Opinions: FW to gooseneck adapters?

WTP-GC wrote:

TXiceman wrote:


The folks that do not understand basic physics and mechanics will never understand and still use their G/N adapters in bliss. Hopefully they have smaller and lighter weight 5ers that can take the added stresses.

Ken

***I do not have a GN Adapter.***
I understand basic physics and applied engineering.

Not one single person on this forum or any other similar forum (to my knowledge) has ever presented definitive evidence that would support the notion that a GN Adapter is either good, bad, or indifferent. Until someone takes the time to fully examine the complete structural properties of a Fifth Wheel frame and explain how it is either incompatible or compatible with GN Adapter devices, all other discussion is both irrelevant and uneducated. It is a non-debatable topic until actual engineering and physics data is presented...not conjecture.

To me, it would seem that people should be more concerned about the poor and inconsistent welding and assembly methods used on frames.

And your last statement sums it up! That's the reason a lot of RV manufacturers will not warranty their product if gooseneck adapters are used. Frames on 5vers are covered and hidden in the hitch area so a person can't see the nasty welds used to fabricate their frames so the stress damage can't be seen if and when it happens.

TXiceman wrote:


The folks that do not understand basic physics and mechanics will never understand and still use their G/N adapters in bliss. Hopefully they have smaller and lighter weight 5ers that can take the added stresses.

Ken

***I do not have a GN Adapter.***
I understand basic physics and applied engineering.

Not one single person on this forum or any other similar forum (to my knowledge) has ever presented definitive evidence that would support the notion that a GN Adapter is either good, bad, or indifferent. Until someone takes the time to fully examine the complete structural properties of a Fifth Wheel frame and explain how it is either incompatible or compatible with GN Adapter devices, all other discussion is both irrelevant and uneducated. It is a non-debatable topic until actual engineering and physics data is presented...not conjecture.

To me, it would seem that people should be more concerned about the poor and inconsistent welding and assembly methods used on frames.

DSteiner51 wrote:


The physics is correct. For example, using my own experience. The Pullrite Superslide I now use puts a totally different stress on the current 5th wheel then the gooseneck adapter did the old 5th wheel.

I boondock, and where I boondock the gooseneck had enough movement but the Pullrite has limited movement left to right. It hits the stop and then the result is that one side of the truck is lifted until the wheels on that side get light,requiring four wheel drive, putting a twist on the pin box frame mount my gooseneck never did. I would not be surprised I will be a candidate for a broken frame in the future.

So we agree that a GN extension adds stress to a fiver frame, plus fiver frames are notorious weak, so not a good combination. Without a guarantee from the frame manufacture and the frame hidden from view, it becomes a big gamble. The side pivot limitation with fifth wheel hitches is deliberate, they could easily be designed to pivot more, but then with many setups the fiver would then hit the truck bed sidewalls. For your off-road use maybe the Andersen with a flatbed or reduced height bed ( like mine) would be better. As for a slider, I've never found one necessary in 26+ yrs.

My 5er hitch stays in the truck for the simple reason of weight. The Trailer Saver TS3 weighs 400#.

The folks that do not understand basic physics and mechanics will never understand and still use their G/N adapters in bliss. Hopefully they have smaller and lighter weight 5ers that can take the added stresses.

Ken

WTP-GC wrote:

Me Again wrote:


OK, I will play devil's advocate! GN adapter gets installed once. Andersen comes in and out of the truck as one switches back and forth between trailer types. If the trailer manufacturer ok's it then go for it. Chris

You're exactly right. So in this respect, the Andersen UH goes into the same category as a traditional 5er hitch. However, its MUCH easier to handle.

Just a personal observation...I see trucks everyday going down the road with an installed 5er hitch. I always wonder why they drive around with that thing when they don't need it...then I consider the effort of removing it and how people are generally lazy these days. My uncle has never once removed his hitch from his truck in the 5 or 6 years he's had it. Me, on the other hand, I remove the Andersen UH anytime I'm not using it. Just too simple and easy.

Very simple why mine stays in the truck. It's heavy and if I need to haul something I have my old PU.

Me Again wrote:


OK, I will play devil's advocate! GN adapter gets installed once. Andersen comes in and out of the truck as one switches back and forth between trailer types. If the trailer manufacturer ok's it then go for it. Chris

You're exactly right. So in this respect, the Andersen UH goes into the same category as a traditional 5er hitch. However, its MUCH easier to handle.

Just a personal observation...I see trucks everyday going down the road with an installed 5er hitch. I always wonder why they drive around with that thing when they don't need it...then I consider the effort of removing it and how people are generally lazy these days. My uncle has never once removed his hitch from his truck in the 5 or 6 years he's had it. Me, on the other hand, I remove the Andersen UH anytime I'm not using it. Just too simple and easy.

