please please cut out the mud slinging. I agree that a stabilizer will not compensate for a poorly loaded wrongly driven van & and Idealy we should not need it,BUT how many of us,with a properly loaded van(which I am very particuler about) driving at 56mph on a motorway have been caught out by the t###t in a white van who hurtles past within inches causing that unprepared for sway in the van?? Its occasions similar to this when a stabilizer comes into play(better still ATC) but we cannot all afford that.
I think we are singing from the same hymn sheet here old chap, just not sure we are singing the same verse of the hymn. As you say, a stabiliser cannot compensate for a poorly loaded unit. My concern is that a beginner may have a poorly loaded unit and because of the stabiliser, might not realise it is poorly loaded until it is too late.
I can honestly say that having a weight ratio of under 60% I barely notice the white van when it comes past, with or without the stabiliser. With my previous car, it was noticeable as was the presence of the stabiliser, which is not so noticeable on my current car.
By virtue of the fact I noticed the stabiliser on my previous car, I have to acknowledge that my previous setup was farther from perfect than my current setup (no outfit is 100% perfect). Even so, I still had a weight ration of around 75% so it was well under recommended guidelines.
To get back to the original topic, there can be no argument that to suggest anyone uses two stabilisers is at best advising them to waste money and at worst offering potentially dangerous advise if the question was being asked because the outfit was that unstable.
When you consider the price of ATC, at £399.50 against the price of an AlKo AKS 3004 at a RRP of £299 you have to say that the extra £100.50 is money well spent. For this reason, I question why anyone would recommend purchasing a stabiliser over saving the money towards fitting ATC.
I have never used ATC, but as an engineer, the system is clearly actively removing a snake rather than trying to muffle it.
If I compared a snake to a loud radio, a stabiliser stuffs cotton wool in your ears, ATC turns the volume down.
I think this pretty much tows the line with everyone elses opinion and shouldn't get anyones back up as it give an explaination of the statement and an alternative.
Of course, there are cheaper stabilisers around, but these are not as good as the AKS 3004, either due to having fewer friction pads or in the case of the leaf spring type the fact they need frequent readjusting and are a bit of a pain to fit.
If someone has £400 burning a hole in there pocket and is considering a stabiliser then this post does point out a far better alternative.
Out of interest, what are people's thoughts on using ATC and a stabiliser together? I won't annoy anyone on that subject as I have no practical experience with the ATC.
I fibbed. I'm back. I phoned an Al-Ko agent who told me the work well together. My new van had both fitted, so the boys at Bailey must be happy with it. There seems to be agreement that stabalisers do help in most cases. One other consideration is that most novice towers tend to have medium sized cars and medium sized caravans, which doesn't really add up to an ideal outfit. A passing HGV could cause them problems so maybe they should have all the help they can get (but never 2 stabalisers). I believe it to be a fact that most critical snaking situations start with a slight/moderate sway. Can a novice be expected to learn from this at the risk to everyone around them. Safety must come first. A sway is a sway, a stabaliser cant hide or muffle it. It can hide the cause though, but is that a bad thing. Maybe if the boys in blue carried out more stop-checks, everyone would be encouraged to be fit to tow in every way (general condition/loading etc). This is all my opinion of course, but I hate the thought of novices being told not to use a stabliser so that they can learn the hard way. The people who can afford maybe not to use one are us 15 year plus towers, but why would we want to?
You misunderstand me. I would never want anyone to learn the hard way as you put it (although the hard way is the only way some people will learn) My point is that if a beginner gets to feel the movement of the van when a truck passes then he gets to know what the first signs of movement are so he can take action to correct it i.e slow down. He will also get a warning a little earlier that something is going wrong. This may only be a few milliseconds but could be the difference between an accident.
Given that a stabiliser does take out minor oscillations but cannot dampen out major ones which we are all agreed on then there must be a point where the minor oscillation becomes a bigger one. The period between things first going wrong and the oscillations becomeing too strong for the stabiliser to take out is the zone that could make all the difference as to whether a beginner can hold it. A minor oscillation is much easier to get under control than a snake, so let the beginner get that under control and not have to contend with the snake.
I am very surprised that an AlKo agent agreed with the idea of using two stabilisers unless they were going to sell you a second. When I bought a new AlKo stabiliser, the instructions from AlKo clearly stated it was not to be used in conjunction with any other stabiliser. If you want to call AlKo I am sure they will conirm this.
Surely a stabiliser acts as a damper, much like a shock absorber, removing unwanted oscillations; & in this case the resonant frequency that builds up when the movement frequency of the caravan moving one way is close to or matches the frequency of the movement the other way. Consider forced vibrations in structures caused, primarily, by human input, ie: the millenium bridge, or wind induced like tacoma narrows etc. Here we have the natural resonant structural frequeny matching the inducing frequeny, & hence the frequeny increases & the structure would eventually fail. To remove the oscillations you need to change one of the natural resonant frequencies, & in this case the stabiliser is acting to change the frequency of the forces pulling the caravan to one side. Whether its correctly deemed a safety or comfort aid is another matter. Personally I prefer the blade type, as they reduce the for-aft movement, they are a bit more of a hassle to use but I feel it worth it. Our new caravan has an Alko but I'm keen to fit the blade also, however I'd probably try it with the friction pads slackened so that the Alko is damping side to side & the spring to dampen the up & down movement.
Acording to the University of Bath, a stabiliser has no effect when it comes to stopping a full on snake, it just damps out the minor oscillations. This doesn't necesserily mean the caravan is not moving, but that the movements are less noticeable in the car.
