My time traveling days are over. By which I mean they haven't started yet, before they ended earlier.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Upthread, I mentioned that I wanted to reduce the shank length on the Equalizer hitch. My original reason was for a slight aerodynamic (and therefore range) benefit. However, as I continued to research, I realized the benefits were more far-reaching than that. Shortening the shank (in some parlance, "stinger") and bringing the hitch ball closer to the tow vehicle does a number of things. It shortens the moment arm, so the tongue weight has less leverage on the receiver assembly as well as on the rear axle of the vehicle. This creates less stress on the vehicle, allows for more tension in the spring rods on a weight distribution hitch (which takes more downward force off of the receiver), and causes the rig to become more stable.
Something that caught my attention was the label on the side of the Bosal receiver that ships with the X. It shows that the rated horizontal distance between the hitch pin and the ball at 8". See the diagram in the lower left corner here:
The Equalizer hitch ships with a 12" offset when seated. That means that the torque placed on the receiver from the weight of the tongue is 150% greater than the specification for this particular receiver, for a weight bearing hitch. The Equalizer is a weight-distributing hitch and that changes things a bit. I'll explain that in my weight distribution thread in a day or two. But the main point here is that the Model X receiver is rated for 500 lbs. of tongue weight at 8" offset. That means about 333.3 ft-lbs of torque on the receiver. If the ball is at 12", the tongue rating decreases from 500 to 333.3 lbs (12" is a foot), and means that 500 lbs at 12" will apply 500 ft-lbs of torque on the receiver. That's a problem.
So, shortening the shank seemed like a clear winner to me in many ways. My main concern was weakening the shank by cutting and re-drilling a hole. I spoke with Can-Am RV (the Internet's favorite hitch experts) and they assured me that they do it all the time, and that even a small 1" difference can improve handling and distribution considerably. The only warning I read in my research was to ensure that the metal didn't heat over 1000 degrees F - so use oil when drilling. I took mine to a local machine shop instead of tackling it myself.
I was only able to reduce the shank length by about 2.5", but that helps quite a bit in reducing torque on the Bosal receiver.
Photos of before:
And after:
One additional note - anyone doing this should ensure that the shank bottoms out in the receiver when the pin holes line up. You don't want to be placing shear stress on the pin each time you slow down or stop.
I'll update this thread once I have a chance to tow with it. In the meantime, I hope that others like @JimVandegriff will take note of the Bosal limitation and the stock shank length on the Equalizer - it's worth your attention.
Something that caught my attention was the label on the side of the Bosal receiver that ships with the X. It shows that the rated horizontal distance between the hitch pin and the ball at 8". See the diagram in the lower left corner here:
The Equalizer hitch ships with a 12" offset when seated. That means that the torque placed on the receiver from the weight of the tongue is 150% greater than the specification for this particular receiver, for a weight bearing hitch. The Equalizer is a weight-distributing hitch and that changes things a bit. I'll explain that in my weight distribution thread in a day or two. But the main point here is that the Model X receiver is rated for 500 lbs. of tongue weight at 8" offset. That means about 333.3 ft-lbs of torque on the receiver. If the ball is at 12", the tongue rating decreases from 500 to 333.3 lbs (12" is a foot), and means that 500 lbs at 12" will apply 500 ft-lbs of torque on the receiver. That's a problem.
So, shortening the shank seemed like a clear winner to me in many ways. My main concern was weakening the shank by cutting and re-drilling a hole. I spoke with Can-Am RV (the Internet's favorite hitch experts) and they assured me that they do it all the time, and that even a small 1" difference can improve handling and distribution considerably. The only warning I read in my research was to ensure that the metal didn't heat over 1000 degrees F - so use oil when drilling. I took mine to a local machine shop instead of tackling it myself.
I was only able to reduce the shank length by about 2.5", but that helps quite a bit in reducing torque on the Bosal receiver.
Photos of before:
And after:
One additional note - anyone doing this should ensure that the shank bottoms out in the receiver when the pin holes line up. You don't want to be placing shear stress on the pin each time you slow down or stop.
I'll update this thread once I have a chance to tow with it. In the meantime, I hope that others like @JimVandegriff will take note of the Bosal limitation and the stock shank length on the Equalizer - it's worth your attention.
