Under I go. The frame does not extend to the outer wall and from the frame to the outer wall (just in the area of the axle) I have about 1 inch of sag (photo attached).

Wondering who else has had this and how it was remedied? 

This is on a 2017.5 182G (picked up 4/2018)

I have a inspection setup to see if my extended warranty will cover this..

Can you tell if the frame rail is bent upwards or the floor of the trailer has moved downwards? Have you hit any large pot holes on that side recently? 

Now that is a very good question! I'd hadn't thought of checking that! Duh...

Frame is what's bent! Wall has a minor bow downward, but frame has a much greater on upward!

As far as pot-holes, ya I've caught a few on the highways around the major cities in the USA. I tend to avoid these and use the by-ways, but at times you can't avoid.. You would think the tire would blow from that kind of stress before the frame would bend.. Weakest point.. or so you'd think!

I'm going to string it and determine. The bend is definitely at the axle mount as my eye sees it. I see no deflection forward or aft of that area after a couple feet in the floor, telling me the bend is at the axle mount.

I'll confirm later this morning.

Each time I head out on an extended run (3K to 6K runs) I go to the Weigh Station and check my weigh. Then my tongue weight. I'm very cautious of loaded weight, especially since we travel for months at a time. I was just under 3200# on the last run, fully loaded, Fresh filled, gray/black are < 1/4 full or empty when traveling (typically empty). 

I still have the extended warranty in place. Have no idea if FR will cover this..

I have an appointment for next Thursday for the Dealer to inspect this. Oh, I am going to try!!

I will check that. I do watch tire wear and at one point thought I had a negative camber on that wheel. That should have been the first sign, yet didn't see usual wear. Well, towards the edges anyway, did notice center wear and lowered the tire pressure a bit.      

Of course that leads to even more confusion as too why this occurred. 

Anyone know the actual thickness of the steel used to build the frame?

Minimum seems to be 5/64's or 14gauge steel.

The best way to check your axle is with a 24" bubble level. The wheels should be the same as the side walls of the trailer, it's that easy. Just check the plumb of the wheels and then move up to the wall, should be the same. The axle arch should be different trailer to trailer, they bend the arch to align the wheels. Mine was just aligned and has 3/8+ of arch.

Not that I see!

Well, close to what I measured, but my caliper's are inexpensive. I'm at 1/8" (just <.125).

Quoted:

I did a bit of searching and don't see the Load calculations, found the thread I believe you are speaking of.. Do you recall the actual name of the thread with the calculations?

I thought so on the inches cubed.

My numbers went to 8400# with even load and center axle (which we don't have). My engineering friend called me and we went through several areas he required to even estimate the force required to fracture the beam. He came up with 6300#.

I see you folks have discussed bent axles before, so with my new numbers of 6300#, won't my axle have bent?

I do appreciate your comments and efforts here! Safe travels!

Not sure how to check camber with a bent frame.. Another person mentioned that not all axles are set to a certain crown. The statement was the axle is set according to the unit.. I'd love to here from another 182g owner that is willing to check their axle to compare. 

I'd like to 'think' FR went to the extent of setting according to each unit they sell. Yet for some weird reason... I doubt it.

What I've read so far is you developed a spreadsheet to calculate the load. Is this something you would share?

I don't believe that the axles are custom set by FR either. Several folks on the forum have gotten new axles and no one has mentioned any custom adjustments.

I have a spreadsheet that calculates changes in tongue and axle weight when you move load around in the trailer. If you want that PM me. I don't recall creating a spreadsheet for the axle and frame loads when I did those calcs  but I'll take a look.

One minor point on the section modulus calc, it is the moment of inertia divided by the distance from the neutral (center) axis to the most extreme fiber (2 inches in this case). Moment of inertia for a hollow rectangular shape is (bd^3-hk^3)/12 so Z= (bd^3-hk^3)/6d. This comes out slightly larger than what you calculated. But I measured my tube wall thickness at 0.1 inch rather than 0.12 so ended up almost the same as you for Z at 1.22 in^3. 

I've really confused myself this morning, nothing new..

