The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[AWCHIEF]

Originally Posted by TG Twinkie

Why don't you 2 get a room?
Where are the moderators when you really need them?

Relax, we are just 2 old friends having fun.

[Kosm1o]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

"Whether it does or does not make sense, the fact remains that Chevrolet specifies 100% for the Suburban."

Actually, GM "specifies" that up to 600 pounds of trailer weight is okay for the Suburban without WD hitch at all which covers a lot of trailers. Some might think 100% of Suburbans need 100% restoration 100% of the time from your statement. I am sure you did not mean it that way.

That 600# rating has to do with that OEM tubular hitch itself, not the restoration of the front axle weight. This is why I switched to a Curt which is rated much higher.

[HowieE]

Ron

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.

While several of you are hanging your hats, in an attempt to degrade the Andersen hitch, on weigh transfer you are completely ignoring the detrimental effects that level of transfer has on the trailer, rivet popping, and the roughness of the ride to the TV, porpoising.

When evaluating the complete effect of the Andersen hitch against the old approach to hitching one should look at the complete picture. WD as was required 40 years ago with lightly sprung CARs is no longer the most important factor. Current TV, trucks, that tend to be heavily sprung and thus harder riding, benefit greatly from the use of the urethane bushings as a damping agent when compared to the rough ride bars produce. While I was not looking to the Andersen to provide a better overall ride, I was looking for ease of hitching and effective sway control, it was immediately apparent when encountering pot holes and tar strips. The almost complete reduction of secondary effects of these issues was a very pleasant benefit.

Another factor that seams to be set aside is the ease of and time required to hitch while hitching in other than ideal alignment. If I encounter this I just release the tension on the chains slip the plate on the ball shaft drive forward to straighten thing out and tighten the chains to there originals set points. Since the plate is self aligning there is no need to be EXACT in this adjustment. Oh yes there is also no detrimental effect to the trailer, inability to open the door or other effect of frame torque, if the chain tension is not equal.

Now I don't expect those, so dedicated to degrading the Andersen, to stop their efforts. Those of you out there that can look beyond that marketing campaign should evaluate the complete range of factors when considering a hitch.

Oh yes Ron, if you want to go back and post a the time and date of my scale tickets feel free. Steve seams to have forgotten them and keeps asking for them.

And Oh yes for those that have repeatedly asked if I have a financial arrangement with Andersen. I just bought a second used Andersen hitch and need a longer drop shank. They quoted me $70.00, which I believe they have quoted other here as well.

Again it should be noted that Bumble Bees can fly without producing scale tickets or any other form of documentation.

doug

Your post of the PP hitching time would not play on my computer, it just froze. Now I am sure that is not a true indication of how long it really takes to hitch up I found it quite amusing and will not how you to it.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

You do not understand that an unloaded pickup has a higher percentage of weight on its front axle than an unloaded SUV?

Yes, I do understand that generally is true. But, the average front/rear curb weight distributions probably are closer to 58/42 for the pickups and 52/48 for the Suburban.

However, to keep this current discussion on track, we need to go back to Craiglud's statement:
"What is being debated now is that a 100 lb variance from the original weight of the front axle is somehow going to cause these catastrophic side effects."

The point of my example was to show that the original weight of the front axle of a Suburban could be heavier than the original weight of the front axle of a pickup.
If so, a given variance from the original weight would have more of an effect on the pickup than on the Suburban.
However, the pickup requires only 50% restoration while the Suburban requires 100%.
That's the part that doesn't make sense to me.

I will make it simple. If the pickup has 60-40 weight bias toward the front axle and the SUV is 50=50, which is more likely to come into balance by adding weight to the rear axle?

As stated earlier, I thought this current discussion focused on the effect of removing load from the front axle.

If you now want to discuss "balance" (relative location of the center of gravity), that's another matter.

You need to understand that, when you attach a trailer to a TV, you are not rearranging any of the mass of the TV or moving any of its cargo.
IOW, attaching a trailer does not move the center of gravity of the TV and its contents.
Therefore, attaching a trailer does not change the "balance" of the TV.

