Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×
 


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-11-2013, 02:31 PM   #21
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,714
I have still have the Equal-I-Zer hitch I used for last few years and the Andersen hitch, so have experience with both on this Airstream.

After a few miles test run with the Andersen, it was an easy choice to use it when taking off on our 6-8,000 mile trip last fall (not done yet). With 4,000 miles towing with the Andersen, the Equal-I-zer is for sale.

doug k
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:41 PM   #22
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,014
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
Just returned from the first trip using the Andersen Hitch. While the trip was only 340 miles. I drove Hwy 85 from Cheyenne to Torrington, Wy the day after a major blizzard. A considerable amount of ice and slush. I will provide more details along with pics. Soon.
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 02:45 PM   #23
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,278
Images: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveH View Post
I disagree with your statement: "The Anderson does not distribute the weight to the front of the tow vehicle as effectively as a spring bar hitch." And, I disagree because I use one, granted on a small trailer with a small tow vehicle, but it actually distributes the weight much better than the conventional bar type hitch it replaced. I actually had to reduce the adjustment from what the Andersen instructions stated because I was getting too much weight distrubution and loading the front of the TV too heavily.

And about Can Am Andy's photo of the hitch he tried, it was obvious to all of the people on here with actual experience with the Andersen, that he had bottomed out the chain adjustment and over compressed the springs. Sort of seems to me he was trying to prove the Andersen inefective.

Ganaraska, have you used an Andersen hitch?
Steve, well said. I don't think that I could add anything to Ganaraska's unfounded statement.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2013, 04:34 PM   #24
Rivet Master
 
MrUKToad's Avatar
 
2011 28' International
Chatham , Ontario
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,401
Images: 17
Blog Entries: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ag&Au View Post
If you like to read, here is a whole bunch more on a differnt forum. I did not read more than the first few posts, because I am not intersted enough. However this thread was not started with the idea of providing support for owners who are already convinced that it is a good concept.

RV.Net Open Roads Forum: Towing: New Andersen WD hitch


Ken
Wow! There's some detail in that thread, and a few side threads as well. Thanks for the link, Ken.

I don't have an Andersen, nor do I want one, but it's been fascinating to see the arguments ranging backwards and forwards. It's clear that Andersen users are a bunch of happy campers, despite the math and physics pointing some areas of potential weakness. Like the bumblebee argument, though, it flies despite the theory.

For myself I think the design of the Andersen is innovative, especially the sway control, but the method by which the torque required for effective weight distribution is generated doesn't seem to be as effective as a conventional WD system. I base that on the math and physics and not any real world experience, by the way, so it's back to the bumblebees, eh?

Good luck Andersen users, keep the updates coming. Me? I'll stick with what I have.
__________________
Steve; also known as Mr UK Toad

"You can't tow that with that!"

https://sites.google.com/view/towedhaul/home
MrUKToad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-12-2013, 02:12 PM   #25
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,014
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
Wrote the results of my first trip with the Andersen Hitch on the other thread that is about this hitch,
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 07:42 AM   #26
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG Twinkie View Post
Wrote the results of my first trip with the Andersen Hitch on the other thread that is about this hitch,
http://www.airforums.com/forums/f464...ml#post1260530

Thanks for the report, similar to our own experience.

doug k
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 07:58 AM   #27
Vintage Kin
 
Fort Worth , Texas
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 8,014
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveirving View Post
Hi,

I'm towing a 24' 1959 Tradewind with a 2008 Toyota Highlander with tow package. The SUV outweighs the trailer by 200 lbs. Tows well, but I get about 1.5-2" of drop on the back end of the SUV and some sway if the trailer is not carefully loaded.

I'm looking at the Andersen No Sway Weight Distribution kit # 3339 3339 Andersen 'No-sway' Weight Distribution Hitch - 4" Drop/rise, 2" Ball, 3"-4" Frame Brackets : Amazon.com : Automotive.

Wondering if anyone can provide feedback on how well this system controls sway and more importantly equalized the weight between the front and rear tires of my SUV.

Steve


The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

Good luck finding that data except on trailer TW so light that a WDH may not be necessary. What data is available shows that proper leverage is not forthcoming in restoration of the front axle weight value as shown on a scale ticket.

Anti-sway is only a vehicle manufacturer recommendation, an option. Not required. It is both separate and secondary to the above requirement.