Using the 1.22 modulus, with 192" of length, how much force you come up with?

Here's what I have: 2x4x192x1.22 = 1,873.92 pounds of force to bend. 

Update: I ha a friend come over with his calipers and re-check. He got a reading of .09865.. I did it old-school and see that's much closer to what my cheapie calipers read.. The .1 Off-grid speaks of is what I will go with now. 

I did run the examples to test the formula (shown on the left).

The frame bending stress calc is a bit more complicated unfortunately (you probably guessed that). 

First you need to select the beam loading case you want to use. I am assuming a uniformly loaded single ended cantilever beam. (case 18 in the attached link).  This isn't quite right of course but short of creating a detailed finite element model of the trailer its probably about as good as we can easily do. R1 in this model is the hitch and R2 is the axle. 

https://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standards/publications/design-aids/AWC-DA6-BeamFormulas-0710.pdf - https://www.awc.org/pdf/codes-standards/publications/design-aids/AWC-DA6-BeamFormulas-0710.pdf

This gives a maximum moment at the axle of wa^2/2 where w is the load per unit length and a is the overhang. My 179 frame rail overhang is 80 inches and assuming a total weight of 3800 lbs (the 179 gross weight rating) and an overall length of 240 inches I get a moment of 25333 in-lbs for each frame rail. Bending stress is moment divided by section modulus so that would be 20.76 ksi. Mild steel allowable design yield is 36 ksi so that gives a safety factor of 1.73. The allowable yield point is the point at which plastic deformation of the steel will begin to occur, meaning that the frame rail will not return to its original shape after being loaded. 

But that's not the whole story. We need to take into account the axle mounting brackets and the effect of the torsion axle on the frame rails. That is caused by the moment applied to the frame by the torsion axle trying to twist the frame up in back and down in front of the attachment point. Check out this link to see what I mean.

https://mechanicalelements.com/trailer-axle-springs-torsion-axle/ - https://mechanicalelements.com/trailer-axle-springs-torsion-axle/

This is a weakness of a torsion axle design compared to a leaf spring axle. This load will be additive to the bending load of the cantilever beam we calculated above (bad), but the peak load will now be at the back end of the axle mounting bracket so the overhang will be reduced from what I calculated above (good). 

Short of having an FEA model of the trailer about all I know how to do is calculate the moment created by the torsion arm and weight on the wheel and then apply half this moment at the back end of the axle attachment bracket (the other half I assume will be taken at the front end of the bracket).  With a torque arm length of 7 inches, a weight of 1750 lbs on the wheel, (half the axle gross weight rating) I get a moment of 6125 in-lbs and a bending stress of 5020 psi from the torsion axle.   

Recalculating the bending stress for the trailer beam load for the 6 inch shorter overhang behind the end of the axle bracket I get 17.8 ksi. Adding these two together I get a total bending stress of 22.8 ksi for a safety factor of 1.58.  Or looked at another way 6000 lbs force on the whole trailer to reach allowable design load.  Using the ultimate yield point (when the steel would actually break) for mild steel of around 61 ksi corresponds to about 2.67 g's or about 10000 lbs total load on the trailer. 

Not too good considering that from what I've read vehicle frames should be designed to allow for a minimum of 2.75-3 G bump loads if not higher. There will be additional stiffness added by the trailer structure itself which will reduce the loads on the frame rails, but still, its pretty clear to me that the rPod frame and axle are under designed at least for the heavier rPods and we need to be careful in how we load and handle rough roads and potholes. Keeping as much load forward as we can without exceeding the tow vehicle tongue weight rating is the way to go to minimize frame and axle bending as well as trailer sway risk. 

Ok, that's enough engineering for one day for me 

Your 10,000# number is stated as breaking. Do you consider Breaking and fracturing to be the same?

A past colleague of mine is also a Mechanical Engineer, yet you have so much more knowledge of the trailer than even what I could pass along to him.

He defines break and fracture differently.. His break number alines with yours, fracture is lower..

I'm going to come out of all this smarter than when I started. I really liked not knowing all this (not yet ready to laugh about that)...