Ron

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by TG Twinkie

Why don't you 2 get a room?
Where are the moderators when you really need them?

We don't need a room for a little friendly verbal sparing.

And, if I had a 17' Airstream, I would use an Andersen hitch with it. Now with a 31'???? Well, I would choose the Andersen over a bare ball, but only if there were no other options.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

"Whether it does or does not make sense, the fact remains that Chevrolet specifies 100% for the Suburban."

Actually, GM "specifies" that up to 600 pounds of trailer weight is okay for the Suburban without WD hitch at all which covers a lot of trailers.---

About four lines prior to that statement I said:
"You can get a 2013 Suburban (SUV) with Curb Weight=6413, Payload=2187, FGAWR=4180, RGAWR=5500. It requires 100% restoration for TW>600#." (bold added for emphasis)
I didn't think it was necessary to repeat it a second time.

Some might think 100% of Suburbans need 100% restoration 100% of the time from your statement. I am sure you did not mean it that way.

You're correct. I didn't mean it that way.

We do need to keep in mind that, when we refer to "50%" and "100%" in these discussions, we are referring to Front Axle Load Restoration (FALR) or front-end rise elimination.
Load restoration or rise elimination requires the use of a WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION HITCH.



Ron

[dkottum]

The idea the the Andersen provides a gentler ride for the Airstream is wrong in my experience.

I questioned it before I bought the Andersen, and was advised on this thread the Andersen red urethane bushings provide the flexibility (dampening). Aside from a host of other issues that caused me to abandon the Andersen, the lack of flexibility (after hitch uncoupling) continued as my greatest concern.

There is virtually no flexibility (dampening) in the urethane bushings left after the chains are tightened. This became evident after 4,000 miles of towing in a front banana wrap torn from its riveting, and possibly two popped rivets under the front dinette replaced mid-trip at Jackson Center. The friction material began to squeeze out of its housing. The urethane compression washers began to push deeper into the bushings. The chains and hitch ball began what I believe was premature wear from the tension applied in moving down the road (I lubed them on this so-called no lube hitch to slow it down).

I found the Andersen to be a softer ride than my Equal-I-Zer but now realize this was more about the lack of weight distribution than lack of spring bars. I found the ProPride fully adjusted for weight distribution, with tapered 1400# bars, softer than either one of them.

And I saw a dead bumblebee in the garden this morning.

doug k

[HowieE]

Never said they live for ever I just pointed out that they can fly while many experts say they can not. Kind of like the Andersen, it works even though many experts, you know a "drip under pressure", say it can't.

Looks like the pressure is building on some.

doug you failed to post pictures of your failed front end separation but you can use mine if you want.

I think I will post that my trailer needed new axles when I bought it, 18 years ago, and see how long it take one of the experts to incorporate that failure in their discussion of the Andersen faults. Also the frig door fell off twice but then again that was also before i installed the hitch. Just suggesting topics for you to work on.

[Rendrag]

Originally Posted by SteveH

I sure do, and this is directly from the Andersen Hitch web page: "10,000 lbs GTWR • 1,400 lbs tongue weight"

Now that's some science fiction right there.

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. A late model GM 3500 pickup is rated at up to 19,000 pounds without any WD hitch, so it would work in that situation. Lying? No more than some on here who choose to make half true statements and quote questionable statistics.

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.

[SteveH]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

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. A late model GM 3500 pickup is rated at up to 19,000 pounds without any WD hitch, so it would work in that situation. Lying? No more than some on here who choose to make half true statements and quote questionable statistics.

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.

Interesting you would compare the F-150....when I was researching the possibility of going to a 1/2 ton tow vehicle, the F-150 is one that I considered, and while talking with the truck "guru" at a dealership (he had just come back from the truck sales school), I asked what was different on the F-150 model rated to tow 11,000 pounds.

His answer was, "it has a bigger oil pump in the engine". I swear on the Bible this is the truth.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by SteveH

His answer was, "it has a bigger oil pump in the engine". I swear on the Bible this is the truth.

