Finally: A Why Not to Do the Cheap Handling Fix

[Chance]

CHF increases stresses. That’s a given.

To reduce sway, higher forces have to be transmitted to the frame. Higher forces mean higher stresses unless components are beefed up.

Even when the links are adjusted in length so that they are close to vertical, they still transmit greater force, and therefore experience greater stress.

Does that mean something will break? No. At least not necessarily.

If you drive conservatively and place very little load on sway bars, increasing “very little” stress is still not an issue.

On the other hand, if you often drive on uneven terrain, which places sway bars under greater load, increasing stress could lead to failure. There’s no free lunch.

It’s no different than stiffer (larger diameter) sway bars. To work and reduce sway they have to transmit greater forces also. To prevent higher stresses at links, they usually make links larger. See screen shot from video comparing link sizes.

When you make sway bar and links larger, then what becomes weakest link? I have no idea what’s next to break if entire suspension system is stressed.

There is no doubt CHF increases stresses. It has to. You may not experience failures at all, but stresses are higher on some components nonetheless.

If it works for you, by all means enjoy the change.

[HarryS]

Originally Posted by dkoldman

Not who... but why, and when?

Was the very 1st F-53 that rolled off Ford's assembly line equipped with both sets of holes? Maybe the current empty holes was the intended original design holes and things didn't go to their liking; so they added a second set of holes which is now the standard holes; but they did not go back to the OEM supplier to have them modify their tooling (mfg process) to eliminate the 2nd set of holes? I don't know but the entire subject is only too crazy because Ford certainly does not talk or comment on CHF or the extra set of holes.

My point is that by now, it ought to be some formal white paper from Ford advising customers as to exactly what is recommended. My guess, is that they won't write one because they do not wish to assume any liability for any modifications made? They know if they were to have eliminated the holes; they would have had another problem with disgruntles who wanted the holes pre-drilled to do the CHF because even I know that if customers starting drilling those holes to do their own CHF, it could introduce even more points of failure ?

I believe that Ford started putting anti-sway bars on the F-53 with two holes on each side in 97 or 98. Before that, there was only one hole.

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Chance

CHF increases stresses. That’s a given.

To reduce sway, higher forces have to be transmitted to the frame. Higher forces mean higher stresses unless components are beefed up.

Even when the links are adjusted in length so that they are close to vertical, they still transmit greater force, and therefore experience greater stress.

Does that mean something will break? No. At least not necessarily.

If you drive conservatively and place very little load on sway bars, increasing “very little” stress is still not an issue.

On the other hand, if you often drive on uneven terrain, which places sway bars under greater load, increasing stress could lead to failure. There’s no free lunch.

It’s no different than stiffer (larger diameter) sway bars. To work and reduce sway they have to transmit greater forces also. To prevent higher stresses at links, they usually make links larger. See screen shot from video comparing link sizes.

When you make sway bar and links larger, then what becomes weakest link? I have no idea what’s next to break if entire suspension system is stressed.

There is no doubt CHF increases stresses. It has to. You may not experience failures at all, but stresses are higher on some components nonetheless.

If it works for you, by all means enjoy the change.

I follow the analogy. It might be the closest thing that I haver heard / read that may explain why Ford or RV Mfgs have never embraced CHF. It reminds me that for years I was told and use to always put my best or newest tires on the front, and then one day Discount Tire would not do any more They insisted the 2 new tires had to go to back. They had their scientific reason (more like a theory to me), but I always want my best tires on front. I had to allow them to mount per their policy and change later on my own.

But this CHF is like some covert conspiracy to deprive regular RV owners from some very important information. i.e I have good relationship with my Dealer, but when I asked they went into taking the 5th mode

[Bob Denman]

Sometimes when a manufacturer makes a change: it is seen by some as an admission that the previous setup was wrong...


...And out come the lawyers...

[04fxsts]

I did the CHF and like it and have had no problems. Drilling holes costs money so there is a reason they are there. I cannot speak for FMC but they are not going to spend money manufacturing a component. Jim.

[atreis]

I didn't think the question was, "Does it work?" which it clearly does, but rather, "Why doesn't Ford ship the chassis that way in the first place?" given that it's specifically marketed for RV use.

Just playing Devil's Advocate a bit ... It could be because there's no real front-end difference between the F-53 and F-59 and the latter sell more and work better with the currently-used set of holes, so they let a single manufacturing process serve for both chassis and leave switching to the other set of holes as an after-market modification.

[Bob Denman]

Im starting to be really happy that I've owned an E-450, and a Sprinter based based set of RVs...

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by HarryS

I believe that Ford started putting anti-sway bars on the F-53 with two holes on each side in 97 or 98. Before that, there was only one hole.

Do you know in 97 or 98 which hole was the original set of holes?

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

Sometimes when a manufacturer makes a change: it is seen by some as an admission that the previous setup was wrong...


...And out come the lawyers...

