The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[AirHeadsRus]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

Wouldn't the dry hitch ball be a problem for all couplers, not just the Andersen?

Dry hitch ball is not a problem with Quickbite. IMHO.
Joe

[HowieE]

It is not a braking issue. The static force applied to the pawl by the tension of the chains is amplified by the shocking forces of road conditions. This combination is only offset by the shark fin and over time the fin is sheared off.

The ball having grease or not would have little effect, however if there is grease between the back of the pawl and the incline of the coupler there would be little friction to reduce this hammering.

It is likely that many of the older Atwood coupler have grease at there and thus the conditions are ripe for a problem. New user may want to degrease that the coupling as grease can only promote a problem at this point.

In any case the fact remains that there is a constant force amplified by the hammering of road conditions applied to the pawl pushing it upwards against the fin and the fin is completely inadequate to carry this load.

This condition will not be eliminated by additional discussion. User of the Andersen have 2 choices. Replace the coupler or use another Wd system.
It is a simple chose if you want an effective system.

I changed mine and have not looked back. The quality of the ride was still worth the investment.

Oh yes there is NO GREASE anywhere now.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by TG Twinkie

---If there is any slop between the ball and coupler the hammer force can do considerable damage when taking up the slop.

For every coupler I've looked at, the function of the latch is to maintain contact between ball and "pawl" or similar part.

I don't think the standard torsion bar WD hitch would prevent the slamming action.---

If you're now adding the unlikely occurrence of "slop" to the unlikely occurrence of no TT brakes, you're comparing a very unlikely condition for the bar-type hitch with the every-day operation of the Andersen.

---Whereas the cushioning provided by the bushings on the Andersen may {"prevent the slamming action"}.

Due to the very high level of force pressing the rear of the coupler against the ball, I doubt there would be any "slamming action" with the Andersen.

Ron

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

My truck will decelerate much faster than it will accelerate. Doesn't this prove that more force is applied to the coupler in braking than in towing?---

The issue being discussed is braking force with a bar-type hitch versus the chain-tension-induced force between ball and coupler for the Andersen hitch.

---Your 480 minutes assumes maximum force being applied the whole time, doesn't it?---

Please re-read my post.
The 480 minutes assumes the TV and TT are coupled for 8 hours with the Andersen's chains tensioned and producing 3000# of force between ball and coupler for the full 8 hours.
It has nothing to do with braking force.

Ron

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by crisen

Bottom line is that a truck brake system can generate much more force than it can use in an unladen condition so trying to predict max force available from those stopping distance's is not feasible.

Max braking force is determined by the amount of torque which can be generated by the brakes
AND
by the maximum friction force which can be generated between tires and pavement.

The maximum deceleration which I calculated from the brake test data is consistent with maximum values for tire/pavement friction.
It's unlikely any truck could achieve greater acceleration -- laden or unladen.

Ron

[kscherzi]

I agree with Howie's last statement. Consistent with Andersen's recommendation, replacement of the coupler effectively deals with the issue.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

What is being discussed is the force applied to the entire hitch assembly during normal use including acceleration and deceleration.---

The only "issue" I'm discussing is this statement:
"---No one here could talk long enough to convince me the the force applied by the Andersen hitch could even come close to the forces applied to the coupler when the TV has brakes and the trailer doesn't.---[/quote]

Has nothing to do with acceleration -- and I see nothing "normal" about towing when the TV has brakes and the trailer doesn't.

Ron

[HowieE]

For those who may still have questions of the forces at work within the coupling and how a steady force can be effected by the shock of a hammering I would ask you to look at an Impact Screwdriver.

A twisting force, acting like the constant load of the chains, is amplified when the driver is struck with a hammer thus applying a much greater force to loosen the screw. When ever shock is applied to a system under load the resulting combination is greater than either force if applied singly.

The twisting force applied to an impact screwdriver off sets an incline within the screwdriver and the shock against that incline amplifies the force. The same condition are at work within an Atwood coupling.

[Bruce H.]

Originally Posted by Craiglud

I have noticed a stiffer ride when adding more tension.

A stiffer, more rigid ride was the limiting factor on how much tension I could put on the urethane springs. Then I read on this forum that some members were applying a light coat of grease to the ball because there are some pitch, roll and even slight yawl movements of the coupler on the ball. I started doing that and I discovered I could increase the tension considerably before a stiffer ride became apparent.

What I think is happening is that with our relatively lightweight trailers, the ball/pawl connection was binding and preventing the normal movements of the coupler on the ball. A little grease allows for those movements.

I use a clear synthetic grease and wipe it off immediately after unhitching.

Bruce

[TG Twinkie]

I didn't say that the hammering was normal. The point I was trying to make is. That if the brakes on the trailer are not doing their job. For what ever reason; adjustment; mechanical failure; electrical problems; etc. Then the TV brakes would have to do the job. This is the case where the hammering comes into play.
Imagine a bowling ball in the bed of the truck against the tail gate. Now slam on the brakes. The ball rolls forward and crashes into the front of the box. In the same way the trailer comes forward (without brakes) and the coupler pawl slams into the ball.
No one knows when the brakes on a trailer might will not work effectively. But the coupler should be designed and rated to handle a situation like the one above and not fail.
After all, it is the last line of defense.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by TG Twinkie

I didn't say that the hammering was normal.

I'm aware of that.

I was responding to the statement by Rendrag.

