Anderson Weight Distribution Anti-Sway Hitch

[HowieE]

2012FB

Thanks for your detailed response describing your experience with the Andersen.

Sorry you were given the impression that the hitch would work with your TV. However the ML350 would fall into the limitation I have mentioned in this and other treads relating to the Andersen. The suspension falls into what I consider "Softly Sprung" and thus could have problems obtains reasonable results relating to WD. The suspension has an additional factor that causes me to question if it could be used with a WD hitch. From the specs of the ML350, the presence of an Anti-Squat and alignment control. That system,if computer controlled could cause a conflict.
The upper arms are made of an aluminum alloy with high strength. It also has anti-squat and alignment control along with a stabilizer bar.

Early GM Suburbans had a rear axle brake modulator that controlled rear brake force as a function of rear axle load. When loaded the rear brake force was increased. However when a WD hitch was installed and adjusted, even given the additional weight of the trailer added to the combination, the rear brakes were in fact reduced. Those that realized this disconnected that control and GM quietly eliminated that idea

One can invent a better mouse trap but can not always envision it will work for all mice.

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by 2012FB

From my experience the Anderson has very little weight transfer capability.

That is one of the huge reasons why most folks shy away from the product.

[AWCHIEF]

Originally Posted by Road Ruler

That is one of the huge reasons why most folks shy away from the product.

Curious, what is the source of your information? Every time I go camping I seem to seem more Andersons in use by not just Airstream owners but SOBs. That also goes for a noticeable increase in users of the Blue OX SwayPro system.

[Bob662]

Here's my take-away from reading all 172 pages of the Andersen hitch thread. I hope those more knowledgeable will correct any flaws in my understanding.

1. The Andersen hitch is quiet and trailers ride more smoothly with it.
2. It works great for light-weight trailers (under 5,000 lbs.)
3. For heavier trailers it will work, but the TV has to be heavy duty (i.e., not softly sprung).
4. The AH doesn't transfer much weight to the front axle, but it does a fine job of sway control.
5. It can damage the coupler over time, and the coupler will likely need to be changed to one recommended by Andersen.

Here's my take on the TV question. If you're towing with a pick-up, particularly a 4X4 pick-up, those vehicles have terrible front-rear weight geometry, so weight at the back is a good thing. The rear weight may even achieve a 50:50 weight distribution, and that's also a good thing, with the front wheels still adequately loaded. So not much weight distribution by the Andersen to the front axle may work fine. But if you're pulling a high tongue weight trailer with a softly sprung vehicle, the Andersen is not a good choice.

This is my summary of over 2,000 posts. I hope I got it right.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Road Ruler

That is one of the huge reasons why most folks shy away from the product.

Thank you for your comments. It is interesting to see that those commenting against the Andersen is limited to 4 or 5 individuals while those commenting on there satisfaction is not so limited.

If your avatar represents you TV I can easily see your reasoning. But just in case that is not the case please describe the towing combination, if you did in fact use an Andersen, that warrants your position.

I have found a product that work far better that what I had been using, several different Reese systems, and have posted those limitations that I have had with it. I believe we would all be better served if others take that position.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Bob662

Here's my take-away from reading all 172 pages of the Andersen hitch thread. I hope those more knowledgeable will correct any flaws in my understanding.

1. The Andersen hitch is quiet and trailers ride more smoothly with it.
2. It works great for light-weight trailers (under 5,000 lbs.)
3. For heavier trailers it will work, but the TV has to be heavy duty (i.e., not softly sprung).
4. The AH doesn't transfer much weight to the front axle, but it does a fine job of sway control.
5. It can damage the coupler over time, and the coupler will likely need to be changed to one recommended by Andersen.

Here's my take on the TV question. If you're towing with a pick-up, particularly a 4X4 pick-up, those vehicles have terrible front-rear weight geometry, so weight at the back is a good thing. The rear weight may even achieve a 50:50 weight distribution, and that's also a good thing, with the front wheels still adequately loaded. So not much weight distribution by the Andersen to the front axle may work fine. But if you're pulling a high tongue weight trailer with a softly sprung vehicle, the Andersen is not a good choice.

This is my summary of over 2,000 posts. I hope I got it right.

You Did

[AWCHIEF]

Bob, pretty close. Not everyone that has actually used the Andersen system will agree. But that is ok as like most things opinions can be influenced by expectations and perceptions.