Recalls are issued all the time. Especially for a company like Ford Motor Co. This would have way by when a cheap handling fix? No pun intended

I also would think that Ford Engineers are clearly aware of all pros and cons and from consumer perspective it is clear benefit; so why not improve your product.

Sounds like this has been going on for 22 years? Somebody has to know something as to why Ford would not change, and why the RV Mfg would not change. i.e. If I am RV Mfg A; I make this change and the market the presumed fact that RV Mfg A have a smoother more comfortable ride than any of RV Mfg B or RV Mfg C's RVs

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by 04fxsts

I cannot speak for FMC but they are not going to spend money manufacturing a component. Jim.

I don't follow your the statement?

What does FMC have to manufacture? The holes are already there.

They already have assembly cost to assemble; so the only thing that would change would be the work instructions stating which holes to use. Who knows, it might actually be easier for the assembly operator?

[Bob Denman]

Originally Posted by dkoldman

Recalls are issued all the time. ..:

Sorry...
Recalls are only issued to address problems that affect safety....

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Bob Denman

Im starting to be really happy that I've owned an E-450, and a Sprinter based based set of RVs...

Yeah, the Mercedes Cheap Handling Fix is Free

However. Oddly my beef is NOT the cost. I bought a new F-53. Was really surprised it did ride anywhere close to my other Ford Motor Co. (Expeditions / Navigators)

So on Day 1 I pay $600 to install Safe T Plus (because my Dealer & Winnebago recommended it); not to mention it is highly recommended on all of the forums.

In Year 2 I pay $1,200 for a Front & Rear set of Sumo Springs. (because I know that Winnebago is looking at possibility of installing Sumo Springs in a future model; not to mention it is highly recommended on all of the forums.. That was all the catalyst I needed. While I have the parts, I have yet to have them installed). Plan to use a Super Springs Authorized Dealer for installation. It requires drilling holes in my application. So lets say total cost here is $1,800.

My point, I will do whatever it takes for Safety of my family and Comfort. But while this CHF is highly recommended on all of the forums, I don't see recommendations from FMC, RV Mfgs or any of the Authorized Mfg Dealers? I smell a rat; something is missing and it is something I think we all should know.

[Chance]

Originally Posted by dkoldman

I follow the analogy. It might be the closest thing that I haver heard / read that may explain why Ford or RV Mfgs have never embraced CHF. It reminds me that for years I was told and use to always put my best or newest tires on the front, and then one day Discount Tire would not do any more They insisted the 2 new tires had to go to back. They had their scientific reason (more like a theory to me), but I always want my best tires on front. I had to allow them to mount per their policy and change later on my own.

But this CHF is like some covert conspiracy to deprive regular RV owners from some very important information. i.e I have good relationship with my Dealer, but when I asked they went into taking the 5th mode

Knowledge is power. What you do with it is up to you.

It’s not a simple engineering issue. The F-53 is rated at 16,000 up to 26,000 pound GVWR yet share some design features. Making changes in one area affects other things as well, so while stiffer sway bars reduce sway, they also “change” other functions of the chassis. Ford engineers have to deal with all aspects of changes, not just the ones owners are looking for. It’s not worth getting into this again since it’s been beaten to death and nobody will change their minds about anything anyway.

Regarding your best-tires-in-front problem, I can relate because that’s how my dad taught me. But in case of most rear-wheel-drive vehicles with single rear tires, he was wrong.

The reason is that data show that a tire failure in rear of a car, pickup, or van with single rear wheels is significantly more dangerous than a front failure. This is especially true for vans and taller vehicles with greater rear weight bias. A rear blow out is more likely to end up in losing control.

The reason is that a rear tire failure can easily lead to oversteer, which is far more difficult for most drivers to control than understeer. An outside rear blowout in middle of a high-speed curve is extremely dangerous. Large vans are worst, but even SUVs like Ford Explorers had much greater problems when Firestone tires failed in rear.

I’d listen to your tire guy’s message which he/she is passing along from the tire professionals who know best.

[Jimbo56]

Wow! Can I chime in? My thoughts:

If moving the sway bars to the tighter holes was unsafe, Ford would only have one set of holes due to the lawsuits.

The F53 comes in several GVWR’s , right? So be it! Choices are what America is all about! 😎

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Jimbo56

Wow! Can I chime in? My thoughts:

If moving the sway bars to the tighter holes was unsafe, Ford would only have one set of holes due to the lawsuits.

The F53 comes in several GVWR’s , right? So be it! Choices are what America is all about! 😎

So why won't my RV Dealer make this change for me? They install stabilizer bars, sway bars, sumo brings and tons of other aftermarket stuff? I have yet to check with Camping World, does anyone know if CW will do a CHF?

I think this is more than about Choice as it may be equally be about Access or Opportunity to get authorized work performed. If you are DIY you may decide to do this for yourself and reap your own benefits. If you read between the lines, I have tried to make this choice, but have yet to find a legitimate dealer to do so. As my coach gets older, legitimacy of a dealer will not be that important to me as I can go with any mobile RV got I can find.

