Anderson Weight Distribution Anti-Sway Hitch

[dkottum]

Setting aside the Andersen's very limited weight distribution capability, compare it to the Hensley Arrow (HaHa) sway elimination ability.

The Hensley will not allow the trailer to be moved out of alignment with the tow vehicle by crosswinds or semi's passing; the Andersen (like any friction sway control) only resists the trailer being pushed out of alignment, and if the side force (wind) on the trailer is constant the trailer will remain out of alignment with the tow vehicle.

The Hensley projects the pivot point of the truck/trailer connection forward near the truck's rear axle, similar to a fifth wheel trailer. Any side forces on the trailer are stopped by the tires of the truck's rear axle. The pivot point of the Andersen is at the truck receiver (like any conventional hitch). Any side forces on the trailer push the receiver sideways, that force rotates around the truck's rear axle and is leveraged forward to the truck's steering axle.

If you happen onto an icy roadway, side forces on the trailer (wind and semi's passing) push the trailer out of alignment with the truck. The friction sway control tends to resist that side movement but it also resists the trailer returning to straight alignment of the truck/trailer. The Hensley allows no misalignment of the truck/trailer (only the truck can initiate a turn) and if the truck does turn out of alignment, there is no resistance to return to straight truck/trailer alignment.

The Hensley allows a choice of different weight distribution bars to match the truck/trailer combination and it fully capable of the task. The Andersen is not.

Andersen a HaHa killer; I don't think so.

[HowieE]

Doug

You are correct. The Ha Ha will not ALLOW the trailer to go out of alignment with the TV.

That sound great till you are on that slick road and are subject to Wind Shear. Yes a passing semi and normal wind will be controlled but you have
just described the fail point.

If you analyze any system you can find the failure points.

Thanks for pointing this one out

[ROBERT CROSS]

Oh yes...straight line only...... with the ppp you never get lost..

Bob

[dkottum]

And the fail point is?

[rostam]

A few PPP hitch users on this forum do not seem to comprehend that certain attributes of the PPP hitches (like its excessive weight or price) is a real deal breaker for some. I have an SUV (not a pickup) and a 200# hitch would put me over the receiver ratings. I don't care how wonderful the hitch is. It will not work for ME. It may not work for some due to high price. Similarly, if you need massive weight distribution, it seems Andersen is not a good hitch for you. That's why all these different hitches exist. To server the different needs of different folks.

[rmkrum]

In any discussion of hitches, sway control, tires, or darn near anything else, when you get folks lining up under one 'best way' or another you get an opinion overload....nothing useful, IMHO.

It's like anything else. You make your choice, you pay your money, and in some manner, that's the best for you. Then YOU live with your choice, period.

Some of the stuff we beat to death on these forums is opinion. Also, as I learned a long time ago, they are like rear ends. Everyone has one, and many of them stink😀😀

Just don't get upset too much if someone differs with you. Life is too short. I'd rather be out camping in my Airstream. The rest of it is opinion....


Sent from my pocket Internet using Airstream Forums

[Ron Gratz]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Rethink this. In your, and a few other, zeal to discredit the Andersen system you have attacked every aspect of the system.
The chains would brake under load.
The system can't return 100% load to the front axle.
The chains would ware through the hangers.
Cold flow of over stressed material.
And now you question the resonant frequency of urethane.

Howie, In the Andersen User thread, you stated you have written political campaign press releases. You stated you are aware of the use of ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection. You stated you did use a few of then. You stated the complete slate was elected, so I gather you were suggesting that your use of ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection was successful.

Now it seems you are trying to apply your political campaign press release expertise to this thread.

1. I have not stated the Andersen chains would break under load.
To the contrary – according to user posts, it seems that the urethane “springs” act as a “fuse” by bursting well before the chain tension reaches the breaking point.

2. I have not stated unconditionally that the Andersen can’t return 100% load to the front axle.
To the contrary – I have posted results based on user reports showing load restorations of 90% and 100% for tongue weights of 400#.
I also have posted results which show, for the majority of user reports, load restoration of 100% was not achieved.
Tongue weight and TV/TT dimensions determine whether 100% front axle load restoration can be achieved.

3. I have not stated the chains would wear through the hangers.
However, I believe some users have reported wear.

4. I have not made any statements about cold flow of over stressed material.
However, I do recall that you made a comment about a user experiencing “cold flow” of the friction material.

5. My recent post (to which I assume you’re referring) said nothing about the “resonant frequency” of the Andersen WDH.

So, it seems as though your list of five revelations is a good example of “ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection”.

There is a very simple test that will show the effectiveness of the system with regards to porpoising. Take a correctly setup bar system hitch and apply the commonly used shock absorber test of rocking up and down on the front of the TV. Now try that same test on an Andersen equipped rig, 100% load returned or not.

