Tongue weight.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by Profxd

No this is not incorrect. The receiver gets a trailer “tongue weight rating” end of story. There is absolutely no such thing as “receiver weight rating”.

So I get a free pass for the weight of my PPP hitch. My actual trailer tongue weight is only 828#...and effectively only 760 at the receiver, since it is located 19.875" aft of the receiver opening.

The effective weight placed in my receiver by the stinger is 964#.

If AS calls their coupler weight "Tongue weight" ... and the receiver/auto manufacturer calls the maximum ratings tongue weight....then "where's the beef"?

This industry(s) have a nomenclature problem.

[Martee]

Originally Posted by Jmacd

Bob’s right to mention that CAT Scales are less accurate at low platform loads. I called CAT Scale’s corporate office a couple of years ago and asked this question. The rep said that at very low platform loads like our trailer hitches, accuracy can vary +/_ 10%. But for commercial truck axle weights CAT Scales are certified accurate. I bought a Sherline scale after that conversation and it’s been an eye-opener. My 25FB hitch weight has weighed as much as 1,240lbs!

My 25FB hitch weight using Cat Scale was 1238lbs, and 1252lbs using a Sherline scale. That's full propane, two batteries and all water tanks fully empty. Compare that to the 838lbs Airsteam listed for the 25FB with full propane.

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

So I get a free pass for the weight of my PPP hitch. My actual trailer tongue weight is only 828#...and effectively only 760 at the receiver, since it is located 19.875" aft of the receiver opening.

The effective weight placed in my receiver by the stinger is 964#.

If AS calls their coupler weight "Tongue weight" ... and the receiver/auto manufacturer calls the maximum ratings tongue weight....then "where's the beef"?

This industry(s) have a nomenclature problem.

The Hensley and PP hitch does present a bit of a problem. First off does the HA/PP meet V5/j684 compliance? Can someone contact Hensley or PP for the answer? Second with all other WDH types it’s weight is considered payload to the TV, and under V5/j684 guidelines so should HA/PP like it or not. Since all hitch equipment such as the receiver, ball mounts, hitch ball, and Weight distribution hitches are all rated for a maximum GTWR and maximum Trailer tongue weight rating (trailer GVWR/GTW) where does the HA/PP fit in? Well the fact that no vehicle manufacturer has bought up HA or PP to offer the absolute best towing experience gives us a clue. They all have to follow V5/j684 and should they try to apply that standard to a vehicles receiver with the HA/PP things become problematic. Just as a hitch extension forces a significant reduction in trailer GVWR/GTW so does using a HA/PP. Trailer Tow Weight Ratings sells vehicles so HA/PP will force them to drastically reduce TTWR or over build all the hitch equipment to accommodate HA/PP. After all these years no vehicle manufacturer will offer the HA/PP and for good reason. Don’t even start with the VPP bs, it doesn’t change a thing.

[dznf0g]

You're kind of making my point for me. No one discusses the entire loads placed upon the receiver by any drawbar/stinger. What do we call that load??? Its not trailer tongue weight.
I started referring to receiver weight some time ago, as I felt many....particularly those new to towing, who often didn't even realize that there was any other number other than the trailer manufacturer stated tongue weight.
I'm just trying to bring a valid issue to the forefront, and I have never found any expert discussion of what I refer to as receiver weight.
Have you ever seen any white papers or anything????

Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

[dznf0g]

Propride addresses it on their website. They call it "hitch weight", although it isn't totally mathematically accurate. At least they address it.

"The total weight of the 3P hitch is 195 lbs.* This is approximately 75-100 lbs more than most conventional hitches so that is the difference you will see in hitch weight.
To figure the model you will need you should estimate your loaded HITCH weight. Tongue weight is not hitch weight.* Tongue weight is the force the trailer applies to the hitch ball.* Hitch weight is the tongue weight plus the weight of your equipment."

Has SAE addressed hitches above 10k yet, relative to v5/682?

I found this statement, "Class 5: not currently defined by SAE."

Propride is a 14k capacity hitch.



Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

[dznf0g]

I do not understand most of this statement.

"Just as a hitch extension forces a significant reduction in trailer GVWR/GTW so does using a HA/PP. Trailer Tow Weight Ratings sells vehicles so HA/PP will force them to drastically reduce TTWR or over build all the hitch equipment to accommodate HA/PP. After all these years no vehicle manufacturer will offer the HA/PP and for good reason."

Pleas explain. Additionally, I know of no common north American vehicle manufacturer who regularly offers hitches??? Receivers, yes. Hitches, no. And they don't make the receivers. They are produced by some of the same suppliers who have well known aftermarket names.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by Fungus

Yes. Where. Thanks.

