Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-13-2013, 09:31 AM   #29
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,138
Images: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

Good luck finding that data except on trailer TW so light that a WDH may not be necessary. What data is available shows that proper leverage is not forthcoming in restoration of the front axle weight value as shown on a scale ticket.

Anti-sway is only a vehicle manufacturer recommendation, an option. Not required. It is both separate and secondary to the above requirement.

The Anderson fails to meet the test necessary to be called a weight-distribution hitch.

Irrelevant, then, that the anti-sway is better than friction bar type (since all others are as well).

Spend your money on something that works.

.
I like a good fiction short story.
__________________

__________________
MICHAEL

Do you know what a learning experience is? A learning experience is one of those things that says "You know that thing that you just did? Don't do that."
AWCHIEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 09:39 AM   #30
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

Good luck finding that data except on trailer TW so light that a WDH may not be necessary. What data is available shows that proper leverage is not forthcoming in restoration of the front axle weight value as shown on a scale ticket.

Anti-sway is only a vehicle manufacturer recommendation, an option. Not required. It is both separate and secondary to the above requirement.

The Anderson fails to meet the test necessary to be called a weight-distribution hitch.

Irrelevant, then, that the anti-sway is better than friction bar type (since all others are as well).

Spend your money on something that works.

.
Your statement above is incorrect, the Andersen does distribute weight just fine.

Although I've not used the Andersen on a big heavy trailer, I do own one and have used it, which is much more first-hand data than you have, Rednax, or whatever your name is today.

I find it very interesting that only the people that have not used an Andersen say it won't work, while everyone that has used it, love it.

So I say to anyone considering an Andersen, who are you going to believe?????
__________________

__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:32 AM   #31
Rivet Master
 
SteveSueMac's Avatar

 
2012 27' Flying Cloud
W , New England
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 5,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover

The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

.
In my users manual (2013 Silverado Duramax) weight distribution is optional, not required. I still decided to go with the ProPride because psychologically I want to believe I'm preventing sway from happening rather than reacting to it, but Andersen was really tempting for cost, simplicity and weight. In the other thread, it appeared to me that for TVs like mine, Andersen may actually be a great choice as the WD requirement is either minimal or optional and there are built in sway control features in the TV. Th decision for me boiled down to a psychological need :-)
__________________
SteveSueMac is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 11:46 AM   #32
Don't forget your cat nap
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,464
Images: 1
Below are two pictures of two different weight distribution hitches . The top one is an Andersen hitch. The bottom is a ProPride 3P. I chose it because the picture shows the complete hitch with weight distribution being applied.

In order to distribute weight with either system you must provide a force at the rear of the TV that will raise the rear of the TV and Lower the front using the rear axis as the fulcrum.

I will start with the ProPride as I am familiar with it. The weight distribution bars are firmly attached to the hitch head and for the analysis of weight distribution can be considered integral to it. The upward force is applied at the end of WD bars, by raising them with the jacks to which they are attached. It seems pretty straight forward until you think about the fact that it appears to be equivalent to lifting yourself by your boot straps. However since you are applying a rotational force to the hitch head which (disregarding what play is in the system) is rigidly attached to the TV, that rotation force is applied to the rear of the TV. The leverage involved, contrary to what would appear to be the case, is not being applied to the point where the jack is attached to the WD bar. It is being applied as a clockwise rotational force at the point where the WD bars have a ninety degree turn. This is because the jacks are anchored on the A frame not the ground.

In the case of the Andersen Hitch this rotational force is being applied by the rearward force provided by the the chains. What is going to determine the actual force necessary to accomplish the same weight distribution is the right angle distance from the projection of the hitch receiver bar and the attachment point of the chain or in the case of the PP, the center of the bend in the bar. Here is where I am guessing. From the pictures, that distance seems to be about 6 inches for the Andersen and about 1 foot for the ProPride. From that I would deduce that it requires, in these two pictured examples, more rearward force to distribute the same weight with the Andersen.

The other differences in construction such as materials used and construction techniques need further research by someone more interested than I.

I really have no horse in this race, because I don't care what others tow with. I did this analysis to satisfy my own curiosity about what is going on and not to make a judgment of either WD system.

I am not guarantying that this analysis is correct not am I prepared to defend it. I am simply sharing what conclusion I came to. You will not hurt my feelings by attempting to blast it to kingdom come. I will be interested in reading any other analysis, but will not enter into arguments of the relative merits of those versus this.

Ken












__________________
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 01:12 PM   #33
3 Rivet Member
 
steveirving's Avatar
 
1959 24' Tradewind
Quantico , Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 126
Images: 11
Blog Entries: 6
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.
__________________
steveirving is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 01:17 PM   #34
Don't forget your cat nap
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,464
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveirving View Post
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.

I believe that, if I had a similar TV and TT, I would make the same choice.

