Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 06-07-2012, 04:22 PM   #85
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by AirHeadsRus View Post
I would imagine they would be to busy to play on the forums. Once you start it is hard to find a stopping point to get off. I know of two other forums where this same conversation is going on.
I just ordered the hitch this morning. I think it will work just fine. I'll hit the scales when I get it on.
Joe
Yep I read a bunch of stuff on other forums, and just about everyone who has one loves it. "Just About"
__________________

__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 04:45 PM   #86
Vintage Kin
 
slowmover's Avatar
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 7,598
Images: 1
Looking forward to how an ANDERSEN WDH measures out on a certified scale for accurate weight distribution. Anecdote only carries so far.

Full work-up, as in:

1] TV published and adjusted "empty" weights (driver plus full fuel and permanent items aboard); axle-by-axle. (First scale ticket).

2] TV "loaded" weight; axle-by-axle (as if for camping), solo. (Second scale ticket).

3] TT published and adjusted "empty" weights (full water & propane plus permanent trailer supplies); both axles. (Third scale ticket).

4] TT "loaded" weight, alone (axle weight). (Fourth scale ticket).

5] Tongue weights, both "empty" and "loaded". (Scale tickets, or other).

6] TV; FAWR, RAWR, GVWR, GCWR manufacturer figures

7] TT; GVWR manufacturer number

8] TV & TT hitched (Fifth scale ticket; and more as necessary).

Plus, as always, photos taken on level ground showing the rig as a whole and some with the hitch activated, a bit closer.

2Airishuman's famous "Cat Scale" thread as model for the above.

No one has ever shown the workup for that band-aid called an AIRSAFE hitch . . a not unfair name short of what numbers would offer as demonstration; so an early line-by-line rig analysis would be much appreciated in the instance of this new hitch.

A direct comparison to another hitch design (numbers via certified scale on the same rig) would give the OP what I ascertain he wishes to establish in this thread. I haven't seen it done elsewhere at this point. As an A/S requires more care about a level TT, the analysis would serve SOB owners as well.

The simplicity of this new hitch design is undeniably attractive. If it keeps someone from ever again buying/using a friction bar set-up it will have served it's historical purpose. (But it still isn't a VPP hitch which was a game changer where this is not). The price is low enough one could see having it as a spare (for trailers other than an A/S on which a VPP hitch is mounted).

But as I posted in #12 above, the hitch coupler problem is not minor based on the WOODALLS discussion, alone.

And any owner of an older trailer might benefit from investigation of alternative offerings (BULLDOG) and include, IIRC, Mexray's experience with a QUICKBITE coupler as well (thread in that forum) as a way of being more comfortable on that somewhat hidden issue (as rarity, if nothing else, but with serious consequence as in catsandI's recent experience of failure with an A/S coupler). Investigation of the current hitch coupler is a good idea for any of us.

Frankly, a BULLDOG coupler, today, just looks like a good idea in general, for any TT (but deserves a thread of its own).

.
__________________

__________________
1990 35' Silver Streak Sterling; 9k GVWR.
2004 DODGE Cummins 305/555; 6-manual; 9k GVWR.
Hensley Arrow. 9-cpm solo, 15-cpm towing
Sold: Silver Streak Model 3411
slowmover is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 04:50 PM   #87
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
NOOOOOO, not the scales!!!!!!

I always figure if it runs level and drives like it should it must be set up right.
Ignorance is bliss
__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 04:58 PM   #88
Rivet Idiot
 
AirHeadsRus's Avatar
 
1999 34' Excella
Currently Looking...
Currently Looking...
On The Lake , Georgia
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 908
Just about

Quote:
Originally Posted by purman View Post
Yep I read a bunch of stuff on other forums, and just about everyone who has one loves it. "Just About"
I am "just about" happy with ordering a new hitch. The part about the $400 bucks really sucks.
I was "just about" happy with my Hensley but it is old, worn out, heavy and just plain ugly. I did not buy it out right, it came with the trailer. Great hitch and I will probably keep for a while to make sure I'm "just about" happy with the Andersen.
Thanks for all the input everybody.
Joe
__________________
AirHeadsRus is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 05:27 PM   #89
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowieE View Post
You guys are right.

The rearward force applied by the chains to the bottom of the shaft is off set by a forward force acting on the pawl within the coupling. The ball/coupling is the fulcrum in this system.

I went out and looked at my hitch. There is a clear marking on the back side of the ball where it rest against the pawl. While there is No evidence of ware at that point it did cause me to rethink things and realized what you have said to be the case.

Now will the pawl be the point of failure over time that is the open question.
Does your old ball have any marks on it?

My ball, (once I clean the grease off) clearly has worn marks on it from the coupler rotating on it, even with grease.
__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 06:06 PM   #90
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by REDNAX View Post
Looking forward to how an ANDERSEN WDH measures out on a certified scale for accurate weight distribution. Anecdote only carries so far.

Full work-up, as in:

1] TV published and adjusted "empty" weights (driver plus full fuel and permanent items aboard); axle-by-axle. (First scale ticket).

