Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-07-2013, 04:01 PM   #127
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
doug;
We used to have a saying in the construction industry, "That guy could mess up a crowbar". The point is that nothing is foolproof, if the fool is motivated enough. I am not calling anyone a fool, but I thought I was a hotshot mechanic when I first discovered that I could twist a bolt in half if I used a long enough wrench and enough torque. I don't think it is surprising that someone might overcompress the Andersen bushings in an attempt to make it do what it can't. I think Andersen way overstates the capacity of their no sway hitch and that it is inadequate for some. (They may well be the first corporation to do that). Those that find it adequate are in for a really good towing experience. Too bad that you are not among them, but you should really be happy with your PP.
__________________

__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 04:25 PM   #128
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
Rendrag, that's not an over compressed bushing. That's a normally adjusted Andersen exactly as by their instructions and phone call to the company. There is virtually no flexibility in any Andersen hitch installation.

doug k
__________________

__________________
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 05:01 PM   #129
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
I am an Andersen user. I have posted many times. I like the hitch.

As to the possibility of the ball coming uncoupled with the Andersen vs other hitches in case of coupler failure, consider this:

The bushings are compressed maybe 3/8 to 1/2 inch when loaded. If the coupler fails, the most the bushing and chain can push the coupler forward is that 3/8 to 1/2 inch. I don't see how that can cause uncoupling, especially as the tongue weight is still present in all events. In my case it is 700# holding the coupler, even if failed, down on the ball.

Any coupler failure, with any hitch is not good. It has been stated that with a normal WD hitch the spring bars "hold the coupler down on the ball" but so does the normal hitch weight. I don't think that the additional spring bar tension is going to make a major difference.

Also, with a failed coupler rear pawl, and any WD hitch, going downhill the trailer pushes forward on the coupler and in theory could cause the ball to detach from the coupler. I just don't see how the Andersen is all that different.

When I got my Andersen and was looking carefully at my coupler on my Argosy, I found that it was internally cracked, and for who knows for how long. The conventional Reese and Draw Tight hitches I had been using were seemingly working fine. They maybe even masked the problem of a cracked coupler. Of course, I replaced the coupler with another (an identical one prior to the information about the Atwood 88xxx series and the Andersen). The coupler I replaced had no indications of wear on the rear paul which is the item in question, it was the internal cup which had the crack in it. Maybe that internal cup cracked due to the hitch weight and the extra spring bar weight that conventional WD hitches imposed. Who knows. It was also 38 years old and highly likely that it had well over 100,000 miles on it. It was cracked, but had not failed.

I believe that too many here are arguing points that they have opinions and speculations on, but no numerical facts, and that included my posts. I don't believe any WD hitch manufacturer has a full set of engineering data on the stresses in their hitches, nor those that they impose on the associated couplers of the trailers they could haul.

There are many opinions here, stated as facts. Unfortunately they are unsupported by measured data, and will probably remain so, on all WD hitches, not just Andersen.
__________________
idroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 05:53 PM   #130
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
As one who ALMOST NEVER reads a manual I seam to be having slightly different results than those that do. Yes I did read the Andersen manual before I installed my hitch. And yes I did call Andersen and question their statement that an 1 1/2 rise in the front end was acceptable, which clearly is not.

That said I installed my hitch as I saw fit with the intent to produce enough weight transfer as to return the front axle to it's original steering geometry position. Mine is a leaf spring 4x4 and thus the height measurement is not as critical as an A frame vehicle. That said I returned the front fender to the original height.

You will note in these pictures that this was accomplished without exploding the bushings. The first picture is unloaded, the second is loaded, the third shows my 34 ft, 8,900 lbs trailer, you know one of those so called large trailers that the Andersen will not work with, ready to roll, the fourth show the brackets remounted to reduce chain ware. Please note the bushings while loaded are not about to explode.

Now I can't say without first hand examination of their installations why are 2 or 3 individuals repeatedly stating the Andersen does not or can not work, I can say that I have twice offered one of them to buy his Andersens. He just won't part with it. Nor mine.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	unload.JPG
Views:	90
Size:	108.7 KB
ID:	187674   Click image for larger version

Name:	loaded.JPG
Views:	82
Size:	103.5 KB
ID:	187675  

Click image for larger version

Name:	rig.JPG
Views:	92
Size:	162.3 KB
ID:	187676  
__________________
WBCCI 12156 AIR 3144 WACHUNG TAC NJ6
2004 Excursion 4x4
1991 34 ft. Excella +220,000 miles, new laminated flooring, new upholstery, new 3200 lbs axles

HowieE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 06:00 PM   #131
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
You have a weight ticket to go along with those pictures, Howie? Also, do you have a better side view picture of the whole rig hitched?
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 06:49 PM   #132
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
You have a weight ticket to go along with those pictures, Howie? Also, do you have a better side view picture of the whole rig hitched?
Yes Steve you know I do as you had asked for them on my original Andersen thread.

http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ead-92131.html

Unfortunately I don't have the post number right now but will repost them if you want. Maybe Ron, who has a better grasp on Search than I, will search for them and post them here.
__________________
WBCCI 12156 AIR 3144 WACHUNG TAC NJ6
2004 Excursion 4x4
1991 34 ft. Excella +220,000 miles, new laminated flooring, new upholstery, new 3200 lbs axles

HowieE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 07:32 PM   #133
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
Ron, you may want to research some more. Ford now has 50% for some of their models---
I believe Ford now has a single specification corresponding to 50% FALR for any vehicle for which a WDH adjustment procedure is published.
If you know of any 2013 Ford which has a different WDH adjustment specification, I would appreciate seeing a link to a reference.