But I've wound up doing a lot of mechanical, electrical, and thermal engineering in order to design and manage engineering teams designing solar projects. 

I've always seen structural systems designed using allowable load (eg, based on the 36ksi number for mild steel). Above that and you can get plastic deformation, meaning that the metal bends and stays bent. Ultimate yield is the point at which the steel will break after having been stressed beyond the allowable design point. It deforms first way before breaking, so that's not the number to be using for our frame and axle designs. 

I think your friend raises an interesting point. He is probably referring to fatigue fractures. You get fatigue fractures starting where there are tiny discontinuities in the steel, which there always are. These can then propagate slowly over thousands or tens of thousands of load cycles, eventually resulting in breakage failures. They can occur at stress levels well below ultimate.  For steels the endurance limit threshold below which cyclic loads can continue essentially indefinitely without fracture propagation is generally taken as about half ultimate yield, so around 30ksi or 1.31g which is a little less than allowable design stress. 

If our frames were designed more conservatively, say around a 2.5-3g allowable load, we would get very few if any cycles above the threshold so no opportunity for propagation of fractures to occur. But at about 1.3g we are likely getting some significant number cycles above the threshold and so there is the possibility for fractures to occur even if we're not quite reaching the point where we are bending the frames. Are we getting tens of thousands of cycles at that level? Who knows? 

Bottom line IMHO is we are under designed and so subject to a variety of failure modes in our axles and frames that we really shouldn't be having to deal with. 

The journey begins! 

There is yet another force that will push upwards on the frame at that same "weak point". That is braking. If you were to brake aggressively you would get a lot of torque acting on a moment arm extending from the tire contact patch up to the frame attachment, trying to twist the frame. That moment arm is pretty big especially if you have a riser kit. My moment arm for that braking force is about 14 inches, twice the 7 inch arm of the torsion axle itself (I have risers and 15 inch tires). That means that if the braking force was about the same as the down force the effect is twice as large at that "weak point". I'm sure that none of us are able to get that much stopping power out of our trailer brakes but even so, aggressive braking is going to add significant stress at that point on the frame rail. 

I can say no. I travel so carefully and leave so much room between myself and those around me. I travel from months at a time, so I'm overly cautious. My wife says I drive slower than her Grandmother did..

I do have 15" tires, but no lift. East Coast version. 

With all that said.. Wouldn't braking spread that force over both sides? Wouldn't then the torsion be working in my favor? Now 'I'm' learning enough to be dangerous.. or confusing the crap out of myself..

It's rumored that the HRE's have a 5200# axle. If true, are their frame's also of thicker steel?

I met a HRE owner that claimed his axle was a 5200#... 

With it up in the air and easy to sight, I see the axle middle section, mount to mount as really good. Much greater than the 1/8" I measured, but I went end to end.

Outboard on the slide side is definitely bent upward. I can see the bend. That's where it happened, slide side.

As I thought I saw, both beams are bent. 

The guy picking it up admitted it's his first trailer.. No kidding dude, I saw it in your eyes. There are times you hope for the Pro's to be smarter than you. Not in this case. Thankfully I was there..

Lippert will most probably stand behind their axle, but really doubting how much FR will stand behind. Guess it's all on the Dealership and what they can do for me.

Saddened beyond sayin'.. 

No.

Yes, braking would act to apply a moment (torque) to the axle and frame on both sides. How much depends on how aggressively you're braking, how much weight is on your trailer wheels, how good your brakes are, and the coefficient of friction between the tires and the road. Typical dry pavement friction coefficient for street tires is about 0.7 just before lockup so theoretically you could get 3500 lb x 0.7/2 = 1225 lbs force at the contract patch on each side. With about a 14 inch moment arm (because I have a lift kit) that's 17150 in-lb, compared to about 12250 in-lb for the moment from the torsion axle at 1g.  In practice I can't lock up my trailer brakes (new and properly burned in) on dry pavement even with my brake controller on full boost so its going to be less than that. 

In any case, its pretty easy to see how the combination of some braking plus the vertical force on the frame from hitting a bump, plus the torque from the torsion axle from hitting its stop could combine to bend or break the frame at that spot. In future when I brake for a bump or pothole I'm going to try to be careful to release the brakes before the trailer actually rolls over the bump.  

