The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[RLS]

Sorry, I do not see it. I do see that both but the same force on the TV (arrow pointing down on the left side). I see that the conventional wd shows an arrow pointing vertical on the right side (causing a down force) and an arrow on the right side for the Andersen pointing horizontal (no down force). What am I missing??

[dkottum]

Bob, the red and green arrows represent the weight distribution forces.

doug k

[RUMSHIP]

Seriously???

[SteveSueMac]

Originally Posted by RLS

What am I missing Has anyone actually weighed their trailer to see an increase in trailer axle weight after hitching up? I am close to my limits on how much the suv can take and 300lbs. more would not be good.

Somewhere on this massive thread, I think about a month ago, scale measures with the Andersen were posted. I think the conclusion was weight is definitely transferred.

[Wayne&Sam]

Originally Posted by HowieE

The Andersen complies to Newton"s law of equal and opposite reaction.

A design coup? I'll bet they're working on complying with gravity too.

[Bill M.]

RLS

Have you actually weighed your current rig to see if 300 lbs is transferred back to the trailer axle? 300 lbs is a lot of transfer.

I think of the chain on the Anderson hitch as limiting the flex of the car-trailer joint where the ball is. Sorta making it a stiffer bridge. So the front wheels of the TV and the axles of the trailer take some of the weight that would have been transferred to the ball if that joint had been allowed to flex unrestricted. There is not need to add an upforce if the system redistributes the downforce to the front and rear supports.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by RLS

Dang, I was hoping to be wrong on this one. I really like the Andersen.

If you look back through this tread you will see my scale weights and one post that actually measured the stress in the chains with a strain gauge.

It is not uncommon to use force applied in one direction to cause an effect in another direction. Think of an overhead door. Originally they all had coil springs pulling directly against the weight of the door. Now many use a coil spring applying a rotational force to wind a cable.

The Andersen is more like the second. Envision 2 coil spring through the center of the hitch each anchored at the center of the hitch and applying force reward against the ball and a fixed point below the frame. That torque would tend to force the shaft of the hitch downward into the receiver and would have to have a counter force in the opposite direction.

This would reduce weight on the rear axle of the TV and apply weigh to the trailer and front axle of the TV.

As I noted very early in this tread I had to sleep on it overnight before I could understand what was happening. Save yourself a restless night and just buy one. There are now too many of us here that have seen the light.

Leaving in a few days for the Can Opener, which is rapidly turning into an Andersen Convention, given the number attending that are now using this hitch.

[FreshAir]

Yes, this IS a massive thread. This 'dense' skull understands one fact, those who use the Andersen love/like it....those who don't haven't used it. I plan on using it. No need to add any more thoughts.

Neil

[AWCHIEF]

Howie, Maybe we can get all the Andersen users at Canopener parked next to each other. Sort of a sub-club like the Vintage owners at WBCCI events. Just a silly thought with no basis in reality.

This thread is starting to go full circle. Some times faith is enough and overthinking just confuses the issue. Pure and simple the Andersen works and that is good enough for me.

[HowieE]

It is going to be interesting. I know of 4 out out 80 that converted so far. That takes me back to an early comment. This is going to be a Ha Ha killer.

[AWCHIEF]

HaHa is not the only brand that is nervous about the Andersen.

[RLS]

Thanks everyone for helping me on this. I went back AGAIN, found HowieE's post on weight http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1229114. That puts the nail in the coffin for me. He shows absolutly no weight being transfered back to the trailer after hooking up. He shows 9,040lbs before and the same after, so no weight was transfered back. All the hitch weight went on TV. Oh well, I still like it, just not for me with this suv

[dkottum]

Bob, you should read this followup (post 960) to Howie's numbers before making a conclusion:

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

It is not possible for a WDH to transfer load to the front axle without also causing load to be transferred to the trailer axle(s).

Scales data for trailers with independently-suspended axles can give a mistaken conclusion that load is not being transferred to the trailer.

When axle loads are measured for the "no WD applied" condition, the rear of the TV and front of the TT usually are lower than with WD applied.
With independent axles, a "nose-down" attitude will cause the vertical load on the ball to be reduced and the load on the TT axles will be increased.
The TT's apparent tongue weight also will be reduced.

When the WDH is activated, the rear of the TV and front of the TT will be lifted to the normal towing height.
This "re-leveling" of the TT will cause load to be removed from the TT's axles and be added to the TV.
At the same time, The WDH will cause load to be removed from the TV and added to the TT's axles.
If the load removed from the TT's axles due to "nose-down" is approximately equal to the load added due to the WDH,
it will appear no load is transferred to the TT's axles by the WDH.

The data reported by HowieE indicate approximately 50# was added to the TT's axles by the WDH and approximately 50# was removed from the tongue weight in the "no WD applied" state.
The actual tongue weight probably was about 670#.

Ron

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by RLS

He shows absolutly no weight being transfered back to the trailer after hooking up. He shows 9,040lbs before and the same after, so no weight was transfered back. All the hitch weight went on TV. Oh well, I still like it, just not for me with this suv

You completely miss read the post. There is no mention of the trailer weights in that post. The number you are quoting, 9040lbs, is to total weight of the TV with the Andersen hooked up.

The trailer weights, that I should have posted but did not are as follows.

Without the Andersen 8160

With the Andersen 8180

If you apply the laws of leverage, keeping in mind the distance from the rear axle of the TV to the center of the 3 axles on my 34 ft. trailer to the distance from the rear axle of the TV to the front axle of the TV you will be able to accept the increase of 120 lbs. on the front axle of the TV and 20 lbs on the trailer.

I do believe I mentioned that these weights were taken without having done a systematic setup of the Andersen but rather a quick trip to the scales just to prove a point and quite the Na Sayers. Had I adjusted the load on the chains i could have increased the load on the front axle of the TV and that on the trailer.

