3P too much torque for Factory Reciever

[Tom_T]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

30+ at GM Stores....

I've never seen shim slop cause a receiver failure....

It's always been cracked welds and/or rust or just plain, poor design.(round tube,short mount arm)

Bob

Bob,

My point wasn't that the shim caused the failure, but rather that using it/them to tighten up a failing receiver only served to preserve the contact surface to continue the failure problem, without resolving it at all.

If his receiver 2" or 2.5" square hole is getting bigger due to either welds failing &/or the metal itself stretching under load, then shimming it up is doing nothing but fill the gap to continue the stretching &/or weld cracking process.

So again I say, if this receiver is already compromised by the heavy load of a relatively large/long/heavy AS - with or without the WD tension/torque cranked in, then that load will continue to push on the receiver to continue the failure process, made worse by bouncing along highways, etc..

IMHO it's tempting fate to tow 1500 miles with a compromised hitch. He may get home okay - but that would be luck as much as anything else, & rechecking that hitch every couple hundred miles may get a warning of final fatal failure ... or maybe not!?

What's that 2015 30' AS worth, versus finding someone to repair or replace the now faulty receiver? .... & knowing there is a problem & not resolving it, then have a damage claim could negate his insurance coverage as well.

If it were me, I'd vote for being conservative & get it fixed/replaced somewhere ASAP - even if nobody in that FL can work on it, & drive somewhere else to get it fixed before towing anymore.

As a licensed Architect for 35+ years & in the construction industry for 50+ - I know something about structural steel failures & preventing them, fortunately none in any of my buildings/projects.

Also, I've used those Curt Rattle Stop U-bolt appliances for my bike & cargo racks, but wouldn't advise them for any WD hitch, since their u-bolts & nuts are not made from strong enough steel for the forces - particularly on a 30' AS jumbo jet.

But personally, I don't find occasional movement in the receiver on turns from our Hensley Cub troubling, & I use a shot of WD40 per the good AF Sargent's advice & that of Terry Powell at Hensley, in order to make the stinger's shifting around a bit smoother.

As opposed to the Curt hitch you show for a GM product, the Ford F150 & 250 hitches have 2 huge plates at L & R which bolt up to the rear side frame members to transfer the WD TQ better than most. I'd assume that the Ford 1/2 & 3/4 ton SUVs would be similar, if not the same design.

However, I'd think of going with a greater than Class V hitch for this 30' jumbo AS .... just to be safe & have more margin of error.

Then Ted, the CanAm guys can do whatever additional mods they see fit when you get home.

Rod, some of the OEM receivers have had some known weak points, but I don't know if this Ford setup is at fault, & tend to agree with you on the rating be short of what the 30' AS needs - & IMHO that F150/250 design is a good one, but just needs to get a heavier duty Class V or better one, as noted above.

Happy New Years All!
Tom
///////

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Ted S.

If you consider the forces from the hitch in the reciever, the design is compromising. The forces are directed to the top front and lower rear of the reciever interior.

Where is the wear/deformation occurring?

If the stinger is applying force to the top front of the receiver interior and applying force to the bottom rear of the receiver interior, it should be the bottom rear which is being deformed.

The tongue weight, without WD applied, will cause the stinger to exert downward force on the bottom rear interior of the receiver and upward force on the top front interior.

When the WDH generates enough torque, the stinger exerts an upward force on the top rear interior of the receiver and exerts a downward force on the bottom front.

Your description makes it sound to me as though you're not generating enough WDH torque.

Ron

[m.hony]

Originally Posted by Ted S.

I can see how that would help the slop, but not sure how it would help the forces on the receiver.

Something wiggling around independently wallows out the pin hole in the receiver.
Immobilize the shank slopping around- side to side- up and down- stops the wallowing of the receiver and the pin hole- the up and down and side to side motion is all as one unit moving all together- not 2 independent units slopping independently when the vehicle hits bumps or rough road.
Please trust me on this. It really works. It makes the trailer tow better- less wiggling of the truck- quieter- less rattling- takes away noise from the shank/receiver. I wouldn't stand on my soap box unless I knew 110%- been there, done that/walked in those shoes/experience.

[m.hony]

two parts moving together -shank in receiver- as one unit puts less stress, strain, torque on the receiver/rear of the truck than 2 separate units moving independently-
loose shank puts forces of twist and torque on the receiver-
tight shank, no play, transfers that same force through the receiver to the vehicles frame, distributing the torque over a greater area- not just the pin hole in the receiver-
I'm not sure if any further damage beyond the pin hole would ever happen anyway, but I DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT-
That little $20 gadget takes away the elongated pin hole and any further damage that might or might not occur-

[Bill M.]

I know a person who had a Ford 250 receiver come off while towing with a Hensley hitch. The safety chains and breakaway saved the trailer. So it is definitely something to worry about sooner rather than later.

[m.hony]

I don't know that the 3P particularly puts more strain there than any other hitch brand/style.
I had the same thing with my Equal-i-zer-


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[KYAirstream]

m.honey -- it appears you have to tighten up that hitch tightener assembly each time you hitch up? Not too much of a hassle I suppose, but I guess shims may be a bit easier if they can be left in place.

[m.hony]

No- not if you leave the shank in-
I have to take it off when I need to switch to a different shank- like to go from the 2 5/16 ball for the camper to a 2" ball for a utility trailer-
99% of the time the Equal-i-zer hitch head stays in.


