Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-06-2012, 12:27 PM   #29
Rivet Idiot
 
AirHeadsRus's Avatar
 
1999 34' Excella
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
On The Lake , Georgia
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 901
Thanks HowieE. I tow with a 2011 F-150 and a 2012 Chevy 1500. I use a 4 inch drop Hensley stinger on the Ford and a 2 inch drop stinger on the Chevy.
I like the Hensley and it pulls great. But:
Hensley is very heavy
Can not use my tractor to move the trailer with out taking the Hensley off.
Always getting grease from the stinger and hitch head on me.
The hitch is 16 years old and needs rebuilding which would cost as much or more than the Andersen.

If I can lower my tongue weight by 100 pounds or more it would really be nice.
I'll be watching for anyone that has gone to the scales.
Regards,
Joe
__________________

__________________
AirHeadsRus is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 01:09 PM   #30
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by danlehosky View Post
I think this one is to stiff. Different bar lengths produce different amounts of force.
Don't be so defensive, you know you've opened a can of worms here.
Dan
I am not defending anything. As I mentioned earlier I have used and advised others for years on WD hitches. What I am doing here is advising people on a product that I feel is an improvement over anything currently in use. I realize the method of accomplishing the transfer of weight is not the easiest concept to envision. But once you can envision the ball/coupling as replacing the upper trunnion of a Reese hitch it becomes clearer.

In a static position the force created by bars to gain a given WD is the same as that produced by the Andersen. The principle differences with this hitch occur when you go over a bump. Springs have a reflex action that tends to put the system in a reducing oscillation thus causing porpoising. The urethane bushing do not produce this reaction and thus completely dampen this effect.

The historical discussions over the weight of the bars was mainly to deduce shock transmitted into the trailer while crossing a bump. Route #10 in LA. killed one of my trailer batteries knock everything off the plates and shorted it out, in Jan I have to go back and see what happens now.
__________________

__________________
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 06-06-2012, 02:03 PM   #31
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,135
Images: 33
HowieE, I predict that when you go over the same bump again, you will ask yourself "When did they fix that nasty bump?"
__________________
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 06-06-2012, 02:21 PM   #32
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWCHIEF View Post
HowieE, I predict that when you go over the same bump again, you will ask yourself "When did they fix that nasty bump?"
Are you speaking of the new hitch or a life style change in LA.
__________________
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 06-06-2012, 08:22 PM   #33
moderator
Commercial Member
 
Airslide's Avatar

 
2014 23' FB International
Currently Looking...
Wilton , California
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,705
Images: 50
Send a message via Yahoo to Airslide
It would be great to see some long term testing on this unit. I really like the simplicity of the product. Your right.. this could be a game changer. Lots of great viewpoints here and we appreciate the civil discussion :-)

Vinnie
__________________
"Old fashioned service on your late model Airstream"

https://www.facebook.com/VinniesNort...ir?ref=tn_tnmn
Airslide is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 08:28 PM   #34
Rivet Master
 
danlehosky's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Flying Cloud
Gig Harbor , Washington
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 780
Second opinion here,,,, I like it and understand the dynamics. The only question I have HowieE is about the amount of force applied to the pawl. If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Am I seeing this right? It seems like the WD is all there.....

Dan
__________________
TAC
Hope is not a plan.
danlehosky is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 10:23 PM   #35
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,809
Images: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by danlehosky View Post
If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Dan
What are you referring to here? I don't recognize either term with respect to the 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  
Old 06-06-2012, 10:42 PM   #36
4 Rivet Member
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Phoenix , Arizona
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 470
I like the concept of the hitch. I would like the shaft to be longer coming out of the bottom so that it would give more leverage forward for the same amount of force on the chain (or reduce the force of the chain for the same amount of forward leverage). I would also weld a tab on the frame for the chain mount instead of having the bolt on components, but that is just me. I really like the ball that swivels with no movement in the hitch itself. That is a great idea.
When watching their 5th wheel offset hitch for short bed pickups they really missed the boat. What they need is a weight distibuting hitch setup so that the 5th wheel or goose neck can be mounted behind the axle while still giving the truck the WD as if it were 3" or so, forward of the axle. All these problems with broken rear windows and the trailer hitting the cabs would be eliminated. There would be no need for sliding 5th wheel hitches on short bed trucks. The chains can pull upward to accomplish the same forward WD. I think I need to build one. I should patent it.
__________________
M2HB is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 10:53 PM   #37
Rivet Master
 