No, the torque applied to the frame from the torsion axle and the brakes is in the same direction of rotation (counterclockwise when looking at the slide side). 

I may have an indication of where this is going later today.

Send some good JUJU may way please!

First statement was, they'd be asking for a new frame. That was a couple days ago before they had it and going by my pictures. 

If it comes back here, un-repaired, be ready for a thread of removing the box and upgrading the frame.

I did start a thread asking if anyone has removed/separated the body from the frame. Hoping someone has..

The way it is supposed to work for max emergency braking is that you set up your brake controller so that at its maximum adjusted output voltage (when the manual slide is fully on) the braking force is just short of lockup on dry pavement. That is the setup procedure the controller manufacturers recommend because that will give you the shortest stops. If you set the controller voltage higher and apply full brakes you will  lock up the wheels which will cause the braking force to go down because you're now skidding along on a patch of melting rubber so the friction coefficient is reduced. If you set the voltage lower then you are not going to get all the possible braking action if you ever need it. 

On many travel trailers, my rPod being one, you can't get enough braking action to lock up the wheels even at full voltage from the brake controller. The brakes just aren't powerful enough. Since I can't get there I have no idea how much more emergency stopping power my tires could give me before I start to skid.  If a trailer salesperson wants to call that a design "feature" ok I guess, but to me its a design weakness.   I'd prefer to have more brake capacity available and be able to adjust them with my brake controller to the level I want.

Switch to discs.. popular mod in a couple other groups I am in..

Haven't heard back from the Dealership yet.. No news is not good news in this case..

It may take days for them to access the damage, talk to FR, hear back.. heck maybe weeks. Unfortunate, but true.

RV dealerships and repair shops, do not, in any way shape or form, work like Honda or Ford, etc. Mostly because of how owners deal with problems and issues on their RVs.

Two of the 'Big Boys' for RV repair/re-building won't touch it. I have a third to go to and request if and when I reach that point. I do know a couple shops that will do most anything and have used them in the pass for projects. Yet another possible fall back.

It's not me pushing for a new frame, understand this. That was the first statement of the Dealership.

I'd prefer to see the rail/beam replaced and see that as fairly easy. Just won't have a top weld without at least lifting the box (cabin, floor..). My concern which a patch is the original .1 steel is still there.. and possible compromise of by patching. I think this is why the 2 Big Boys refused.

At this point, whatever they do, if covered, would be great!

   

No you are not.. car, truck, trailer, motorcycle.. frames get bent. They get repaired. Life moves forward.

Remember in your reading, no one wants to admit it may be their fault.. and.. not a single one of the million owners who have not had a frame issue has started a post or complaint about NOT having an issue..

What I find is most are blind to having an issue. Last one was they're changing their tires to GYE's because the stock 'China Bombs' are wearing on the inside edge.

I was blasted for mentioning that there may be another issue here worth looking into.

The reading I'm doing seems to be related to FR's line of trailers. Leads me to think FR gave Lippert the spec's for building. 

Yeah, i looked at doing that. Not only would I need to switch to discs but I'd need an electric over hydraulic actuator. Probably around $1500 in parts IIRC. So the operative word here is prefer. But that preference isn't worth $1500.  Let me know if anyone in the other groups has found a cheaper way.

Barring that, I'd probably be more inclined to switch to a 5200 lb axle with drum brakes, that would both be cheaper and would provide more headroom on axle capacity as well as more powerful braking. 

Suppose that all the shop does is straighten the existing frame rail and doesn't even weld it up. Then, the shop welds another 2x4 rectangular tube to the bottom of that rail, but this time its say a 0.1875 thick tube. This new tube extends well in front of and behind the axle attachment point and is continuously welded to the old tube. Then the axle is attached to the new tube. The new assembly will be much stronger than the old tube was even if there is zero capacity left in the old tube. Since the peak loads on the frame are at or near the axle attachment and drop off rapidly in front of and behind that area the 0.1 inch tube is fine to carry the loads as long as you extend the new heavier tube a foot or two from the axle area. So, the 0.1 inch tube can stay there and not cause a problem because you're not counting on it to take any load in the axle area. 