So, what will happen, and how will it tell us whether porpoising is more affected by the urethane “springs” or whether porpoising is more affected by load transfer?

So far the only argument you have presented, that of weight transfer limitation, that has any validity has been accepted and the limitations noted to those TV that are lightly sprung.

Three of the five “arguments” you’ve attributed to me are red herrings.
“Argument# #3 (diminished load transfer capability) is supported by user reports and applies to all TVs. It is not dependent on suspension stiffness.
“Argument” #5 (damping versus load distribution) is based on my opinion that we really don’t know what causes reduced porpoising.

Ron

[HowieE]

Yes I am aware of the use of ambiguous half truths and intentional misdirection. I am spending a large percentage of my time here trying to overturn them as they are used to discredit in what I believe is a "orchestrated" attempt to discredit.

Readers need only to check my posting history, click my user name and scroll down to "more posts by HowieE" to get an indication of the sincerity and intent of my posts.

[runningbarre]

I have a question. Are you towing a thirty four foot Airstream with an Anderson? What is your TV(tow vehicle)? My apologies if you have stated this previously...I have not read every post on the Anderson!

[PKI]

[QUOTE=HowieE;1690785]--- snip ---That sound great till you are on that slick road and are subject to Wind Shear. Yes a passing semi and normal wind will be controlled but you have just described the fail point. --- snip ---/QUOTE]

Howie - do I have this correct? The failure point of the PP and Hensley hitch design is that it will hold the TV and TT in line on a slick road and is not compliant enough to allow the TV steering to use what little friction there is to control the Rig in a wind shear or similar upset force condition. Additionally, is this fail point a theory or is there practical experience? Your input is appreciated.

[Road Ruler]

Originally Posted by HowieE

Doug

You are correct. The Ha Ha will not ALLOW the trailer to go out of alignment with the TV.

That sound great till you are on that slick road and are subject to Wind Shear. Yes a passing semi and normal wind will be controlled but you have
just described the fail point.

If you analyze any system you can find the failure points.

Thanks for pointing this one out

Folks who do understand how the PP and Hensley work know that your thoughts are incorrect. The Hensley/PP will not allow the trailer to go out of alignment with the TV but by design the TV can obviously get out of alignment with the trailer. That is how you can make a right or left turn by using a Hensley or PP.
It is in fact the ANDRSN by it's overly simple design that wants to lock the rig in a straight line and potentially can be sketchy on slick roads when trying to turn.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by runningbarre

I have a question. Are you towing a thirty four foot Airstream with an Anderson? What is your TV(tow vehicle)? My apologies if you have stated this previously...I have not read every post on the Anderson!

Yes a 34 ft. with an Excursion 4x4 diesel.

[AWCHIEF]

Sounds like a poor work of fiction to me,
"It is in fact the ANDRSN by it's overly simple design that wants to lock the rig in a straight line and potentially can be sketchy on slick roads when trying to turn."

[wildwonder]

So... for those of you who have the Andersen, what's the consensus after all these years? Just purchased my first airstream and trying to decide on a WD hitch...

thanks!

[sheriff1]

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by sheriff1

Attachment 359996

Is that an actual photo of an andersen being used?

Bob
🇺🇸

[out of sight]

Originally Posted by wildwonder

So... for those of you who have the Andersen, what's the consensus after all these years? Just purchased my first airstream and trying to decide on a WD hitch...

thanks!

An Anderson hitch can interfere with a tow vehicle's ESC (electronic sway control). The Anderson manual advises that you disable the ESC when using their hitch. I would never do that.

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by sheriff1

Attachment 359996

Not sure what that is a picture of but it is not and Andersen Hitch. It looks like someone used an Andersen ball but did not complete the system with the lower plate or the WD portion of the hitch.


While the forces within the hitch head, when using an Andersen would be applying a force on the head in the direction of the failure it is hard to conceive it could ever be that great. The failure point with an Andersen hitch is the coupler on the trailer. That is why those of us using an Andersen have changed the coupler.


Quick Bite made a coupler that complemented the Andersen and solved the problem. Unfortunately Cequent Corp bought the patents with the sole purpose of removing that coupler from the market. I have not looked at the Bully Dog to see how it would work with the Andersen but that might be a possibility depending on how the rear postion of the coupler is designed.


To the question of how a long time user of the Andersen would comment. I can't see a reason to use anything else having solved the coupler problem.

[ROBERT CROSS]

I don't need a hitch. But if I did it wouldn't one made by Andersen. The owner is a schmuck and IMO doesn't deserve the business. 👎

Bob
🇺🇸
Arches National Park

[Dasponto]

Well this is all exhausting...

Amazing I've talked to people who actually use it and are happy with it, go to other forums of regular styled trailers and much more of a common consensus of people being happy with the Anderson.

Ours arrives tomorrow for our basecamp and Q5. Looking forward to testing it out, even though we can't go anywhere but crusing lol.