Teraflex Tire Carrier?
10-19-2012, 08:55 PM
#92
JK Freak
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Naperville, Il
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OJK12
I understand how it is made but a steel version could be made differently and it would have to be to be strong. Just because it would be steel does not mean it would be heavier, the jap dirt bikes with aluminum frames are heavier than the chromoly steel framed KTM's and they have electric start. Its all in design which we know teraflex is capable of. Why make a cheaper one if the others fly off the shelf cause that would be two fling off the shelf for even more bucks. I'm not bagging teraflex, like I stated first its a great product and a great idea the price is what kills it when there are potentially more customers out there who are buying the smittybilt one and the likes because of price. Those are the target customers. I'll bet money they could build one out of steel and it wouldn't be 200lbs. Hey maybe I'm wrong and there is no market but smittybilt and bestop aren't having any problems selling theirs and their not even a great design, and they don't weigh 200lbs. And nobody has a problem with the bumper tire carriers that are mega heavy.
So what I am trying to say is it would be great if they made one for 200 cheaper but they can't. I have this carrier and it is worth every penny! I used to have an LOD tire carrier and I would take this over it anyday and it cost less and is just as solid.
10-20-2012, 03:11 AM
#93
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 303
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scemracing
Yes if they made a completely different carrier out of steel it could be lighter then 200lbs (that was just a over exaggerated number not a real one). The one they make now is cast aluminum a steel one would have to be fabbed not cast or it would weigh a ton. Do you honestly think that building a fabbed steel one is going to make it 200 bucks cheaper? You know when you spend 500 for the aluminum one you are not paying for raw materials you are paying for the design, the die's, and the shipping from Taiwan. Not to mention the little bit of profit they make. I don't really think people understand the work that goes into this stuff. Even if you changed the materials you still have to pay for that other stuff I do not believe there is 200 dollars worth of aluminum in the carrier.
So what I am trying to say is it would be great if they made one for 200 cheaper but they can't. I have this carrier and it is worth every penny! I used to have an LOD tire carrier and I would take this over it anyday and it cost less and is just as solid.
Exactly my point if it was steel there would be no dies to pay for, steel is always cheaper to buy than aluminum, and if it was AMERICAN made there would be no cost to ship it. So yes I do believe it could be $200 cheaper. I realize the current process of how it is made prolly does make it a great buy from that point of view.
10-20-2012, 04:43 AM
#94
JK Freak
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Naperville, Il
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by OJK12
" You know when you spend 500 for the aluminum one you are not paying for raw materials you are paying for the design, the die's, and the shipping from Taiwan."
Exactly my point if it was steel there would be no dies to pay for, steel is always cheaper to buy than aluminum, and if it was AMERICAN made there would be no cost to ship it. So yes I do believe it could be $200 cheaper. I realize the current process of how it is made prolly does make it a great buy from that point of view.
I do have to say it is a great piece and I am very happy with it.
10-20-2012, 05:00 AM
#95
JK Newbie
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting thread. Thanks for the time and effort.
I just put on MT 35's (13.50) and the spare now hits the stock rear bumper well. I have to give it a light shove to close the tailgate. I thought that this was a good thing as the tire is in there nice and tight. It doesn't budge. I thought that this puts less strain on the tailgate because the bumper now holds some of the weight and there is no flexing of the tire.
My question is...is the opening and closing of the tailgate now going to cause a structural problem due to the fact that there must be some flexing going on every time that I open and close the gate and it hits/rubs the stock bumper?
I like the design of the TF hinge, but I think that I would hit/rub the bumper anyway.
Thanks for any help on this.
I just put on MT 35's (13.50) and the spare now hits the stock rear bumper well. I have to give it a light shove to close the tailgate. I thought that this was a good thing as the tire is in there nice and tight. It doesn't budge. I thought that this puts less strain on the tailgate because the bumper now holds some of the weight and there is no flexing of the tire.
My question is...is the opening and closing of the tailgate now going to cause a structural problem due to the fact that there must be some flexing going on every time that I open and close the gate and it hits/rubs the stock bumper?
I like the design of the TF hinge, but I think that I would hit/rub the bumper anyway.
Thanks for any help on this.
10-20-2012, 06:21 AM
#96
JK Freak
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 752
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i recommend buying both pieces regardless.
10-20-2012, 06:57 AM
#97
JK Enthusiast
Very interesting thread. Thanks for the time and effort.
I just put on MT 35's (13.50) and the spare now hits the stock rear bumper well. I have to give it a light shove to close the tailgate. I thought that this was a good thing as the tire is in there nice and tight. It doesn't budge. I thought that this puts less strain on the tailgate because the bumper now holds some of the weight and there is no flexing of the tire.
