Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-15-2013, 05:22 PM   #2157
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowieE View Post
Kind of give one a view into the knowledge of Ford employees when it come to their products. And their Lawyers that write the specs don't have any more knowledge of the products either.

The biggest thing that influences the towing capacity of a given model within a brand is the rear axle ratio with a given engine.---
The statement about towing capacity and rear axle ratio proves nothing.

The 2013 F-150 3.5L GTDI V6 can handle 11,300# Max Loaded Trailer Weight with either the 3.73 or 4.10 rear axle ratio.
The difference is, with the 3.73, you need the Heavy Duty Payload package and/or the Max Tow Package.

Perhaps the "bigger oil pump" is the primary component of the Max Tow package.

Ron
__________________

__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 05:26 PM   #2158
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,138
Images: 33
I was told it was springs and larger transmission cooler. I believe little that car salesman say and even less that I read on Internet forums.
__________________

__________________
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  
Old 07-15-2013, 10:05 PM   #2159
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
Is that any more science fiction than Ford saying their their F-150's can tow over 11,000 pounds? Some that I looked at were only good for 5,000 pounds, less than half. While I agree that their rating is wildly optimistic, one "could" use the hitch for that load.---
Yes, Ford's 3.4L 4-valve V6 with 3.55 rear end is only rated for 5500# "Maximum Loaded Trailer Weight".
But, what does that have to do with the fact that other F-150s with different engines, different gear ratios, and optional towing packages are rated for 11,300#.
Nobody is saying the 11,000# rating applies to all F-150 configurations.

Quote:
Personally, I would not use the Andersen hitch for trailers over 6,000-7,000 pounds and only then with an adequate tow vehicle. I would not buy the typical F-150 off the lot expecting it to perform well towing 11,000 pounds either.
That probably is wise because the typical F-150 off the lot probably is not rated to tow 11,000# -- and nobody's saying that it is.

The difference between Ford's advertising and Andersen's advertising is that the F-150 has more than 100 different combinations of engine, rear end, wheelbase, etc and a wide range of ratings to go with them. And, Ford specifies which ratings go with which combinations and packages.

The Andersen WDH has a one-size-fits-all trailer weight rating of 10,000# and TW rating of 1400#. But, Andersen does not warn prospective buyers that their WDH cannot perform the basic function of a WDH for tongue weights which are anywhere close to their TW rating.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-15-2013, 11:10 PM   #2160
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Okay, a very specific Ford F-150 can tow 11,000 # under uncommon but precise conditions. I showed you how the Andersen hitch could be used with a trailer weighing 10,000 # and a tongue weight of 1400#. Are either of us lying? Certainly not me. I am not picking on Ford, every manufacturer does the same thing. I agree that there is a lot of what someone called "science fiction" in the towing field. I also know that some people who have never, and will never, tow with an Andersen hitch, have plenty to say about how poorly they perform. I also think that like any mechanical device, that it can be improved. I really do not understand all the meanness aimed at an attempt to improve our towing experience. I guess some don't have much else to do.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 12:11 AM   #2161
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
Okay, a very specific Ford F-150 can tow 11,000 # under uncommon but precise conditions.---
No, not just a "very specific F-150". The 2013 towing guide lists 21 different combinations which are rated for a "Maximum Loaded Trailer Weight" of 11,000# or more.

"under uncommon but precise conditions"?? Please explain what you mean by that.

Quote:
---I showed you how the Andersen hitch could be used with a trailer weighing 10,000 # and a tongue weight of 1400#.---
I missed that. Where did you post it?

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 12:50 AM   #2162
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowieE View Post
Your post 2128 seams quite familiar since it looks to be verbatim from instructions I have long sent via PM or posted here on how to set up a BAR type WD hitch. Fear not I would still offer those suggestions to anyone setting up a BAR type WD hitch as that amount of weigh transfer is necessary to cause the sway control, via friction, to be effective. Yes it works but at a cost to the structure of the trailer. Another approach is now available.
Some BAR type WD hitches do need to be transferring load in order to generate sway control. The Equal-I-zer and Dual Cam are two examples of these so-called "integrated" WDHs.
Many BAR type WD hitches do not generate sway control. They frequently are used with one or two "friction sway bars" which do not require load transfer in order to generate sway control.