The Anderson fails to meet the test necessary to be called a weight-distribution hitch.

Irrelevant, then, that the anti-sway is better than friction bar type (since all others are as well).

Spend your money on something that works.

.
slowmover is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:13 AM   #28
Rivet Master
 
dkottum's Avatar
 
2012 25' Flying Cloud
Battle Lake , Minnesota
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 7,714
slowmover, thanks for the report, although you never seen nor used an Andersen.

doug k
dkottum is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:31 AM   #29
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,278
Images: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

Good luck finding that data except on trailer TW so light that a WDH may not be necessary. What data is available shows that proper leverage is not forthcoming in restoration of the front axle weight value as shown on a scale ticket.

Anti-sway is only a vehicle manufacturer recommendation, an option. Not required. It is both separate and secondary to the above requirement.

The Anderson fails to meet the test necessary to be called a weight-distribution hitch.

Irrelevant, then, that the anti-sway is better than friction bar type (since all others are as well).

Spend your money on something that works.

.
I like a good fiction short story.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:39 AM   #30
Rivet Master
 
SteveH's Avatar
 
2005 39' Land Yacht 390 XL 396
Common Sense , Texas
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 5,319
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover View Post
The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

Good luck finding that data except on trailer TW so light that a WDH may not be necessary. What data is available shows that proper leverage is not forthcoming in restoration of the front axle weight value as shown on a scale ticket.

Anti-sway is only a vehicle manufacturer recommendation, an option. Not required. It is both separate and secondary to the above requirement.

The Anderson fails to meet the test necessary to be called a weight-distribution hitch.

Irrelevant, then, that the anti-sway is better than friction bar type (since all others are as well).

Spend your money on something that works.

.
Your statement above is incorrect, the Andersen does distribute weight just fine.

Although I've not used the Andersen on a big heavy trailer, I do own one and have used it, which is much more first-hand data than you have, Rednax, or whatever your name is today.

I find it very interesting that only the people that have not used an Andersen say it won't work, while everyone that has used it, love it.

So I say to anyone considering an Andersen, who are you going to believe?????
__________________
Regards,
Steve
SteveH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:32 AM   #31
Rivet Master
 
SteveSueMac's Avatar

 
2012 27' Flying Cloud
W , New England
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 7,402
Quote:
Originally Posted by slowmover

The first job of a weight-distribution hitch is to restore the tow vehicle front axle to the unhitched value. This is a vehicle manufacturer requirement.

.
In my users manual (2013 Silverado Duramax) weight distribution is optional, not required. I still decided to go with the ProPride because psychologically I want to believe I'm preventing sway from happening rather than reacting to it, but Andersen was really tempting for cost, simplicity and weight. In the other thread, it appeared to me that for TVs like mine, Andersen may actually be a great choice as the WD requirement is either minimal or optional and there are built in sway control features in the TV. Th decision for me boiled down to a psychological need :-)
SteveSueMac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 10:46 AM   #32
Rivet Master
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,463
Images: 1
Below are two pictures of two different weight distribution hitches . The top one is an Andersen hitch. The bottom is a ProPride 3P. I chose it because the picture shows the complete hitch with weight distribution being applied.

In order to distribute weight with either system you must provide a force at the rear of the TV that will raise the rear of the TV and Lower the front using the rear axis as the fulcrum.

I will start with the ProPride as I am familiar with it. The weight distribution bars are firmly attached to the hitch head and for the analysis of weight distribution can be considered integral to it. The upward force is applied at the end of WD bars, by raising them with the jacks to which they are attached. It seems pretty straight forward until you think about the fact that it appears to be equivalent to lifting yourself by your boot straps. However since you are applying a rotational force to the hitch head which (disregarding what play is in the system) is rigidly attached to the TV, that rotation force is applied to the rear of the TV. The leverage involved, contrary to what would appear to be the case, is not being applied to the point where the jack is attached to the WD bar. It is being applied as a clockwise rotational force at the point where the WD bars have a ninety degree turn. This is because the jacks are anchored on the A frame not the ground.

In the case of the Andersen Hitch this rotational force is being applied by the rearward force provided by the the chains. What is going to determine the actual force necessary to accomplish the same weight distribution is the right angle distance from the projection of the hitch receiver bar and the attachment point of the chain or in the case of the PP, the center of the bend in the bar. Here is where I am guessing. From the pictures, that distance seems to be about 6 inches for the Andersen and about 1 foot for the ProPride. From that I would deduce that it requires, in these two pictured examples, more rearward force to distribute the same weight with the Andersen.

