Sport45 wrote:
Don't need to see a picture of either one of them again. The Andersen is simple triangular trusses. This is the most efficient way of supporting a load. The B&W is made of truncated triangles and bent plate pedestals. Because it's in multiple pieces it has to be heavier. I don't doubt each will do what it's rated for. If either coul rate their product higher they would.
Neither seems to be failing in service. One is elegant in its simplicity and one is beefed up where it is needed. The B&W is the Duramax with lots of moving parts where the Andersen is the Cummins with only one pivot point.
I'm not a "structural" engineer, but have been making a good salary with my engineering degree since before IBM introduced their 80286 line to make the 8086 machines we were using obsolete. Gore may not have even dreampt up the internet yet. :)
I have personally spoken to B&W about their ratings. They said they are very conservative with their ratings, that is how they do business!
I was wondering why a Reese product at the time had a higher rating then the B&W because it was obvious B&W was much better made but had a lower rating. Same goes for the Andersen, it obviously does not have a safety factor built into their rating like B&W does.
Sorry but the B&W is a very simple design and if you had ever used one you would not compare it to a Duramax. It has no slide bar, no special color coding, you just close the arm and pin nothing special.