And the floor and body of the trailer doesn't need to be removed to do it. 

Yeah, the dual axle kit, which includes everything needed is around $2k.. But the guys who have done it swear it's worth every penny.. Of course this is on Lances and Airstreams...

   

Suppose that all the shop does is straighten the existing frame rail and doesn't even weld it up. Then, the shop welds another 2x4 rectangular tube to the bottom of that rail, but this time its say a 0.1875 thick tube. This new tube extends well in front of and behind the axle attachment point and is continuously welded to the old tube. Then the axle is attached to the new tube. The new assembly will be much stronger than the old tube was even if there is zero capacity left in the old tube. Since the peak loads on the frame are at or near the axle attachment and drop off rapidly in front of and behind that area the 0.1 inch tube is fine to carry the loads as long as you extend the new heavier tube a foot or two from the axle area. So, the 0.1 inch tube can stay there and not cause a problem because you're not counting on it to take any load in the axle area. 

And the floor and body of the trailer doesn't need to be removed to do it. 

What's your thought on 2x2 .125 steel tube. I still have some around here. Actually enough to run both sides  end to end. 

Not in this group! Another Rpod group.. 

They are deciding upon approach of repair. The floor bend/fix seems to bother them the most right now. I 'guess' that's good... the frame doesn't seem to bother them as much. 

The journey continues..

Section modulus of that shape is only 0.55 in^3. Not enough especially if you can't depend on there being any strength left in the original tube. I think you'd want at least a 2x4x.1875 tube which has a section modulus of 2.1. But you don't have to run them the whole length of the trailer. About 3 feet should do it. Shouldn't cost much at all for the steel. 

Section modulus of that shape is only 0.55 in^3. Not enough especially if you can't depend on there being any strength left in the original tube. I think you'd want at least a 2x4x.1875 tube which has a section modulus of 2.1. But you don't have to run them the whole length of the trailer. About 3 feet should do it. Shouldn't cost much at all for the steel. 

I need to fix my spreadsheet formula.. The numbers never match yours.. Yet I did come up with 56% less.. Thank you for confirming.

I did run a 2x3 .25 steel and found 43% increase. I do wish to see it lifted and have no idea way I'm debating the amount... 

My mind is spinning.. 

Thank you Toyanvil, that is what we needed. I understand the structural requirements but I'm not a welder. 

I always thought that continuous seam provided the strongest joint and stitch welding is done where that isn't needed or to reduce heat distortion. Maybe that's the case here?  Is there something on the web you can point me to on this where I can learn more about when one is used vs. the other? 

Olddawgsrule, just for clarity, here is the formula for section modulus of a rectangular tube the "hard way" that I'm using:

Z=(b*d^3-h*k^3)/6/d  where b is the outside base, d is the outside height, h is the inside base, and k is the inside height. 

I'm suggesting another 4 inch tube (but with thicker walls) under the existing one because the taller the tube the stronger it is for a given weight per foot, and also because 4 inches is more or less the same height as the standard riser kit. 

For example, a 2x4x.1875 has a section modulus of 2.11 in^3 and weighs 6.9 lb/ft while a 2x3x.25 has a Z of 1.7 and weighs 7.1 lb.ft. Either way if you use two 3 ft sections you'll be adding about 42 lbs to the axle load but with the 4 inch tube you'll be 73% stronger while the 3 inch tube will only give you 39% more frame capacity.

Sometimes things can work out and you can kill two birds with one stone (in this case gain ground clearance and reinforce the axle to frame attachment at the same time). Like the old saying goes, if you're handed lemons, why not make lemonade? 

Thanks for the info on this. For what I've read so far the stitch weld is used so you do not compromise the parent metal. Which makes a lot of sense to this simple mind! Especially if the parent is .1 and the child is .187..

It also sounds like it's very specific in pattern. Like, 2" weld, 2" space. Did I read that correctly?