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Chance

Knowledge is power. What you do with it is up to you.

It’s not a simple engineering issue. The F-53 is rated at 16,000 up to 26,000 pound GVWR yet share some design features. Making changes in one area affects other things as well, so while stiffer sway bars reduce sway, they also “change” other functions of the chassis. Ford engineers have to deal with all aspects of changes, not just the ones owners are looking for. It’s not worth getting into this again since it’s been beaten to death and nobody will change their minds about anything anyway.

Regarding your best-tires-in-front problem, I can relate because that’s how my dad taught me. But in case of most rear-wheel-drive vehicles with single rear tires, he was wrong.

The reason is that data show that a tire failure in rear of a car, pickup, or van with single rear wheels is significantly more dangerous than a front failure. This is especially true for vans and taller vehicles with greater rear weight bias. A rear blow out is more likely to end up in losing control.

The reason is that a rear tire failure can easily lead to oversteer, which is far more difficult for most drivers to control than understeer. An outside rear blowout in middle of a high-speed curve is extremely dangerous. Large vans are worst, but even SUVs like Ford Explorers had much greater problems when Firestone tires failed in rear.

I’d listen to your tire guy’s message which he/she is passing along from the tire professionals who know best.

When you say it is not worth getting into again, you make my point. I agree for a lot of people this has gone on for years (ad nauseum). But for a new F-53 owner (like me) it is new. For each RV owner trying to make sense of it all; is the dilemma. It just seems to me that Ford Mo Co or RV Mfgs could simply issue a white paper to explain pro & cons? If I can get the knowledge I will have more power to control what I do going forward.

Thanks for insight on best tires on the rear. That is what they explained, but I have a phobia about driving at 70 mph and blowout on right or front tire where I can steer or worse roll over. I may be wrong and apparently the science is proving I am, but it just seems like if rear blowout, I can steel control the front wheels better. But that is different topic. I let Discount tire install the way they wish. It is not as big of a deal for me as it use to be, because I tend to buy all 4 new tires at the same time. I use always just buy 2 new tires keeping the best 2 old ones for the rear. They all were good tires but, I kind of liked having brand new on front.

[Jimbo56]

Originally Posted by dkoldman

So why won't my RV Dealer make this change for me? They install stabilizer bars, sway bars, sumo brings and tons of other aftermarket stuff? I have yet to check with Camping World, does anyone know if CW will do a CHF?

I think this is more than about Choice as it may be equally be about Access or Opportunity to get authorized work performed. If you are DIY you may decide to do this for yourself and reap your own benefits. If you read between the lines, I have tried to make this choice, but have yet to find a legitimate dealer to do so. As my coach gets older, legitimacy of a dealer will not be that important to me as I can go with any mobile RV got I can find.

Well if you were around here in Rockwell NC I’d invite you over for a couple of hours and a 6 pack. We’d gitirdone!

[Chance]

16-inch car tires fit on 16-inch RV wheels.

Just because something fits doesn’t make it OK, but also doesn’t exclude it from being OK. To me it means very little since it could go either way.

[dkoldman]

Originally Posted by Chance

16-inch car tires fit on 16-inch RV wheels.

Just because something fits doesn’t make it OK, but also doesn’t exclude it from being OK. To me it means very little since it could go either way.

Agreeing with you on this topic Wouldn't it nice for Ford Mo Company to say, that the modifications made for RVs is an acceptable option if the customer choose to do so, and if the RV Mfgs allowed the customer the option to add this upgrade at the time of sale, or at a later date to be installed by Authorized dealer? The fact they do not; and his has been 22 years is what it odd?

While it may be a bad example, my happen Chance (pun intended) with Super Springs on Sumo Spring to see this video on CHF was telling. Sumo Springs went on record and stated a pretty clear position and why. If they are wrong they could clearly be sued. Ford's (and RV Mfgs) silence is loud and clear if you are an objective listener from outside.

[abjbrtd]

Originally Posted by dkoldman

I follow the analogy. It might be the closest thing that I haver heard / read that may explain why Ford or RV Mfgs have never embraced CHF. It reminds me that for years I was told and use to always put my best or newest tires on the front, and then one day Discount Tire would not do any more They insisted the 2 new tires had to go to back. They had their scientific reason (more like a theory to me), but I always want my best tires on front. I had to allow them to mount per their policy and change later on my own.

But this CHF is like some covert conspiracy to deprive regular RV owners from some very important information. i.e I have good relationship with my Dealer, but when I asked they went into taking the 5th mode

When we had our F53 I found a good explanation for 2 holes, always assembled in the softest position.
Not a direct quote, NOT going to look for it
Here's ONE of my favorite CHF resources, only 446 pages... on iRV2
Google "Cheap Handling Fix"

https://www.irv2.com/forums/f23/chea...72335-329.html

"Ford doesn't know what the buyer will build on the F53 chassis, school bus, box truck, etc.
They build them all the same way, this includes a front end alignment."

unsubscribing click