The other differences in construction such as materials used and construction techniques need further research by someone more interested than I.

I really have no horse in this race, because I don't care what others tow with. I did this analysis to satisfy my own curiosity about what is going on and not to make a judgment of either WD system.

I am not guarantying that this analysis is correct not am I prepared to defend it. I am simply sharing what conclusion I came to. You will not hurt my feelings by attempting to blast it to kingdom come. I will be interested in reading any other analysis, but will not enter into arguments of the relative merits of those versus this.

Ken












Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:12 PM   #33
3 Rivet Member
 
steveirving's Avatar
 
1959 24' Tradewind
Quantico , Virginia
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 127
Images: 10
Blog Entries: 6
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.
steveirving is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:17 PM   #34
Rivet Master
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,463
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveirving View Post
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.

I believe that, if I had a similar TV and TT, I would make the same choice.

Ken
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 12:36 PM   #35
Rivet Master
 
1974 Argosy 20
2014 20' Flying Cloud
Kooskia , Idaho
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 4,591
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveirving View Post
Thanks for all the answers and insight guys. Our 24' Tradewind is 4000lbs fully loaded and my Highlander SUV is 4500 lbs. Our tongue weight fully loaded is about 380-400 lbs (light compared to what most of you haul). The big thing, for me, favoring the Andersen over the other style of WD systems is the weight (60 lbs vs 80-90 for other systems) puts me very close to my 500 max tongue. Based on feedback from owners, I have no doubt the Andersen sway control works great. I just wanted more reassurance it will alleviate some of my 400lb tongue weight.
My '74 Argosy weighs 4200# loaded to tow, with a 710# tongue weight. I tow with an Andersen and a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee.

The combination is great in all ways.
idroba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 01:16 PM   #36
Rivet Master
 
TG Twinkie's Avatar
 
1974 Argosy 26
Morrill , Nebraska
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 6,014
Images: 2
Blog Entries: 5
Here is the way I see it. In geometrical terms. The connection point (coupler and ball combination) is like the truss on the roof of a house. Although the hitch does not have as high of a peak as a house, it does exist. The roof on your house can hold a tremendous amount of weight. Because the base of the triangle does not change in length when loaded.
The same goes for a WD hitch. Regardless of the brand. If you were to hitch the trailer to the TV without the WD hitch. The odds are that the rear of the TV and the tongue of the trailer would go down. Forming a "V" shape. I think everyone can agree to this.
In the case of the Andersen hitch you tension the chains with no load on the TV. So the rear of the TV and tongue are at a slight upward angle. If you were to lift the rear of the TV with the tongue jack while the coupler is locked onto the ball, the upward angle of the hitch point would be higher. Now if you were to tighten the chains, making the base of the triangle shorter, the WD would increase because when you raise the tongue jack the bottom of the triangle can only increase by the amount of compression of the urethane bushings.
On the conventional WD hitch, the spring bars prevent the connection point from sinking by pulling down on the trailer "A" frame in turn pushing up on the connection point. In effect, shortening the base of the triangle.
The conventional WD is matched to the trailer by the weight rating of the bars.
Perhaps the Andersen hitch should have urethane bushings with varying weight capacities. The unit of measure for rubber is derometer (sp) when it comes to compression figures. Not sure if the same scale is used for urethane.
Anyway. That's my take on it.
I have found it a lot easier to adjust the tension on the Andersen hitch by raising the tongue higher while hitched. As opposed to tightening the nut while the chains are taught. Not sure if the guys at Andersen would agree with this procedure. But it works for me.
TG Twinkie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 01:48 PM   #37
Rivet Master
 
AWCHIEF's Avatar
 
2006 23' Safari SE
Biloxi , Mississippi
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 8,278
Images: 33
Ken, help me out. I have read and reread you post (#32) several times and I can not figure out what your point or conclusion is. Can you please explain to me. Keep in mind that I am not an engineer and base my feelings about the Andersen on actual use and not theory.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 03:55 PM   #38
Rivet Master
 
purman's Avatar
 
1968 28' Ambassador
Cedaredge , Colorado
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 2,542
I have stayed of the Andersen Thread for some time now, as I got tired of providing data that the hitch did work. It was humorous at first, seeing the NAPKIN engineers throw out numbers. but it just gets old proving them wrong over and over again, with scale numbers, first hand experiences and the real engineers at Andersen that did the work in the beginning.

