gooseneck vs fifth wheel hitch

And the original question was??????

Me Again wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:


The point I am making is the base just sits on the sheet metal of the bed and WILL deflect it when the fore and aft forces of a large 5er are applied. By direct connecting the base to the pucks it would be an improvement in design IMHO.

That "might" have attracted my interest in the hitch. Time they throw out the king pin mount and add the puck latches weight would not change that much.

Still would have the landing gear workout to hump over the ball, however. Chris

Did you not get the picture frame, whats the difference connecting to bed rails or picture frame, or the pucks ?They are all attached to the frame. The Andersen comes with bed rail connecting version , not just the ball connect. The bed rail version does have a less weight rating then the ball .

not sure why I ma engaging here again but I guess I can't help.

If you look at the darn hitch instead of just bad mouthing it you would see that most of the weight is taken up with either the gooseneck ball and trasnfered into the goose hitch not sitting on the bed. Yes it makes contact but it transfers the weight just like the companion does.

The rail mount acts just like any other 5er hitch and transfers the weight across the bed rails.

Again, has anyone ever heard of ANYONE having the bed crumble around their Anderson???

Chris

Me Again wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:


The point I am making is the base just sits on the sheet metal of the bed and WILL deflect it when the fore and aft forces of a large 5er are applied. By direct connecting the base to the pucks it would be an improvement in design IMHO.

That "might" have attracted my interest in the hitch. Time they throw out the king pin mount and add the puck latches weight would not change that much.

Still would have the landing gear workout to hump over the ball, however. Chris

I think you were the one a few years ago that pointed out bed deflection with the B&W 18K old style Companion towing heavy. I thought you were nit picking until I looked at the bent base plate sides of the hitch and the dents in the bed. I then contacted B&W with pics and they sent a whole new base with spacer strips so the base would press down on the bed cross rails. The new design 20K Companion has fixed those issues.

Cummins12V98 wrote:


The point I am making is the base just sits on the sheet metal of the bed and WILL deflect it when the fore and aft forces of a large 5er are applied. By direct connecting the base to the pucks it would be an improvement in design IMHO.

That "might" have attracted my interest in the hitch. Time they throw out the king pin mount and add the puck latches weight would not change that much.

Still would have the landing gear workout to hump over the ball, however. Chris

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!

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 have always thought the Andersen is OVER RATED when you compare it to the B&W hitch.

The point I am making is the base just sits on the sheet metal of the bed and WILL deflect it when the fore and aft forces of a large 5er are applied. By direct connecting the base to the pucks it would be an improvement in design IMHO.

Housted wrote:

ZOSO wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:

Housted wrote:
I try to stay out of these discussions because the B&W fanboys are so opinionated and most have never seen much less used an Andersen. I have used both a B&W Companion and the Andersen with the same 5er and the same truck. Thus I think I am maybe more educated than most. I liked the companion hitch, except for the bit of slop in the Binkley mechanism and the weight of the hitch to remove from the truck. The Andersen has no slop at all and I am able to remove easily from the truck. When we traded up to our current truck I was able to move the Andersen over without any sweat. I would not have been able to move a Companion without getting some adapter for the factory Ram GN prep.
Make no mistake I am sold on the Andersen!!

Housted

Glad you like your new hitch. Can you explain the "bit of slop" you are referring to? Just curious since I am on my second B&W and have never experienced any slop.

On my 2nd B&W. (Sold the first one with other truck). I've never noticed any movement, let alone any "slop". Are you sure you had things installed tightly and correctly Housted? First ever claim I've heard of "slop" in a companion. Something smells!

When stopping or starting there was some movement in the pin to hitch jaws area. Everything was correct it just had a bit of play. As far as I know it did not smell!!! :h

Housted

How dare you blaspheme the almighty B&W with your words of woe!! You must be taken out and beaten into submission HAHA!! Sorry you had trouble with yours.

AS far as the Andersons hitch head. It is held in place with the Kingpin of the 5th wheel. It has 2 large grade 8 bolts that pin the block in place. All the 4 allen bolts do is center the hitch block and keep it from spinning in place.

I have never once heard of a failure of this design or ever even heard of it coming loose

Chris

Learjet wrote:
For me, when I was looking at the Andersen, that block that connects to the pin and is held tight by 4 set screw was more of a concern than anything else.

What is the strength of that part? If you look at the edges near the ball and near the 5th pin....just saying...I couldn't get past that part.

I had no problem with the base, since I have rails, but we never talk about that block.

I know I'm stirring that pot :)

Please produce any reports on the internet of people having issue with the set screws/aluminum block...

We can all "specualate" about a lot of things but without data it doesn't mean a whole lot.

And its not just 4 set screws that hold it on. The are also two "large" lag bolts that pass through the front and back of the pin.

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