cabreco Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share #26 Posted February 12, 2012 For about 15 bucks a year, towing insurance is how I'll transport a bike in a pinch. Got towing companies on speed dial, just in case. Trailering and towing just about any vehicle is a pain in the neck. That's my 2 cents. I have one for the family that covers all my vehicles. This is what I would use if I were on the road or out of state. It does of course have limits. Based on what I have read here so far I think the best bet would be to opt for a trailer. The fact that I will need one ANYWAY to transport the Venture & the CB750 when I move 400 miles to Tenn. I'm figuring a 4'x8' trailer with 2 rails. Although I have not found anything definitive yet regarding the Gen1's drivetrain & towing, I have read that Goldwings can't be done. I'm sure the Gen 1 is he same at worse. At best I would have to worry about the bike bouncing into gear because I hit a bump too hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairiehammer Posted February 13, 2012 Share #27 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) I seriously doubt that you could get both bikes on a 4 x 8 trailer. At three foot wide and more than eight feet long, the Venture would take up most of a 4 x 8 trailer by itself. Where you gonna put the Honda? Edited February 13, 2012 by Prairiehammer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share #28 Posted February 13, 2012 I seriously doubt that you could get both bikes on a 4 x 8 trailer. At three foot wide and more than six feet long, the Venture would take up most of a 4 x 8 trailer by itself. Where you gonna put the Honda? Ok maybe a 6 or 7x 8 foot trailer. Guess I know what I'll be making in the welding shop after all. A custom homade trailer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus1300 Posted February 13, 2012 Share #29 Posted February 13, 2012 These things used to be quite popular bsck in the day.We sold them mostly for use with dirt bikes and small street bikes,but I did know one guy who towed his CB 750 with it.Since they had an endless chain he left it on with no trouble as the trans was splash lubed.On our VR's our transmissions are also splash lubed as I remember so there should be no problem at least for short distances.If you are really concerned about emergencys however the AMA gives you free towing with you membership for every vehicle you own.All you have to do is agree for the automatic renewal.Membership is $39/year and you also get a pin and a magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
painterman67 Posted February 13, 2012 Share #30 Posted February 13, 2012 if the trailer has a tilt back gate like the ones you drive up on then the gate raises back up? then a first gen will not ride on a 8 ft long trailer. The gate will not come back up and lock on the pins and clear the trunk. My 91 is just over 8 ft 8 inches front of front tire to back of trunk. Ive already tried to haul my 91 on a 4x8 trailer with that type of drive on and lift gate and it will not clear. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tx2sturgis Posted February 13, 2012 Share #31 Posted February 13, 2012 Based on what I have read here so far I think the best bet would be to opt for a trailer. The fact that I will need one ANYWAY to transport the Venture & the CB750 when I move 400 miles to Tenn. I'm figuring a 4'x8' trailer with 2 rails. It takes approximately 5 feet by 9 feet to accommodate the 2nd gen RSV. This allows room all around to fasten the tie-down straps. 1st gens may be slightly less....phat. Here are some pictures of my bike loaded onto a 5x9 U-Haul motorcycle hauler. Of course a 4x8 flat trailer would probably work, since you dont have the sidewalls of the trailer to deal with. But I'm sure you wont get one of these full sized bikes PLUS another motorcycle on a trailer of that size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLeftArm Posted February 13, 2012 Share #32 Posted February 13, 2012 Here's a couple pics of our RSV in Monterey when we picked it up. In a VERY full 8 x 4 trailer. Left the back gate at home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share #33 Posted February 13, 2012 GREAT last few pictures. Let me ask you this, in keeping with trying to keep the smallest trailer possible; would you say I could get away with this to tow the Venture: The measurements of the deck is 37inch wide by 67in and the width between the tires is 44in The trailer is rated to haul 2800 pounds. Now although the deck is too short to accommodate the 1st Gen 63" wheelbase, I still have 20" towards the front. My Idea is to put a wheel chock right after the tongue like this one: http://www.harborfreight.