They also spoken of back-stitching. I thought it interesting that the spaces (in my example above 2") was filled/welded in the opposite direction. I never thought of a weld having directional strength. Does it truly?

Mind ya, I have no intention of doing this myself! My welding skills are close to non-existent.. It's my curious mind.

This may be something for you to look at. It comes from someone assisting in my trailer build design on the frame. Yes, I'm going to build my next once I get through this mess..

http://tnttt.com/Design_Library/tear84.htm - http://tnttt.com/Design_Library/tear84.htm    

FR has turned it over to Lippert now and Lippert is requesting more pictures.

Well, good news is no one has flat out rejected the claim/issue. 

No progress.. Still in Lippert's hands (or on someone's desk).

I do like how the dealership is doing this and have had several conversations through all this with them. They will be requesting an update next week. No more info or pictures have been requested this past week, so it seems Lippert has what they need to make a determination. 

Best I can tell so far, is there is no time limit to how long they can do this, tossing it back and forth. 

May only statement so far has been we're getting into winterizing season.. There is no water in the tanks or lines, things will freeze quickly. 

I'm staying optimistic, yet watching temps.. People and weather.

Good news was for one Lippert stepped up and stacked a 2x2x1/4" tube to theirs. That was pleasing to hear. Their unit is equal to the age of mine.

One of the others his unit is several years old and just found the issue and about to have basically the same repair done.

The last one claimed he bought it used and the dealer told him it was normal.. He has a issue that may or not be made good. I do feel sad for him that he believed what he was told. I don't know what state he is from and if indeed it could be sold "as is". In my state it can not. 

I am a bit relieved to hear that one had their trailer repaired. I was also told that it took Lippert 6 weeks to decide. Lippert has had the claim for 3 weeks now. Claim was placed with FR 6 weeks ago. 

Interesting. Any details on what exactly Lippert did? Welded the two tubes together? How? Length of second tube? 

They're going to get back to me about type of welding done, yet welded and went full length. Placed under the original frame, so not sure stacked is the correct term. I did ask about their axle as well. First comment was it's good. Further conversation about checking inbound and outbound separately caught them unknowing. That they will also re-check.

2", yet that's good as well. 2x2x1/4 tube steel was done on theirs.

One of the others I spoke to told me Lippert claimed the FR lift kit to have caused the issue. We know better than this. Basically, he modified the frame.. Ya, I know the HR comes stock with it.. Just saying what I was told. 

The lift kit does increase the torsional load on the frame when you, say, hit a curb or brake hard, so it could have contributed.

This is a very complex and long post. Is it possible to summarize the main points? 

The reason I ask is that bending in normal use of apparently weak axles has happened to a lot of us, but I am not sure that this is going on here.

I wish I could answer you precisely and accurately as to what happen, yet I can not. I weigh my trailer before we leave. Sounds weird, yet we leave for months, not just days. Over time I have reduced what I carry so I don't have an issue. The most I have weighed in is 3200# with fresh full. I have reduced that. 

I carry about a 1/4 tank of fresh so we can use the toilet on the road as required. All places we stay either or close by places to fill, and dump before leaving. So none of the holdings are traveled with full. I pay close attention to this since we're out for long periods of time.

So over-weight is not the issue.

I travel the highways and byways of North America. I find most of the byways are better conditions then the highways. Just my experience. In fact the only issue on the road was on the highway and a blow-out on the TV tire. That was on a highway around a major city, which I do try to avoid for several reason (mainly traffic and road conditions). 

So what actually caused the issue? I Really don't know. I could speculate that it was miles of road condition and not realizing what what happening.. Not seeing the signs of wear.. Listening to advise of those that think they know what they are speaking of (including professionals).

If your tires are burning on the inside edge, you have an issue you should be paying attention to. If one of your tires looking strange (tilted) and it's not the bearing, you should be paying attention to it. Basically, if something looks wrong, no matter what 'I' or anyone else says, pay attention to it.

For the dollar we paid for these units it's quite a deal ($$).nYou just have to pay attention to what is happening. As much as I thought I was.. It was not enough.

With whatI know now, I would have done a lift on mine with a long section (5ft)of 2x2x3/16" steel and enforced the mount of the axle. That would have supported the weak point in the frame.

