Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-12-2013, 04:32 PM   #1891
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
kscherzi

First thing you have to do is reposition the brackets so the chain is aligned with the center line of the bracket when hitched. Once positioned you will have to secure the top of the bracket in that position otherwise it will move while under load. This can be done by welding a stop behind the top of the bracket, or by drilling through the bracket and frame and bolting through the frame. You may have to move the bottom of the bracket rearward a bit to reduce the amount of treads showing after hitching. Do not pay any attention to the sacred #7 count. You are interested in a workable number for your rig. If you have to move the bracket rearward to get an adjustable amount of threads you may not be able to use the original set screw hole and have to drill a new position to bolt through the frame. Be mindful as to not intersect the old set screw hole as that may cause the bracket to move into the old hole while under load.

There are 2 reasons I make these comments. The chains want to be in alignment to reduce ware on the bottom of the brackets and while not in alignment you are introducing additional friction at the contact point and this could be limiting your WD
__________________

__________________
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  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:42 PM   #1892
4 Rivet Member
 
1987 25' Sovereign
Oregon , Ohio
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 491
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rich of SCal View Post
Quick question, and yes the answer may be buried in these almost 2000 postings, but I am weary of sifting through them over and over again, so please indulge me.

Is there a direct replacement for the dreaded Atwood model that supposedly fails? By direct, I mean the measurements all match so that no modifications need be made...just remove the old and weld on the new. Same tongue jack hole position, triangle size, etc.

One more question: Anyone know why Andersen still doesn't say anything on their site to warn against using the 88000 series Atwood? Are they only warning people AFTER they make their purchase???
When I replaced our coupler, I just cut off the old one at the frame member and the Quick bite fit right over the remainder of the old Atwood. We had to do some filing of the jack bolt holes to get the jack to fit but nothing major.
__________________

__________________
msmcv51 is offline  
Old 06-12-2013, 05:56 PM   #1893
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
When installing the Quickbite all you have to insure is that the jack hole alines with the old jack hole. This positions the coupler so the jack will clear the bottle cover. Some filling between the frame and coupler is required along the lower edge
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Quickbite 005.jpg
Views:	74
Size:	290.8 KB
ID:	188129  
__________________
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  
Old 06-12-2013, 09:21 PM   #1894
Rivet Idiot
 
AirHeadsRus's Avatar
 
1999 34' Excella
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
On The Lake , Georgia
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 908
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
" data and facts"

Yes, something in which this thread has been deficient considering the number of posts. But it has not been deficient in mischaracterization of issues -- or sadly, of those posting -- by some over-zealous owners.

Data = scale tickets

Facts = vehicle manufacturer WD requirements

Some subset of potential TVs for a defined set of A/S TT's may be able to use this hitch. But it will be a small group all around. Data and fact must work together for any & every combined rig.

Examples of what isn't fact or data pertaining to WD is how well the anti-sway works. Of all the TT brands on the road this one is least likely to need it. And is optional to requirement.

Or that one "likes" it. Subjective isn't objective. The latter needs to be able to support the former for the former to have any believability.

There are around a dozen scale-verified set-ups. Only three or four came close to meeting spec.

And, as 2Airishuman used to note, PMs that fly around and can't stand the light of day aren't worth anything. Caveat emptor applies at several levels around this.

.
You could be a lot of help to us Andersen users if you would post all of your weight tickets since you got your trailers. We sure would like to see how an expert goes thru the process of setting up a hitch. Also please post the requirements for your TV's as well. Your data and facts only please. I do not like subjective post any more than you do.
Kindest regard,
Joe
__________________
AirHeadsRus is offline  
Old 06-13-2013, 07:50 AM   #1895
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Fact. With the revised requirement specifications for Ford and GM, most of their pickups are well suited for use with the Andersen hitch with trailers up to 6,000-8,000 pounds depending on the application. GM does not require WD systems on their 2500 series at all now and only on trailers over 7,000 pounds with their 1500's. Even then, they only require 50% front axle restoration. Not as familiar with Ford except they have been quoted as only requiring 50% these days. These specs represent the majority of pickups sold today. They do not apply to SUV's, Minivans, or sedans.