Quote:
---and the GM 1500 models towing from 7,000 to 9,000 pounds also have a 50% requirement---
You are correct and I got this part wrong. It is the 1500 which has the dual-percentage specification and not the 2500/3500 as I stated.
However, I believe the 100% threshhold for the 1500 is 9,900# rather than 9,000#.

Quote:
---and as you note, the 2500/3500 series are not subject to a single specification.---
Actually, the 2500/3500 trucks are not subject to a FALR specification at all -- because no WDH is required for trailer weight up to 18,000# and I don't see any 2500/3500 trucks which are rated for more than 18,000#.
WDH is "optional" for the 2500/3500 trucks and I find no specification for how to adjust the WDH if you do decide to use one.

I think it is correct to say that the 2013 GM/Chevrolet 1500 trucks are the only vehicles for which the manufacturer specifies a dual percentage for WDH adjustment.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:10 PM   #134
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowieE View Post
---Maybe Ron, who has a better grasp on Search than I, will search for them and post them here.
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1229114

The scales data indicate 300# was removed from the steer axle,
the Andersen WDH caused 120# to be restored, and
the net load change was 180# removed from the steer axle.

Having 180# removed from the steer axle does not seem to be consistent with the claim of returning the front to its original height.

But, it is not uncommon for height measurements to be in disagreement with axle load measurements.
People have reported that, if they measure the front height and then drive the TV/TT around the block, there can be a significant change in the height.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 08:16 PM   #135
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Ron;
It is not correct to say, "2013 GM/Chevrolet 1500 trucks are the only vehicles for which the manufacturer specifies a dual percentage for WDH adjustment." My 2012 1500 had exactly the same requirements as the 2013. I do not know and don't care about earlier models. A logical person would deduct that not all vehicles need 100% FALR all the time. GM and Ford, may be mistaken. I see a grey area between 0% and 100%. Others may not.
__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:12 PM   #136
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
It is not correct to say, "2013 GM/Chevrolet 1500 trucks are the only vehicles for which the manufacturer specifies a dual percentage for WDH adjustment." My 2012 1500 had exactly the same requirements as the 2013.---
Apparently your 2012 manual differs from the online 2012 Silverado Owners Manual
http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Ownership/Manuals%20and%20Videos/02_pdf/2k12silverado.pdf

In the online manual, I find no differentiation between 50% and 100% -- only a single specification which is:
"A. Body to Ground Distance
B. Front of Vehicle
When using a weight-distributing
hitch, the spring bars should be
adjusted so the distance (A) is the
same after coupling the trailer to the
tow vehicle and adjusting the hitch."

Quote:
A logical person would deduct that not all vehicles need 100% FALR all the time.---
I agree. Most vehicles don't require weight distribution at all, below a certain tongue weight.

But, that's not what we've been debating.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:49 PM   #137
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
I am not debating anything, just reporting what some manufacturers have to say about their products. It is funny that you quote the manual as the final authority on some subjects, yet defer to your own thinking on others. The GM manuals state that measurements are to be used with WD hitches. When that does not agree with your thinking, scale tickets are demanded with some mumbo jumbo about possible error with measurements. I like scales, but measurements are good enough for most of us, according to the manual. The printed manual that came with my 2012 had the 50% chart, the online version does not. Doesn't really matter, as they are the same vehicle and the later manuals reflect GM's current philosophy. Not mine, not yours.
__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 09:50 PM   #138
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by dkottum View Post
Rendrag, that's not an over compressed bushing. That's a normally adjusted Andersen exactly as by their instructions and phone call to the company. There is virtually no flexibility in any Andersen hitch installation.
When Andrew T posted his bushing photo, he was accused of rigging the test.

IMO, Andrew's bushing doesn't look any worse than FloridaLarry's, which I'm guessing was not rigged.

Andrew's bushing:
http://cdn.airforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=168765&stc=1&thumb=1&d =1348249496

FloridaLarry's bushing:
http://cdn.airforums.com/forums/atta...1&d=1369916834
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:28 PM   #139
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
---It is funny that you quote the manual as the final authority on some subjects, yet defer to your own thinking on others. The GM manuals state that measurements are to be used with WD hitches. When that does not agree with your thinking, scale tickets are demanded with some mumbo jumbo about possible error with measurements.---
Things are getting a bit twisted --

I'm not quoting manuals as the final authority. I'm quoting the manuals as being the only source I know of for tow vehicle manufacturers' specifications on how to adjust a WDH -- which is what I thought was what Bob was asking about and what the discussion was about.

I also didn't demand any scale tickets. I posted a link to Howie's tickets at his suggestion.

BTW, when you are referring to FALR, you are referring to Front Axle Load Restoration and not Front Axle Height Restoration.
I don't care whether one wants to use load or height as a measure.
However if one believes that, on average, restoring front end height to unhitched height is not essentially the same as restoring front axle load to unhitched load, one is fooling oneself.

I'm sure the Moderator and members are getting quite weary of our exchanges, so this will be my last post on this topic.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-07-2013, 10:30 PM   #140
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
If someone wants to buy me a replacement, I will use the big wrench and pop a bushing like a balloon at my grandson's birthday party. Pretty easy, actually.
__________________

__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.