Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 11-05-2014, 07:22 AM   #211
Rivet Master
 
SteveSueMac's Avatar

 
2012 27' Flying Cloud
W , New England
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
Cody, if your 2500HD is anything like mine, GM does not require a WD hitch for your application. I am not saying they are a bad thing, just that GM engineers are not nearly as worried about front axle weight restoration as some of the posters on here. But what do they know? I think you will enjoy the many benefits of the Andersen. Let us know how it works out.
Actually - that's a good point. My GM2500 manual says for trailers up to 18000#, a WD hitch is optional. By there's another section of the manual with a much more complicated chart that shows when 0%, 50% or 100% FALR is required even for trailers as light as mine (5800#, >1000# tongue needs 50% FALR).

OP should check the manual. Maybe this will work after all! Also - double check Andersen's website - there's a specific coupler they don't want you to connect to. That's been discussed here too.
__________________

__________________
SteveSueMac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 09:40 AM   #212
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Not that it matters, since Cody has a 2500HD, but the percentages quoted (50 & 100) are for the Silverado 1500 in the 2013 owner's manual. Other years may be different.
__________________

__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 12:03 PM   #213
New Member
 
Sundre , Alberta
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 3
I appreciate the responses. I've done a quick reference to one of my manuals, but the chart only shows Max Trailer Weight (15,800#, limited to 13,000# with conventional hitch) and GCWR (24,500#). W/D hitch is optional and I am to refer to the trailer manufacturer's recommendation for hitch distribution.
__________________
Cody1774 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 08:10 PM   #214
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cody1774 View Post
I appreciate the responses. I've done a quick reference to one of my manuals, but the chart only shows Max Trailer Weight (15,800#, limited to 13,000# with conventional hitch) and GCWR (24,500#). W/D hitch is optional and I am to refer to the trailer manufacturer's recommendation for hitch distribution.
I doubt that the trailer manufacturer will provide any guidance for "hitch distribution".

If you are interested in what other TV manufacturers specify --
Ford says to eliminate approximately 50% of the front-end rise. This corresponds to restoring approximately 50% of the load which was removed from the front axle (50% FALR).
Toyota indicates 100% FALR.

For guidance from WDH manufacturers --
Equal-i-zer indicates 50-100% FALR.
Reese now recommends 100% FALR.

And, Andersen says the WDH should be adjusted to make the TV "pretty close to level".
That usually implies the FALR should be more than 100%.
With your tongue weight, I doubt that can be achieved with the Andersen WDH.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-05-2014, 10:02 PM   #215
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
"If" you purchase a Ford, I would do as Ron suggests and follow their recommendations/requirements. Last I knew, GM produced the Denali 2500HD. There are those that seem to have a lot invested in following the old system of weight distribution that was required for softly sprung automobiles and light duty pickup trucks. The Andersen would not work as well with an old Buick as the Reese WD hitches of that era.
__________________
Rendrag is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2014, 05:33 PM   #216
Rivet Master
 
1998 30' Excella 1000
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 546
SafariBez, did you ever get a chance to take a photo of your fix?
__________________
Siegmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2014, 05:48 PM   #217
4 Rivet Member
 
2015 30' FB FC Bunk
2012 25' FB Flying Cloud
Golden , Colorado
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 401
I drove my 2012 GMC Denali 2500HD with and without WD and there was no real difference. The long wheel base of the Denali makes it harder to put weight up there through the WD. It did seem to porpoise a lot which the Anderson should help eliminate. Now that I think about it the expansion joints were easier on the rig without the WD. The class V receiver drop I needed to get to the correct height for the Airstream pushed the ball even further away from the axles. If I were to do it over I would just run a short length drop with a friction brake. Anyway I would like to know what you think of the Anderson.
__________________
2012FB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2014, 07:05 PM   #218
Rivet Master
 
1998 30' Excella 1000
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 546
idroba, I was wondering if you know of any detail reports for exactly how the Atwood coupler has failed, in the cases that it has failed. My original Airstream manual for my '98 has an exploded diagram for the Atwood coupler showing a "tongue & spring assy" within the coupler housing, where the vertical metal riser piece is attached to the "tongue" (that holds the ball) via a pin. I was wondering if the stresses of the Anderson hitch could shear this pin and allow the tongue to rise up in the housing and release the ball. If so, wear/damage here is not easy to inspect, or if it could fail, it might fail abruptly, with no visible wear to warn you.
__________________
Siegmann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-12-2014, 07:39 PM   #219
retired USA/USAF

 
2001 30' Excella
Somerset , New Jersey
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,155
The failures mentioned with the Atwood coupler seem to be with the " shark fin". When coupled and secure a little metal tab protrudes up for the latch to catch on. The claim is that the Anderson puts excessive force in the weight dist. action and may cause this tab to fail which loosens the latch and therefore will leave the coupler with nothing to latch it onto the ball. I still have mine and am keeping an eye on it. So far all is well after 3 yrs. and many miles towing with the Anderson. However, understanding that this failure has happened I have a new coupler to weld on just haven't done it yet. A forum contributor here, HowiE, may be able to articulate, better than I have, the failure issue, check with him if necessary.
__________________
Roger in NJ

" Democracy is the worst form of government. Except for all the rest"
Winston Churchill 1948

TAC - NJ 18

polarlyse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2014, 12:14 PM   #220
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
The only issue I am aware of with the Atwood coupler is wear on the "shark fin" which allows the rear ball lock to move possibly unlocking the ball.

