That Daytona "spreader" is an intriguing approach. IF it actually fasteens to the jack FIRMLY enough to resist sideways tilting, it would indeed improve side-to-side stability while also saving time versus jacking twice, once for each jack stand. It would also move the points of support (a) further apart and (b) closer to the ENDS of the cross member, both of which would dramatically reduce the potential for bending the cross member. I'd like to look up the Daytona product, and get some specifics on it, as I do already have a hydraulic floor jack.

1. What does Daytona call that product?

2. I wonder if it is specifically to fit only Daytona jacks, or whether it can be used on any brand of floor jack. Did you happen to see their text on the product?

Jim G

 

https://www.harborfreight.com/steel-...eam-64051.html

I think you remove the Saddle post and replace it with the cross beam saddle.

 

Thank-you, CoolBreeze! I am reading all about it on the Harbor Freight website. Its says that it telescopes in length from a minimum length of 28" to a maximum of 37". I am wondering how that range would fit onto a crossmember on the trikes. What is the (accessible) length of those cross members on the trikes?

Jim G

 

I also just checked my current floor jack. The lifting pad does lift right off so could accept the Daytona crossbeam. However, my jack is about 4.75" tall without the crossbeam installed. It APPEARS to me from the Harbor Freight webpage that the crossbeam MIGHt be as high as up to 5" high (although the webpage might mean the "packaged" height).

The ground clearance on my RG3 is supposedly 5.6", and it looks like that occurs at the bottom of the mufflers.

So, the floor jack height of 4.75" + crossbeam height of maybe 5" = 9.75" minimum height of the jack plus crossbeam.

So, some potential issues:

1. The 28" minimized length of the crossbeam MIGHT be too wide to fit into the accessible length of either of the crossmembers on the trike chassis.

2. Even if it fits, it would have to be somehow gooten upward past the mufflers, which are separated by only about 13.4" by twisting the crossbeam 90 degrees first (i.e. aligned front to rear with the trike chassis), and then twisitng it bac to be ACROSS the chassis AND above the mufflers. Is that even possible? The mufflers look like they mount barely below the crossmembers via mounts that attach to the crossmembers!

3. It looks from the DK Customs photo that the bottom surface of the chassis crossmembers is maybe an inch or so above the tops of the mufflers. Since the ground clearance at the mufflers is 5.6" and the mufflers are 4" diameter, that means that the bottoms of the chassis crossmembers are about 5.6" + 4" + 1" = 10.6" above the pavement. The jack plus crossbeam height of 9.75" would therefor be low enoguh to slide under the chassis crossmembers, but only if you have enough width across the chassis at the point to accommodate the 28" minimized length of the crossbeam. That sounds like it might be impossible . . .

It might be easier to do the following:

1. measure the diameter of the hole in the floor jack that accepts the "pin" on the bottom of the lift plate

2. Have a local shop cut a suitable length of steel rod in that diameter to replace the "pin" used to secure the lift plate to the jack

3. Have a local shop cut a piece of solid 1/2" steel plate to a suitable length and width to serve as a crossbeam (The 1/2" thickness WOULD fit above the muffler and below the chassis crossmember, and the length would enable fitting the plate onto the bottom of the chassis crossmember)

4. Have the pin welded to the center of the bottom of the plate

To use the above setup:

1. Insert the plate into position above the mufflers and below the chassis crossmember
2. Move the jack into position and align the jack with the pin
3. Raise the jack to secure the pin in the jack and lift the plate/pin, which then lifts the trike

Reverse the sequence to lower the trike.

It would still cost more to have this made than to buy the Daytona product, but if the Daytona product is simply too long, no choice.

Jim G

 

@JimGnitecki , I've used that HF cross beam on my HF jack for many years now. Probably a good 10-20 years now in fact. It's strong and highly useful, imo. But it's NOT stable on its own. When I lift a car or truck's end, I'm counting on the vehicle stability from the two wheels on the other end of the vehicle. With a trike, you'd have none of that. It would be nothing but the front wheel of the trike and the width of the jack, and that's not a stable combination.

I think I'd much rather go with two jacks, one on each axle end, for lifting a trike's rear end. With a lift table or such, probably a good use of either hydraulic bottle jacks, or pneumatic bag jacks. A trike is pretty light, and those pneumatic bag jacks are pretty durn neat.

 

Good experienced points, Foxtrapper.

Jim G

 

I finally got to actually pick up my RG3 from the HD dealer yesterday, and so I was able to take an actual measurement across the width of the rear tires. Despite my careful measurements on an enlarged printout of the HD media photo of the rear of the RG3, the ACTUAL measurement proved to be 52 inches.

The 54" derived from the media photo is likely a result of photo distortion caused by the focal length of the lens used by the pro photographer for the media photo. Pro photographers use lenses of differing focal lengths depending upon the specific shot being taken (e.g. using a focal length that minimizes the apparent nose protrusion in a close-up portrait photo- no kidding!).

This camera lens issue was highlighted to me yesterday in 2 different photos taken of me and my new RG3 chariot. The HD dealership business manager took a photo of me behind my RG3 in the dealership parking lot, and I look TINY compared to the chariot, because the photo was a side profile of the very wide RG3, and I am behind it, and she used an iPhone to take the photo. I made a similar error when I got home and took a photo of the chariot in our garage. My wife had the family pickup truck parked a few feet away from the RG3, so I could not get back far enough to prevent the optical lens distortion caused by the iPhone's len's focal length. As a result, the rear wheel of the RG3, which is over 2 feet closer to the camera than the front wheel, looks HUGE in comparison, even though the overall diameter of the rear and front wheel/tire assemblies is identical:



Photographing the profiles of the 2-wheeled models is much easier, since they are realtivle "thin" from side to side. Our chariots are 55" widefrom side to side, and tnat makes a huge difference when taking photos!

Jim G

 

I'd go with an Elevator 1800 for air operated or Elevator 2000 for electric hydraulic. The weight class maybe way higher than you need but the options you can get are insane.

With the elevator series, you have 1/4 panels so you can pop them off by the 1/4 section and get in close to where you need to be. The table options go up to 134" long and 69" wide and the extensions are the full length and width instead. Pre-drilled for slides that a vise or chock can go on and with the slides, they can be adjusted forward/rear too. It has both front and rear drop out panels, also has long ramps on the center table and side ext so you don't get any bottom drag. The Elevator 2000 lifts a full 48" up and has various ladder locks in between.

Here is the Elevator 1800 with just the 56" sides and no front or rear ext:

 

Wow, that's one impressive lift system! Probably way beyond my budget.

Jim G

 

It's a little bit of an investment, but if you'd be using it often, its definitely worth it. The elevator 1800 with the side extensions to bring the table to 56" is $2,999. https://www.nhproequip.com/elevator-...utv-lift-table