Ron

[floridalarry]

Good afternoon everyone. I may not have been the first to raise the incompatibility issue of their hitch and the Atwood 88010 coupler, but I took it to a new level. Let me provided a recap

I bought the Andersen because of its weight and the easy of operation. After my first trip (500 miles), I noticed the the chain brackets top rotated rearward. I then decided to drill the holes into the frame for the lock screw to fit into. I also had the brackets spot welded so they would not move. At that time, I noticed that the thumb latch was lifting when pressure was applied to the chains. Didn't think anything about it, but decided to order a repair kit for the Atwood 88010 hoping that would take care of the problem. I installed it at the Florida State Rally but noticed that the shark fin would not hold the claw shaft done in the proper position. In fact the front of the shark pin was totally sheared off. I showed this to Dave Schumann and he said he had not seen this issue before and didn't know a fix.

When I got home from the rally, I began to lift with the jack the TV and AS to release some of the tension on the chains, and the AS popped off the ball. Upon investigation, I noticed by the wear marks on the ball that the claw was making contact at the top edge of the ball rather than under the ball.

Someone mentioned that they had read that the Andersen and the Atwood had failed and the AS had come off the ball. Yes, It did but only with upward pressure was applied when trying to unhook. Of course, if I had gone over a large bump and the tongue had lost downward weight, the AS would have come off.

I contacted Atwood about the 88010 (Marvel) coupler and discussed the issue with them. They said that the 88000 series couplers were not meant to maintain the constant rearward pressure of the Andersen. I then called Andersen and showed them pictures of the fin damage. Subsequently, they have noted that their hitch is not compatible with the Atwood 88000 series couplers. They made no offer to reimburse me and said that any refund would have to go through the dealer I purchased it from. Since the purchase was over 30 days old, there was no refund. Andersen did say that they have tested their hitch with the Atwood 81911 and found no issues. Looking at the 81911 and comparing it to the 88010, there is a distinct difference in the thumb latch.

Now I needed to replace the coupler. The 81911 was 1/2" wider than the old coupler. Decision time . . . replace the 88010 with a 81911 or a Quick Bite. Both couples would require welding modification since the A-frame wouldn't accommodate either one out of the box.

I went with the 81911 because that is the one that Andersen has developed the hitch for and I'm about to travel 6,000 miles and I didn't want to have an issue with a QB . . . that that there would be, but I just didn't want to take the chance and the 81911 was $100 less.

I have attached photos of the old 88010 and the new 81911. Notice the difference in the thumb latch. There is no lifting of the latch with the 81911. Painted the ball, attached the AS and pulled it for 30 miles. When I unhooked, the wear on the ball is at the back bottom of the ball . . . where it should be.

If there are any issues with this coupler, I'll let you know.

[HowieE]

Larry

You mention an issue with the QB. As a QB user what issue are you talking about?

This picture was taken before I finished painting the tongue but show the installation as finished.

[floridalarry]

Didn't mean there was any issue with the QB, only that there was not a history of using an Andersen with it. Sounds like they work perfectly. I just didn't have the funds nor the confidence of using the Andersen with any coupler other than the Atwood 81911 . . . I didn't feel I comfortable driving the Gainesville to have your welder install the QB. If there was a welded locally, I may have considered it.

[polarlyse]

I will probably make the coupler change down the road. I like the Quikbite style but have not made the decision yet. My only question about it is how it works on the occasions where you need to uncouple and couple at an angle. It's design looks to be for straight on coupling. I'm not so sure how it works if you try to raise the coupler and set it down on the ball like the other types. If I can't get a resolution to my question I will probably stick with the Anderson approved Atwood coupler. Maybe some of those who have made the Quikbite change have already encountered this and can share the solution.

Thanks all, See ya on the road sometime.

[Craiglud]

Originally Posted by dkottum

That set of tickets would be considered a failure to transfer weight by many people. They would like to see (at least) the original weight restored to the front axle. Some would like to see the trailer tongue weight transferred to the tow vehicle evenly distributed on front and rear axles.


doug k

I just did about a 200 mile round trip and everything worked flawlessly. We had wind advisories on the way out and on the return trip of 30 to 40 mph. Truck and trailer tracked like an arrow! Much better than anything I have ever towed.

I set the load configuration where I felt that I had a good balance between weight distribution and proper ride. I could have easily added another turn to the screws to transfer more weight to the front axle however I do not see any point in doing so. I have towed many toys over the years from boats, popups and travel trailers. I have never towed a fifth wheel however thats not what we are talking about here. I will probably make a few more trips with mine and then put the short weld on the bracket as indicated in the instructions once I am sure that I have it set where I want and everything is working as intended.

I am sure this debate will continue on for some time as we are all passionate about choices and spend a lot of time working to tune the configurations. The great thing about places like this is people can come together and learn from each other and hopefully tune their particular setup for the best performance and safety.

I appreciate the knowledge everyone is willing to share and have certainly learned a lot along the way!

[eheffa]

Hi.

My Equalizer WD hitch works, but it very noisy and showing signs of wear.

I'm considering the Andersen for my 2008 FB SE.

I don't see any identifying model Number on my Coupler. How can I confirm the Model/Make of my coupler?

Thanks.

- evan

[HowieE]

If you have to pull the latch forwards, to the TV, before lifting it odd are you have the Atwood with the shark fin. The coupling that is having failures. Also the vintage of your trailer point in that direction.

[eheffa]

Originally Posted by HowieE

If you have to pull the latch forwards, to the TV, before lifting it odd are you have the Atwood with the shark fin. The coupling that is having failures. Also the vintage of your trailer point in that direction.

Thanks HowieE.

I looked again & there are no model numbers I can see but that is the mechanism you describe alright.

Too bad, as this would make this into a much bigger change...

-evan

[Ramble On]

I'm looking for advise on replacing my atwood 88010 with the atwood 81911. I understand that there are dimensional differences. Do I need to remove the entire old coupler or just cut off the head? Does atwood include the welding specifications?