Also, had I known, I would have had outriggers added to support the wall of the trailer, especially near the axle mounts, fore and aft for about 2ft. Then none of this would have happened.

Can we expect FR of LCI to do these improvements? Not without cost of the unit. For the typical weekend warrior, none of this means much.. It would be years before they saw effect. Then cost may outweigh effect.

Not so for us that actually travel with our Travel Trailers. 

Reality, run though a weld shop and mod up the trailer for $500-$750 and you have one heck of a unit! Had I known... I would have..

I'm not sure where this is headed. Glad I have the extended warranty. Hoping Lippert or FR steps up and fixes the issue. I'll see what they do and do the balance afterwards. 

We really do like the 182g and hope to use it again fairly soon.   

The word was they were sending someone to take a look, yet they sent a welder and repairs are happening! I'm so happy!

So far what I understand is they are sistering to the frame. What else I don't have details to yet.

So happy to hear this info! So happy to know something is happening! So happy Lippert stepped up. So happy I bought the extended warranty. 

Getting the drift? Pretty happy here!

I am so happy this didn't go sideways! In so many ways.. As it could have. Lippert has a 2 thumbs up and my dealer has three (if I had so). 

It's one of those Good Days!

https://imgur.com/Cqaj2eK">

Matt and I spent a good hour (plus) going over what was done, what he hopes to see and my concerns. 

Matt was quite open to allowing me to check the axle, as I explained what I was doing, to allow input from him or corrections. He was very open! We found the inward to be 1/4" upward and the outbound slide side good. That was weird with that's the side the frame gave. The surprise was the door side was slightly upward. I mean slightly, if I could guess from the measuring tape I was using 1/32'd.. Matt said he would ask about tolerance allowed. Remember, I'm empty.

Te next area was the concerns I have on the tongue. Mine is bent upward by 1". We went through a few ways of checking and confirmed the 1". That is also going to be asked about tolerance. We did a few ideas of testing bend/weight and found 1/4" bend by design. Weight off, 1" bend upward. 

Now this is where I ask those willing to check their tongue angle. I should have gone back to the sales lot and checked some new ones (which I will do). I would 'think', by design, it would be downward as new to absorb the deflection, which 'we' determined as 1/4". 

Talked a bit about how to remedy and again, Matt will ask for their recommendations since I'm still under warranty. 

Same for the lift option I asked about. Adding a 2x2x3/16 5ft long section under the frame balanced on the mount. He will ask for recommendation to avoid any warranty issues. We both chuckled about the OEM lift and doing something better could void warranty.. 

The welds on the frame look good to me, as far as I can tell. I thought the 2ft spacing was a bit much, yet the opposite stager the distance. Something else I would like advise about.

I am 'very' happy about how my Dealer dealt with this and how Lippert stepped up to repair! It's still a very good week in my mind and early next week I could have 'Lily" back. 

P.S. Matt was surprised how much mileage I got out of the stock tires. He comment was towards how much attention I pay to things. Also, my tongue weight as it sits empty was 375#'s. Interesting... I do mean empty, I removed everything believing it would be there a while.. No propane tank, battery, spare tire, anything in the interior, empty. That surprised me! Very important how we load and what we add on that tongue!

  

Matt wants to be part of.

Matt is my contact at my Dealership for repair. He wants to read want we are doing and how we come to a solution of such. I see his intentions as pure for knowledge, problems and remedies we find. My impression is he could be a very good add.

Background on me:

My past profession lead me into to many negotiations for sales and issues on projects. One of my talents (shall I boost) is reading folks and their expectations/intentions. I was pretty good at it and gave me a good retirement as the result. I have not come across anyone that has proven my intuition wrong, to date. Matt has years of experience and contacts he can not speak of publicly. I get that. I have the same. He asked if I would introduce/pass the group to him.

I am not one to just pass a group to someone just for the fact of growing the group and am concerned as to what is said and passed forward. I do see his intentions as good.

So I ask the group: Should I pass it along to him?

It's 'our' group and I will not make this decision without approval from you.