GoPower Panel Catastrophic Failure

[Centex]

It strikes me that IF one is confident about the mounts (hold-down) but concerned about the strength of the long-side frame extrusion (or the effect of holes in it) it'd be relatively easy to epoxy-bond an AL angle to the full length thereby increasing the strength / rigidity of that 'beam' very significantly. That would require clamping during the install but no more holes and could likely be in-situ.

https://www.metalsdepot.com/aluminum...num-angle-6063

[Justforus]

"Holy great jumping Jeepers! Glad nothing more serious resulted. It sure pays to keep a wide range of tools on board, for when the unthinkable happens"

And a ladder!

[Dee Lirious]

IF you clamp the same angle piece that you are suggesting in such a way to close the gap and prevent the airflow lifting the panel, the strength of the frame is not an issue. BUT gluing or fastening something to the panel frame AND closing the gap at the same time would give you extra protection. The airflow is the bigger problem than the panel strength because if you made the panel strong enough to withstand the continuous force of the 70 mph plus winds on a regular basis, something else will give. Disrupting and eliminating the "lift" is in my opinion the only real solution.

[Centex]

Originally Posted by Dee Lirious

.... Disrupting and eliminating the "lift" is in my opinion the only real solution.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about that; we have different views of the potential aerodynamic forces that might be in play, and neither of us has the wherewithal to determine which of those is actually in play. I'll simply point-out that it's easy to lift a piece of flat metal off of a flat table-top without any 'wind-force' from below ... only low-pressure ('suction') from above; and that regions of low-pressure, sometimes significantly so, are commonly encountered in vehicle aerodynamics.

No worries, certainly not anything to argue, each is entitled to their opinion and can and will do what they deem best for them

My thought about reinforcing the 'long-side beam' was to nest the existing extrusion in an angle bonded to the side and bottom. Yes, that requires adequate hold-down regardless of the aerodynamic mechanism creating the opposing lift; and recognition that if all the links in a chain are stronger than the forces acting on them, 'something' does not 'have to give'. YMMV.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by Centex

It strikes me that IF one is confident about the mounts (hold-down) but concerned about the strength of the long-side frame extrusion (or the effect of holes in it) it'd be relatively easy to epoxy-bond an AL angle to the full length thereby increasing the strength / rigidity of that 'beam' very significantly. That would require clamping during the install but no more holes and could likely be in-situ.

https://www.metalsdepot.com/aluminum...num-angle-6063

In my previous post I expressed that same concern ! Adding aluminum angle iron to the long sides of the solar panel with epoxy as you suggest should prevent the solar frame from buckling and would be a relatively inexpensive and easy mod but I am unsure of the quality /strength of the solar mounting brackets .
Devising a way to lower the uplift forces on the solar panel seem to be a logical first step .
The last thing I want is to have the mounting brackets pull loose and damage the body of the trailer .

[Centex]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

...but I am unsure of the quality /strength of the solar mounting brackets. Devising a way to lower the uplift forces on the solar panel seem to be a logical first step.

Fair enough. I'd be loath to attempt that with anything fastened to the solar panel, lest other forces be introduced that the panel is not intended to manage.

For example, an air-dam fastened to and extending below the bottom-edge of the panel's perimeter extrusion must transfer its load back to that extrusion, perhaps not as 'uplift' but IMO likely imparting a vertical 'twisting force' on the extrusion. Not a condition I'd want to impose, but obviously Dee Lirious disagrees (again, no worries, to each their own ).

[yangstyle]

Glad to see that the panel did not fly off into traffic and cause more issues.
As far as I can tell we do not know why the panel collapsed like it did. It could have been a faulty Go Power panel. It could have had someone for example lean on the panel too heavily some where along the line and put a hairline crack in the panel for example.
My point is we do not know why this happened yet.
There is a picture of AM Solar I believe with an install at the front of an Escape, they have a very good record of VHB installations of solar panels.
I did my own panel install on the front our 21 with VHB and took it over 7000 kms. in September with no issues although on the 21 it sits farther back on the roof.
My point is this does not necessarily have anything to do with design, engineering or greed and the company is not necessarily a victim of their own success.
If anyone has a name of a trailer manufacturer that has never had a single problem with anything ever it would be great if you could share it, I would love to check them out.

[Perry Butler]

Originally Posted by yangstyle

If anyone has a name of a trailer manufacturer that has never had a single problem with anything ever it would be great if you could share it, I would love to check them out.

This is my 16th, and with Terry 15th camper. We have yet to find this mythical camper. I do know it's not Crown, Palomino, Coleman, Aerolite, Jayco, Scamp, Casita, Airstream, Cougar, Bigfoot, Lance, or Escape.

Enjoy,

Perry

[Oldtimer]

Nag nag gripe gripe geeeeezzzzzzzz. The panel failing is not ETIs fault. . In looking back, this was the first time ETI Installed double panels on this model. Things happen. They do not have a wind tunnel to test wind issues. When the panels ripped off on earlier escapes, they fixed the damaged ones and changed how they mounted the panels. I’m sure they will do the same here. So much for ranting

David

[gbaglo]

Originally Posted by Oldtimer

Nag nag gripe gripe geeeeezzzzzzzz. David

Or, as Jim Bennett's sig line says:
“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” — Abraham Lincoln

[Ron in BC]

Originally Posted by gbaglo

Or, as Jim Bennett's sig line says:
“Most folks are about as happy as they make up their minds to be.” — Abraham Lincoln

And we're sure seeing how true that is.

