Community Forums

BillSkeen · 03-13-2017, 05:03 PM

The warranty on my 2014 Palazzo 33.3 is out. I went to Indiana last year and paid to get the triple tracks installed. No problems since, but I feel like it is only a matter of time before the dreaded crunching of gear noise echos throughout the interior walls of my motorhome, rudely awakens sleeping campsite neighbors and causes delays in my travel plans.

I believe it is now time to start contemplating alternatives to the Schwintek system on my motorhome. Having a bit of mechanical engineering experience building large industrial laundry equipment and conveyor systems in my earlier years, I recall using motorized conveyor rollers. Recent Google research indicates that industry has come a long way since those days. Here is a link to one of them:

http://itohdenki.com/wp-content/uplo...og-for-web.pdf

I have also been looking at the possibility of retro-fitting an Accuslide system, but the issues with cable systems is well known too. Pneumatics and/or hydraulics are also a possibility, but again, with known issues.

I plan to start working with a couple of the roller companies and a local RV repair facility to design, install and test a replacement system. If I get it working and THOROUGHLY field tested, I will freely share the design with anyone here who wants it.

I also welcome any input or suggestions from anyone, positive or negative.

Some of my thoughts on what I want to design:

1. I care less about the cost and more about eliminating the anxiety every time I open or close the slide. Highest possible MTBF - like never!

2. I want a sound, field proven replacement system to help slow down or stop the low resale/trade-in values.

3. Field serviceable by owner. Easy component replacement with standard tools. In other words, I don't have to remove the slide to work on it.

4. Over engineer. A minimum load rating of 150% to allow for added travel loads. Nothing cheap, but something worthy of the $200k+ MSRP of my unit.

5. Minimal changes to existing structure of motorhome. Zero visible changes to exterior and minimal to interior (similar to Accuslide that has a valance over slide to hide cabling, motor chain drive, etc.)

6. Backup system. A manual system that does not require disassembling the slide or components to retract the slide and can be performed by one person. Even (if nothing more than) a couple of centrally located tow loops/points and a come-a-long would be better than having to push a slide in while it is pouring down rain or finding help while boondocked 100 miles from civilization.

I'll provide updates here as they become available.

And yes, I already know it is going to be expensive to develop a new system, but I suppose I have more time and money than common sense; as proven by paying for my slide upgrade and others getting it for free.

Happy Sliding!

Bill

myarmar · 03-15-2017, 05:26 PM

Bill, this is very interesting. You have very ambitious design criteria and it would be hard to implement considering space available. Please share details on your progress.
Mike

BillSkeen · 03-17-2017, 10:09 AM

Thank you for the feedback.

If it was easy, Thor would have already done it.

therewego · 04-13-2017, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BillSkeen

The warranty on my 2014 Palazzo 33.3 is out. I went to Indiana last year and paid to get the triple tracks installed. No problems since, but I feel like it is only a matter of time before the dreaded crunching of gear noise echos throughout the interior walls of my motorhome, rudely awakens sleeping campsite neighbors and causes delays in my travel plans.

I believe it is now time to start contemplating alternatives to the Schwintek system on my motorhome. Having a bit of mechanical engineering experience building large industrial laundry equipment and conveyor systems in my earlier years, I recall using motorized conveyor rollers. Recent Google research indicates that industry has come a long way since those days. Here is a link to one of them:

http://itohdenki.com/wp-content/uplo...og-for-web.pdf

I have also been looking at the possibility of retro-fitting an Accuslide system, but the issues with cable systems is well known too. Pneumatics and/or hydraulics are also a possibility, but again, with known issues.

I plan to start working with a couple of the roller companies and a local RV repair facility to design, install and test a replacement system. If I get it working and THOROUGHLY field tested, I will freely share the design with anyone here who wants it.

I also welcome any input or suggestions from anyone, positive or negative.

Some of my thoughts on what I want to design:

1. I care less about the cost and more about eliminating the anxiety every time I open or close the slide. Highest possible MTBF - like never!

2. I want a sound, field proven replacement system to help slow down or stop the low resale/trade-in values.

3. Field serviceable by owner. Easy component replacement with standard tools. In other words, I don't have to remove the slide to work on it.

4. Over engineer. A minimum load rating of 150% to allow for added travel loads. Nothing cheap, but something worthy of the $200k+ MSRP of my unit.

5. Minimal changes to existing structure of motorhome. Zero visible changes to exterior and minimal to interior (similar to Accuslide that has a valance over slide to hide cabling, motor chain drive, etc.)