I also believe I mentioned that that it is no longer necessary to load the front axle of the TV as drastically with the Andersen as with Bar type hitches because of the different approach to sway control being friction in the ball shaft as apposed to friction on the bars, those the need for additional load.

As for your SUV you will be far better off with an Andersen that a bar type hitch with a smoother ride and much better sway control. The hitch will be controlling sway not the brute force on the bars.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by HowieE

If you apply the laws of leverage, keeping in mind the distance from the rear axle of the TV to the center of the 3 axles on my 34 ft. trailer to the distance from the rear axle of the TV to the front axle of the TV you will be able to accept the increase of 120 lbs. on the front axle of the TV and 20 lbs on the trailer.

If you properly apply the "laws of leverage", you will find that
the product of load added to the trailer's axles multiplied by distance from TV's rear axle to TT's axles' midpoint
is equal to
the product of load added to TV's front axle multiplied by distance from TV's rear axle to TV's front axle.

If the load added to the front axle is 120#, the distance from TV's rear axle to TV's front axle is 137", and the distance from TV's rear axle to TT's axles' midpoint is 330",
the load added to the TT's axles would be approximately:
TT axle load increase = 120# times 137" divided by 330" = 50#.

Given a tongue weight of 670#,
you would have approximately 620# carried on the TV and 50# transferred to the TT's axles.

Ron

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by HowieE

You completely miss read the post. There is no mention of the trailer weights in that post. The number you are quoting, 9040lbs, is to total weight of the TV with the Andersen hooked up.

No, RLS did not "completely miss read the post". He read it exactly right.

Your GCW without WD applied was 9040 + TT axle load (without WD applied).

Your GCW with WD applied was 9040 + TT axle load (with WD applied).

Since your TV+TT must comply to the law of conservation of mass,
both GCWs must be equal.

Therefore,
9040 + TT axle load (without WD applied = 9040 + TT axle load (with WD applied).

That means,
TT axle load (without WD applied) = TT axle load (with WD applied).

Based on your post, RLS correctly inferred the data showed no load was transferred to the TT's axles when load was applied to the Andersen's chains.

Ron

[Friday]

It is threads like these that convince me humanity is doomed to those who have no concept of science, or the desire to educate themselves.

The semantics of 'direction of force' are various ways to help our mind visualize what is going on. A spring bar on a HaHa is exerting the exact same as the Andersen. Everyone is confusing the 'up' on the spring bar with the 'back' on the Andersen. The resulting force on the hitch/receiver is the same. The 'up' on the spring bar creates the same twist/torque... is't just a lever. The 'back' on the Andersen creates the same twist/torque as well.

Why people have such trouble with this is a mystery... but, you are all probably loosing your minds over this 'fiscal cliff' thing...

[AirHeadsRus]

RLS, I am posting this for your benefit. It is from post 1069 where Ron Grazts was kind enough to clean up my scale numbers. My actual scale tickets are posted on 1066. It clearly shows as the chains are tighten, the weight is shifted to the front axle and the trailer axles . The weight of the TV did not increase as the weight was shifted.
I have moved the brackets back to allow for more adjustments but have not gone back to the scales.
If not the Andersen, what hitch are you looking to use?
Good luck with your search.
Joe

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

Joe, It looks as though your scales data are of really good quality.

I have taken the liberty of making two 20# adjustments to make your three hitched weighings internally consistent -- all three GCWs will equal 13,400# and the loads added to front axle, removed from rear axle, and added to trailer axles will have ratios of approximately 2:3:1.

I changed the 9-link trailer weight from 6380 to 6400 and the 10-link front axle weight from 3400 to 3380.

The "adjusted" values are: front axle -- rear axle -- trailer axles -- GCW

TV only: 3500 -- 2760
No WD: 3220 -- 3820 -- 6360 -- 13400
9 Links: 3320 -- 3680 -- 6400 -- 13400
10links: 3380 -- 3580 -- 6440 - - 13400

The indicated TW is (3220+3820)-(3500+2760) = 780# which agrees very well with your Sherline value of 800#.

The Front Axle Load Restoration for 9 links is (3320-3220)/(3500-3220) = 36%.
The FALR for 10 links is (3380-3220)/(3500-3220) = 57%.

I will add the two new FALR values to the chart.

Ron

[RLS]

RLS,
If not the Andersen, what hitch are you looking to use?
Good luck with your search.
Joe

As I have stated, I DO like the Andersen hitch, and as I said from the start, it has to be able to transfer the same amount of weight to the trailer axles as a reg. WD hitch does. The suv I have has a limit of 7100lbs. The suv fully loaded by itself weighs 6240lbs. Fully loaded and hitched using a Reese dual cam I am at 7040lbs. I also use a shoreline and my tongue weight is right at 1050lbs. I have been using the Reese for about 4 yrs. The Andersen one has many benefits that I like, but if it is not capable of the same transfers, then it is not for me since I am so close to the limit now.
Thanks for all, I do appreciate it,
Bob

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by RLS

As I have stated, I DO like the Andersen hitch, and as I said from the start, it has to be able to transfer the same amount of weight to the trailer axles as a reg. WD hitch does. The suv I have has a limit of 7100lbs. The suv fully loaded by itself weighs 6240lbs. Fully loaded and hitched using a Reese dual cam I am at 7040lbs. I also use a shoreline and my tongue weight is right at 1050lbs. I have been using the Reese for about 4 yrs. The Andersen one has many benefits that I like, but if it is not capable of the same transfers, then it is not for me since I am so close to the limit now.
Thanks for all, I do appreciate it,
Bob

Check the weight of your Reese vs the Andersen. I would wager your tongue weight will go down by quite a bit by just changing to the Andersen.