I first used A Frames when I was an AA Patrolman from 1976-79. Then again, what do I know.

Tell us! And do you see the points people are making, if so, tell us why you think they aren't valid, if this is the case.

I can see whay you might be concerned but in practice its is not a problem. The cups on the ends of the arms are a very good fit on the suspension arms and the rachets and straps are also good quality. Straps should be replaced if worn [common sense]

The movement of the arms is taken easily by the twisting of the frame on the hook up ball. The construction and welding of the frame I have is excellent and shows no sign of fatigue.

I have used mine on a semi professional basis for 5 years and therfore it has had a lot of use. I can therefore comment with some experience not just a single go. I have only once experienced the towed car shaking and this was when I let someone else fit it. It wasn't quite centred correctly.

I also loaned my frame to someone who put the straps over the drive shafts as well. Now that did make a mess.

The point about direct fitting to the chassis is worth making. I know someone who has one that does just that. But I never liked using it as it was an unpleasant experience to tow. I believe that because the 2cv chassis is narrow at the front the arms of the A are therefore too narrow for the strain put on them.

When the AA introduced them in 1976 we were trained to fit them as wide as possible. The ones we used had padded buffers and were fitted against the bumpers of the car [being stout chromed metal in those days] the straps were then hooked onto anything solid underneath.

All in all the type sold by that company are very good tool if used correctly. I have no problem in recommending it [though not the company]

Thanks, grifftravel. I can see the frame is put together fairly well, the straps are over-specced and what have you, it's just that my own experience was iffy, albeit not on Mways. I had had my concerns when fitting - and took great care to centralise the thing on the suspension arms - largely because I could see that when one arm went up and the other down at the same time and with a quick reversal of this, the twisting moments and shock loadings on the frame would be enormous.

I was collecting a car with a friend of mine (a structural engineer who works in the aircraft industry) and he was more than concerned when he realised what would be happening on bumpy roads. He pinpointed a massive stress point just behind the hitch where one of the arms attached. One is by nut and bolt through a flange attached to the box section, the other box is welded to the hitch if I remember rightly, can't remember which bit he said was overstressed - but he did say one side should be shackled instead of rigidly fixed. I seem to remember he thought the crossmember should be quite different also, with the ends of the two arms moving in opposite directions at the same time. I agreed.

I didn't like towing a vehicle with a frame which was constantly hit by the car's chassis - of course it and the straps survive, but neither of us thought it was desirable.

My grandfather towed his trailers with bits of bedstead welded to the chassis of his cars - I quite accept that less than perfect engineering often survives fine, but when roads are as busy as they are I prefer to use something which is a bit better, given a choice.

In reality there has only been the one recorded near miss from failure of the frame that we're aware of - which could of course been as a result of user error. Perhaps that another case of attachment to the driveshafts?

As I said in previous post, what do I know.

The long and the short of it for is fairly simple;

If I could afford a car trailer, I would buy one. I can't, so the A-frame does what I want. Also, I've used all sorts of cars for towing, some of them include assorted "Sidewinders" and perhaps the odd standard A-series too! You're already pushing your luck weight-wise with a sidewinder so a trailer would've been totally out of the question. As it is, I use my BX turbo diesel which isn't exactly the most powerful car in the world!

P.S. Over the years I've seen an awful lot of wrecked trailers/caravans etc from catastrophic structural failure because they're not checked properly and the draw bar rots of them........

Have used a sturdy A frame to tow a 2CV many hundred of miles and its still good condition.
Found that round-abouts and twisty roads are best taken very slowly, as yet no mishaps or broken bits.. now have a trailer .

But be aware Insurance Claims and the Police.

The towed car is an unbraked trailer and should not exceed 750kg?

See text below

Note on A-Frames and wollies, issued by the Department for Transport

When an "A" frame is attached to a vehicle (e.g. a motor car) and towed by a motor vehicle (e.g. motorhome) we believe the "A" frame and car become a single unit and as such are classified in legislation as a trailer. As a consequence the car and A-frame are required to meet the technical requirements for trailers when used on the road in Great Britain. These requirements are contained within the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (SI 1986/1078) as amended (C&U) and the Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 (SI 1989/1796) as amended (RVLR).

Trailers having a combined axle mass not exceeding 750kg are not required to have brakes fitted. However, if the trailer (regardless of mass) is fitted with a braking system, then all brakes in that system must operate correctly. The regulations do not include design constraints on how this should be achieved but, for example, it could be met by direct linking of the trailer brakes to the brake system of the towing vehicle or by automatic inertia (overrun) operation via the towing hitch. Inertia systems can only be used for trailers with a maximum combined axle mass of 3500kg.