Thanks for the very informative post. As someone who has never towed anything and does not own a trailer (yet) I want to be clear on the terminology used in your post:
Receiver: the square hollow tube welded to the Model X frame that is part of the "Towing Package" option.
Hitch: all the pieces you show that insert into the receiver, such as the square tube, the attached vertical piece with the bolts running through it, and the ball and supporting parts.
Shank: the specific part of the hitch that inserts into the receiver.
Question: what is the name of the part of the trailer frame that attaches to the ball? Is that the "tongue" of the trailer?
So you shortened the shank 2.5". That does sound significant to me, and your explanation clearly details the advantages. I know nothing about this topic but it does intuitively make sense to me that just cutting the shank down and then drilling a new hole would not weaken the assembly unless the new hole was to close to the end of the shank. How close is the hole to the end?
Again, not knowing anything about this subject, I am wondering why that hitch shank is made so long in the first place. Perhaps because on some TVs (Tow Vehicles) the receiver is tucked farther back underneath the car?
What did the machine shop charge you to modify the shank?
What is the purpose of the two unused holes on the upper part of the hitch?
Receiver: the square hollow tube welded to the Model X frame that is part of the "Towing Package" option.
Hitch: all the pieces you show that insert into the receiver, such as the square tube, the attached vertical piece with the bolts running through it, and the ball and supporting parts.
Shank: the specific part of the hitch that inserts into the receiver.
Question: what is the name of the part of the trailer frame that attaches to the ball? Is that the "tongue" of the trailer?
So you shortened the shank 2.5". That does sound significant to me, and your explanation clearly details the advantages. I know nothing about this topic but it does intuitively make sense to me that just cutting the shank down and then drilling a new hole would not weaken the assembly unless the new hole was to close to the end of the shank. How close is the hole to the end?
Again, not knowing anything about this subject, I am wondering why that hitch shank is made so long in the first place. Perhaps because on some TVs (Tow Vehicles) the receiver is tucked farther back underneath the car?
What did the machine shop charge you to modify the shank?
What is the purpose of the two unused holes on the upper part of the hitch?
Generally correct, however the Model X has a removable Bosal receiver, and the framing is bolt-on, not welded. You can see the parts in the following video. It doesn't come with the gooseneck ball, but that is available aftermarket. I haven't seen anyone try one on an X.
Correct.
Generally, it's called the A-frame of the trailer. The tongue refers to what we called the "hitch" above, but is often more appropriate with weight bearing hitches where it actually looks like a tongue. In my case, the weight distribution hitch has other parts.
The hole is the exact same distance from the end, because the shank still bottoms out in the receiver.
I think that's part of it. Another part is that some vehicles with tight turning circles may articulate more than others and could potentially make contact with the trailer. A longer shank gives you more maneuverability. The longer shank also gives more upward leverage when using a weight distribution hitch, which could be useful in some cases. That L-bracket that comprises the shank is the same one they use for their 10k GVWR/1k tongue hitch, so they probably want to make it as flexible as possible.
$120.
Those are for adjustment purposes to allow the shank to be used for various trailer/vehicle combinations. Ideally, I could get a custom shank built that would have the least amount of distance and minimal weight, but that would be likely to cost a bit more than the modification and would also require what I would think would be specialized machining. I could be wrong about that, but I know I'd be nervous having just anyone build the piece that connects my expensive trailer with my expensive vehicle driving on a road with live humans.
xkwizit
Member
I think we should give the honor of co-Towing Captains to @ohmman and @JimVandegriff. Both of these gentlemen have provided education to us all very patiently and in detail 
Hi Ohmman,
Was wondering if you were aware of the Lil Snoozy camp trailer and Ollie? Both look like candidates for the Model X towing. Also, was wondering if you considered the Airstream 19ft Flying Cloud. I know the hitch weight is 550 lbs but was wondering if using a weight distribution system would enable this to overcome the extra 50 lbs on the tongue weight. I personally like the Flying Cloud better than the Sport 22FB. I know it is a little wider so it would not be as aerodynamic as the Sport. I would appreciate knowing your thoughts.
Was wondering if you were aware of the Lil Snoozy camp trailer and Ollie? Both look like candidates for the Model X towing. Also, was wondering if you considered the Airstream 19ft Flying Cloud. I know the hitch weight is 550 lbs but was wondering if using a weight distribution system would enable this to overcome the extra 50 lbs on the tongue weight. I personally like the Flying Cloud better than the Sport 22FB. I know it is a little wider so it would not be as aerodynamic as the Sport. I would appreciate knowing your thoughts.