Since many of those to whom you provided your 40/60 front/rear drop advice were not using an integrated WDH, I'm having trouble understanding how generating sway control via WDH friction was your motivation for insisting the WDH should be overloaded to produce front-end drop.
Instead, I choose to believe your rationale was as you said in several of your posts. Here's an example:
QUOTE
Another way to look at this is if the rear fender dropps 1/2 in. the front should drop about 3/8in. These measurments will very somewhat depending on the truck springs but the important point is you want to see weight transfered to the front axle. If the front axle is coming up you will have sway because of the reduced road friction on the front axle.
UNQUOTE
This rationale works with both an integrated WDH and a non-integrated WDH.

Quote:
When evaluating the complete effect of the Andersen hitch against the old approach to hitching one should look at the complete picture.---
I agree -- and, to me, the two most important components of the complete picture are load distribution and sway control.
I think by now we all know about the load distribution limitations.

I wonder about the sway control which relies on the integrity of the friction material between the ball shaft and its holder.
After seeing the photos of the friction material which was extruded out of the annular space between ball shaft and holder, I would be very concerned about the sway control functioning when it was really needed.

Somehow, it seems that the "secondary" benefits have taken precedent over the primary functions of an integrated WDH.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 01:44 AM   #2163
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Gratz View Post
''''Snip............"under uncommon but precise conditions"?? Please explain what you mean by that.

I missed that. Where did you post it?

Ron
You really don't know what the 11,000+ test load is? Nothing at all like our travel trailers, which you might note is what we are talking about here. Read the fine print in those brochures while you are looking up all the combinations.

I gave an example of how a late model GM 3500 would do fine with the Andersen hitch and the advertised load. (Hint, that pickup would not require "any" WD hitch at that weight) Others can make statements that are true, but misleading at the same time.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 02:35 AM   #2164
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Gratz View Post
...snip..........
After seeing the photos of the friction material which was extruded out of the annular space between ball shaft and holder, I would be very concerned about the sway control functioning when it was really needed.
.....snip.....
Ron
Would you mind referencing the post for those "photos", I don't recall seeing them here? Is it a common thing? I had a windshield wiper motor go out on my 2013 pickup, but I do not assume that would be a problem for all owners of a similar vehicle.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 09:17 AM   #2165
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
I gave an example of how a late model GM 3500 would do fine with the Andersen hitch and the advertised load. (Hint, that pickup would not require "any" WD hitch at that weight).---
So, you're saying the Andersen Weight Distribution Hitch would do fine in a situation which does not require any weight distribution.
It's hard to disagree with that kind of "logic".

A 14K Titan ball mount also can handle 1400# TW and provide zero weight distribution. And, it only costs about 50$.

Ron
__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 09:27 AM   #2166
3 Rivet Member
 
Currently Looking...
Harlingen , Texas
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 131
I said that a GM 3500 pickup would do fine with the Andersen hitch. Since it does not need one anyway, how can you argue with that? I am sure you would like to. My statement is the kind of foolishness that manufacturers and some "experts" on here put out. Half truths, forgetting to include all the parameters, quoting anonymous Internet contributors (which you have done), are all part of the "Knock knock" game it seems.

I have never said that the Andersen hitch was the perfect solution to all our towing situations. I do think that people who are willing to spend thousands of words, charts, and graphs telling people how bad they are must have another agenda. I doubt that they have ever towed with one. Me, I would rather travel than type, and it's time to roll again.
__________________
Rendrag is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 09:52 AM   #2167
4 Rivet Member
 
Livingston , Texas
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 394
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rendrag View Post
Would you mind referencing the post for those "photos", I don't recall seeing them here?---
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1305865





http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1313251
Please note what this user had to say:
"---The brake material appears to be coming out, there is now a squeal where it was quiet and in the high winds I could tell the sway control was not there as before."

__________________
Ron Gratz is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 10:47 AM   #2168
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
Ron

You have quoted my posts and I do not retract any of what was stated in them when applied to a bar friction WD system. The difference is you are assuming that the Andersen has to transfer a similar amount of weight to the front axle in order to work. That is not the case.