2] TV "loaded" weight; axle-by-axle (as if for camping), solo. (Second scale ticket).

3] TT published and adjusted "empty" weights (full water & propane plus permanent trailer supplies); both axles. (Third scale ticket).

4] TT "loaded" weight, alone (axle weight). (Fourth scale ticket).

5] Tongue weights, both "empty" and "loaded". (Scale tickets, or other).

6] TV; FAWR, RAWR, GVWR, GCWR manufacturer figures

7] TT; GVWR manufacturer number

8] TV & TT hitched (Fifth scale ticket; and more as necessary).

Plus, as always, photos taken on level ground showing the rig as a whole and some with the hitch activated, a bit closer.


.
When I get mine I will try to get the numbers (and photos) you are looking for, maybe not the complete set, but in the as set up for travel (loaded weights) situation. Since I recently went through all of this with my Reese/Draw Tight system, you also can compare hitches. However, I never got the lower shank needed to do a really correct hitch ball height on the old system, but with a single axle trailer, I don't think the numbers would be different from those I did measure.

I am slightly concerned with the coupler loading situation but don't now feel that the Andersen system puts an undue load on the movable part of the coupler, especially since the ball is locked in place and does not really move relative to the coupler. With my Reese/Draw Tight, the movable part of the coupler gets a lot of banging around, with any push of the trailer, as well as rotational forces. And every time I hook up or unhook, I lift the trailer and rear of the TV with the tongue jack to attach the spring bars. That tests the coupler every time I hitch up.

May we live in interesting times.
__________________
idroba is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 07:27 PM   #91
4 Rivet Member
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Phoenix , Arizona
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 470
Quote:
Originally Posted by HowieE View Post
You guys are right.

The rearward force applied by the chains to the bottom of the shaft is off set by a forward force acting on the pawl within the coupling. The ball/coupling is the fulcrum in this system.

I went out and looked at my hitch. There is a clear marking on the back side of the ball where it rest against the pawl. While there is No evidence of ware at that point it did cause me to rethink things and realized what you have said to be the case.

Now will the pawl be the point of failure over time that is the open question.

All mechanical systems have a point of failure whether by oversight or by design. I will save the failed pawl, pictured above, from my old coupling and compare it to the next failure when and if it happens.

I guess I will have to contain my comment to the operational advantages of the game changer.
You are absolutely correct. The Anderson fulcrum point is at the rear of the coupler, whereas the regular WD hitch is at the top. The question is whether or not this will cause a failure. In some couplers I think that it may. In some couplers, the latching mechanism is held in by one bolt and a tack weld. What I don't understand is why they don't use the same system and just pull the chains upward (with the same bushings) and cross them to keep the hitch from turning in the coupler. This would put the force on the top of the coupler where it was meant to be.
__________________
M2HB is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 09:38 PM   #92
Rivet Master
 
2006 22' International CCD
2007 Base Camp
Elk Valley , British Columbia
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 657
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
Yes, the resulting action on the hitch head with a bar system is a twisting force that moves the trailer tongue weight foward on the tow vehicle, and a small amount rearward back onto the trailer. However, the main force of the bars is in a downward angle onto the trailer "A" frame, and must result in an additional downward force on the ball at the coupler.

Again, the Andersen does not put a force downward onto the "A" frame, but pulls the frame foward onto the ball, which the coupler sees as a force against the latching mechanism.

Yes, the result of the force at the hitch head is the same twisting force with is applied to move the tongue weight foward. BUT, the force at the coupler is trying to pull the coupler foward, witch must be sustained by the coupler locking mechanism.

While the result of the weight being tranferred forward on the tow vehicle, the load at the coupler is different. It is being pulled forward, while with a bar system it is being pulled down. Sorry, no if's ands, or but's.
The forces are the same... as the mounting point on the trailer frame is fixed, if you create a lever 90 degrees pointing to the ground (as the Andersen does) and then pull forward on it... two things can happen... the lever flexes, which means it is broken, or the resulting lever has the effect of pulling the frame DOWN... not FORWARD. Looked at another way, it creates a torque effect that pulls the rear of the trailer down... depends which end of the lever you want to reference.

The easier way to envision this it to imagine all the levers are much longer... i.e., the drop on the Andersen isn't 4 inches ( or whatever it is), but it is 5 feet down. And the pivot attaches 5 feet down (pretend it's a monster truck). When you connect those two levers with a chain and tighten it, is is pulling the bottom of the tow vehicle towards the bottom of the trailer... if it was floating in space, you'd eventually have the wheels of each vehicle touching each other.

Since you are on the ground, this 'pushes' the front end of the truck down, and the rear of the trailer down. The same result as a spring bar.
__________________
Friday is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 09:42 PM   #93
4 Rivet Member
 
Vintage Kin Owner
Phoenix , Arizona
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 470
You need to look at what the Pivot point of the fulcrum is. Once you have done that you will see what parts get stressed.
__________________
M2HB is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 09:45 PM   #94
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
Someone who is thinking on the same lines as me. Thanks Friday I don't feel so lonely any more.
__________________
Jason

May you have at least one sunny day, and a soft chair to sit in..

