horses, so I think it's a case of "let sleeping dogs lie".
Christopher Bell
Devon, UK
1996 1HD-FT (possibly suffering from brewer's droop)
On Behalf Of Jon Wildsmith
That sounds a bit low, our 93 with standard suspension (which I thought was low from old age) but 285 tyres is 27" to the step on the rear. Even allowing for the 285's 25" seems low?
Never measured it before but the 94 is 33" to the step.
Regards,
Jon.
Well, 25" seems to suit me, and it still leaves a visible upwards slope of the running boards towards the rear (when looked at from the side), ie it doesn't look down at the back vs the front.
In fact, if anything, it leaves the horse trailer a little nose up with a tendency to lock the brakes on its front axle when empty. I've been tempted to move the towball down to the lowest set of holes on the hitch, but that will take it below the reinforcing plate behind, and increase bending moment on the hitch assembly. And I've never had stability problems towing the horses, so I think it's a case of "let sleeping dogs lie".
Christopher Bell
Devon, UK
1996 1HD-FT (possibly suffering from brewer's droop)
On Behalf Of Jon Wildsmith
That sounds a bit low, our 93 with standard suspension (which I thought was low from old age) but 285 tyres is 27" to the step on the rear. Even allowing for the 285's 25" seems low?
Never measured it before but the 94 is 33" to the step.
Regards,
Jon.