By the way, anyone with an agenda can publish all the numbers they want, both positive and negative. Mine come from Owner's manuals.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 06-13-2013, 02:32 PM   #1896
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
---GM does not require WD systems on their 2500 series at all now and only on trailers over 7,000 pounds with their 1500's. Even then, they only require 50% front axle restoration.---
According to the online 2013 Silverado Owners Guide, http://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Ownership/Manuals%20and%20Videos/02_pdf/2k13silverado1.pdf,
Chevrolet has several 1500-series configurations which have a "Maximum Trailer Weight" rating greater than 9,900#.
The online manual states that a 1500-series vehicle with "Trailer Weight" over 9,900# requires a "Hitch Distribution" of 100% -- not 50%.

Chevrolet also states that "Weight of additional optional equipment, passengers, and cargo in the tow vehicle must be subtracted from the trailer weight rating."
Assuming that deduction also applies to "Trailer Weight", a loaded trailer weight of 9,000# might require the 100% distribution depending on how the TV is loaded.

Quote:
---Not as familiar with Ford except they have been quoted as only requiring 50% these days. These specs represent the majority of pickups sold today. They do not apply to SUV's, Minivans, or sedans.
According to the online Owners Manuals for Ford Explorer and Expedition SUVs beginning with the 2011 model year, the WDH adjustment specification corresponds to a 50% elimination of front-end rise.
Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburbans (and I assume, their GMC counterparts) still specify 100% elimination of front-end rise.

To me, it seems a bit strange that Chevrolet specifies WDH adjustment on the basis of "Trailer Weight" rather than on actual tongue weight.
For example, per their specs for the 1500-series, a 7001# "Trailer Weight" with a 700# tongue weight would need 50% "Hitch Distribution" --
while a 7000# "Trailer Weight" with a 1050# tongue weight would not need WD.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 06-13-2013, 04:43 PM   #1897
CLOUDSPLITTER "Tahawas"
 
ROBERT CROSS's Avatar

 
2003 25' Classic
Zanadude Nebula , WNY
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 11,153
Images: 1
Ron,

Your trying to pound nails in a rock. Let them be.
We are all on the same road, some just further along than others.

Bob
__________________
PFC.....

“After all these years the reason I continue to love Thanksgiving.....I still sit at the kids table.”
RLC

Sandra wanted to go to Cleveland on vacation,
but I’m the Husband, so we went to Cleveland.
RLC
ROBERT CROSS is offline  
Old 06-13-2013, 05:31 PM   #1898
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
I did leave out the requirement for 100% restoration for GM 1500 series pickups towing over 9,900 pounds. Do people really think that people are towing travel trailers weighing in excess of 9,900 pounds with 1500's? That would put their optimum tongue weight at or over 2,000 pounds. Even 100% restoration is not going to help. I realize common sense and logic left this thread on about page three.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 06-13-2013, 08:24 PM   #1899
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
---Do people really think that people are towing travel trailers weighing in excess of 9,900 pounds with 1500's?---
Since you asked -- I really do think there are people who read and believe what's printed in Owners Manuals and feel there is nothing wrong with operating up to or at 100% of a manufacturer's rating.

If the manual says you can have a "Maximum Trailer Weight" in excess of 9,900#, I really do believe there are people who will see nothing wrong with towing at that weight -- perhaps even more inclined to do so when they learn that other "1/2 ton" pickups are rated to tow up to 11,300#.

And, if a 1500 owner is going to tow at a "Maximum Trailer Weight" in excess of 9,900#, IMO, they should follow Chevrolet's "Hitch Distribution" specification of 100% rather than following misleading information about the 50% specification.