My question is...is the opening and closing of the tailgate now going to cause a structural problem due to the fact that there must be some flexing going on every time that I open and close the gate and it hits/rubs the stock bumper?
I like the design of the TF hinge, but I think that I would hit/rub the bumper anyway.
Thanks for any help on this.
I just put on MT 35's (13.50) and the spare now hits the stock rear bumper well. I have to give it a light shove to close the tailgate. I thought that this was a good thing as the tire is in there nice and tight. It doesn't budge. I thought that this puts less strain on the tailgate because the bumper now holds some of the weight and there is no flexing of the tire.
My question is...is the opening and closing of the tailgate now going to cause a structural problem due to the fact that there must be some flexing going on every time that I open and close the gate and it hits/rubs the stock bumper?
I like the design of the TF hinge, but I think that I would hit/rub the bumper anyway.
Thanks for any help on this.
10-20-2012, 08:39 AM
#98
JK Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Ligonier PA
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Got mine finished about a week ago. Love it! Cant believe how sturdy the tailgate is now. I even modified Teraflex's 3rd brake light kit to work. Now its a complete kit. 
10-20-2012, 10:03 AM
#99
JK Enthusiast
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: oceanside
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
unanswered last question
icrashbikes provides a great explanation above. I have a pretty clear sense about how this configuration transfers the load, and this really helps to solidify. Nonetheless, for me personally, the most important phrase from the above explanation is this one;
"Let's assume the body side hinge mount points are structurally sound and capable of resisting the moment created by the weight of the tire and tailgate. If these mounts are not sound, you shouldn't be mounting a tire to your tailgate in any capacity."
This is my question all along. Most other tire carriers out there work by transferring the load out to a steel bumper of some other configuration.
This one is brilliant because of its simplicity, but how can we be sure that those hinge pints are adequate to support loads that the stock setup does not enable. (of course the stock setup of the tire hanging off the door impacts this), but folks are hanging much bigger tires than the hinges appear to be designed for plus full cans of gas and whatever else creativity allows.
Is there some evidence that these hinge points are truly adequate and for how much load? Someone from TF suggested above that we simply take off the taillight and look for ourselves, but I have no idea how to make such a judgement merely by looking.
"Let's assume the body side hinge mount points are structurally sound and capable of resisting the moment created by the weight of the tire and tailgate. If these mounts are not sound, you shouldn't be mounting a tire to your tailgate in any capacity."
This is my question all along. Most other tire carriers out there work by transferring the load out to a steel bumper of some other configuration.
This one is brilliant because of its simplicity, but how can we be sure that those hinge pints are adequate to support loads that the stock setup does not enable. (of course the stock setup of the tire hanging off the door impacts this), but folks are hanging much bigger tires than the hinges appear to be designed for plus full cans of gas and whatever else creativity allows.
Is there some evidence that these hinge points are truly adequate and for how much load? Someone from TF suggested above that we simply take off the taillight and look for ourselves, but I have no idea how to make such a judgement merely by looking.
10-20-2012, 10:09 AM
#100
JK Freak
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Naperville, Il
Posts: 638
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by jpone
icrashbikes provides a great explanation above. I have a pretty clear sense about how this configuration transfers the load, and this really helps to solidify. Nonetheless, for me personally, the most important phrase from the above explanation is this one;
"Let's assume the body side hinge mount points are structurally sound and capable of resisting the moment created by the weight of the tire and tailgate. If these mounts are not sound, you shouldn't be mounting a tire to your tailgate in any capacity."
This is my question all along. Most other tire carriers out there work by transferring the load out to a steel bumper of some other configuration.
This one is brilliant because of its simplicity, but how can we be sure that those hinge pints are adequate to support loads that the stock setup does not enable. (of course the stock setup of the tire hanging off the door impacts this), but folks are hanging much bigger tires than the hinges appear to be designed for plus full cans of gas and whatever else creativity allows.
Is there some evidence that these hinge points are truly adequate and for how much load? Someone from TF suggested above that we simply take off the taillight and look for ourselves, but I have no idea how to make such a judgement merely by looking.
"Let's assume the body side hinge mount points are structurally sound and capable of resisting the moment created by the weight of the tire and tailgate. If these mounts are not sound, you shouldn't be mounting a tire to your tailgate in any capacity."
This is my question all along. Most other tire carriers out there work by transferring the load out to a steel bumper of some other configuration.
This one is brilliant because of its simplicity, but how can we be sure that those hinge pints are adequate to support loads that the stock setup does not enable. (of course the stock setup of the tire hanging off the door impacts this), but folks are hanging much bigger tires than the hinges appear to be designed for plus full cans of gas and whatever else creativity allows.
Is there some evidence that these hinge points are truly adequate and for how much load? Someone from TF suggested above that we simply take off the taillight and look for ourselves, but I have no idea how to make such a judgement merely by looking.