The Andersen WD Hitch User Thread

[purman]

I been thinking about a new WD hitch, but they are all the same or even more complicated than the basic sway control a bar and chain system I have.

But this looks very nice. And any wear issue would take years and years. It's not like you swaying back and forth across the road all day. And I also like the no grease deal. I'm very interested.

[Mike91208]

Originally Posted by starcraft

I think Anderson is better suited for bambis, solid 600 bars of EQ lock that load down.

But HowieE, the author of this thread, pulls a 34' Excella with great results using the Andersen. Your comment doesn't compute.

[AWCHIEF]

HowieE
Your response pretty much covers his concerns. Andersen Corp. has been around for many years with some outstanding tow related products. Just recently branching out to WD hitches. After setting mine up to the specs in the instructions I dropped the ball down one hole because it was just a bit too high. Now TV and trailer are as level as possible. I have only reset the nuts once due to different loads in the TV and then it was minor adjustments. All other times have been just hook up and go. The engineering is so different from anything else on the market that it just stumps the so called experts. As more are sold and used I believe it may become the standard for some TV/trailer combinations and the system will start being copied by other manufacturers.

[danlehosky]

I looked at the posts linked on the Woodalls thread and found lots of good info. My first impression is this will put a tremendous amount of stress on the receiver. I need to look more to fully understand how this system really projects the weight. I understand the sway control but am uncomfortable with the small bearing area. What about bounce or uneven inclines? The weight distribution....I don't know. It looks great. I hope it works. I'll still keep my HAHA though.

Dan

[HowieE]

This is a HAHA killer.

As for the torque on the TV receiver it is exactly the same as any other WD hitch. It is a simple analysis of a fulcrum. If you are going to transfer XX lbs to the front axle of the TV through the receiver the force on the receiver will be the same. All any WD hitch does it stick a shaft in the receiver and pull up on it. The method of producing the upward force may vary, historical some form of spring bars acting against the hitch head, but the result is always the same at the receiver.

[AirHeadsRus]

I see they have a 4 inch and a 6 inch drop rise hitch. How do you know which one to get.

[HowieE]

I don't remember what you are towing with but I am sure the 4 will be it. They will confirm this when you order.

One of the You Tube videos goes into this in detail.

[danlehosky]

Howie, I will wait and see. I'm a mechanical engineer and know all about force, and tension and how fulcrums work. I think this one is to stiff. Different bar lengths produce different amounts of force. I am not being negative only thinking out loud. I need to read more. I can see I will not be able to open my tailgate. Is this correct? I need to read more technical info on the Woodalls thread and wrap my head around it. If someone can sell me something that is as effectiive and safe as Hensley or Propride in a 60lb box and it looks so good, I'll be in line.
Don't be so defensive, you know you've opened a can of worms here.

Dan

[AirHeadsRus]

Thanks HowieE. I tow with a 2011 F-150 and a 2012 Chevy 1500. I use a 4 inch drop Hensley stinger on the Ford and a 2 inch drop stinger on the Chevy.
I like the Hensley and it pulls great. But:
Hensley is very heavy
Can not use my tractor to move the trailer with out taking the Hensley off.
Always getting grease from the stinger and hitch head on me.
The hitch is 16 years old and needs rebuilding which would cost as much or more than the Andersen.

If I can lower my tongue weight by 100 pounds or more it would really be nice.
I'll be watching for anyone that has gone to the scales.
Regards,
Joe

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by danlehosky

I think this one is to stiff. Different bar lengths produce different amounts of force.
Don't be so defensive, you know you've opened a can of worms here.
Dan

I am not defending anything. As I mentioned earlier I have used and advised others for years on WD hitches. What I am doing here is advising people on a product that I feel is an improvement over anything currently in use. I realize the method of accomplishing the transfer of weight is not the easiest concept to envision. But once you can envision the ball/coupling as replacing the upper trunnion of a Reese hitch it becomes clearer.

In a static position the force created by bars to gain a given WD is the same as that produced by the Andersen. The principle differences with this hitch occur when you go over a bump. Springs have a reflex action that tends to put the system in a reducing oscillation thus causing porpoising. The urethane bushing do not produce this reaction and thus completely dampen this effect.