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[m.hony]

Keep a 3/4" socket and a ratchet handle handy-


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[Ted S.]

Originally Posted by m.hony

I don't know that the 3P particularly puts more strain there than any other hitch brand/style.
I had the same thing with my Equal-i-zer-


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

They don't. It is my opinion the Propride is the finest hitch on the market, I want to make that clear. But that is not intended to start a hitch war.

The issue is that the 9200 GVW Excursion and near 1000 lb Airsteam tounge weight translates to tremendous amount of moment force at the reciever.

The Propride has no issue with weight distribution, it does its job really well and it is obvious it's designer understood the forces encountered. The reciever on the other hand does not appear to be designed as well in terms of the moment forces.

There was an architect posting here, well I too am an architect. Structural engineers prefer fully welded moment connections which is what is occurring at the reciever. Yet it is a sloppy pinned connection.

[Ted S.]

I will add that I think the reciever design is good for the push and pull loads encountered during towing, just not the forces of weight distribution.

[m.hony]

I agree that the 3P is the best hitch design, even tough I don't own one.
After 5+ years and 40,000+ miles of,towing, I replaced the chrome bumper face on the rear bumper of my truck due to a ding in the chrome that had been there several years. The bumper and receiver hitch are built as one unit on my truck. The entire assembly must be removed to replace the chrome face and black plastic step portion of the bumper. There are 2 rails on the receiver that mate with the frame rails of the truck. These rails are possibly 3' long- extending to behind the tires and wheels on the truck's frame and held in with 6 very large bolts on each side. It appears to be a very good, solid, sturdy design. The only damage I can see after having the entire thing apart and lying in the carport is the only damage I can see when the entire unit is assembled- the elongated pin hole which is no longer being elongated/wallowed out due to the "anti rattle device".
Hitch designs on other trucks, even some 3/4 ton trucks, don't look as strong- the part that bolts to the truck frame isn't as long, big, doesn't have as many bolts. We have maybe 25 GM 3/4 ton and one tone trucks in our fleet at work and none of them seems to have suffered any damage to the receiver after 3 summers of towing nearly 14,000# cargo trailers all over the entire US using Curt weight distribution hitches. These vehicles were all bought used, many from horse people or RV people or folks in construction or farming. The hitches have been used. None of them have anti-rattle devices installed.
I'm not saying it isn't possible to damage the receiver hitch, just saying I have never seen it. Climate/rust may affect whether a hitch is damaged- we have no rust here-
Also, I would think any Class IV or Class V hitch would be OK. I've never seen a Class III hitch towing a 30' travel trailer, so I can't speak on that, except to say that by the numbers a Class III isn't up to the task-

[xrvr]

Originally Posted by m.hony

two parts moving together -shank in receiver- as one unit puts less stress, strain, torque on the receiver/rear of the truck than 2 separate units moving independently-
loose shank puts forces of twist and torque on the receiver-
tight shank, no play, transfers that same force through the receiver to the vehicles frame, distributing the torque over a greater area- not just the pin hole in the receiver-
I'm not sure if any further damage beyond the pin hole would ever happen anyway, but I DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT-
That little $20 gadget takes away the elongated pin hole and any further damage that might or might not occur-

I agree. You can feel the difference.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by m.hony

I don't know that the 3P particularly puts more strain there than any other hitch brand/style.
I had the same thing with my Equal-i-zer-

Originally Posted by Ted S.

They don't.---

Actually -- the PP hitch does.

The PP hitch moves the ball about 12" farther from the TV's rear axle.

For a given tongue weight, the PP hitch will cause about 20% more load to be removed from the TV's front axle relative to a "conventional" hitch.

To restore the same percentage of load to the front axle requires that the PP hitch apply about 20% more torque to the receiver.

Ron

[m.hony]

Thus making the anti rattle device more valuable/useful-
If you can get the shank to be still you're accomplishing a lot-


Sent from my iPhone using Airstream Forums

[JDnBeastlet]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

Yes...a Reese V Tow Beast.

POI...it too has the bit-O-slop syndrome. A feature noted more with the boat, 380Lb TW, as opposed to the AS with it's 1200Lb TW.

The Reese has a sleeve welded in which has the added benefit of adding some extra thickness to the pin hole to prevent excess ware.




The StowAway hitch tightener can be seen here....boat tow set-up.



....along with my greasy ball cover remover and hitch'n guide rod...

Stream Happy....

Bob

That hitch tightener looks like a good product... I thought of buying one until I realized that I'd have to remove it with the stinger, which always gets stowed when we're not towing.

[m.hony]

Install the "anti-rattle" device nuts up to make it easier to remove and install.


Sent from my iPad using Airstream Forums

[PKI]

Why could not the hitch be configured to be located under the rear of the vehicle? The Ball would need to still be behind the back of the vehicle, but not nearly as far as the current design places it. The constraint of low vehicle clearance has mostly gone away with current tow vehicle ground clearance and moving the lower bits forward a foot or so would not eat up enough to matter in the end. Less overhang should project the forces closer or in front of the axle. Seems like a possible improvement and a version 3 would open a new market segment. If it integrated a receiver reinforcement torque arm, I wonder? Guess the real question is, How would you connect/disconnect?

Travel Safe. Pat