[dkottum]

Originally Posted by Bob662

Here's my take-away from reading all 172 pages of the Andersen hitch thread. I hope those more knowledgeable will correct any flaws in my understanding.

1. The Andersen hitch is quiet and trailers ride more smoothly with it.
2. It works great for light-weight trailers (under 5,000 lbs.)
3. For heavier trailers it will work, but the TV has to be heavy duty (i.e., not softly sprung).
4. The AH doesn't transfer much weight to the front axle, but it does a fine job of sway control.
5. It can damage the coupler over time, and the coupler will likely need to be changed to one recommended by Andersen.

Here's my take on the TV question. If you're towing with a pick-up, particularly a 4X4 pick-up, those vehicles have terrible front-rear weight geometry, so weight at the back is a good thing. The rear weight may even achieve a 50:50 weight distribution, and that's also a good thing, with the front wheels still adequately loaded. So not much weight distribution by the Andersen to the front axle may work fine. But if you're pulling a high tongue weight trailer with a softly sprung vehicle, the Andersen is not a good choice.

This is my summary of over 2,000 posts. I hope I got it right.

Bob, you take is pretty close. The Andersen hitch would be better described as an expensive friction sway control than an effective weight distribution hitch. But it would not distribute needed tongue weight with our two half-ton pickups, a 2006 Tundra 4x4 and then a 2012 Ram 1500 4x4 towing our 2012 25' Airstream.

We had a similar experience to 2012FB above shortly after getting the hitch. At night on the interstate with plenty of semi traffic, a light mist began to fall. The roadway became slippery and our steering became so light we were barely able to make it to the next rest stop without going off the road each time a semi passed.

We stayed the night there, then proceeded on the next day. Based on the glowing remarks by a few on this forum I thought it must be my installation of the hitch that was the problem. So I continued to tinker and adjust in an attempt to make it work.

The more tension I put on the chain/urethane bushing the greater the problems that came up, unusual wear of many of its components. It became obvious the product simply is not adequate for our size combination. On this forum Ron Gratz provided a mathematical example that the hitch does not have the mechanical leverage to transfer more than a small amount of weight. Andrew Thomson run a test on it and found it totally inadequate for weight distribution, but a pretty good friction sway control device. He didn't like it but I doubted him for awhile.

After much tinkering on two different trucks I finally wised up, got rid of the Andersen, bought a ProPride (Hensley design). It actually does work, totally eliminates the possibility of sway and pushing of our combo by semi's passing, is very easy to use (the hitch head stays on the Airstream) back the stinger into it, latch up and go (five minutes). There is no porpoising because the weight can easily be distributed to the front axle. And it extends the distance between truck and trailer with no negative sway leverage effect so I can lower the truck tail gate completely.

I can't speak for heavy duty trucks pulling Airstreams, or light trucks pulling tiny trailers because I haven't used it that way (I would however be concerned about the lack of vertical flexibility in the truck/trailer connection that is provided only by the partially or completely compressed urethane bushings, as opposed to the range of flexibility of conventional weight distribution bars). But for our two half-ton/25' Airstream combinations, the weight distribution capability was not enough to allow safe steering control.

[MarkR]

deja vu anyone?

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by MarkR

deja vu anyone?

Yes, it's déjà vu all over again.

The same Andersen apologists persist in claiming that the Andersen's relative small amount of load transfer capability is the fault of the TV's suspension.

If other WDHs have no problem adequately transferring load on a given TV,
while the Andersen WDH cannot adequately transfer load on the same TV --
how can that be the fault of the TV's suspension?

Seems to me it must be a shortcoming of the WDH.
Ron

[SteveSueMac]

Ron - I know you are an expert here so forgive the novice nature of this question.

Let's say you're 100% correct that the design doesn't move lots of weight to the from axles.

Even if that's so - doesn't it still have a place in the market - especially if your TV doesn't want 100%FALR? If you have a lighter trailer and heavier duty TV, couldn't it be a perfect choice? Lightweight, easy to set up/use, innovative sway control, reasonable price, and users report the best anti-porpoising effect of any WDH they've used.

No product is 100% perfect - I mean, 3M has made billions off Post It notes which started as glue that didn't stick they way other glues did. Maybe Andersen has something similar here for hitches?