2008 5.7 L V8 Sequoia
AIR # 31243
WBCCI # 6987
FOUR CORNERS UNIT
purman is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 10:08 PM   #95
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 Friday View Post
The forces are the same... as the mounting point on the trailer frame is fixed, if you create a lever 90 degrees pointing to the ground (as the Andersen does) and then pull forward on it... two things can happen... the lever flexes, which means it is broken, or the resulting lever has the effect of pulling the frame DOWN... not FORWARD. Looked at another way, it creates a torque effect that pulls the rear of the trailer down... depends which end of the lever you want to reference.

The easier way to envision this it to imagine all the levers are much longer... i.e., the drop on the Andersen isn't 4 inches ( or whatever it is), but it is 5 feet down. And the pivot attaches 5 feet down (pretend it's a monster truck). When you connect those two levers with a chain and tighten it, is is pulling the bottom of the tow vehicle towards the bottom of the trailer... if it was floating in space, you'd eventually have the wheels of each vehicle touching each other.

Since you are on the ground, this 'pushes' the front end of the truck down, and the rear of the trailer down. The same result as a spring bar.
Yes, and all of this pulling of the chains is pulling the trailer toward the tow vehicle, but the ball and the coupler will not let it come toward the tow vehicle, so there is where the load is applied.

So simple anyone should be able to understand it.
__________________
SteveH is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 10:22 PM   #96
Rivet Master
 
HowieE's Avatar
 
1991 34' Excella
Princeton , New Jersey
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 6,814
Images: 12
OK I have not used the scales since I installed the Andersen but don't see a reason to since I have achieved the same results as far as drop on the front axle of the truck.

When I set up a WD hitch I measure the height of the front and rear fenders unloaded and than again once loaded. Depending on the springs of the TV I attempt to get a 60/40 ration in drop of the fenders height between the rear and front axles. With that ratio on my Excursion I have weighted the rig when equipped with my Reese. That put 175 lbs on the front axle. Now with the Andersen I am dropping the front axle the same amount and thus if I did go to the scales I would expect the same 175 lbs addition to the front axle.

Yes. With other WD hitches there is only a downward load on the top of the ball. The WD forces are transmitted directly through the head of the hitch to the TV. With the Andersen there still is the tongue load on the top of the ball plus the counter load from the chain tension on the back side of the ball. Having looked at the ball ware to date there are versicle scratches along the front face of the ball. because of their length these are clearly from the dropping of the trailer across the ball while hitching. As mentioned above there is a print mark on the back side of the ball where the hitch load is acting. That is nothing more than a rust print with no evidence of scratching.
__________________
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 online now  
Old 06-07-2012, 10:47 PM   #97
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
I should not contribute much until my unit is delivered and set up, but remember, on a conventional WD hitch, every time the trailer goes downhill it pushes against the ball latching mechanism, especially if the trailer brakes are not applied. So, the latching mechanism receives a lot of forward motion in any normal WD setup using spring bars. In addition, there is rotation too. In the Andersen, the push load to counter the chain load is there, but there is no dynamic rotation in addition. And the push load is counteracted by the pull load of the TV on the trailer when you are moving forward. Also, the pull load of the chains reduces the pull load on the ball to a minor extent. I believe, at this point, that the forces on the coupler are not especially different enough to cause a real problem. Push/pull ball loads are present in all normal ball/coupler hitch arrangements.

I am rubbing grease off my fingers now, having just looked carefully at the coupler on my Argosy to see how it worked. I don't think these push loads are any issue at all in comparison to a normal WD unit, which also encounters them all the time.

Now, is my iggnorrrance showing?
__________________
idroba is offline  
Old 06-07-2012, 11:18 PM   #98
Rivet Master
 
danlehosky's Avatar
 
2012 25' FB Flying Cloud
Gig Harbor , Washington
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 780
idroba, no, just your curiosity. Any new design has to have robust discussions like this to fully understand all of the implications of force, inertia, shake, rattle and roll. We would have round table discussions with a white board when we were designing clean room and other systems. There was lots of yelling and pointing and interruptions.

I need to make drawings of things to help me think. Sometimes isometric drawings are best of all.

I'm still convinced the force of this WD system will impact the receiver in a manner that will put stress on a continual basis on the latching mechanism.

I am not convinced this will be an issue. I looked at several receiver specs today and they are stout. When you think of all of the forces they normally encounter in a WD towing situation I now believe the horizontal force applied by this hitch will not impact the safety of this appliacation. (disclaimer, just my thoughts).

The bearing surface for sway control is a non issue. If it needs replaced once every two years the cost will be minimal.

I'd like to see some torsion test results on the drop bar. What is the bolt rating and what kind of weld strength is it designed for.

This product is starting to grow on me. I like the simplicity and the elegance.

Dan
__________________

__________________
TAC
Hope is not a plan.
danlehosky 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 01:40 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.