Andersen Hitch Failure

WOW - I just spent 45 minutes reading all of the comments along with preveiwing the GD page and the heartland forum. I have the AUH gooseneck steel version - no rails. I have towed my (1st) Jayco 14k (2200 pin weight)front living for 8000+ miles over 2 years with no issues. I checked the hitch everytime I travel to ensure there were no cracks, deformations of the tubes and inpsect the ball as I use it in the middle hole for towing due to height of bed rail.
We recently purchased a LM 365 with a dry weight of 15k (3100 pin weight) and have towed it for about 1200 miles thus far. Both 5th wheels had the Mor-Ryde attached. I have had nothing but success with this hitch - it's easy to hook up, unhook.
I am not getting into the open discussion on what happen or to speculate on any comments. I am only telling everyone that this is a great hitch for towing. It is strong, yet lightweight. Will it fail in the event of an accident - apperantly it does based on the GD forum. I believe any hitch will fail in the right circumstance. The thing we all should be thankful for is that the trailer stayed attached to the hitch and the hitch stayed attached to the truck. I have seen real life failures of trucks / campers getting into accidents and all (6) of them stay attached to each other. A company (AUH) or anyone else will never be able to test for every senerio as there would be millions of different combinations.
I will continue to use my AUH, inspect on each trip and recommend this hitch to everyone if it meets the requirement of the camper / tow vehicle.
Have a blessed day.

The steel version is attached to all four corners of the triangle base and each corner supports equal force to the base rather than from the goose neck ball as a single anchor point. The steel version is anchored to the bed from the four corners that spreads the load forces exerted upon it.

time2roll wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
"It uses triangles for strength."
You say that in defense of the traditional hitch, but that's the absolute principal behind the design strength of the AUH. It too uses triangles.

And uses them poorly IMO.
The pin/ball holder should extend vertically down to the base with additional support to the frame at the corners.

Right now it is too easy to twist the top of the pyramid in dynamic front/rear or side/side loading. I don't think the connection to the truck gooseneck ball provides the stiffening that is needed.

Maybe you should share your ideas with Andersen.........
:R

"Well I would agree that the breakaway activation SHOULDN'T cause the damage, BUT I had mine activate once while backing uphill to the blindside into a space. DW was making sure no one went behind the unit, she stated when it happened the TV outside back tire cam off the ground, I know it felt like I backed into a stone wall! "

HA, I was moving slowly thru the Elks Campground at Keizer, OR making a tight turn without my seatbelt on. Yanked my breakaway cable and about hit wit windshield!

So yes there is a lot of tugging force in that situation and now that I think of it if I had the Andersen the force would be directed mostly to ONE of the rear tubes. HMMMMMM

WTP-GC wrote:
"It uses triangles for strength."
You say that in defense of the traditional hitch, but that's the absolute principal behind the design strength of the AUH. It too uses triangles.

And uses them poorly IMO.
The pin/ball holder should extend vertically down to the base with additional support to the frame at the corners.

Right now it is too easy to twist the top of the pyramid in dynamic front/rear or side/side loading. I don't think the connection to the truck gooseneck ball provides the stiffening that is needed.

WTP-GC wrote:

Me Again wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
I don't believe that the emergency brake being activated caused any of this. The pictures appear to show it being activated, but that could very well be because of everything else that happened.

What then caused the "tug" the owner reported? Chris

I don't know what the answer is to that, but the owner also said they were moving at a slow speed. Once the tube started bending, the entirety of the damage probably happened in only a second or two. I'm guessing that the owner doesn't really know if the two events are related. I've had the emergency brake activated at slow speed on my dual tandem GN trailer, and IMO that force shouldn't be great enough to do that kind of damage unless there was already some other pre-existing damage. Again, that's all just my opinion...unfortunately all we have to go on is a few pictures, a couple of second-hand comments about what the owner said, and endless pontification from people who weren't there.

Well I would agree that the breakaway activation SHOULDN'T cause the damage, BUT I had mine activate once while backing uphill to the blindside into a space. DW was making sure no one went behind the unit, she stated when it happened the TV outside back tire cam off the ground, I know it felt like I backed into a stone wall!

Good point.
Sometimes owners in this situation may not tell it like it is and sugar coat what went down or just leave out some actuals as we have seen many times when someone comes on the forum and bashes his trailer or even a truck.
All this posturing from a 3rd hand source.... all were getting is 3rd hand guessing and the usual brand bashing.

Me Again wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
I don't believe that the emergency brake being activated caused any of this. The pictures appear to show it being activated, but that could very well be because of everything else that happened.

What then caused the "tug" the owner reported? Chris

I don't know what the answer is to that, but the owner also said they were moving at a slow speed. Once the tube started bending, the entirety of the damage probably happened in only a second or two. I'm guessing that the owner doesn't really know if the two events are related. I've had the emergency brake activated at slow speed on my dual tandem GN trailer, and IMO that force shouldn't be great enough to do that kind of damage unless there was already some other pre-existing damage. Again, that's all just my opinion...unfortunately all we have to go on is a few pictures, a couple of second-hand comments about what the owner said, and endless pontification from people who weren't there.

WTP-GC wrote:
I don't believe that the emergency brake being activated caused any of this. The pictures appear to show it being activated, but that could very well be because of everything else that happened.

What then caused the "tug" the owner reported? Chris

BarneyS wrote:
NASA has nothing to do with this thread and I have deleted all references and responses to it.
Barney

Thank you !!