The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by HowieE

I have commented on the issue of WD and the Andersen several times. The limit is not within the Andersen it is within the rear springs of the TV. The lighter sprung, soccer mom, vehicles do not have enough carrying capacity to act as a point of rotation for the Andersen to move the load to the front axle.

Several have tried to convince readers that the Andersen will only work with light trailers. I offer the fact that my 34 ft trailer does not fall into that description and works great with my Andersen.

A few months ago I attempted to use an Andersen on my daughters trailer behind a Suburban 1500, a vehicle with almost the same wheel base as my Excursion but with much lighter spring set. My option was to revert to the Reese for our trip or install a heaver rear spring set, GM offers several different spring sets for the Suburban. Had to use the Reese but will correct that before next season.

I would strongly suggest anyone towing with a Suburban check the rear axle code before installing an Andersen and if the code is for one of the lighter spring sets consider changing the rear springs. Yes that is getting pricey but if you want the superior characteristics of the Andersen it will be worth it.

This all sounds to me like gobleygook for you need a heavy duty tow vehicle to use an Andersen WD hitch with a heavy trailer because the hitch will not transfer the weight properly.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Originally Posted by HowieE

I am old enough to remember when the overhead valve engine was introduced.There were those that formed clubs promoting the "Flat Heads For Ever" and refused to accept the advancement in engine design. As with any advancement there will be those who don't understand it, refuse to accept it, insist it be judged by the old standards, and offer comments without experience.

The FHFE clubs, like the engines, were short lived, cased aside to be a collectors item, as the newer engines quickly cleaned there clocks in all areas.

If you see me on the road and want to experience the Andersen first hand don't be shy just ask. "12156"

Hi, you must be really old because: "The original overhead valve or OHV piston engine was developed by the Scottish-American David Dunbar Buick around 1902." That's very close to 30 years before Ford made his famous single casting "L" head [Flathead] V-8 engine block. There were many other overhead valve and even overhead cam engines long before the 1949 Olds and Cadillac V-8's came out.

[TG Twinkie]

GM had OHV engines in the 30's.

[HowieE]

Seams the younger members are not old enough to remember that the controversy of the OHV engine took place when Ford introduced it into the Ford line in 1955. Yes the Lincoln had it in 53 and the higher GM lines had it before 55, but not many were racing the Lincolns, Olds, and Buicks then

And yes I was there.

[noreen&sal]

Back in the day...

[AWCHIEF]

Any Amazon shoppers here? This thread has digressed enough to resemble the so called Gold Box Forum.

[dkottum]

My trustworthy Ford flathead was a good engine, and I remember our neighbor bragging about his new Crosley Hotshot.

[ROBERT CROSS]

1932-1953.

Bob

[Razinni]

Peace friends. Since I haven't taken delivery of this rig yet I'm going to try to find something to match what the trailer already has simply to get it home. Once here in Atlanta I'm going to do more research. Thanks for all of your passion.

Raz

[Rendrag]

Originally Posted by HowieE

...snip..........
If you see me on the road and want to experience the Andersen first hand don't be shy just ask. "12156"

I will go you one better. Anyone in the Rio Grande Valley of Texas, near McAllen, can road test my Andersen hitch for free. I won't be using it for a couple of months and it only takes a few minutes to install.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by SteveH

This all sounds to me like gobleygook for you need a heavy duty tow vehicle to use an Andersen WD hitch with a heavy trailer because the hitch will not transfer the weight properly.

It doesn't just sound like gobbledygook -- it is gobbledygook.

SteveH is 100% correct.

In order to transfer load from the TV's rear axle to the front axle, a WDH must exert a torque on the hitch head.

The design of the Andersen WDH results in considerably less torque generation compared to the amount of torque generated by a bar-type WDH.

The stiffness of the TV's suspension has nothing to do with load transfer.

Ron

[Rendrag]

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

....snip........
The stiffness of the TV's suspension has nothing to do with load transfer.

Ron

Correct, but it is a component to be considered when sizing and selecting a hitch. Yes? No?

Example, a late model GM 2500HD with a fairly stiff rear suspension "requires" no FALR. Switch out those rear springs with those from a 1500, and the picture changes. Get out the WD hitch then. At least that is what GM says. Look at the whole picture, not just the part that makes the Andersen appear bad.

[ROBERTSUNRUS]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Seams the younger members are not old enough to remember that the controversy of the OHV engine took place when Ford introduced it into the Ford line in 1955. Yes the Lincoln had it in 53 and the higher GM lines had it before 55, but not many were racing the Lincolns, Olds, and Buicks then

And yes I was there.

Hi, sorry to disagree with you, but Ford started overhead valve inline sixes in 1952 and the 239" Ford V-8 and 256" Mercury V-8 in 1954. The 317" Lincoln was in 1952.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

Correct, but it is a component to be considered when sizing and selecting a hitch. Yes? No?

Example, a late model GM 2500HD with a fairly stiff rear suspension "requires" no FALR. Switch out those rear springs with those from a 1500, and the picture changes. Get out the WD hitch then. At least that is what GM says. Look at the whole picture, not just the part that makes the Andersen appear bad.

It's neither the tow vehicle nor its components that "makes the Andersen appear bad".