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by AWCHIEF

Curious, what is the source of your information? .

Post #28 reflects my SOI.

Originally Posted by AWCHIEF

Every time I go camping I seem to seem more Andersons in use by not just Airstream owners but SOBs. That also goes for a noticeable increase in users of the Blue OX SwayPro system.

It has been reported many times that close to 90% of the rigs on the roads today have connections that need improvements. Your observation pretty much verifies that.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by SteveSueMac

Even if that's so - doesn't it still have a place in the market - especially if your TV doesn't want 100%FALR? If you have a lighter trailer and heavier duty TV, couldn't it be a perfect choice? Lightweight, easy to set up/use, innovative sway control, reasonable price, and users report the best anti-porpoising effect of any WDH they've used.

"Perfect" is a matter of personal opinion.
I, personally, would opt for a system which could do the job at half the cost.

As regards the anti-porpoising effect -- I believe any reduction in porpoising is a result of reduced load transfer rather than any small amount of damping which might be produced by the urethane "springs".

Ron

[AWCHIEF]

Originally Posted by Road Ruler

Post #28 reflects my SOI.

Sorry I have that individual and his alter ego blocked. But as far as I know one malcontent does not qualify as "most".

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

As regards the anti-porpoising effect -- I believe any reduction in porpoising is a result of reduced load transfer rather than any small amount of damping which might be produced by the urethane "springs".
Ron

Rethink this. In your, and a few other, zeal to discredit the Andersen system you have attacked every aspect of the system.

The chains would brake under load.
The system can't return 100% load to the front axle.
The chains would ware through the hangers.
Cold flow of over stressed material.
And now you question the resonant frequency of urethane.

There is a very simple test that will show the effectiveness of the system with regards to porpoising. Take a correctly setup bar system hitch and apply the commonly used shock absorber test of rocking up and down on the front of the TV. Now try that same test on an Andersen equipped rig, 100% load returned or not.

So far the only argument you have presented, that of weight transfer limitation, that has any validity has been accepted and the limitations noted to those TV that are lightly sprung.

Those readers that might be interested in following just how an innovative company is addressing older problem might want to visit the Andersen web site.

Andersen Manufacturing Inc.

You will quickly note that there products deviate from the accepted norm. Producing simpler and more effective ways of completing a task.
Their adjustable height ball has removed the inconvenience and need for tools while making an adjustment.
Their 5th wheel platform has been accepted as revolutionary.
Their trailer leveling blocks are surprisingly simple and effective.

In each case you will note the significant reduction in weight and simplicity of operation.

In my original tread
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ead-92131.html
I noted this system was a Ha Ha Killer. That threatened the comfort zone of some poster to the Forum. To think that their overpriced hitch could be challenged by a Light Weight. Well it has.

[ROBERT CROSS]

HaHa......killer. ha ha!

Overpriced?......to some maybe, to others not so much.

Smile provided free of charge...





Bob

[dkottum]

Price is relative to performance.

Our ProPride/Hensley design hitch was the best, most effective aftermarket money we ever spent on our Airstream, the Andersen hitch was the worst.

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by HowieE

In my original tread
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ead-92131.html
I noted this system was a Ha Ha Killer. That threatened the comfort zone of some poster to the Forum. To think that their overpriced hitch could be challenged by a Light Weight. Well it has.

If you had any idea of how the Hensley works (technical merit) you would not say the things you do.

[SteveSueMac]

I'm sticking (no pun intended) with my PostIt analogy. I say this as a very happy ProPride user. I can completely see where the Andersen could be a very good WDH for certain applications - just as much as for some decision criteria, a PP would not be the best choice.

It should all start with everyone being better drivers anyway 😃

Keep the shiny side up - see you at a campground someday!

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Road Ruler

If you had any idea of how the Hensley works (technical merit) you would not say the things you do.

I have never questioned the (technical merits) of the Ha Ha and am quite familiar with the principle it uses. My comment relates to a produce that is competitive in effectiveness at 1/4 the price.

That said I accept the fact, unlike others, that the hitch it is not a 100% replacement for all applications, no product ever is. However it does eliminate a majority of the inconveniences of the Ha Ha. I made the original tread so each Streamer can evaluate their choice based on what we present here.

Thanks SteveSueMac for your open mindedness.