There are SO many reported Rpod axle issues:  bent axles, tire wear, etc.

Why isn't there a class action suit against Forest River for such a obvious design flaw?

How can a company continue to build, and sell, RPods with this flaw?

Why do people continue to buy them?

It is possible that the heavier rPods have too low a margin of error in the axle design and may bend too easily, but proving that this is a true design defect is a very costly issue.  For every engineer you will find who is willing to testify that in her opinion that the axle is undersized, FR will find 3 or 4 who will say that it's finest axle ever installed on a small travel trailer and exceeds industry standards by orders of magnitude.  Who will the jury believe?  It is very expensive to prosecute with a class action suit.  This is not the kind of case where a contingency fee would be a risk a sensible lawyer would be willing to take.  Would you be willing to donate a several years of your income to such a venture?  

People continue to buy these trailers because they provide a pretty good value for the money, are certainly of average quality as required by the Uniform Commercial Code, and are not really suffering axle failures at that high a rate.  For my money, if I were the owner of a heavier rPod, I'd do the axle reinforcement that StephenH put on his and that some engineers on our board have also suggested.  Buying a piece of angle iron, duplicating the axle camber, and attaching it to the axle seems like a much more sensible and cost effective approach.  If FR has axle failures at such a rate that it is clear that the heavier trailer axles cannot sustain the forces applied, they will likely go to the next size up at some point.  And if the failure rate is high enough, the NTSB will require them to strengthen the axle to avoid accidents.

Good points, Fred.

What do you consider a "heavier RPod"?

At least that is a good start!

Greetings:

I have a 2015 179 which has been on many a rough road and has about 12 k on it.  So far no problems. I have the lift blocks installed, and have 8 ply tires at 65 psi.  I try to be very careful making turns and not running over curbs.  This year I installed a Eaz Lift R3 Weight distributing hitch due to my truck being a bit old with 124K on it.  I wish I had done this a long time ago.  It really improves handling and levels the whole combo.  I have enjoyed the 179 and had few problems.

Crankster78  (now 79)

We have a 172 that we deliberately keep light so we're not likely to ever be close to exceeding the axle capacity.  

I did the axle tube load calc awhile ago (there is a thread on this) and came up with something around a 2x safety factor (for bump loads) at 3500 lbs. From everything I've read about vehicle design this safety factor is typically in the 2.5+ range. So its certainly a bit shy of what one might want to see. 

But there isn't a published standard for it and vehicle manufacturers treat their designs as trade secrets. So as lostagain says it might  be hard to prove that this was a design defect.  There is the specific reason for the tube to bend on the rPod which is the unusual inboard mounting location, which may not have been taken into account properly.

By "heavier" I'd say anything with a axle load that reduced the actual bump load safety factor below around 2.5X.  That would be trailers with an axle weight over about 2800 lbs. So in practice that probably means "heavier" is anything with a slide, but its going to depend on how you load it, and whether you use a wdh. 

The axle tube reinforcement helps with the bent tube problem, but remember that the whole axle is rated at 3500 lbs by Lippert, so there are other parts that can and I'm sure sometimes do, fail. If I had to get a new axle I'd buy a 5200 lb one, which is the next size range up. 

Just as a wild guess the FR/Lippert engineers probably did their job correctly originally when they spec'd that axle with the inboard attachments for the lighter rPods, then as pressure mounted from sales for bigger and bigger trailers they just kept using the same axle. 

I know it sounds like it should be obvious but not going back and properly revisiting original design constraints when you change stuff later is a pretty common engineering fail. Sadly, the consequences can be disastrous. The Boeing 737Max comes to mind... 

Only if the frame is wider so the attachment points for the axle are closer to the wheels. If there is still the large space between wheel and frame, the difference in suspension would not necessarily remove the problem if the weight rating of the axle remains the same.

I agree, I don't think there's any reason to assume a leaf spring axle is inherently better than a torsion axle. if an axle is under designed for the application (based on mounting points or for some other reason) its going to have problems. 

Don't go sellin' geese short, they can be pretty ornery.  A goose got annoyed at the incessant barking and went after my Pomeranian a couple months ago. I don't think he'll be bothering geese again anytime soon 

But, it'd still be interesting from an engineering point of view what the axle specs are for the Starcraft including capacity and overhang from the frame.  

I found a video that very briefly shows the running gear...you might have to pause at around 1:15 in the video to see the springs and frame:

http://youtu.be/x8s_ihLyxVU - https://youtu.be/x8s_ihLyxVU

You'd have to ask Starcraft about that commission 

Looks like the frame rails/axle mounts are at about the same place as in an rPod. Might be fine if the axle is designed to handle it (or not if not). The spacer under the axle tube to provide spring clearance is a interesting trick to get a low ride height. Just remove it to get more ride height? 

The frame rail seems taller than the 4 inch one in an rPod. or is that just an illusion from the photo? 

It is hard to tell but I also think the spacing is similar. I don't think the frame rails are higher. The size of the dump connector is the same as on our R-Pod and the relative size of that and the frame looks about the same.

The only way to gain ride height looks to be reversing the position of the axle and springs, putting them on top of instead of below the axle tube. That would likely void any sort of warranty though and might affect the stability of the trailer while towing.

I do prefer the leaf spring axles on the Satellite (and the very similar Comet) but the higher GVWR and weight of those trailers on a single axle might worry me a bit.

2000 pounds load per tire is getting up there. I have to wonder what the tire choices might be when the factory supplied chinese 'may-pops' need replacement.

Yeah, compared to the same size and weight r-pod then the differences would be mostly irrelevant.

I was actually referring to the higher weights of the Starcraft trailers compared to my r-pod 171....which is an r-pod 'lite'....(no slides!) 

I looked at these same figures. The Starcraft 179 "clone" weighs 3195 empty and my 179 (supposedly) weighs 2756 empty. But apparently the Starcraft comes standard with roof air and a micro, which puts put the rpod at about 2900, or about 290 lbs heavier. The axle reinforcement is adding about 40 lbs, so now I'm at about 2940 for a 250 lb difference in empty weight from the Starcraft. Not great but not a deal  killer. 

Starcraft does mention having the ability to add ground clearance, so that's good. Put 15 inch wheels and 2500 lb rated LRD tires on it and it will have plenty of headroom on wheel/tire loading. Heck, you could probably even put LRD "China Bombs" on there and be fine, that's what I did on my 179