Let it be noted that the class 5 was installed not so much for the added capacity but the improved DESIGN.

The longer mount arms and better mounting location made it possible for 1000lb bars to move the same weight as the original 1400lb bars, softer lash-up, less chance of AS damage and porpoising.

Bob
🇺🇸

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

You're kind of making my point for me. No one discusses the entire loads placed upon the receiver by any drawbar/stinger. What do we call that load??? Its not trailer tongue weight.
I started referring to receiver weight some time ago, as I felt many....particularly those new to towing, who often didn't even realize that there was any other number other than the trailer manufacturer stated tongue weight.
I'm just trying to bring a valid issue to the forefront, and I have never found any expert discussion of what I refer to as receiver weight.
Have you ever seen any white papers or anything????

Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

The receivers ability to handle trailer tongue weight is built into it by design and verifiable by the standard.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by Profxd

The receivers ability to handle trailer tongue weight is built into it by design and verifiable by the standard.

I would like to believe so as well. But with the wide variety of lash-ups available with varying mass and resultant weights....as well as dimensional differences, I am not completely satisfied this is the case.

BTW, have you ever seen a sheet like the one in your post for receivers?

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by Profxd

The Hensley and PP hitch does present a bit of a problem. First off does the HA/PP meet V5/j684 compliance? Can someone contact Hensley or PP for the answer? Second with all other WDH types it’s weight is considered payload to the TV, and under V5/j684 guidelines so should HA/PP like it or not. Since all hitch equipment such as the receiver, ball mounts, hitch ball, and Weight distribution hitches are all rated for a maximum GTWR and maximum Trailer tongue weight rating (trailer GVWR/GTW) where does the HA/PP fit in? Well the fact that no vehicle manufacturer has bought up HA or PP to offer the absolute best towing experience gives us a clue. They all have to follow V5/j684 and should they try to apply that standard to a vehicles receiver with the HA/PP things become problematic. Just as a hitch extension forces a significant reduction in trailer GVWR/GTW so does using a HA/PP. Trailer Tow Weight Ratings sells vehicles so HA/PP will force them to drastically reduce TTWR or over build all the hitch equipment to accommodate HA/PP. After all these years no vehicle manufacturer will offer the HA/PP and for good reason. Don’t even start with the VPP bs, it doesn’t change a thing.

I like the warning you so kindly put on your own posts.

"__________________
Warning Message
Caution! Most advice given here is nothing more than a subjective opinion. Please reference the vehicles owner manual for instruction on towing and hitch use which is based on physics, facts, and research.

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

I would like to believe so as well. But with the wide variety of lash-ups available with varying mass and resultant weights....as well as dimensional differences, I am not completely satisfied this is the case.

BTW, have you ever seen a sheet like the one in your post for receivers?

What you see in the picture is exactly how a receiver is tested. The receiver is rated with the ball mount inserted and those forces applied to the ball connection point. As you increase the distance from the receiver pin hole to the trailer connection point as with a hitch extension or the HA/PP forces exerted on the receiver increase. They have to either reduce TW rating or beef up the receiver/hitch. Yes the HA/PP connection point is further back then most other brand hitches and that is the point where the TW down force and the spring bar moment are applied. It’s physical pivot point sits just a few inches in front of the ball.

[dznf0g]

A statement, then a question.

In every day practical use, we have X amount of force needed to transfer Y amount of weight on a specific rig, by applying bar end force. The further back the spring bars (and thus the longer assembly) are, the less bar force required to achieve the same Y. It is almost a net zero sum game. Of course a pp does apply about 80# more "dead" weight.
True, in testing to failure, a longer assembly will fail something at a lower force, but we don't use them that way.

Do you have the SAE sheet? I don't have the appetite to spend $85. Is it out there free somewhere?

I didn't think receivers were part of j684. I thought it was hitch, coupler, chains and balls below 10k#


Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

[jcl]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Do you have the SAE sheet? I don't have the appetite to spend $85. Is it out there free somewhere?

I didn't think receivers were part of j684. I thought it was hitch, coupler, chains and balls below 10k#


Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

This isn’t the most recent version, but is the one I have bookmarked.

http://popupbackpacker.com/wp-conten...2-SAE-J684.pdf

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

A statement, then a question.

In every day practical use, we have X amount of force needed to transfer Y amount of weight on a specific rig, by applying bar end force. The further back the spring bars (and thus the longer assembly) are, the less bar force required to achieve the same Y. It is almost a net zero sum game. Of course a pp does apply about 80# more "dead" weight.
True, in testing to failure, a longer assembly will fail something at a lower force, but we don't use them that way.

Do you have the SAE sheet? I don't have the appetite to spend $85. Is it out there free somewhere?

