Straight from B&W

rhagfo wrote:

laknox wrote:
OK, guys. Here's the straight scoop from a B&W engineer. As I contended in another thread, he said that the Turnover Ball base and Companion FW hitch =system=, carries the vast majority of the pin load through the hold-down receiver and into the TO Ball base and to the truck frame. The feet of the Companion =stabilize= the lateral forces to the bed and carry very little of the pin weight. He called them "outriggers, in effect". Doesn't matter that there's a certain amount of tension on the draw-down bolt, or not; you have to look at the entire =system= to see where the forces are acting.

Again, this was direct from a B&W engineer and not something I pulled from the same place that RV dealers pull MSRP numbers.

Lyle

:h :h :h

Must be a heck of a lot of deflection in the bed floor then!!

The "Hold Down Bolt" is tightened to 40 ft. Lb. as the the hitch is installed. so the whole assembly is now pressing down into the bed on the base, not the ball base.
Now the "U" bolts are tightened around the RV post to 80 ft. lbs.
So to put weight on the RV post you will need to deflect the bed a bit.

Not so, according to B&W. The hold-down bolt pulls the hitch and the base together, but the base still supports the majority of the weight, just as it does when you're using the GN. Yes, you do get some flex, and the bed =does= support a small amount of weight, but not much. As I said, the footprint of the Companion stabilizes the lateral loads acting on the hitch system. Because the GN is hitched so much lower, you don't get these stresses because they are 1) less and 2) transferred directly to the truck frame. With the hitch point being higher for the FW, you now have that leverage acting on the base to flex it slightly, so you need to have the support for these tortional loads. If there are no lateral loads, the base still supports nearly 100% of the pin weight. Think about why most of us won't use a GN adapter on a FW. You're taking those loads and moving them to the FW =frame= instead of the truck bed. Those forces don't simply disappear; =something= has to absorb them.

According to B&W, there are several reasons for the bed deflection issues, especially with GM. #1 reason being the thinner metal used in the bed means they're just easier to crush. Second, the Companion base is a one-size-fits-all and the Big 3 truck frames are not spaced the same. GM uses the widest frame, so the support point on the frame is =not= directly beneath the center of the contact point of the Companion, but actually towards the outside. Ford is slightly narrower and Dodge is the narrowest frame. They found that these were the 2 main contributing factors to the bed deformation issue.

I'm really not making this up; I =called= B&W and asked them. I had a 20 minute conversation with one of their engineers and got the scoop from him.

Lyle

Me Again wrote:

fj12ryder wrote:
If this were a real problem and I had 3,000 lbs. sitting on a relative small area my bed, you'd think there would be some marks on the bed of the truck. There aren't and never have been. How can that be? Maybe because the amount of weight that is actually sitting on the bed is negligible, and most of the weight is transferred through the ball to the frame? Nah, that can't be it.

Here is a picture of the B&W insert that goes into the TO Ball gooseneck hitch. Notice the slot where the TO Ball lock pin goes. when you torque the hitch down, you have the pin in the bottom of the elongate slot, so it is NOT going to hold up anything. As is pointed out in another post the TO Ball if install correct is up against the bottom of the bed valleys, however that is only in about the center third of the hitch base.

Chris

My TurnoverBall hitch slide pin went into a ROUND hole in the post provided with the 18K Companion. Nothing looked like your picture above. I guarantee a lot of the weight is transferred to the TurnoverBall hitch by the base being clamped to the post. I can't say how much. I also know there is weight being applied to the bed/cross rails from the hitch base. I can't say how much. I can also say for sure more weight is transferred to the font when decelerating and the back when accelerating. Bottom line the 20K Companion that sits on the bed is rated to do so and does it VERY well!

IdaD wrote:
My personal opinion is none of the turnover ball setups are as good as puck or rail setups. Not that they don't work because clearly they do, and a great many have had success with them, it just isn't my preference given the options on the market. I suppose the plastic strips on the B&W are nice to protect the bed ridges, but we're still talking about plastic strips resting on the sheetmetal bed floor. I'd rather have an unambiguous attachment straight to the truck frame.

Honestly I think the old fashioned rails are pretty hard to beat. You can use about any FW hitch you want with them, and it's also easy to drop a gooseneck adapter on them if you also have a stock or utility trailer. The tradeoff is having them in the bed when not towing, but the flexibility is unbeatable.