Dayle1 wrote:


Your second question is probably w/o merit, because if adding stress by adding a GN extension actually REDUCED the failure rate percentage, then the science of physics is totally wrong. Maybe the number of GN extensions is very small, maybe the failures are not talked about, maybe the miles towed is small. Doesn't matter, increasing a lever arm length adds stress, if physics is right. Same story at 65 mph, add a lever arm, hit a pothole and stress on the fiver frame will be worse, again based on physics. Now if all towing conditions were smooth as glass, all speed changes were very gradual, maybe then that extra lever arm might have minimal impact. The real world is different.

The physics is correct. For example, using my own experience. The Pullrite Superslide I now use puts a totally different stress on the current 5th wheel then the gooseneck adapter did the old 5th wheel.

I boondock, and where I boondock the gooseneck had enough movement but the Pullrite has limited movement left to right. It hits the stop and then the result is that one side of the truck is lifted until the wheels on that side get light,requiring four wheel drive, putting a twist on the pin box frame mount my gooseneck never did. I would not be surprised I will be a candidate for a broken frame in the future.

laknox wrote:

DSteiner51 wrote:

Dayle1 wrote:


But to be complete it isn't just weight changes that occur while stationary but also the dynamics at 65 mph which you haven't calculated. Bottom line, every fifth wheel frame is weaker than GN frames, they frequently fail w/o extra stress, so risk of a failure does increase with added stress of a GN extension. Every owner can find out for themselves but one success does not guarantee the same results on another fifth wheel.

Explain the difference going down the road at 65 mph, please. I see very little difference. The difference is in off road soft fields for the gooseneck while very few RVs get those stresses. Again, two entirely different applications. While you are at it maybe you would also like to enlighten us to why almost all frame failures are on fifth wheel hitches instead of those converted.

The goose box places the same stresses on the frame as an adapter yet is approved. The difference? Who gets the profits.

First off, how many people take a GN into "soft fields"? If/when they do, they sure as hell aren't going 65 mph unless they have a death wish. I wouldn't take one =empty= down a well-graded dirt road at that speed, either. Your argument doesn't hold water. The simple fact is that you're comparing apples to oranges. They're both round, about the same size and considered fruits, but that's about as far as you can go. GN and FW RVs are simply too different to compare beyond the fact that they both have wheels and hitch in the TV's bed. Because of this, trying to convert a FW (especially a heavy one) RV into a GN by using the adapter places undue stresses on the FW frame and can cause failures. Not saying that it =will= do so, but the chances that a failure will occur are higher than if you use a traditional FW hitch. I do think that the Andersen is a much safer alternative than the adapters, even though I've never even seen one, just because it moves the hitch point up into the same plane as a regular FW hitch. I love my B&W Companion and don't ever see myself with anything else, but, were I to change, the Andersen will get some serious consideration.

Lyle

Wow! Totally ignorant of the facts! Every farmer I have seen removing large bales from his field starts loading from the front then the truck driver moves the rig to the next bale and thus they move across the field until full and balanced. No, they don't travel at 60 mph. Much, much slower to get much more pull, and stress, then going down the road at 60mph.

When loading equipment I've not seen an operator load his skid steer, tractor, or trackhoe with an overhead crane so it was immediately balanced. I have seen them drive up the rear ramps and nearly lift the back of a dually off the ground, drive forward until balanced properly or worse yet drive to the front, unhook the attachment back off and get another then drive back up on it to balance the load.

There is absolutely no way an RV will take that stress because an RV by it's very design will never be used that way. Only a few people moving from front to back or back to front and I have not seen commercial campgrounds with the softness of a hay field either.

Two entirely different designs for two entirely different applications. Comparing apples to steak.

I think if that's the way you would like to go look at the Pullrite super lite hitch. Base fits on a standard 5th wheel mounting rails and the goose part fits over the 5ver pin, kind of a reverse gooseneck with the ball being on the trailer. Base is much lighter than 5ver hitches and has a 20K rating.
Other than that I wouldn't use one, 5vers are flimsy enough without increasing the leverage by using a normal gooseneck adapter.

DSteiner51 wrote:


Explain the difference going down the road at 65 mph, please. I see very little difference. The difference is in off road soft fields for the gooseneck while very few RVs get those stresses. Again, two entirely different applications. While you are at it maybe you would also like to enlighten us to why almost all frame failures are on fifth wheel hitches instead of those converted.

Your second question is probably w/o merit, because if adding stress by adding a GN extension actually REDUCED the failure rate percentage, then the science of physics is totally wrong. Maybe the number of GN extensions is very small, maybe the failures are not talked about, maybe the miles towed is small. Doesn't matter, increasing a lever arm length adds stress, if physics is right. Same story at 65 mph, add a lever arm, hit a pothole and stress on the fiver frame will be worse, again based on physics. Now if all towing conditions were smooth as glass, all speed changes were very gradual, maybe then that extra lever arm might have minimal impact. The real world is different.