I didn't think receivers were part of j684. I thought it was hitch, coupler, chains and balls below 10k#


Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

I would say pretty close but you must also consider that the trailer TW applied further rearward also has levered advantage by removing more weight off the TV front axle. More spring bar torque is then required to compensate. Receivers are covered under j684. They were supposed to be working on an updated version of the standard to include class V but I’m not sure if it has been released.

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by Profxd

I would say pretty close but you must also consider that the trailer TW applied further rearward also has levered advantage by removing more weight off the TV front axle. More spring bar torque is then required to compensate. Receivers are covered under j684. They were supposed to be working on an updated version of the standard to include class V but I’m not sure if it has been released.

From Draw-Tite

[dznf0g]

That simply isn't true. The further the tongue coupler is away from the receiver the less its effective tongue weight is on the receiver.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Airstream Forums mobile app

[dznf0g]

Let's take the hitch pieces out of it. They add a lot of confusion from the basics. Imagine a solid weightless beam connecting the trailer coupler to the receiver mouth.

TW X ((TA to ball/(TA to ball + A) Where A = distance between coupler and receiver mouth.

My naked (no hitch pieces installed at all) TW of the AS is 860#; My trailer axle-to-ball dimension is 223.37"

If there were an imaginary connection RIGHT at the coupler mouth we would see

860 X (223.37/(223.37 +0)) = 860#

If the trailer coupler were moved back 24" and connected with that weightless beam

860 X (223.37/(223.37 + 24) = 776.56# effective coupler weight at the receiver mouth. (What the receiver feels) The further back the coupler moves, the more weight is on the trailer axles....not the receiver.

[Profxd]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

Let's take the hitch pieces out of it. They add a lot of confusion from the basics. Imagine a solid weightless beam connecting the trailer coupler to the receiver mouth.

TW X ((TA to ball/(TA to ball + A) Where A = distance between coupler and receiver mouth.

My naked (no hitch pieces installed at all) TW of the AS is 860#; My trailer axle-to-ball dimension is 223.37"

If there were an imaginary connection RIGHT at the coupler mouth we would see

860 X (223.37/(223.37 +0)) = 860#

If the trailer coupler were moved back 24" and connected with that weightless beam

860 X (223.37/(223.37 + 24) = 776.56# effective coupler weight at the receiver mouth. (What the receiver feels) The further back the coupler moves, the more weight is on the trailer axles....not the receiver.

You are calculating the problem as if the HA/PP lengthens the trailer wheelbase and it doesn’t. It acts as a hitch extension not a Aframe extension. If you were to extend the trailer’s Aframe you get the result you calculated. The HA/PP acts as a hitch extension, the physical TW downforce remains at the same location which is at the physical connection/pivot point on the HA/PP. You can prove this with a trip to the scales with the HA/PP and then weigh again with a shorter ball ball mount.

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by Profxd

You are calculating the problem as if the HA/PP lengthens the trailer wheelbase and it doesn’t. It acts as a hitch extension not a Aframe extension. If you were to extend the trailer’s Aframe you get the result you calculated. The HA/PP acts as a hitch extension, the physical TW downforce remains at the same location which is at the physical connection/pivot point on the HA/PP. You can prove this with a trip to the scales with the HA/PP and then weigh again with a shorter ball ball mount.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. The whole trailer gets moved back. approximately 10.5 " (in real life) between a PP ball position and a Reese DC position.

The distance between the TT axle and the receiver with PP is 243.245" with the PP.

With most conventional WD heads and drawbars, I would be at around 232.37.

With a longer assembly, the distance between the TT axle and the TV RA also lengthens. Of course TV wheelbase doesn't.

My calculation results are ALWAYS cross checked with Sherline and CAT.

[WestieHouse]

Originally Posted by aftermath

MollysDad,


I might add, I live in Washington and our weigh stations are open to the public, when not in use. On most state highways when you see a "weigh station closed" you can drive in and use their scales. They leave them on, and make the readout readable from one of the windows. It takes a bit of driving, walking to the window to record, more repositioning, more walking, etc. I have never had anyone around and can take my time. A pretty slick perk for us tax payers.

Thanks for that observation about WA scales. I often use the Oregon scales along their highways that are also open to everyone. I do this while traveling whenever I want to confirm how things may have changed due to load variances. I have found me Shereline scale to be very useful when fine tuning my wD system (Equilizer hitch).

Cheap insurance. Last week the Airstream camped next to us clearly was not set up well for WD. When I spoke with the owner he acknowledged poor handling and confirmed what I had warned him might happen with too much weight on his front Airstream axle - he showed me the damage to his AS from a recent blowout.

I carry my Shereline scale with me. On a few occasions I have helped other check their tongue weight.