The issue currently being discussed is the Andersen's inability to transfer sufficient load for some tongue weight and vehicle combinations.
It is the inability to transfer sufficient load that "makes the Andersen appear bad".

The inability to transfer sufficient load is not a result of TV suspension stiffness.

The inability to transfer sufficient load is a result of the relatively small amount of pitch-axis torque that the Andersen WDH is able to generate.

Ron

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by SteveH

This all sounds to me like gobleygook for you need a heavy duty tow vehicle to use an Andersen WD hitch with a heavy trailer because the hitch will not transfer the weight properly.

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

It doesn't just sound like gobbledygook -- it is gobbledygook.

SteveH is 100% correct. snip................

The stiffness of the TV's suspension has nothing to do with load transfer.

Ron

So is it gobble-d-gook or a thesis?

I admit I've never heard of soft springs hindering weight transfer.
If you have returned the steering axle weight and/or height seems to me you have properly set-up your WD.

For me the question of effectiveness relates to what I see.
A chain exerting tension on a lever with little purchase does not seem as effective as a 3' bar under easily adjusted stress.

The method of sway control....friction on a very limited area of the hitch ball mount, adjusted by the same chain tension.
A light single axle trailer may be more susceptible to sway but need less WD.
How is it possible to increase sway control without effecting WD?

On our 22 Safari I improved sway control by increasing friction area with a second slide.

An inquisitive old mind seeks to understand.

Bob

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

So is it gobble-d-gook or a thesis?

I admit I've never heard of soft springs hindering weight transfer.
If you have returned the steering axle weight and/or height seems to me you have properly set-up your WD.

For me the question of effectiveness relates to what I see.
A chain exerting tension on a lever with little purchase does not seem as effective as a 3' bar under easily adjusted stress.

The method of sway control....friction on a very limited area of the hitch ball mount, adjusted by the same chain tension.
A light single axle trailer may be more susceptible to sway but need less WD.
How is it possible to increase sway control without effecting WD?

On our 22 Safari I improved sway control by increasing friction area with a second slide.

An inquisitive old mind seeks to understand.

Bob

Bob,

About the sway control....I have and use one of the Andersen WD hitches, but with a 17' Casita, and usually tow it with a Toyota FJ Cruiser, and if you're not familiar, it is a relatively short wheelbase vehicle.

The area and force applied to the sway control friction material (provided you have enough tongue weight) is greater with the Andersen than with one of the conventional slide anti-sway bars. The anti-sway part works very well for me, and actually better than the conventional bar it replaced.

And, because the trailer has a relatively low tongue weight (400 lbs +,-), and because I use the short wheel base TV, the weight distribution part works very well, for my particular situation.

Given my experience with my situation, I think the hitch is a good one for light weight trailers up to maybe 19' in the Airstream line, assuming you are willing to replace the coupler, but not much more than that.

With heavier tongue weight trailers, I'm sure the anti-sway function will work fine, but because of the small length of lever (basically from the center of the ball to the center of the chain pull), the Andersen is not capable of adequately transferring a large amount of tongue weight.

Those who are using it on larger trailers are simply accepting and living with inadequate weight distribution because they like the anti-sway portion of the hitch, and it's other good qualities such as light weight, anti bounce, no noise, no backing restrictions, etc., IMHO.

[Rendrag]

I wondered where all the naysayers were hiding. Great that we have some actual users to balance things out.

"Naysayer"-a person who says something will not work or is not possible : a person who denies, refuses, or opposes something.

[SteveH]

And then there's the credulous:

1.
willing to believe or trust too readily, especially without proper or adequate evidence; gullible.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

So is it gobble-d-gook or a thesis?

The following sentence could be considered to be a thesis statement:

"The limit is not within the Andersen it is within the rear springs of the TV.",

IMO, the gobble-d-gook is in the verbiage which the poster then offered as proof of his thesis statement.

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

For me the question of effectiveness relates to what I see.
A chain exerting tension on a lever with little purchase does not seem as effective as a 3' bar under easily adjusted stress.

An excellent explanation of the cause of the "limit" to which the thesis statement refers.

Ron

[MrUKToad]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

I wondered where all the naysayers were hiding. Great that we have some actual users to balance things out.

"Naysayer"-a person who says something will not work or is not possible : a person who denies, refuses, or opposes something.

Rendrag,

I don't need to be an Andersen user to know and understand the physics employed in the hitch.

Ron Gratz, who really knows what he's talking about, has already said that there isn't sufficient leverage in the design of Andersen to generate the torque required for load transfer that comes anywhere near that generated by a traditional chain and bar setup; it's all a question of leverage. That's all fine and dandy if you have a negligible tongue weight or your truck claims that you don't need to return the steering axle to its original load, but for everyone else, the Andersen simply doesn't do a sufficiently effective job in transferring load, at least not nearly as effectively as the traditional types of weight distribution hitches.

I wouldn't consider using an Andersen hitch; it's not that I don't like the Andersen's design, or because I'm some sort of towing Luddite, but because of the Andersen's limitations when it comes to load transfer, it simply wouldn't work for me and my setup. It's simple, inescapable physics.

Actually I don't like the Andersen, mostly because it claims to be something that it isn't; but that's only my opinion and can be wholly discounted because I'm not a user.