Ken
__________________
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 01:36 PM   #35
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveirving View Post
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.
My '74 Argosy weighs 4200# loaded to tow, with a 710# tongue weight. I tow with an Andersen and a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The combination is great in all ways.
__________________
idroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 02:16 PM   #36
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,140
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
Here is the way I see it. In geometrical terms. The connection point (coupler and ball combination) is like the truss on the roof of a house. Although the hitch does not have as high of a peak as a house, it does exist. The roof on your house can hold a tremendous amount of weight. Because the base of the triangle does not change in length when loaded.
The same goes for a WD hitch. Regardless of the brand. If you were to hitch the trailer to the TV without the WD hitch. The odds are that the rear of the TV and the tongue of the trailer would go down. Forming a "V" shape. I think everyone can agree to this.
In the case of the Andersen hitch you tension the chains with no load on the TV. So the rear of the TV and tongue are at a slight upward angle. If you were to lift the rear of the TV with the tongue jack while the coupler is locked onto the ball, the upward angle of the hitch point would be higher. Now if you were to tighten the chains, making the base of the triangle shorter, the WD would increase because when you raise the tongue jack the bottom of the triangle can only increase by the amount of compression of the urethane bushings.
On the conventional WD hitch, the spring bars prevent the connection point from sinking by pulling down on the trailer "A" frame in turn pushing up on the connection point. In effect, shortening the base of the triangle.
The conventional WD is matched to the trailer by the weight rating of the bars.
Perhaps the Andersen hitch should have urethane bushings with varying weight capacities. The unit of measure for rubber is derometer (sp) when it comes to compression figures. Not sure if the same scale is used for urethane.
Anyway. That's my take on it.
I have found it a lot easier to adjust the tension on the Andersen hitch by raising the tongue higher while hitched. As opposed to tightening the nut while the chains are taught. Not sure if the guys at Andersen would agree with this procedure. But it works for me.
__________________
Knowledge: "A gift to be shared. A treasure to receive."
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 02:48 PM   #37
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,138
Images: 33
Ken, help me out. I have read and reread you post (#32) several times and I can not figure out what your point or conclusion is. Can you please explain to me. Keep in mind that I am not an engineer and base my feelings about the Andersen on actual use and not theory.
__________________
MICHAEL

Do you know what a learning experience is? A learning experience is one of those things that says "You know that thing that you just did? Don't do that."
AWCHIEF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 04:55 PM   #38
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
I have stayed of the Andersen Thread for some time now, as I got tired of providing data that the hitch did work. It was humorous at first, seeing the NAPKIN engineers throw out numbers. but it just gets old proving them wrong over and over again, with scale numbers, first hand experiences and the real engineers at Andersen that did the work in the beginning.

If you want the simplest hitch to put on, that also controls sway and distributes weight, then give it a try.

If you want to say it doesn't work, then buy one and provide some real data to show it doesn't.

Most of the other thread is a waste for most readers as it is fictional data from a napkin, and peoples opinion that it doesn't work when they have never used it. When you have it hooked up, see it distribute weight or see the scale numbers you know it does work.

I also see Andy for can am was brought up again. Any of us with an Andersen hitches can plainly see he didn't follow the directions and didn't hook it up right. And I never saw another post from him. (But then I quite reading it a while ago.) Not sure what the motivation behind his posts where???

So for those interested, all the speculation has been debunked somewhere in the thread, (if you can sift through it to find it) I have well over 3000 miles on mine and love it.
__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 07:48 PM   #39
Don't forget your cat nap
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,464
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWCHIEF View Post
Ken, help me out. I have read and reread you post (#32) several times and I can not figure out what your point or conclusion is. Can you please explain to me. Keep in mind that I am not an engineer and base my feelings about the Andersen on actual use and not theory.
There was no point. I was simply trying to justify in my mind how a weight distribution bar hitch and an Andersen hitch's chain system correlated to each other. At first look it appeared that there was a big advantage force wise to the bar system. However after realizing, that because of the fact that the bar jack is mounted on the trailer not the ground (duh ), the big advantage was an illusion. I have only had a chance to glance at TG Twinkie's post, but found it interesting and want to think about what he saying and see if it helps me understand. I am not an engineer, but I took two years of general engineering before I ended up with a degree in meteorology. So, I had a good education working with force diagrams (ala 1960's).

Where I stand right now is that the major factor in either system is how much vertical separation there is between where the WD force is actually being applied and the horizontal plane of the hitch bar in the truck.

After doing this, I am much more comfortable with how the Andersen hitch distributes weight. However I still want to put some more study into correlating the two methods.

I don't know if this clears up what I'm doing or not.

I believe that putting thoughts into writing aids my understanding. If I can trick someone else into reading them, so much the better.

If my line of thought is correct, one could get the best Weight transfer with a given force by mounting the receiver high on the truck and having a long drop down to the hitch.