Quote:
That would put their optimum tongue weight at or over 2,000 pounds.---
What is your basis for believing a tongue weight percentage of over 20% (over 2000/9900) is an "optimum" tongue weight?

We're not talking about fifth-wheel trailers.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 06-14-2013, 07:13 AM   #1900
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
You are right, as always. As always, I do not recommend the Andersen hitch for trailers over 9,000 pounds. The GM 1500 hitches are rated at 1,100 pounds max with WD hitches, so they are going to be pushing it with 10,000 pound trailers anyway. I have towed over 7,000 pounds with a 1500 "rated" to tow 9,600 pounds and it was not fun and that was with a Husky WD hitch and 100% FALR. Have you?
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 06-14-2013, 09:26 AM   #1901
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
Ron & Rendrag

What are you 2 trying to prove here? While your comments may have some interest to those who read and believe manuals it has nothing what so ever to do with the effectiveness and use of an Andersen hitch.

Have either of you seen an Andersen? Have either of you used an Andersen? That is what this tread is about. Not some Lawyers CYA writings.

While it was not with an Andersen I have, in the past, towed my 34, 8,900lbs, cross country with a Suburban 1500. The limitation on that truck, and thus the rating, was not the receiver or the frame strength it was the engine, 6.2 diesel. Now that said I had made significant modifications to the engine and trans and the combination towed fine except for the limitations inherent to a Reese system.

I now tow that same trailer with an Excursion 6.5 diesel, and an Andersen. I now have the best of both worlds. The truck has only undergone a few modes and the hitch has overcome the limitations of the Reese.

If you are really hung up on front end return to original height you might consider what GM did to the Camaro, They put 2 concrete weights in the front fenders, just behind the headlights, to keep the front end on the road.
__________________
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  
Old 06-14-2013, 09:59 AM   #1902
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,311
This post will be #1902 in this thread, and everyone is still arguing the effectiveness or lack there of, of the Andersen hitch.

It has been proven and admitted to by Andersen that the hitch will not work long term with the coupler the Airstream is equipped with.

No one has proven with weight slips the hitch will return the front axle weight, a basic requirement and the whole purpose of a weight distribution hitch, with a large heavy tongued trailer.

Now people are arguing that weight return to the front axle is not really a requirement, but only with some vehicles. When did the physics of what a weight distribution hitch is supposed to do change? When did the traction of the front steering axle and primary braking axle cease to be a concern?

The Andersen hitch is most definitely a revolutionary concept, one that has promise, but in it's present edition, one that only works as a weight distribution hitch should with light weight trailers.

The persistence of the hitch's proponents here is becoming unbelievable, to say the least. And, probably this will make some of you happy, I have tried the hitch, observed what it will and will not do for others, made my decisions, and am unsubscribing from this thread.

Good luck to you all.
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:16 PM   #1903
Rivet Master
 
1988 32' Excella
Robbinsville , New Jersey
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,010
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
It has been proven and admitted to by Andersen that the hitch will not work long term with the coupler the Airstream is equipped with.
Sorry, not trying to nag but this statement is wrong.
Not all Airstreams are equipped with that coupler.

Should be:
It has been proven and admitted to by Andersen that the hitch will not work long term with the coupler some Airstreams are equipped with.
__________________
Wazbro is offline  
Old 06-14-2013, 02:46 PM   #1904
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 Wazbro View Post
Sorry, not trying to nag but this statement is wrong.
Not all Airstreams are equipped with that coupler.

Should be:
It has been proven and admitted to by Andersen that the hitch will not work long term with the coupler some Airstreams are equipped with.
That's all you could find to argue about in my post? Pretty good.

This is probably most accurate: It has been proven and admitted to by Andersen that the hitch will not work long term with the coupler all late model Airstreams are equipped with.

Bye.
__________________

__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline  
Closed Thread


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 08:37 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.