Ron

[TTMartin]

Originally Posted by Chama

We have a 2019 E21C with the 170 w. GoPower panel. There are no holes in the aluminum frame anywhere except where the panel is rivited to the mounting brackets. GoPower must have changed the frame design somewhere along the line.

On my 2020 Escape 19 with the 190 watt solar panel (rear only). There are 4 holes along the bottom edge of the frame. As the OP said the holes are NOT in the side of the frame.

[Effie]

This frightening failure brought about a very interesting thread. It reminded me when Escape asked us as previous customers to offer our suggestions for the upcoming 23 model. One of the things included in my wishlist was considering solar panels in the design. Small changes to the shape of the roof and maybe adding few strategic placed fastening points on the roof could make life a lot simpler, we expect the trailer design to include provisions for a fridge, a roof fan, a power inlet, why not a solar panel.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that most trailer buyers are choosing solar these days.

[Ron in BC]

Originally Posted by TTMartin

There are 4 holes along the bottom edge of the frame. As the OP said the holes are NOT in the side of the frame.

I won't say that it doesn't matter where the holes are because it does. But a hole in the bottom flange still matters. A hole in the web can affect load carrying ability but a hole in the bottom, subject to fatigue from oscillating wind pressures, can create crack propagation. At some point catastrophic failure from continued oscillation is inevitable. If the frame was loaded too much and failed it would likely have been bent, and not have the appearance that the OPs did.

So there's some question in my mind if the hole in the OPs panel is the same diameter and location as others have.

Ron

[TTMartin]

Originally Posted by Centex

It strikes me that IF one is confident about the mounts (hold-down) but concerned about the strength of the long-side frame extrusion (or the effect of holes in it) it'd be relatively easy to epoxy-bond an AL angle to the full length thereby increasing the strength / rigidity of that 'beam' very significantly. That would require clamping during the install but no more holes and could likely be in-situ.

https://www.metalsdepot.com/aluminum...num-angle-6063

You could probably just bolt two additional aluminum angle pieces to both the front and rear edge of the panel using the 4 existing holes, that should provide enough reinforcement in itself.

The wind resistance of the panel up front was initially the reason we didn't want dual panels on our trailer. After finding out that unless it was in the shade one panel was enough, it further confirmed that decision. Having two panels in the shade just doesn't make sense to me.

Our hope was with the single rear panel that one the vent and air conditioner would disrupt the air getting to the panel, and that it might even act like a spoiler or wing helping the air flow at the rear of the trailer. Unfortunately that doesn't seem to be the case as we are getting a higher MPG hit with our Escape than our old boxy Trail-lite Bantam.


Picture of someone else's Bantam 19 for reference.

[TTMartin]

Originally Posted by Ron in BC

So there's some question in my mind if the hole in the OPs panel is the same diameter and location as others have.

Looking at the picture it appears that it is in the bottom of the frame, just like mine. And looking at the half hole on the right as you look at the photo, it does appear to be the same size hole as my panel. I don't think it is something other than the original factory holes.

[TX_Clint]

No metal angle is needed. Flat stock across the front edge of the panel fastened with bolts through the existing holes should be sufficient to prevent flexing of the panel. I doubt this would cause a mounting failure as the existing mounts were not a weak point in the original installation. A wind deflector could be an improvement that may prevent excessive load on the panel and also likely improve gas mileage. These are installed on the roof of the tow vehicle to deflect wind over the trailer.

[HABBERDABBER]

Airflow coming off the front of the rig has got to be strong. Real strong.
It ain't only the weight we carry at 70 mph, it's the frontal area of the vehicles and towed items. In other tasks, (towing a sailboat and kayak a top, into a 30 mph headwind, I've learned this lesson.)


Poke your hand out again, like when you were a kid, into the slipstream while toodling down the Hi-way at 70 mph. Play with the aerodynamics, angle of attack, etc. The forces involved are large.


It sure looks to my crossed eyes that the airstream coming off the front of the rig greatly contributed to this event.



And to those fixing on epoxying some aluminum onto aluminum.....see WEST SYSTEMS epoxy manuals on that. Aluminum wants to be etched for proper bonding.

[TTMartin]

Originally Posted by TX_Clint

No metal angle is needed. Flat stock across the front edge of the panel fastened with bolts through the existing holes should be sufficient to prevent flexing of the panel.

I have to disagree with you on this. The existing holes are on the bottom edge. Adding a flat piece along the bottom would do very little to resist flexing of the panel. A 90 degree angle would both have a vertical surface to resist the flexing and a horizontal surface to bolt to the panel.

[Rossue]

Have had one 160W panel for six years and have never thought I needed more. Even have a Renogy suitcase and zamp, yet don't bother carrying that. So me thinks most people who get two panels do it for no real reason other than like a lot of other options they just do it.