The historical discussions over the weight of the bars was mainly to deduce shock transmitted into the trailer while crossing a bump. Route #10 in LA. killed one of my trailer batteries knock everything off the plates and shorted it out, in Jan I have to go back and see what happens now.

[AWCHIEF]

HowieE, I predict that when you go over the same bump again, you will ask yourself "When did they fix that nasty bump?"

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by AWCHIEF

HowieE, I predict that when you go over the same bump again, you will ask yourself "When did they fix that nasty bump?"

Are you speaking of the new hitch or a life style change in LA.

[Airslide]

It would be great to see some long term testing on this unit. I really like the simplicity of the product. Your right.. this could be a game changer. Lots of great viewpoints here and we appreciate the civil discussion :-)

Vinnie

[danlehosky]

Second opinion here,,,, I like it and understand the dynamics. The only question I have HowieE is about the amount of force applied to the pawl. If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Am I seeing this right? It seems like the WD is all there.....

Dan

[HowieE]

Originally Posted by danlehosky

If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Dan

What are you referring to here? I don't recognize either term with respect to the hitch.

[M2HB]

I like the concept of the hitch. I would like the shaft to be longer coming out of the bottom so that it would give more leverage forward for the same amount of force on the chain (or reduce the force of the chain for the same amount of forward leverage). I would also weld a tab on the frame for the chain mount instead of having the bolt on components, but that is just me. I really like the ball that swivels with no movement in the hitch itself. That is a great idea.
When watching their 5th wheel offset hitch for short bed pickups they really missed the boat. What they need is a weight distibuting hitch setup so that the 5th wheel or goose neck can be mounted behind the axle while still giving the truck the WD as if it were 3" or so, forward of the axle. All these problems with broken rear windows and the trailer hitting the cabs would be eliminated. There would be no need for sliding 5th wheel hitches on short bed trucks. The chains can pull upward to accomplish the same forward WD. I think I need to build one. I should patent it.

[Friday]

Originally Posted by danlehosky

Second opinion here,,,, I like it and understand the dynamics. The only question I have HowieE is about the amount of force applied to the pawl. If I got one I would go with a hand crank assembly rather than a lever lock.
Am I seeing this right? It seems like the WD is all there.....

Dan

That is a good question... I'd assume the pawl would be quite sturdy, as it has to take the load of the trailer hammering back and forth on it all the time... this WD setup would keep the trailer pulled forward, putting all the load on the pawl... but the off-setting factor is the coupler and ball rotate as one assembly and all the wear is on the tapered sleeve...

It is possible this would actually reduce the chance of wear on the pawl... no?

In any case... I'd gladly try one out except for the $200 premium for Canadians...

[M2HB]

Originally Posted by Friday

That is a good question... I'd assume the pawl would be quite sturdy, as it has to take the load of the trailer hammering back and forth on it all the time... this WD setup would keep the trailer pulled forward, putting all the load on the pawl... but the off-setting factor is the coupler and ball rotate as one assembly and all the wear is on the tapered sleeve...

It is possible this would actually reduce the chance of wear on the pawl... no?

In any case... I'd gladly try one out except for the $200 premium for Canadians...

That could be a problem since the force is against the rear of the coupler instead of the front, where the force was designed to be placed. The torsion bars put the force downward on the top of the ball where weight was designed to be. I think this is a serious problem with the Andersen design. Having said that, I would design one with the chains vertical with the bottom plate cantilevering rearward so that the force is downward on the hitch. It would accomplish the same WD, but the force would be applied to the top of the coupler and not the back. It is the same concept I mentioned above that should be used on short bed hitch systems. Again, I should patent it.

[danlehosky]

HowieE, sorry. It looks like all of the force from the ball is going to be directed to the front of the coupler when WD is used. Will the coupler take this force? The safety pawl is a locking mechanism. Do you think an ordinary coupler with a lever lock on say an AS will withstand the forward force of the ball without egging out and becoming sloppy?

If there is a weak point it's the only one I can see.

Dan

Other than that, I really like it.

[danlehosky]

M2HB, better huerry on that patent. Thats a good idea. Lots of engineers on this forum that can draw, submit and licence.

Dan