gooseneck vs fifth wheel hitch

laknox wrote:

ralphnjoann wrote:
Cummins12v98 states:

"I think the Anderson is a good design, never have I said it's not I just don't think they are realistic on it's ratings.

If they would make one that directly attaches at the 4 corners say on a RAM with factory pucks then their ratings would be a bit more credible."

I thought the load rating of a hitch was calculated based its ability to safely carry the weight of the trailer, not the ability of the truck to support that weight. How does the configuration of the truck change the published ratings? It would be helpful if you would clarify your reasoning so all will have a better understanding. Thank you.

I don't think it's necessarily the ability of the truck to carry the load per se, it's the geometry of the hitch that's in question. Look at the B&W OEM Companions and look at their ratings. Both the GM and the Ram have a wide fore/aft spread of the pucks, while the Ford's is much closer together fore/aft. Because of the geometry, and physics, the GM and Ram hitches are rated higher simply because the base spreads the load over a wider area; the wider base gives more leverage against the forces acting on than does the Ford setup.

Lyle

Good points. I think B&W will only rate the Ford application with their pucks for only 22K but the RAM B&W with the wider puck layout has 25K rating. BUT others that use the Ford Pucks rate higher then B&W. I have talked to B&W about their ratings and they freely admit that their rating factor is very conservative!