Andersen Aluminum Ultimate Hitch Redesigned
I follow Andersen hitches on Facebook and they have announced a redesign of their Aluminum Ultimate Fifth Wheel Hitch...here are some screen shots of the Facebook post. Thanks! Jere...
Forum Discussion
The detractors talk about the "crush test" being a non-real world demonstration. I would heartily disagree with such a notion. The structural support is derived from 4 legs that travel from the center point (of the load) to each corner in an angled orientation. When the hydraulic ram compresses the center point, it initially places all 4 legs in a combination of compression, tension and sheer. Once any single leg fails, it begins to deform, which immediately places the other 3 legs in more tension and sheer. Because this pressure is directly downward, the applied forces are greater.
If the legs were straight horizontal or vertical, then the crush test would be completely useless.
Transfer that thinking to a real-world application. In a fore-aft force situation, 2 legs will be placed in tension and the opposite 2 legs will be placed in compression. Where one set of legs of pushing, the other set is pulling. The sheer force is more limited in this scenario. With the crimped end design of the legs, this could mean the hitch may take more fore-aft pressure than what the crush test shows. Also, since the legs are angled, they're getting less variation in forces with fore-aft movement present.
A test of fore-aft pressures might not yield the same results of the crush test. Since no one knows the answer, nor are we privied to any calculations, we're just as well to consider that it may take more force just as easily as we should consider it to take less force. But I contend that the limiting factor in such a scenario will be the rail system or the gooseneck ball, or other sheer connections. My hitch clearly states a 24,000# limit and 4,500# tongue limit. If the engineers of this hitch are wrong, then Andersen stands the chance of being sued into oblivion.
Yes, Andersen has redesigned their hitches (typical product improvement), and they've yet to recall any previous generations nor issue any revised limitations. I'm inclined to listen to them more than internet forum contributions. Yes, some products will inherently break, fail, or otherwise be unsatisfactory. But no other hitch manufacturer (B & W, Reese, PullRite, etc.) can ever make the claim that 100% of their products are free of defect.
If the legs were straight horizontal or vertical, then the crush test would be completely useless.
Transfer that thinking to a real-world application. In a fore-aft force situation, 2 legs will be placed in tension and the opposite 2 legs will be placed in compression. Where one set of legs of pushing, the other set is pulling. The sheer force is more limited in this scenario. With the crimped end design of the legs, this could mean the hitch may take more fore-aft pressure than what the crush test shows. Also, since the legs are angled, they're getting less variation in forces with fore-aft movement present.
A test of fore-aft pressures might not yield the same results of the crush test. Since no one knows the answer, nor are we privied to any calculations, we're just as well to consider that it may take more force just as easily as we should consider it to take less force. But I contend that the limiting factor in such a scenario will be the rail system or the gooseneck ball, or other sheer connections. My hitch clearly states a 24,000# limit and 4,500# tongue limit. If the engineers of this hitch are wrong, then Andersen stands the chance of being sued into oblivion.
Yes, Andersen has redesigned their hitches (typical product improvement), and they've yet to recall any previous generations nor issue any revised limitations. I'm inclined to listen to them more than internet forum contributions. Yes, some products will inherently break, fail, or otherwise be unsatisfactory. But no other hitch manufacturer (B & W, Reese, PullRite, etc.) can ever make the claim that 100% of their products are free of defect.