Ken
__________________
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 09:07 PM   #40
Don't forget your cat nap
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,464
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG Twinkie View Post
Here is the way I see it. In geometrical terms. The connection point (coupler and ball combination) is like the truss on the roof of a house. Although the hitch does not have as high of a peak as a house, it does exist. The roof on your house can hold a tremendous amount of weight. Because the base of the triangle does not change in length when loaded.
The same goes for a WD hitch. Regardless of the brand. If you were to hitch the trailer to the TV without the WD hitch. The odds are that the rear of the TV and the tongue of the trailer would go down. Forming a "V" shape. I think everyone can agree to this.
In the case of the Andersen hitch you tension the chains with no load on the TV. So the rear of the TV and tongue are at a slight upward angle. If
Perhaps the Andersen hitch should have urethane bushings with varying weight capacities. The unit of measure for rubber is derometer (sp) when it comes to compression figures. Not sure if the same scale is used for urethane.
Anyway. That's my take on it.
I have found it a lot easier to adjust the tension on the Andersen hitch by raising the tongue higher while hitched. As opposed to tightening the nut while the chains are taught. Not sure if the guys at Andersen would agree with this procedure. But it works for me.
I have read your post a few times and will have to read it a few more while trying to see how it correlates (or if it does) with what I think I am trying to say.

As I see it the only function the urethane bushing preforms is to dampen the shock being transferred back and forth and forth between TV and TT. The hitch would preform as well without it, but there would be a rougher ride for TT and TV. It makes sense that different rated bushings be offered to allow for tuning the hitch to each TV TT combo.

Not only the Andersen, but any WD hitch that I have used is much easier to set the weight distribution force, if the tongue jack is used to unload the downward force from the hitch first.

Ken
__________________
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 09:49 PM   #41
Rivet Master
 
ROBERTSUNRUS's Avatar

 
2005 25' Safari
Salem , Oregon
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 7,269
Images: 18
Blog Entries: 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Road Ruler View Post
Or you can view a quick summary here.......

Key info to date....



It was reported that another possible limitation for some vehicles is that the ANDERSEN has no angle adjustment on the head like most other WDH's.

Hi, the purpose of the angle adjustment on the head is to increase tension on the spring bars; Since the Andersen uses chains, changing the angle of the head would be totally useless.
__________________
Bob

2005 Safari 25-B
"Le Petit Chateau Argent"
[ Small Silver Castle ]
2000 Navigator / 2014 F-150 Eco-Boost / Equal-i-zer / P-3
YAMAHA 2400 / AIR #12144
ROBERTSUNRUS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 09:51 PM   #42
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG Twinkie View Post
Here is the way I see it. In geometrical terms. The connection point (coupler and ball combination) is like the truss on the roof of a house. Although the hitch does not have as high of a peak as a house, it does exist. The roof on your house can hold a tremendous amount of weight. Because the base of the triangle does not change in length when loaded.
The same goes for a WD hitch. Regardless of the brand. If you were to hitch the trailer to the TV without the WD hitch. The odds are that the rear of the TV and the tongue of the trailer would go down. Forming a "V" shape. I think everyone can agree to this.
In the case of the Andersen hitch you tension the chains with no load on the TV. So the rear of the TV and tongue are at a slight upward angle. If you were to lift the rear of the TV with the tongue jack while the coupler is locked onto the ball, the upward angle of the hitch point would be higher. Now if you were to tighten the chains, making the base of the triangle shorter, the WD would increase because when you raise the tongue jack the bottom of the triangle can only increase by the amount of compression of the urethane bushings.
On the conventional WD hitch, the spring bars prevent the connection point from sinking by pulling down on the trailer "A" frame in turn pushing up on the connection point. In effect, shortening the base of the triangle.
The conventional WD is matched to the trailer by the weight rating of the bars.
Perhaps the Andersen hitch should have urethane bushings with varying weight capacities. The unit of measure for rubber is derometer (sp) when it comes to compression figures. Not sure if the same scale is used for urethane.
Anyway. That's my take on it.
I have found it a lot easier to adjust the tension on the Andersen hitch by raising the tongue higher while hitched. As opposed to tightening the nut while the chains are taught. Not sure if the guys at Andersen would agree with this procedure. But it works for me.
Good explanation. And yes the easy (correct) way to tension the chains is with the load off the hitch ball, then lower it and truck and trailer will settle to their proper attitude. That is how Andersen instructs to tension the chains in their directions.

If the trailer is not level or truck at its unloaded attitude, as measured at the wheel wells, the hitch bar height is too high or too low and needs further adjustment. Once done, it is repeatable by counting the threads on the chain tensioner, or measuring compression on the urethane bushing as the chains are tightened (with the tongue jack down and weight off the ball). Very simple and easy.

doug k
__________________

__________________
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 07:52 PM.


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.