JimVandegriff
Member
That was Illijana and me. We spent the night at a nearby campground - and ate at Peggy Sue's 50's diner which was fun. We went over to the ghost town just to check it out before we left the area.
Last edited:
CmdrThor
Active Member
I think we should give the honor of co-Towing Captains to @ohmman and @JimVandegriff. Both of these gentlemen have provided education to us all very patiently and in detail
Don't forget @adelman and his brake controller installation instructions!
I hadn't seen the Lil' Snoozy, which has good specs. I looked at the Ollie options but only the smaller one (Legacy Elite) is towable with a Model X. It also won't sleep four, so it was out of the question for us. Additionally we wanted to stay away from fiberglass in exchange for a recyclable material like aluminum.
Our preference on the Airstream would have been the 19' FC Bunk. It adds a bunk above the main bed, which makes sleeping four much easier. However, a dry tongue weight of 550 lbs is out of the question on the Model X hitch, even with weight distribution. If you read my notes earlier in this thread about tongue weight, even the 386 lb tongue weight on the 22' Sport makes it a challenge to stay under 500 lbs when loaded. Combined with the increased GVWR and the aero drag from the width, we knew it wasn't a realistic option. My guess on towing range would be 90-100 miles. I would think about it very hard if you plan to make that choice. You're putting even more stress through your Model X with the added tongue weight and weight distribution.
We plan to camp more before doing anything serious, but if it is working out for us, I have a handful of plans for interior redesign to suit our needs. In the meantime, we're really enjoying the roomier main bed and the very large full bath, two things you miss with the 19' FC.
A couple of changes. I believe I mentioned upthread that I replaced the manual tongue jack with an electric one. That definitely makes things easier, but it continues to be slow. As I do plan to unhitch at most Supercharging stops, I have been focused on how to minimize my hitching time. I came across a flip-out jack foot that effectively gives you 6" of extra lift without having to wait for the jack to extend (and vice-versa on the retraction). I installed that today, and so far, I'm happy with how it works.
Additionally, I purchased a 160W solar "suitcase" for charging the battery. It's well built, and while I may move the controller closer to the battery (to limit losses), and upgrade the seemingly meager wire gauge, it works well "out of the box."
Additionally, I purchased a 160W solar "suitcase" for charging the battery. It's well built, and while I may move the controller closer to the battery (to limit losses), and upgrade the seemingly meager wire gauge, it works well "out of the box."
muleferg
Active Member
Ohmman. Thanks for all your photo's and information. My wife and I decided to wait awhile for our Bambi FB. We have 3 trips across the pond this year. So I'm stuck with towing garbage can and recycling bin
This is slightly off topic as it applies to pulling an Airstream with a Tesla, but since the 22' Sport is likely to be the most common Airstream for Model X, it's worth posting.
The dinette bed is 38" wide, which is officially a twin. We have two young kids that fit fine, but they'd be more comfortable with more space. I decided to make a bed extension out of 3/4" plywood that extends 14" and makes it nearly a full sized bed. The 14" number means I can use an existing back cushion and it gives me enough space to slide past the extended bed to reach the bathroom. I had some old wooden closet dowels that I used as removable legs. They have studs on them that thread into receivers on the plywood.
My wife and I were able to both lay comfortably and well supported on this bed. I'm making a custom cushion for the bottom section of the extension, and we have a memory foam topper. I'm pretty happy with the results, considering I don't know what the heck I'm doing.
The dinette bed is 38" wide, which is officially a twin. We have two young kids that fit fine, but they'd be more comfortable with more space. I decided to make a bed extension out of 3/4" plywood that extends 14" and makes it nearly a full sized bed. The 14" number means I can use an existing back cushion and it gives me enough space to slide past the extended bed to reach the bathroom. I had some old wooden closet dowels that I used as removable legs. They have studs on them that thread into receivers on the plywood.
My wife and I were able to both lay comfortably and well supported on this bed. I'm making a custom cushion for the bottom section of the extension, and we have a memory foam topper. I'm pretty happy with the results, considering I don't know what the heck I'm doing.
Attachments
Last edited:
K-MTG
Sunshade Captain of TMC
This is slightly off topic as it applies to pulling an Airstream with a Tesla, but since the 22' Sport is likely to be the most common Airstream for Model X, it's worth posting.