2006 22' International CCD
2007 Base Camp
Elk Valley , British Columbia
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by danlehosky View Post
Second opinion here,,,, I like it and understand the dynamics. The only question I have HowieE is about the amount of force applied to the pawl. If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Am I seeing this right? It seems like the WD is all there.....

Dan
That is a good question... I'd assume the pawl would be quite sturdy, as it has to take the load of the trailer hammering back and forth on it all the time... this WD setup would keep the trailer pulled forward, putting all the load on the pawl... but the off-setting factor is the coupler and ball rotate as one assembly and all the wear is on the tapered sleeve...

It is possible this would actually reduce the chance of wear on the pawl... no?

In any case... I'd gladly try one out except for the $200 premium for Canadians...
__________________
Friday is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:00 PM   #38
4 Rivet Member
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Phoenix , Arizona
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Friday View Post
That is a good question... I'd assume the pawl would be quite sturdy, as it has to take the load of the trailer hammering back and forth on it all the time... this WD setup would keep the trailer pulled forward, putting all the load on the pawl... but the off-setting factor is the coupler and ball rotate as one assembly and all the wear is on the tapered sleeve...

It is possible this would actually reduce the chance of wear on the pawl... no?

In any case... I'd gladly try one out except for the $200 premium for Canadians...
That could be a problem since the force is against the rear of the coupler instead of the front, where the force was designed to be placed. The torsion bars put the force downward on the top of the ball where weight was designed to be. I think this is a serious problem with the Andersen design. Having said that, I would design one with the chains vertical with the bottom plate cantilevering rearward so that the force is downward on the hitch. It would accomplish the same WD, but the force would be applied to the top of the coupler and not the back. It is the same concept I mentioned above that should be used on short bed hitch systems. Again, I should patent it.
__________________
M2HB is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:04 PM   #39
Rivet Master
 
danlehosky's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Flying Cloud
Gig Harbor , Washington
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 780
HowieE, sorry. It looks like all of the force from the ball is going to be directed to the front of the coupler when WD is used. Will the coupler take this force? The safety pawl is a locking mechanism. Do you think an ordinary coupler with a lever lock on say an AS will withstand the forward force of the ball without egging out and becoming sloppy?

If there is a weak point it's the only one I can see.

Dan

Other than that, I really like it.
__________________
TAC
Hope is not a plan.
danlehosky is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:15 PM   #40
Rivet Master
 
danlehosky's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Flying Cloud
Gig Harbor , Washington
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 780
M2HB, better huerry on that patent. Thats a good idea. Lots of engineers on this forum that can draw, submit and licence.

Dan
__________________
TAC
Hope is not a plan.
danlehosky is offline  
Old 06-06-2012, 11:37 PM   #41
Rivet Master
 
2006 22' International CCD
2007 Base Camp
Elk Valley , British Columbia
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
But the pawl takes a pounding anyway every time the trailer decelerates... every bump... with a constant force on it, and it pivoting WITH the coupler... it might work even better?

I can't be much more load than already designed... these couplers are used on 8,000lb trailers...
__________________
Friday is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 07:18 AM   #42
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,139
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
Is there a reason that RV manufacturers use the pawl type couplers? Seems like the Bull Dog would be a perfect fit. No pawl at all.
__________________

__________________
Knowledge: "A gift to be shared. A treasure to receive."
TG Twinkie 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 07:39 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.