Originally Posted by HowieE
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.
Howie, In the Andersen User thread, you stated you have written political campaign press releases. You stated you are aware of the use of ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection. You stated you did use a few of then. You stated the complete slate was elected, so I gather you were suggesting that your use of ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection was successful.
Now it seems you are trying to apply your political campaign press release expertise to this thread.
1. I have not stated the Andersen chains would break under load.
To the contrary – according to user posts, it seems that the urethane “springs” act as a “fuse” by bursting well before the chain tension reaches the breaking point.
2. I have not stated unconditionally that the Andersen can’t return 100% load to the front axle.
To the contrary – I have posted results based on user reports showing load restorations of 90% and 100% for tongue weights of 400#.
I also have posted results which show, for the majority of user reports, load restoration of 100% was not achieved.
Tongue weight and TV/TT dimensions determine whether 100% front axle load restoration can be achieved.
3. I have not stated the chains would wear through the hangers.
However, I believe some users have reported wear.
4. I have not made any statements about cold flow of over stressed material.
However, I do recall that you made a comment about a user experiencing “cold flow” of the friction material.
5. My recent post (to which I assume you’re referring) said nothing about the “resonant frequency” of the Andersen WDH.
So, it seems as though your list of five revelations is a good example of “ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection”.
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, what will happen, and how will it tell us whether porpoising is more affected by the urethane “springs” or whether porpoising is more affected by load transfer?
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.
Three of the five “arguments” you’ve attributed to me are red herrings.
“Argument# #3 (diminished load transfer capability) is supported by user reports and applies to all TVs. It is not dependent on suspension stiffness.
“Argument” #5 (damping versus load distribution) is based on my opinion that we really don’t know what causes reduced porpoising.