The dinette bed is 38" wide, which is officially a twin. We have two young kids that fit fine, but they'd be more comfortable with more space. I decided to make a bed extension out of 3/4" plywood that extends 14" and makes it nearly a full sized bed. The 14" number means I can use an existing back cushion and it gives me enough space to slide past the extended bed to reach the bathroom. I had some old wooden closet dowels that I used as removable legs. They have studs on them that thread into receivers on the plywood.
My wife and I were able to both lay comfortably and well supported on this bed. I'm making a custom cushion for the bottom section of the extension, and we have a memory foam topper. I'm pretty happy with the results, considering I don't know what the heck I'm doing.
View attachment 216079 View attachment 216080 View attachment 216081
Does it have a sunshade?
JimVandegriff
Member
Nicely done! IllijanaThis is slightly off topic as it applies to pulling an Airstream with a Tesla, but since the 22' Sport is likely to be the most common Airstream for Model X, it's worth posting.
The dinette bed is 38" wide, which is officially a twin. We have two young kids that fit fine, but they'd be more comfortable with more space. I decided to make a bed extension out of 3/4" plywood that extends 14" and makes it nearly a full sized bed. The 14" number means I can use an existing back cushion and it gives me enough space to slide past the extended bed to reach the bathroom. I had some old wooden closet dowels that I used as removable legs. They have studs on them that thread into receivers on the plywood.
My wife and I were able to both lay comfortably and well supported on this bed. I'm making a custom cushion for the bottom section of the extension, and we have a memory foam topper. I'm pretty happy with the results, considering I don't know what the heck I'm doing.
View attachment 216079 View attachment 216080 View attachment 216081
JimVandegriff
Member
ohmman, are you going to store this bed addition during the day, or other times? Does the plywood fit on the queen bed or will it be stored elsewhere when you use the space as a dinette? We developed a morning ritual with particular portions of the queen bed being used to store the blankets, pillows, and memory foam topper for the dinette bed. I think you came up with an ingenious solution to create a bigger space for the kids, and yet allow access to the bathroom. Jim
Update on my project installing a Tesla camera on the rear of the Airstream: Tonight, with help from @Akikiki and @HankLloydRight in another thread, I was able to get a camera working. It is extended all the way through the Airstream (indoors) with a connection at the A-frame where hitching occurs. I have not yet permanently mounted the camera through the chassis, as I was unsure if this would work. It does indeed work, but it required that I use my 2014 Model S backup camera, and install the newer, high resolution camera in its place on the Model S. More disassembling than I'd have preferred, but the good news is that I should have a live rear view out of the back of the Airstream while driving and backing up.
I'll post photos of the completed project soon. I hope to complete it this weekend.
In other news, we will be leaving next week on our 3500 mile trip through Glacier NP and Banff, then back west and down the coast. I'll be updating this thread or a new one with as much telemetry as possible.
I'll post photos of the completed project soon. I hope to complete it this weekend.
In other news, we will be leaving next week on our 3500 mile trip through Glacier NP and Banff, then back west and down the coast. I'll be updating this thread or a new one with as much telemetry as possible.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
Glad to hear you got it working -- it sounds like quite the task but well worth it.
I saw in another thread where a member used walkie talkies to communicate while backing up a trailer. What happened to the old days when we yelled out the window to our wife while everyone else in the campsite watched to see if you could back it in without scraping up the trailer?
I saw in another thread where a member used walkie talkies to communicate while backing up a trailer. What happened to the old days when we yelled out the window to our wife while everyone else in the campsite watched to see if you could back it in without scraping up the trailer?
ElectricTundra
P85D AP1
We had a favorite table at a lakeside café with a nice view of the boat ramp. Made for some great entertainment to go with our pints.
@ohmman, glad you got it working. I've long thought that every vehicle that can pull a trailer should allow for a camera input like this, ideally wireless, and offer the camera as an accessory. That seems like the kind of common-sense tech that Elon would have included so was a bit surprised it wasn't standard on X's.
@ohmman, glad you got it working. I've long thought that every vehicle that can pull a trailer should allow for a camera input like this, ideally wireless, and offer the camera as an accessory. That seems like the kind of common-sense tech that Elon would have included so was a bit surprised it wasn't standard on X's.
Similar threads
- Article