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. Most units deliver without being speced out by the buyer are set up for "soccer moms" with ratios that squeeze out the last mpg to keep the fleet average up and keep the Government off their backs. If you want a tow vehicle design it for that and order it otherwise buy a very small trailer.

You should also note that Detroit does not sell all models through the country. You stand a much better chance of getting a vehicle designed fro towing in the mid west than on either coast.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by dkottum

There is virtually no flexibility (dampening) in the urethane bushings left after the chains are tightened. This became evident after 4,000 miles of towing in a front banana wrap torn from its riveting, and possibly two popped rivets under the front dinette replaced mid-trip at Jackson Center. The friction material began to squeeze out of its housing. The urethane compression washers began to push deeper into the bushings.

I would go one step further. I would say that the bushings provide no significant damping regardless of compression.
The volume of bushing material is simply too small and the resonate frequency is too high for damping of the pitch-axis rotations.
I would venture to say that it is the relatively high pitch-axis friction generated between ball and coupler which tends to reduce the "porpoising".
This high friction results from the large longitudinal force produced by the Andersen's chains.

I found the Andersen to be a softer ride than my Equal-I-Zer but now realize this was more about the lack of weight distribution than lack of spring bars. I found the ProPride fully adjusted for weight distribution, with tapered 1400# bars, softer than either one of them.

I think you're absolutely correct about the Andersen's lack of WD being the reason for the softer ride.

And I saw a dead bumblebee in the garden this morning.

Now that the bumblebee is dead -- you might want to be on the lookout for an ostrich with its head in the sand.

Ron

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Never said they live for ever I just pointed out that they can fly while many experts say they can not.---

Contrary to your statement, you'll be hard pressed to find any expert who says a bumblebee cannot fly.
Yes there allegedly was an "expert" who did an inaccurate analysis which showed a bumblebee could not fly.
However, the "expert" and many others were well aware of the inaccuracies.
But that doesn't prevent the uninformed from keeping the myth alive.

Now, as for the ostrich which puts its head in the sand because it believes what it does not see cannot hurt it -- I think that's for real.

Ron

[SteveH]

In the very beginning of this thread, and my learning of the existence of the Andersen WD hitch, I was very interested, and intrigued by it. But, I also had reservations about how it loaded the coupler, and how well the urethane "springs" would work. I actually considered buying one for the Airstream just to try it, but since I was unhappy with the hitch I had on the Casita, decided to try it there first.

I'm happy with my decisions at this point, especially not to try one on the Airstream. However, should Anderson make some major change that would improve the weight distribution capabilities of the hitch, I will again consider one.

Now to the point of my post, since I have made my decision and will not be swayed unless there are major changes to the hitch, I'm certain that many of you will be overjoyed to hear that I am deleting my subscription from this thread, and will not be here to read the unexplainable loyalty the same group of you have for the Andersen, or be here to be verbally ridiculed.

Safe and happy travels to you all.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by Ron Gratz

I would venture to say that it is the relatively high pitch-axis friction generated between ball and coupler which tends to reduce the "porpoising".

Now that the bumblebee is dead -- you might want to be on the lookout for an ostrich with its head in the sand.
Ron

Regardless as to which function of the Andersen you would be willing to give credit to reduces porpoising. It is refreshing to see the Nay Sayers trapped into admitting that the hitch does in fact reduce porpoising. I agree with your comment that the resonate frequency of the bushings is very high and thus can not store energy like a metal spring, thus producing porpoising, and have to go through a Ring Down to dissipate that energy.

[dkottum]

It reduces porpoising only because it cannot accomplish full weight distribution. Similarly you could reduce porpoising by loosening the weight distribution bars on a Equal-I-Zer hitch. (I know because I tried it, but sure didn't like the lightness of the steering.) Not a good idea.

doug k

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by HowieE

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

[AWCHIEF]

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.

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by Rendrag

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.

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

[Rendrag]

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.