Trailing Arms Cracked on Roadmaster

[soberjoe]

I'm sure the new arms helped by stopping some of the flex that the old arms must have been doing. It would be interesting to have only changed the shocks, test the ride and then add the arms.

What I know for sure is with the Koni FSD and source arms my ride is much better. I'm sure that with the REK system, it most likely is even better but at how much more of a cost? If I had not already upgraded my shocks, I might have gone all the way and spent the money of the REK system.

If someone hasn't done anything yet, the REK is most likely the way to go.

[devildog 64]

first I would like to say thank you for the info I have gleaned from this forum, for those who were speculating as to the possible damage that could be caused from the arms breaking at hiway speed, it happened to us friday and we didn't lose control or have to fight with control. made a hell of bang when they both let go at the same time & scared the heck out of us but not to difficult to get slowed down & off to the side of the road, the recall was performed in 2005 with about 10,000 miles on it, took till now to come apart at 37,000 miles. all things considered, it could have been worse I guess, we're safe & the only other damage was the air bags that got torn & all of that can be fixed, just an inconvenience.

[Nonno]

WOW!! What a 1st post.

Glad to hear you are safe. That's the most important thing.

Are you close to a facility that can replace them?

Welcome to iRV2!

[mythplaced]

Originally Posted by Nonno

DP01, could you see obvious differences? What are they?

Differences are pretty obvious here.....Similar engineering principals produce similar results.


Original Monaco



"New" Monaco



A little different approach...Source.....

[mythplaced]

Originally Posted by devildog 64

.....all things considered, it could have been worse I guess, we're safe & the only other damage was the air bags that got torn & all of that can be fixed, just an inconvenience.

DevilD

Glad you're OK, do you have ext warranty or breakdown policy to cover the loss?

[devildog64]

nonno, its at a shop in klamath falls, parts are on the way thanks to scott at source eng., whom I found out about here. mythplaced, no I get to eat the whole thing, I'M so lucky, and thanks for the support

[DP01]

There seem to be a number of people, determined to flog a dead horse regarding the former Monaco Coach Corporation. The same situation exists regarding RR4R trailing arms. The latter crusade centres around what apparently has proven to be an inadequate design. Perhaps though, all may not be as it seems, as in post number 3, the author makes a statement that says in part: …“The company that did the original engineering for Monaco has a newer upgrade that is significantly more beefy.”…

The author of post number 178 inquires as follows: “If I understand it correctly, Source Engineering designed/engineered the original trailing arms? If so, what do they have to say about their original design and all the failures?”

In post number 179, the author of post number 3 responds in part: “Actually, Source itself did not design the original Trailing Arms. I believe that one of the Engineers at Source was an Engineer for Roadmaster at the time of the original design. He also worked on many of the Roadmaster Chassis. He was one of the Engineers on the project but not the only one. He admits that the original arms with the force and load exerted on the design was very inadequate.”…

The implication of the first statement is that MCC were not in fact the designers of the original trailing arms. Further, that the original engineering company have developed a more robust design. The revised statement merely suggests that a prior Roadmaster employee now is employed by Source. Neither circumstance absolves MCC of fault regarding the design. They had the ultimate responsibility for design oversight and for providing consumers with a safe product. But, of course, MCC no longer exists.

Being a 2009 model year RR4R owner I was compelled to ask myself, whether or not a design validation process and comprehensive testing regimen has been conducted on the Source “upgrade”. I sincerely hope that both have been accomplished.
As for the statement in post number394 “…Similar engineering principals produce similar results”. This is quite correct. The Source units indeed do use similar engineering principles to the original design. As an example, the use of wedge shims is clearly visible on all FEA screenshots. If one views the various photographs of failed and damaged units, it is evident that fractures appear to develop in the vicinity of the shims…

For the record, I have viewed all of the third party FEA screenshots. Unfortunately, no applied load data is published. While recognizing that FEA is a most useful design tool, it does not supplant an actual test regimen. It should be noted that he screenshot purporting to be the “New” Monaco LLC replacement displays a number of inaccuracies. It is obvious that the creator of that particular analysis has not actually seen a new Monaco unit.

My second question to myself was, would I be better served by purchasing replacements from Monaco LLC who have access to the professional design and testing resources of Navistar? Navistar is a company with a proven track record of heavy vehicle suspension design. My personal conclusion was that an ISO QS9000 designed, developed, documented and tested unit will be the better solution. I’m not asking anyone to agree – each to his/her own. It’s certainly beneficial for consumers that a choice is now available from two companies.

It’s no secret that Monaco’s bankruptcy left many (self included) without warranty and/or recall protection. But, what’s done is done and can’t be undone. Invective directed at an extinct company simply can not and will not change the situation.

So, one has the option, accept the situation for what it is, or incessantly complain about something that can’t be changed. No amount of flogging will return the dead horse to life. Some seem to want to deter others from choosing what may be a better trailing arm replacement solution by repeatedly “trashing” the new company, Monaco LLC. It occurs to me that assessment of the best technical solution is the real issue and any purchasing decision would be better left to each individual.

