Opinions: FW to gooseneck adapters?

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.