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/370x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/i/m/image_11972.jpg Now the question of width comes into play. Usually tie downs are at 45 degrees to the attachment on the bike. If the straps were straight down to the trailer frame, & using the above chock, would the bike be secure for safe transport? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adventurer 08 Posted February 13, 2012 Share #34 Posted February 13, 2012 I have a 6x10 trailer with a ramp tail gate. To get a reasonable tongue weight using the same HF wheel chock the bike had to be moved back almost to the tail gate. My bike is a sec gen also. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share #35 Posted February 13, 2012 I have a 6x10 trailer with a ramp tail gate. To get a reasonable tongue weight using the same HF wheel chock the bike had to be moved back almost to the tail gate. My bike is a sec gen also. CRAP! You're right, tongue weight on that short a trailer would be KILLER!!!! It really is good to have a group of people knowledgeable enough to bounce my insanity off of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLeftArm Posted February 13, 2012 Share #36 Posted February 13, 2012 I will say this. That wheel chock is the exact unit from Harbor Freight that I got. I was worried that the front tire would be too fat, and that the thing would just be too flimsy. No worry necessary. It fit perfect, and is very solid. I think tongue weight would be an issue with the short trailer. Might just not unhook the trailer while loaded. Just be sure to unload the bike first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tx2sturgis Posted February 13, 2012 Share #37 Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) GREAT last few pictures. Let me ask you this, in keeping with trying to keep the smallest trailer possible; would you say I could get away with this to tow the Venture Well, its up to you, but I wouldnt haul my bike on a trailer like that, unless its modified for the task of hauling a bike. In no particular order: 2800 pound axle means the ride will be very stiff and bouncy with an 800 pound bike. It looks like leaf spring suspension, so maybe it can be modified: changing or removing individual leafs. The wheel track of that trailer is very narrow, the trailer is tall, and so the center of gravity with a bike loaded will be pretty high, meaning a pothole or off-camber approach could tip the whole thing over. Flipping the axle might lower the trailer a few inches. Extending the axle is a possiblility. Even loading a bike will be an issue due to the height. I see RUST on that trailer. I hope thats just surface rust and not enough to weaken the frame. Unless you put fenders over the tires, with the tires that close to the bike, and somewhat under the bike, you may have clearance issues or problems with gravel kicked up and damaging the bike's finish. Tie down angle should ideally be at about a 45 degree angle to absorb shock from the trailer and bike bouncing OUT of unison, (sideways and vertically). Vertical straps means every shock/bump is transferred with force to the frame and the strap, (and sideways forces are not controlled at all). Failure of one or more straps is likely during a long haul. Possible solution: Two, 5 foot long square steel tubes welded laterally across the trailer would provide 4 tie-down points. A lot of work when you can probably buy a decent trailer for $1000 or less, or rent one as needed, like I did last summer. Edited February 13, 2012 by tx2sturgis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share #38 Posted February 13, 2012 Well, its up to you, but I wouldnt haul my bike on a trailer like that, unless its modified for the task of hauling a bike. Brian, you make a lot of good points, & my momma didn't raise no fool. Bottom line it looks as though making a small "emergency" trailer is an exercise in futility because of the size & weight of the Gen 1. I confirmed with my roadside assistance/towing coverage & both my bikes are covered. So I think what I will concentrate on is getting a full size trailer that could carry both bikes at the same time. I'm going to have to get one when we move from Va to Tn anyway, so I might as well get that. I can always use it for hauling mulch & other landscaping materials. I'll just position it so that IF my wife needs to hook it up, it's conveniently done. Hopefully, I will never have to use it for breakdowns! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tx2sturgis Posted February 13, 2012 Share #39 Posted February 13, 2012 Bottom line it looks as though making a small "emergency" trailer is an exercise in futility because of the size & weight of the Gen 1. If you want an emergency trailer have you looked at the 'trailer in a bag'? http://trailerinabag.com Not cheap, but maybe you find one on ebay or maybe copy the design and build your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goatturtle Posted February 13, 2012 Share #40 Posted February 13, 2012 I Have one that I built for just that, have had my '86 on it twice but put a trailer jack on mine to lower and raise it. I would say only short distance tow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brake Pad Posted February 13, 2012 Share #41 Posted February 13, 2012 We never bought one, we just rent it for 157.00 a week Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share #42 Posted February 13, 2012 We never bought one, we just rent it for 157.00 a week Unfortunately U-Haul hates my pickup truck & won't rent me a trailer. I own a 2002 Ford Sport Trac, although it is on a completely defferent chassis & body, because it has the name Explorer in it's name they refuse. They will of course rent to anyone who owns a Mercury Mountaineer (which is the IDENTICAL sister car to the Explorer SUV) Eventually I will rebadge her as a Ranger Quad 4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJoe Posted February 13, 2012 Share #43 Posted February 13, 2012 how come? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flb_78 Posted February 13, 2012 Share #44 Posted February 13, 2012 Because Explorers are like dogs and like to roll over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJoe Posted February 13, 2012 Share #45 Posted February 13, 2012 Oooouch... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share #46 Posted February 14, 2012 Because Explorers are like dogs and like to roll over. Yea it was that Explorers roll over / Firestone Tire thing that happend in the 90's and lawsuits that U-haul had to pay. Here's an article from back then. U-Haul rejects Explorers By Eric Mayne, The Detroit News U-Haul International is forbidding its stores to rent trailers to customers who plan to tow with the Ford Explorer, saying it no longer can afford to defend product liability lawsuits linked to the best-selling SUV. http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifhttp://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifU-Haul says the decision was not related to safety.http://images.usatoday.com/_common/_images/clear.gifBy Tim Boyle, Getty Images The reasons for the unusual move by U-Haul aren't entirely clear but it comes after the Explorer appeared to have overcome lingering image problems associated with the Firestone tire debacle. U-Haul — North America's largest trailer rental company with more than 17,000 outlets — implemented the policy Dec. 22, saying the ban was not related to safety. "U-Haul has chosen not to rent behind this tow vehicle based on our history of excessive costs in defending lawsuits involving Ford Explorer towing combinations," the company told The Detroit News. Joanne Fried, a U-Haul spokeswoman, declined to disclose how much the Phoenix-based company has spent defending lawsuits involving Explorers. "The decision is not based on one accident," she said. "It's based on several different lawsuits going on for several years." Ford Motor spokesman Jon Harmon called U-Haul's decision "surprising and disappointing." "This is all about runaway litigation and trial lawyers forcing businesses to make unfortunate decisions for fear of lawsuits," Harmon said. U-Haul was embroiled in a lawsuit that Bridgestone/Firestone settled out of court in September. It involved three college students who were injured in 1999 when their Firestone-equipped Explorer overturned while pulling a U-Haul trailer. U-Haul would not release details about the accidents cited in its lawsuits. A bulletin issued to U-Haul dealers last month, which was obtained by The News, says the company's move was "based on the negative perceptions of Ford Explorers ... we are separating ourselves from the negative public perception and its potential consequences." U-Haul has no ban on rentals to Mercury Mountaineer owners, although the vehicle is mechanically a carbon copy of the Explorer. "We've had no issues with the Mercury Mountaineer," Fried said. The slight is the latest in a series of setbacks that have dogged the Explorer, America's top-selling SUV and the sixth-best selling vehicle in 2003. In August 2001, Firestone was forced to recall 14.4 million defective tires — equipped mostly on Explorers. The treads on the tires often separated, causing drivers to lose control of their Explorers and often roll over. Federal regulators linked 271 deaths and more than 800 injuries to the defective tires. Ford recalled an additional 13 million Firestone tires in May 2001. Ford and Bridgestone/Firestone have spent millions of dollars to settle product liability cases over the tires and SUV. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said in February 2002 that there was not enough evidence to open a formal defect investigation of the Explorer. In the wake of the widely publicized Firestone tire recall, the Explorer has become a favorite target among product liability lawyers, said Sid Gilreath, a Knoxville, Tenn., lawyer involved in product liability litigation for more than three decades. The number of lawsuits involving Explorers isn't necessarily a reflection of its performance characteristics, Gilreath said. "The lawyers who do those (cases) know that we have more documentation on the Explorer," Gilreath said. Ford maintains the Explorer is safe. In 2002, NHTSA traced Explorer tire failures and resulting rollovers to tire manufacturing flaws. Still, the controversy prompted federal regulators to adopt ratings that rank SUVs based on their propensity to roll over. The test used to set ratings recently was revised to better reflect real-world driving conditions. The 2003 Ford Explorer was among the first vehicles subjected to the new test. The results are pending. Acknowledging the same legal cost pressures U-Haul cited in its rental ban, Harmon said Ford has settled Explorer lawsuits out of court, adding the company is 8-0 in cases that have gone to juries. Fried said the rental ban applies to all model years, even though Explorer was redesigned in 2002 — the same year the SUV improved its NHTSA rollover rating from two stars to three, and was voted "tow vehicle of the year" by Trailer Boats magazine. "It's a perfectly capable tow vehicle," said Stuart Bourdon, automotive editor of the California-based publication. "The bottom line is, if you don't overload the vehicle and you've got the proper tires with the appropriate ratings and they are properly inflated and you drive with common sense, you really shouldn't have any problems." Motorists often exceed the towing limits of their vehicles, said John Oraha, sales manager at Avis Ford in Southfield. Engines and suspensions must be a match for the job, he said, so motorists should ask themselves questions such as: "Do you have a V-8? Do you have a tow package?" Jim Hall, former chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, which oversees NHTSA, said the large number of Explorer models on the road must be factored into accident frequency. And in U-Haul's case, trailers can be "quite difficult to handle," said Hall, who now runs Hall and Associates, a safety and security consulting agency in Washington. Ford launched the Explorer 14 years ago and this month will deliver its 5 millionth unit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainJoe Posted February 14, 2012 Share #47 Posted February 14, 2012 Wow, had no idea they sued Uhaul also... Find it kind of hard to believe a jury could find Uhaul at fault when it was clearly a known firestone tire problem... It's getting downright Scary to be in business today... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabreco Posted February 14, 2012 Author Share #48 Posted February 14, 2012 Yeah, Uhaul refusing to rent a trailer for my sport trac is like comparing the 2013 Dodge Dart http://www.thefundu.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/2013-Dodge-Dart-Detroit-Motor-Show.jpg To the 1972 Dodge Dart http://www.tntclassiccars.com/100_1262.jpg Totally different animal! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flb_78 Posted February 14, 2012 Share #49 Posted February 14, 2012 it was clearly a known firestone tire problem... no no no no no no no no... It was a Ford problem of under inflating the tires to get a better ride. It was also a problem of people who think that top heavy vehicles handle as well as Indy cars at highway speeds. The tires had the proper pressure on the sidewall. Ford put a lower pressure in the door jamb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest tx2sturgis Posted February 14, 2012 Share #50 Posted February 14, 2012 no no no no no no no no... It was a Ford problem of under inflating the tires to get a better ride. It was also a problem of people who think that top heavy vehicles handle as well as Indy cars at highway speeds. The tires had the proper pressure on the sidewall. Ford put a lower pressure in the door jamb. And it would have probably been OK to run most of those vehicles at the lower pressures, but we had a series of VERY hot summers around that time, mid 1990's, and most of the failures happened about the same time as several southern states increased the speed limits. It made for a 'perfect storm' of tire failures. Of course it depends on what you read and what you believe, but I think Firestone took the fall for a (mostly) Ford-created problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now