I eliminated the motion by adopting another forum poster's idea of simply drilling out the coupler ball lock holes so they are both exactly 3/8" and pinning them together with a 3/8" bolt or pin while in use. With no movement, the fin cannot wear or move forward and all is well. The slop in the original un-pinned system allowed both movement and potential wear on the fin.

I would caution any user of the Atwood coupler with any hitch type at all to periodically inspect the inner workings for wear and cracking. On my Argosy, prior to installation of the Andersen hitch, I was concerned with the sloppy ball fit in the cup. Upon degreasing and careful inspection, I found cracks in the inner cup caused by years of wear and tear on the coupler. I had it replaced with another Atwood, prior to Andersen's finding out that the fin on the newer ones was a trouble point. So, I use the enlarged and pinned hole solution on both of my Trailers, the '74 and the '14.

I have towed Airstreams and Argosy's probably 200,000 miles over the past 36 years, mostly with Reese and Draw Tight hitches. I have now towed with the Andersen 3 seasons and about 12 to 15,000 miles and find it superior in tow quality and ease of hook up. The TV and trailer tow as one unit, not two, and the trailer simply feels like an extension of the TV, rather than a separate unit.

The Trailers are both 20', both have tongue weights of about 700# as loaded for travel, and the tow vehicle is a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee. As the Jeep has total air suspension and leveling (no springs at all), I did the set up at the scales to be sure that I was transferring proper weight.

I would not go back to a conventional WD hitch after using the Andersen, and I have several I could use.
__________________
idroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2014, 12:24 PM   #221
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by idroba View Post

I eliminated the motion by adopting another forum poster's idea of simply drilling out the coupler ball lock holes so they are both exactly 3/8" and pinning them together with a 3/8" bolt or pin while in use. With no movement, the fin cannot wear or move forward and all is well. The slop in the original un-pinned system allowed both movement and potential wear on the fin.
Very interesting point. My fin had failed before that option had been suggested.
Please keep us up to day on your history as this may negate the need to change couplers if do at the time of installation of an Andersen.

Yes periodic inspection of an Atwood is a good idea. Years ago the complete innards of mine fell out while uncoupling
__________________
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 11-13-2014, 01:54 PM   #222
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
Advising using the standard Airstream Atwood coupler with the Andersen hitch is dangerous. The Andersen manufacturer warns against it.

If the coupler mechanism fails with a conventional spring bar hitch, the clamping configuration of the spring bars will prevent the hitch from uncoupling. If the coupler mechanism with a Andersen hitch (which has no spring bars while the unique design contributes to its probability of failure) there is nothing to prevent you from going down the road with an uncoupled trailer.

Loss of that extra measure of safety that spring bars provide against the failure of a coupler allowing uncoupling for any reason, as described in recent posts, ought to be considered when choosing a Andersen hitch.
__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles

The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-13-2014, 02:39 PM   #223
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Advising using the standard Airstream Atwood coupler with the Andersen hitch is dangerous. The Andersen manufacturer warns against it.

Andersen posted this comment in their manual after several users had experienced failure of an Atwood coupler. It was post not as a blanket limitation to the use of the Andersen hitch but more like the advise that car makers put on their diesel fueled vehicles "Diesel Only". Some are considering that as a means of discrediting the Andersen altogether. The Atwood coupler referred to in this comment is not the only coupling used in the RV industry and should not be considered as a limiting statement. Yes within this Forum it is the common couple used on Airstream and one should consider tha point when selecting a hitch system.

If the coupler mechanism fails with a conventional spring bar hitch, the clamping configuration of the spring bars will prevent the hitch from uncoupling. If the coupler mechanism with a Andersen hitch (which has no spring bars while the unique design contributes to its probability of failure) there is nothing to prevent you from going down the road with an uncoupled trailer.

If you are using an Andersen hitch with an Atwood coupler and if the fin did shear off there is NO immediate fear of uncoupling of the trailer from the TV because of the downward pressure of the tongue weight. I drove mine in a failed mode, through out the south, before I changed the coupler and returning to the pot hole infested roads of New Jersey.

Loss of that extra measure of safety that spring bars provide against the failure of a coupler allowing uncoupling for any reason, as described in recent posts, ought to be considered when choosing a Andersen hitch.

Yes a spring bar system will provide additional downward force on the ball. However that additional load will cause a harsher ride overall. That Spring function of a ba sytdtem and the resulting resonant frequency of the bars being close to that of the resonant frequency of road condition at certain speeds is what produces purposing.

There is no clear choice when it comes to selecting a hitch system. Each individual has to made that decision based on several factors. After 40+ years of towing a range of trailers I have found the Andersen to be the hitch of choice for my current rig, based on cost, quality of ride, improved sway control, and easy of operation.
__________________
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 11-13-2014, 02:50 PM   #224
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
Two opposing points of view for sure.

I choose to remove our Andersen hitch and install a ProPride. I can assure you the Andersen does not measure up to the confidence, performance, gentle ride, ease of use, and safety our new hitch provides.

Too each his own.
__________________

__________________
Doug and Cheryl
2012 FC RB, Michelin 16, ProPride 1400
2016 Ram 1500 Laramie Crew Cab 4X4 Ecodiesel 3.92 axles

The Truth is More Important Than the Facts
dkottum 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 11:22 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.