Navistar/Monaco LLC have stepped up to the plate by offering a solution for the defective trailing arm debacle. I for one, am satisfied that their replacement trailing arms have been proven through a costly and time consuming testing process. While I have personally chosen this solution I also believe that Source Engineering Inc provided a more timely service to RR4R owners by speedily bringing a replacement product to market. Having a replacement available, no doubt was of great value to those RR4R owners who actually experienced a failure.

I do believe that Navistar’s “fire sale” purchase of MCC most certainly benefits all Monaco brand owners from the perspectives of continued parts availability and engineering resources. Is it not logical to take advantage of these resources as, and when appropriate, thereby making the best of a bad situation? Surely, this is better than not having parts and information available.

Predictably, my comments will not be popular with the anti-Monaco brigade. However I do believe that in the interests of fair play, an objective comparison is of value. I have no connection with any manufacturer past or present that is in any way associated with RR4R chassis other than as a paying customer. (Unfortunately twice!).

Dennis

A few design comparisons as food for thought from an owner who has the Monaco LLC product installed and knows how they are constructed.

[mythplaced]

Now THAT was a well developed opinion!

Only one thought......

the greatest load bearing structure on any of these designs are the "U-Bolts", because the axle is placed "on top" of the arm most of the force is moving in a "downward" direction away from the axle. (not "upwards" toward the arm)

And I am not an engineer so am incapable of arguing the design robustness of either design. I will say that FEA is an accepted design validation tool used in aerospace, automotive, medical device, and other industries, as there are many limitations to actual testing.

[JManatee]

DP01 I have to say that is well thought out. I have been going back and forth on source or Monaco arms.

Although many are annoyed with Monaco for going out of business, I feel we are lucky that the new companies is willing to support the old product line at all. Many companies are going out in these times and all hope for any support is lost.

The Manaco arms are $1650 plus SH, the source arms are $1800 plus SH both are probably equal in quality.

I have had nothing but trouble getting information from my local source supplier I have been trying for months. Manaco had a quote to me within hrs

I think I will go with the Manaco Arms, maybe it will help keep them in business and they will be there when I need a windshield or a compartment door or to ask a question about this or that.

JMHO

[soberjoe]

I wish the Monaco RV arms were ready when I needed them. Source was the only game in town at the time, therefore, I have source arms. I am very happy with them and feel safe now. I think it's great that some folks now have a choice in arms.

[mythplaced]

Originally Posted by DP01

There seem to be a number of people, determined to flog a dead horse regarding the former Monaco Coach Corporation. ....

I just Loooove dead horse "oatmeal mush"

Originally Posted by DP01

.....While recognizing that FEA is a most useful design tool, it does not supplant an actual test regimen. ......

There are many circumstances where FEA is the ONLY available method of statisctically valid design verification. In circumstances where design samples are too large or costly or when testing involves risk to humans, FEA is often the "Primary" design validation tool in conjunction with a relatively small sample for actual test (like aircraft wing spars, rocket engines, implantable defribulators, replacement spinal discs, and other products)

Originally Posted by DP01

It’s no secret that Monaco’s bankruptcy left many (self included) without warranty and/or recall protection. But, what’s done is done and can’t be undone. Invective directed at an extinct company simply can not and will not change the situation.

You are absolutely correct, "It IS; What it IS" and nothing can change that.

My "issue" (and that which generates my vehement ire) is that while the "company" is indeed DOA, the "people" who made the decisions that killed the "company" and caused others a significant loss are still profiting from those mistakes (kind of like some wall street companies you may have heard of)

Personally, I resent that those individuals continue to act with impunity and continue to profit off good folks like you and I.

Originally Posted by DP01

..... Some seem to want to deter others from choosing what may be a better trailing arm replacement solution by repeatedly “trashing” the new company, Monaco LLC......

That is not my intent at all. I implore all affected owners to get their coach chassis refitted and made safe.

• I only want folks to have a safe and fun RV regardless of who made the trailing arms.
• I don't want to hear that someone was killed or injured because their RV went out of control at highway speeds when the chassis failed.
• I want MONACO/NAVISTAR to "Man-up" and accept responsibility for their negligence.
• I want the NHTSA to "do their job" and require Monaco to do a recall of all affected 4RR chassis and install new arms at "Monaco's" expense.
• I want Monaco to re-imburse all owners who had out-of-pocket expenses.

Is that too much to ask?

[DP01]

A few observations if I may.

FEA is not the be all and end all of design, certainly not in the aerospace industry. Examples being B787, A360 where real world tests discovered failure modes not predicted by FEA. Rocket motors are test fired.

Regardless of the nature of the end product, costly though it may to perform testing, costs pale in comparison to those associated with in-service failures. Trailing arms however are not rocket science! Testing is/should be easily accomplished.

Sometimes the failure of a company, or indeed an entire industry is not the fault of those running the show. The entire RV industry has been/is affected by the credit meltdown. That situation (IMO) was caused by greed and stupidity, culpably aided and abetted by the trend towards offshore sourcing and manufacturing by huge corporations.