"...Given that a stabiliser does take out minor oscillations but cannot dampen out major ones which we are all agreed on then there must be a point where the minor oscillation becomes a bigger one..."
- unless the minor oscillation has been "taken out".....so what has ceased to exist (taken out) then creates something from nothing...
Once again, UoB actual summary - "...has been shown to be very effective at smoothing down snaking oscillations and reducing settling time...."
The unproven suggestion persists that use of a stabiliser tends to give a false sense of security and encourages higher speeds.
If so, it is equally valid that safety belts, air cushions, ABS, ESP will also encourage a false sense of security and encourage higher speeds. Whether these devices work or not is irrelevant; the "sense of security" is a perception - do these - have these - devices encouraged higher speeds?
When crash helmets were made compulsory for motorcyclists, did they increase their speeds?
Is there proof of any higher speeds because these devices/accessories have become standard and/or compulsory, rather than the modern tendency to rush and hurry through every part of life?
Unfortunately, a few/some people may well consider that the mere prescence of these aids/accessories/devices do make higher speeds permissable, but the blanket assumption that the majority will do so is totally unwarranted - the fact that I have some fault or failing does not give me the right to assume, let alone suggest, that the majority of other people also have that particular fault.
Gram
------------- What's the difference between a chicken?
Quote: Originally posted by LegsDownKettleOn on 04/9/2009
I am very surprised that an AlKo agent agreed with the idea of using two stabilisers unless they were going to sell you a second. When I bought a new AlKo stabiliser, the instructions from AlKo clearly stated it was not to be used in conjunction with any other stabiliser. If you want to call AlKo I am sure they will conirm this.
NOOOOOO. They didn't. They said that a stabiliser can be used with the ATC! It's a different animal altogether. I would never EVER use two stabilisers. The ATC ...... well I've tried to explain, try this link, maybe they will have more success. Then read my comment again and you will see that I didn't say the use of 2 stabilisers is ok. Bye for now while I go bang my head on a wall!
Quote: Originally posted by Gram on 08/9/2009
"...Given that a stabiliser does take out minor oscillations but cannot dampen out major ones which we are all agreed on then there must be a point where the minor oscillation becomes a bigger one..." - unless the minor oscillation has been "taken out".....so what has ceased to exist (taken out) then creates something from nothing... Once again, UoB actual summary - "...has been shown to be very effective at smoothing down snaking oscillations and reducing settling time...."
The unproven suggestion persists that use of a stabiliser tends to give a false sense of security and encourages higher speeds. If so, it is equally valid that safety belts, air cushions, ABS, ESP will also encourage a false sense of security and encourage higher speeds. Whether these devices work or not is irrelevant; the "sense of security" is a perception - do these - have these - devices encouraged higher speeds? When crash helmets were made compulsory for motorcyclists, did they increase their speeds? Is there proof of any higher speeds because these devices/accessories have become standard and/or compulsory, rather than the modern tendency to rush and hurry through every part of life? Unfortunately, a few/some people may well consider that the mere prescence of these aids/accessories/devices do make higher speeds permissable, but the blanket assumption that the majority will do so is totally unwarranted - the fact that I have some fault or failing does not give me the right to assume, let alone suggest, that the majority of other people also have that particular fault.
Gram
Absolutely well said. I'm with you all the way. It's just common sense
I'd like to put my thoughts down if I may..............
When I started caravannning the first thing I did was to go on a Caravan club course. Apart from being able to make a total prawn of yourself reversing we were also taught about the equipment and HOW TO LOAD THE CARAVAN CORRECTLY which was backed up with a handbook full of useful info. it was the best money I spent. Our first caravan had a blade stabiliser (down to budget) and our current 'van has an alko stabiliser and ATAC fitted. Nice stuff to have but doesn't excuse you from poor loading and i am still very careful about how I load with particular regards to weight distribution
With regards to the original question about using two different types of stabilisers I would recommend that if in doubt contact the technical departments of either of the two main clubs.
I thought this was supposed to be a helpful forum and not a mud slinging arena....
Quote: Originally posted by LegsDownKettleOn on 04/9/2009
I am very surprised that an AlKo agent agreed with the idea of using two stabilisers unless they were going to sell you a second. When I bought a new AlKo stabiliser, the instructions from AlKo clearly stated it was not to be used in conjunction with any other stabiliser. If you want to call AlKo I am sure they will conirm this.
NOOOOOO. They didn't. They said that a stabiliser can be used with the ATC! It's a different animal altogether. I would never EVER use two stabilisers. The ATC ...... well I've tried to explain, try this link, maybe they will have more success. Then read my comment again and you will see that I didn't say the use of 2 stabilisers is ok. Bye for now while I go bang my head on a wall!
Well I don't think I am the only one who got confused on this one. The header says AlKo and Bulldog 200Q used together and I think most of the posters assumed that by AlKo the meaning was an AlKo stabiliser. If you read all the posts, I think they all (the ones that remained on topic anyway) refer to the use of two stabilisers. The original post even refers to "both stabilisers"
With hindsight, it doesn't say AlKo STABILISER in the header, but nor does it mention AlKo ATC.
I wouldn't have thought there would be any harm in using them both, but if the ATC is working correctly, it should sort any issues out without any need for the stabiliser.
hi, you are correct L,D.K.O it does mean 2 stabilisers, as the post says, an it was in caravan mag as it says too, my god didnt realise it would start such a debate, sorry
Amazing family weekend with old steam engines, classic car displays, market stalls, and full catering and bar. And camping on site - Save £25 by booking in advance.
Topic: alko+bulldog200q used together!!!!
