thought I would post some more pics for you. If you don't want them in your thread, let me know--no problemo
just some close ups of my angles FWIW---excuse the dirt, been busy

 

Here's a pic:

 

not bad.

not practical for a rig that is used on family trips either...

thanks for the info though!

 

okay i understand that with a longer arm you will have more leverage...when the tire carrier is swung open. but i havea hard time believinng that the leverage will increase by 41% when the carrier is locked in place. i assume the side that opens is going to rest on maybe some sort of poly plate on the bumper, right. so if the open side of the carrier is supported, how can there be any extra verticle leverage. don't get me wrong i am not trying to argue, just been going over all the possibilities in my own head for about the last 6 mos or so.

 

not arguing either. here's my reasoning...

true, the loading should be highest on the spindle when it swings open and isn't supported by the two poly pad that i have on each side of the hitch receiver. however, let's say for a second that for some obscure reason, the 2000# rated latch that i'm going to use fails. the carrier swings open, and all of a sudden, i'm going 70 down the interstate and the only thing supporting a 80# carrier and an 80# tire is the spindle. if i were to hit a bump in that situation, i have to depend on the spindle to carry 100% of the load. i want to reduce the chances of failure as much as feasably possible. as it's designed now, the tire has a moment arm of about 25.5". if i were to center it, the moment arm would become 36" or so.

also, if you look at the load plates, i have one almost directly under the tire's center of gravity, one at the very end of the carrier arm, and then the spindle at the other end. having the two load plates should help to distribute the load across the frame and keep it from being completely on the spindle - as you suggest. that also is a contradiction of your earlier statement that the tire should be centered so the load isn't on one frame rail...

here's the CAD file again for reference:

 

Not quite true there, the frame doesn't know you have those load plates. The load plates will take some stress off the hinge, but the load (tire) is still mostly on the passenger side of the truck. The passenger frame rail will take more of the force than the driver side.

Also, why passenger side? Why not driver? Don't want to hit an oncoming vehicle if it decides to open by itself? You can get better visibility if it's mounted on the driver side.

 

It may not work with your rig, but with a 2nd that has a tail, kinda works perfect

 

yup. i forgot a 2nd gen has a gate and not a lift hatch.

however, be careful doing that on a runner.

you have the bumper attached to the frame, and the carrier upper mount attached to the body. the frame/body flex quite differently. with solid mounts between the tow, something will give, and my guess would be the sheet metal body...

 

yeah, i took statics in college. i know it's not an even load. it's all about centers of gravity and moments... i get it, but i don't think it's really THAT big of a deal. the driver sits on one side, and for me, that's over 200#. the gas tank is on the same side, and when full, that's over 100#.

however, w/ a bumper that stiff to help distribute the load and the carrier supported well on the free end, some of the load from the tire is distributed to the driver side frame rail, so it's not all on one side.

i just decided on passenger side for several reasons. one is that when pulled over on the side of the road for any reason, i want the tire to swing away from traffic if i have to open the hatch. i also want the tire to swing away from oncoming traffic in case of a latch failure. also, w/ the driver and gas tanks already on the left, it seemed like a good idea to put this weight on the opposite side.

thanks for the input!

 

 

Brought this back because there's a lot of good info here. But since another thread has been started I'll lock this one and let the other one continue.

Link to Andy's new thread: https://www.yotatech.com/forums/f88/bamachem-3rd-gen-bumper-w-tire-carrier-build-up-thread-69904/