Offshore production, while applauded by shareholders who enjoy the extra profits, does not provide employment for domestic workers. Fewer jobs translates to less discretionary spending . Add sub prime mortgages into the mix and you have a recipe for disaster. Non-essentials are the first to bite the bullet. Realistically, that's the category that RV's fall under.

Oddly, no one seemed to be complaining about Monaco management during the immediately prior profitable years. Maybe they too were caught out by the sudden collapse of the economy and its drastic effect on the industry. If so, they were certainly not alone. Maybe, just maybe, they are best qualified to rebuild the company. Navistar obviously thought so and Navistar is situated in first place in the majority of its market sectors.

I too have concerns about advising RR4R owners of the risks associated with the chassis construction. What I do not agree with, is the publishing of blatently innacurate information. Negative advertising, in my experience, almost always does not result in its desired effect. Comparisons are a legitimate marketing strategy, but only when accurate and fair.

I also share the sentiment that it would be "nice", if Monaco LLC/Navistar were to pick up warranty costs from MCC products. Being a realist, I don't think that will happen.

Asking is always free.

Dennis

[Jim Stewart]

I'm one of those emotional types and don't know much. What I do know is that everyone has to make their own decisions based on whatever they base their decisions on. In my case, I had no choice at the time, Source was the only solution available. If I had to make the same decision today with multiple choices, I would still choose Source because the basis for my decisions are ethics and integrity.

Now I will digress, as I usually do. I listened to an interview a few days ago with a couple that have an autistic child. They discussed most modern research on the subject and the most up to date findings. Interesting to me is that a child born to say and engineer and an accountant would be 5 times more likely to have autism than say a child born to a salesman or business manager. In fact people who go into detailed fields such as engineering and accounting may very well have a very mild form of autism that allows them to focus and concentrate on details and accomplish a task.

Engineers and Accountants tend to be less emotional and engaging on a personal level and as such are less affected by say ethics or integrity as they are not definitive characteristics. This discussion led me to understand where people like me would concentrate more on a personal decisions based on emotions rather than a purely scientific based decision.

Now to my conclusion, I make emotional decisions and always will! You guessed it, my background was Sales and Marketing and I owned several companies. I didn't make a product, I sold services, ethics and integrity were the reason people bought our services. So those two qualities held much more weight in my world than any analytical decision. So, no wonder I prefer Source to Monaco LLC!

[JManatee]

I cant argue with anything you have said. but what I don't understand is why everyone believes Monaco is still in business and should be responsible for anything.

Monaco Coach Corp went out of business. Couldn't make it any more. Failed. they are gone. dead.

The pieces of this failed company were picked up by a different company that was not involved with Monaco. Why does everyone think this new company Navistar has done anything wrong?

Everyone has the right to be mad at the Monaco that went out of business. And most of the time when a company goes out of business they are gone. end of discussion. no way to get any support (ask tech questions, get electrical diagrams, etc)

This case is different, a new company came in and bought some of the pieces of this dead company and decided to try to and make it work. Monaco owners should be happy that the new companies has not decided to write us off entirely. Happy that they are willing to give us any support at all. happy that they are not just having a firesale and getting what they can out of it.

I for one am annoyed at the dead Monaco, annoyed that I have to shell out $2k for parts that they should have designed correctly to begin with.

I am glad Navistar was willing to look up and send me all the electrical diagrams for my coach, no charge. I am glad they are willing to let me talk to a tech when I have had a questions, no charge. I am glad they have realized there was a problem with the dead Monaco control arms and decided to re engineer control arms and offer them for $150 less.

I believe it is in all Monaco owners best interest to ensure that Navistar stays in business. I have to spend around $2k either way why not spend it where is can help me the most in the future and save $150 at the same time?

JMHO

Originally Posted by Jim Stewart

I'm one of those emotional types and don't know much. What I do know is that everyone has to make their own decisions based on whatever they base their decisions on. In my case, I had no choice at the time, Source was the only solution available. If I had to make the same decision today with multiple choices, I would still choose Source because the basis for my decisions are ethics and integrity.

Now I will digress, as I usually do. I listened to an interview a few days ago with a couple that have an autistic child. They discussed most modern research on the subject and the most up to date findings. Interesting to me is that a child born to say and engineer and an accountant would be 5 times more likely to have autism than say a child born to a salesman or business manager. In fact people who go into detailed fields such as engineering and accounting may very well have a very mild form of autism that allows them to focus and concentrate on details and accomplish a task.

Engineers and Accountants tend to be less emotional and engaging on a personal level and as such are less affected by say ethics or integrity as they are not definitive characteristics. This discussion led me to understand where people like me would concentrate more on a personal decisions based on emotions rather than a purely scientific based decision.

Now to my conclusion, I make emotional decisions and always will! You guessed it, my background was Sales and Marketing and I owned several companies. I didn't make a product, I sold services, ethics and integrity were the reason people bought our services. So those two qualities held much more weight in my world than any analytical decision. So, no wonder I prefer Source to Monaco LLC!