6. Backup system. A manual system that does not require disassembling the slide or components to retract the slide and can be performed by one person. Even (if nothing more than) a couple of centrally located tow loops/points and a come-a-long would be better than having to push a slide in while it is pouring down rain or finding help while boondocked 100 miles from civilization.

I'll provide updates here as they become available.

And yes, I already know it is going to be expensive to develop a new system, but I suppose I have more time and money than common sense; as proven by paying for my slide upgrade and others getting it for free.

Happy Sliding!

Bill

Bill, I have tried 3 times to submit a lengthy replies but they for some reason do not post, in the mean time I hope you do not mind me asking what the triple rack upgrade cost is, I am trying to consider my options, I currently have a broken spur gear on the front top rack.
I will run an idea by you as soon as I figure why my replies are not posting.

paid-up · 04-24-2017, 01:05 PM

Bill,

I follow your theory on the whole slide re-engineering thing, but this is my take on the whole problem...

I've looked at identical setups on other manufacturers slide outs using the schwintek system. What I have noticed is the number of rollers other manufacturers use under their slides.

One example is on a Forest river Berkshire Schwintec slide out. I'm not sure what the exact model of this one was, but the kitchen slide with the fridge, and all the cabinets had twice as many rollers under that slide then my 35.1 Palazzo does on the entire full wall slide. The slide on the Berkshire was much shorter too.

I really really think the major problem is the lack of support used on the Palazzo full wall slide. More rollers means more support, more stability and more structural control of the movement of then entire slide. The weight should not be supported by the Schwintek rails, but rather by the foundation under the slide.

I just think it was a fundamental design flaw on the first round of Palazzo's. But I think Thor's solution was to increase the stability and control by using a third rail on the top of the large slide to overcome the inadequacy of rollers and support under the slide out. I think a total solution would be to add twice as many rollers underneath and triple rails. However, adding more rollers means removing the entire slide. That becomes cost prohibitive in a repair scenario.

therewego · 05-13-2017, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paid-up

Bill,

I follow your theory on the whole slide re-engineering thing, but this is my take on the whole problem...

I've looked at identical setups on other manufacturers slide outs using the schwintek system. What I have noticed is the number of rollers other manufacturers use under their slides.

One example is on a Forest river Berkshire Schwintec slide out. I'm not sure what the exact model of this one was, but the kitchen slide with the fridge, and all the cabinets had twice as many rollers under that slide then my 35.1 Palazzo does on the entire full wall slide. The slide on the Berkshire was much shorter too.

I really really think the major problem is the lack of support used on the Palazzo full wall slide. More rollers means more support, more stability and more structural control of the movement of then entire slide. The weight should not be supported by the Schwintek rails, but rather by the foundation under the slide.

I just think it was a fundamental design flaw on the first round of Palazzo's. But I think Thor's solution was to increase the stability and control by using a third rail on the top of the large slide to overcome the inadequacy of rollers and support under the slide out. I think a total solution would be to add twice as many rollers underneath and triple rails. However, adding more rollers means removing the entire slide. That becomes cost prohibitive in a repair scenario.

Depending on the slide out being extended or retracted only one end is supported by floor rollers, therefore any load applied to the non supported end will transfer that load thru the spur/gear rack or v roller, it may also get some support from the seals depending on how tight the slide out is to the wall, but I would not count on much. When the slide out is traveling between open and closed any vibration or jerking sends shock load thru the gear system. That I believe is the weak spot.

BillSkeen · 05-17-2017, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by paid-up

Bill,

I follow your theory on the whole slide re-engineering thing, but this is my take on the whole problem...

I've looked at identical setups on other manufacturers slide outs using the schwintek system. What I have noticed is the number of rollers other manufacturers use under their slides.

One example is on a Forest river Berkshire Schwintec slide out. I'm not sure what the exact model of this one was, but the kitchen slide with the fridge, and all the cabinets had twice as many rollers under that slide then my 35.1 Palazzo does on the entire full wall slide. The slide on the Berkshire was much shorter too.

I really really think the major problem is the lack of support used on the Palazzo full wall slide. More rollers means more support, more stability and more structural control of the movement of then entire slide. The weight should not be supported by the Schwintek rails, but rather by the foundation under the slide.

I just think it was a fundamental design flaw on the first round of Palazzo's. But I think Thor's solution was to increase the stability and control by using a third rail on the top of the large slide to overcome the inadequacy of rollers and support under the slide out. I think a total solution would be to add twice as many rollers underneath and triple rails. However, adding more rollers means removing the entire slide. That becomes cost prohibitive in a repair scenario.

I agree. In fact I posted something about that back in January 2016:

http://www.irv2.com/forums/f281/more...ml#post2886141

Still looking for a way to get this issue resolved. There has to be a way.