If you want the simplest hitch to put on, that also controls sway and distributes weight, then give it a try.

If you want to say it doesn't work, then buy one and provide some real data to show it doesn't.

Most of the other thread is a waste for most readers as it is fictional data from a napkin, and peoples opinion that it doesn't work when they have never used it. When you have it hooked up, see it distribute weight or see the scale numbers you know it does work.

I also see Andy for can am was brought up again. Any of us with an Andersen hitches can plainly see he didn't follow the directions and didn't hook it up right. And I never saw another post from him. (But then I quite reading it a while ago.) Not sure what the motivation behind his posts where???

So for those interested, all the speculation has been debunked somewhere in the thread, (if you can sift through it to find it) I have well over 3000 miles on mine and love it.
__________________
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   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 06:48 PM   #39
Rivet Master
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,463
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by AWCHIEF View Post
Ken, help me out. I have read and reread you post (#32) several times and I can not figure out what your point or conclusion is. Can you please explain to me. Keep in mind that I am not an engineer and base my feelings about the Andersen on actual use and not theory.
There was no point. I was simply trying to justify in my mind how a weight distribution bar hitch and an Andersen hitch's chain system correlated to each other. At first look it appeared that there was a big advantage force wise to the bar system. However after realizing, that because of the fact that the bar jack is mounted on the trailer not the ground (duh ), the big advantage was an illusion. I have only had a chance to glance at TG Twinkie's post, but found it interesting and want to think about what he saying and see if it helps me understand. I am not an engineer, but I took two years of general engineering before I ended up with a degree in meteorology. So, I had a good education working with force diagrams (ala 1960's).

Where I stand right now is that the major factor in either system is how much vertical separation there is between where the WD force is actually being applied and the horizontal plane of the hitch bar in the truck.

After doing this, I am much more comfortable with how the Andersen hitch distributes weight. However I still want to put some more study into correlating the two methods.

I don't know if this clears up what I'm doing or not.

I believe that putting thoughts into writing aids my understanding. If I can trick someone else into reading them, so much the better.

If my line of thought is correct, one could get the best Weight transfer with a given force by mounting the receiver high on the truck and having a long drop down to the hitch.

Ken
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-13-2013, 08:07 PM   #40
Rivet Master
 
Ag&Au's Avatar
 
Port Orchard , Washington
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 4,463
Images: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by TG Twinkie View Post
Here is the way I see it. In geometrical terms. The connection point (coupler and ball combination) is like the truss on the roof of a house. Although the hitch does not have as high of a peak as a house, it does exist. The roof on your house can hold a tremendous amount of weight. Because the base of the triangle does not change in length when loaded.
The same goes for a WD hitch. Regardless of the brand. If you were to hitch the trailer to the TV without the WD hitch. The odds are that the rear of the TV and the tongue of the trailer would go down. Forming a "V" shape. I think everyone can agree to this.
In the case of the Andersen hitch you tension the chains with no load on the TV. So the rear of the TV and tongue are at a slight upward angle. If
Perhaps the Andersen hitch should have urethane bushings with varying weight capacities. The unit of measure for rubber is derometer (sp) when it comes to compression figures. Not sure if the same scale is used for urethane.
Anyway. That's my take on it.
I have found it a lot easier to adjust the tension on the Andersen hitch by raising the tongue higher while hitched. As opposed to tightening the nut while the chains are taught. Not sure if the guys at Andersen would agree with this procedure. But it works for me.
I have read your post a few times and will have to read it a few more while trying to see how it correlates (or if it does) with what I think I am trying to say.

As I see it the only function the urethane bushing preforms is to dampen the shock being transferred back and forth and forth between TV and TT. The hitch would preform as well without it, but there would be a rougher ride for TT and TV. It makes sense that different rated bushings be offered to allow for tuning the hitch to each TV TT combo.

Not only the Andersen, but any WD hitch that I have used is much easier to set the weight distribution force, if the tongue jack is used to unload the downward force from the hitch first.

Ken
Ag&Au is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


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



Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Airstream, Inc. or any of its affiliates. Airstream is a registered trademark of Airstream Inc. All rights reserved. Airstream trademark used under license to Social Knowledge LLC.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.