A bar/friction type sway control hitch control sway through the formula. F=UM. F is the force to overcome movement at the cams and is a function of U, the coefficient of friction between steel and steel and the M, commonly referring to a mass at rest, but in this case the load on the bars produced by transferring weight to the front axle. Depending on the bar weight rating the 60/40 ratio is suggested as an easy way to originally determine effective sway control. I think you will note if you reread my comments that that is not cast in stone and requires significant adjustment to reach the ultimate effective ratio and thus sway control for a give combination.

In the case of the Andersen there is no need to apply force to the cams as they are not the mechanical mechanism used to reduce sway. While the formula F=UM still applies in controlling sway. The only reason to consider weight transfer when using an Andersen, that uses a different mechanical mechanism, friction between the cone and ball shaft, is to apply enough downward force on the front axle to maintain steering geometry, something you might find and quote from some of my other posts.

Now you and others may not accept this and continue to Howl at the Moon for something that is not necessary I trust most readers will see beyond your comments once they realize they make no physical sense.

Another attribute of mechanical advantage you missed in your comment question the use of axle ratio is that resultant power applied to the rear wheel of a tow vehicle is a function of the HP produced by the engine and the drive train final ratio. Since all internal combustion engines have a Power Curve maximum power at driven speeds is governed by changing the final ration through the transmission and rear axle thus the use of more than one gear ratio in the transmission and selecting a rear axle ratio. Soccer Moms don't generally need as much power as those that tow trailers.

The owner of the hitch you posted above was a victim of the misunderstanding that WD transfer had to equal that of a bar type system. He had a lightly sprung TV. The load applied to the bushing was beyond extreme and thus caused COLD FLOW of the brake material. I had talked to him in an attempt to correct this misconception but he has chosen to leave trailering and I now own that system and will install it on my daughters trailer
__________________
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 07-16-2013, 12:34 PM   #2169
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,716
I believe the new direction Howie is now trying to lead us is the primary function of a weight distribution hitch is not weight distribution, but friction sway control.

Ridiculous.

It is unfortunate the Andersen company does not come onto this thread to discuss some of the questions and problems described here. Surely they are reading it, and some of us have done much to provoke a response from them, rather than a few self-appointed surrogates.

The responses here are more often written to sidetrack the issue, whether with some obscure new theory about weight distribution or just plain foolishness.

Andersen, do you hear us now?

doug k
__________________
dkottum is offline  
Old 07-16-2013, 12:59 PM   #2170
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
doug

What obligation would Andersen have to come on a public forum and discuss question that have no relevance to their products. You are completely hung up on the assumption that they have to deliver your interpretation of weight transfer.

In general there no longer is a need for your interpretation as most current TV no longer are the softly sprung cars of the 60s and 70s. Times have changed and their product reflects the needs of today not yesterday. WD transfer served a completely different purpose then. It was used to reduce the disruption to the car's ride characteristics and steering conditions produced by extreme deflection of the rear springs caused by the tongue weight. Bar type sway control systems used the forces produced in the transfer as a mean of increasing the load on the friction sway control system. The only function that still exist is the retention of the steering geometry and that can be accomplished with much less transfer given the heavier rear spring no on most TV.

Your champion attempted to influence this tread early on in the game and was asked to refrain as I suspect Andersen might should they choose to go on another tread dedicated to a given product. That said we are left with users and none users hammering it out.

You have made your point that you believe the Andersen does not transfer the weight that the older bar type hitches do. What you have not done is post a mechanical reason why it should. You have relied on ambiguous specs presented by auto manufactures that often are in direct conflict with themselves. You insist that trailer owners meet your idea of WD or suggest they have committed some unwritten law. Are you suggesting I have to return my front axle weigh to original if I put my heavy mother-in-law in the back seat lest I be in violation.

Lets continue to discuss this and see how it effect the overall sales of the Andersen. Unless you come up with some new ideas I think I-m ahead based on returns from those I encounter on the road and comments from new users here.

I started this tread stating Andersen would be a HaHa Killer and have not seen anything to change my mind.

Have not seen your body separation pictures you report to have to support your case yet. But then again you could use mine produced after years of using a bar type hitch.
__________________

__________________
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  
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 05:09 AM.


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.