Regulations 15 and 16 set out the braking requirements - including minimum braking efficiencies for trailer brakes. Subject to certain age exemptions, the regulation requires the braking system to comply with the construction, fitting and performance requirements of European Community Directive 71/320/EEC along with its various amending Directives. The most recent consolidated directive is 98/12/EC. Alternatively the braking system can comply with the corresponding UNECE Regulation No.13.09.

In addition, C&U Regulation 18 requires the braking system to be maintained in good and efficient working order. If the brakes of the towing vehicle do not directly operate the trailer brakes the use of an inertia (overrun) system is acceptable. If the trailer braking system has power assistance (i.e. servo or full power) it is likely that this assistance will be required while in motion to meet the required braking efficiencies. This is because once the vacuum reservoir is depleted it is possible that the brakes will not meet the braking efficiency. To prevent the trailer being used illegally a remote vacuum pump, powered from the tow vehicle, could be installed to recharge the reservoir, alternatively a source could be made available from the tow vehicle. From 1 October 1988 the inertia braking system was required to allow the trailer to be reversed by the towing vehicle without imposing a sustained drag and such devices used for this purpose must engage and disengage automatically. This will be very difficult to achieve on an "A" frame using an inertia (overrun) device.

Other provisions from Regulation 15 and Regulation 86A of C&U require the fitting and use of a secondary coupling system in which the trailer is stopped automatically if the main coupling separates whilst the combination is in motion. Alternatively, in the case of trailers up to a maximum mass of 1500kg, the drawbar must be prevented from touching the ground and the trailer able to retain some residual steering.

Whilst being towed, trailers are subject to the relevant requirements given in RVLR, including the use of triangular red reflectors. There would be further requirements for the display of the appropriate number plate, etc.

The use of "wollies" is intended for the recovery of broken down vehicles, not for the transportation of a vehicle from "A" to "B". Under Regulation 83 of C&U a motor car is permitted to tow two trailers when one of them is a towing implement and the other is secured to and either rests on or is suspended from the implement. Therefore as a trailer if the maximum laden weight of the D*lly exceeds 750 kg it must be fitted with operational brakes, additionally the brakes on the wheels of the second trailer (the towed car) must work and meet the specified requirements. Again this would be very difficult for the rear brakes of a motor car, on their own, to meet the 50% braking efficiency required for a trailer. The D*lly would also be required by Regulation 22 of C&U to be fitted with suspension. Regulations 19 and 22 in C&U permit a broken down vehicle to be recovered without complying with these requirements. However, there is further legislation under the Road Traffic Act that introduces a limitation on the maximum speed that the combination can be driven; this is 40mph on motorways and 20mph on other roads.

We do not supply copies of legislation but I have included some information on various sources where they can be obtained. If you would like to purchase printed copies of Statutory Instruments these are available from TSO:

The Stationery Office Tel: 0870 600 5522
PO Box 29 Fax: 0870 600 5533
St Crispins e-mail: book.orders@tso.co.uk
Duke Street online ordering: www.tso.co.uk/bookshop
Norwich NR3 1GN

Have often wondered if there were specific regulations regarding A Frames. I think that the same rules apply over here too though I have never been stoped.

When I worked for the AA in the 70's they introduced a braking system for their A frames which relied on an overrun coupling pulling on a cable. This cable was fed into the towed car and operated a real Heath Robinson [young people won't understand that term, has benefits being an old bloke] device which operated the foot brake. I only used it once and decided it was too dangerous.

Of course we did used to tow cars on the end of a rope. I even towed a car on a rope which had no brakes putting my van as the towed car and acting as the anchor, now that was interesting. Those were the days

Before they got this latest batch of vans with tow-dollies built in, my Charlston was towed by the AA (circa 2004/5) on one of their A-frames, it was straight armed (unlike the un-named northern 2cv spares supplier's one that has bent arms) and other than it fouling on the bumper on bumps it all went fine.

I understand that the a-frame was said northern spares suppliers favoured method of shifting 2cv's around but have since got the new vans that swallow 2cv's whole.

That was me, then.

I borrowed SubaruPete's A-frame to take the 4x4 to Morvan over Easter last year.

At one of the services half-way down France, the guys in the van we were convoying with stopped for a fluid exchange, and I had a quick check of the straps. The straps were tight, but...

THE TWO BOLTS HOLDING THE HITCH TO THE FRAME WERE NOT. One had completely lost it's nut, the other had about three threads left before it went. This was, of course, all that was holding the frame to the towing car.

There were no shake-proof washers, no nyloc nuts, no loctite, nothing to prevent this happening. <parp>

Finally, besides the legality issues, there's also a school of thought that extended A-framing might not be good for gearboxes, with lubrication problems arising.

<edit: I've decided that the rant over my previous unsatisfactory customer service from the supplier in question probably shouldn't be broadcast quite so widely.>

Other than that direct personal experience, I have no particular allegiance.

Competition in supply of good quality parts by good quality, ethical suppliers is a healthy scenario for 2cving.