I agree the puck system is better!!! So does B&W because the fact is the exact same head and side pcs the head attaches to are the same on the 20K Companion and the Puck system 25K companion. B&W understands design limits and clearly Andersen is learning the hard way!

Cummins12V98 wrote:
I remember LONG ago when Chris was mentioning bed deflection with the Companion hitches (I thought he was just being a dick). THEN..... My Dad said he had dents in the bed where the front of the hitch pressed down into the top corrugation of the bed no doubt from when braking hard. The bottom of the sides of the base were actually bent in an upward angle from level. He tows a 34' HH Premier. So I looked at mine and sure enough the bed had a couple small dents like his did and my base had a bend on each of the bottom rails of the hitch base so did his.

We contacted B&W they said they were aware of the problem. The fact is truck beds are getting lighter that means thinner steel. Also the main pressure point of the base was over a valley not on top of a rib like the same hitch was in my 98 RAM. They sent us both complete new bases with filler strips so the base could press down onto the strips and then the weight would transfer to the bed cross rails. They have since changed the base and upped the rating from 18-20K. I was towing at the 18K range at the time my dad's was around 15K.

So maybe those thinking I am "Bashing" Andersen for their Ultimate design where the base is sitting on the bed and actually carrying much of the load especially when braking hard will realize I do have personal experience on this subject.

Here is a pic showing the base looking from the back of the truck. You can see how the corrugation was not supporting the strongest part of the base where it bends.

Well, if the bed of the truck is supporting that 3,000 lb. hitch weight on just the relatively small footprint of the hitch, why are there no dents or impressions? There should be some dents caused by the runners, but there aren't any. Or is that sheet metal bed strong enough to support a ton and a half over a small area without deforming? Including stops and starts and the resulting weight transfer.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. :)

fj12ryder wrote:
If this were a real problem and I had 3,000 lbs. sitting on a relative small area my bed, you'd think there would be some marks on the bed of the truck. There aren't and never have been. How can that be? Maybe because the amount of weight that is actually sitting on the bed is negligible, and most of the weight is transferred through the ball to the frame? Nah, that can't be it.

Here is a picture of the B&W insert that goes into the TO Ball gooseneck hitch. Notice the slot where the TO Ball lock pin goes. when you torque the hitch down, you have the pin in the bottom of the elongate slot, so it is NOT going to hold up anything. As is pointed out in another post the TO Ball if install correct is up against the bottom of the bed valleys, however that is only in about the center third of the hitch base.

Chris

My personal opinion is none of the turnover ball setups are as good as puck or rail setups. Not that they don't work because clearly they do, and a great many have had success with them, it just isn't my preference given the options on the market. I suppose the plastic strips on the B&W are nice to protect the bed ridges, but we're still talking about plastic strips resting on the sheetmetal bed floor. I'd rather have an unambiguous attachment straight to the truck frame.

Honestly I think the old fashioned rails are pretty hard to beat. You can use about any FW hitch you want with them, and it's also easy to drop a gooseneck adapter on them if you also have a stock or utility trailer. The tradeoff is having them in the bed when not towing, but the flexibility is unbeatable.

The bottom line is the B&W 18K Companion worked great up to it's design limits at the time is was designed. But with the lighter thinner beds they re designed the Companion base to now work well up to it's new 20K design limits. Would I have any reservations loading 20K onto the new Companion? Not at all! 24K on an Ultimate? NO WAY!!!

CumminsDriver wrote:
The Valley parts of the bed are also resting against the frame of the Companion Turnover Ball Hitch under the bed. The plastic strips transfer the load of the Companion 5th Wheel Hitch to the Turnover Ball Frame below, so there is more than just the top hats transferring load to the frame. I have no problems with mine, and love that I've got a clean bed when not using the 5th Wheel hitch. Yes if I were to get a new truck I'd get one with the factory pucks, but they've only been available for a few years now so those of us that didn't have that option use what works the best for us.

Rich

Where the bed normally gets deformed is at the front and back of the side pieces. If you mount a video camera in the bed and watch the hitch while traveling you will see it rock back and forth a bit front to back. The plastic bed strips helped a bit but it still rocks. Chris

I remember LONG ago when Chris was mentioning bed deflection with the Companion hitches (I thought he was just being a dick). THEN..... My Dad said he had dents in the bed where the front of the hitch pressed down into the top corrugation of the bed no doubt from when braking hard. The bottom of the sides of the base were actually bent in an upward angle from level. He tows a 34' HH Premier. So I looked at mine and sure enough the bed had a couple small dents like his did and my base had a bend on each of the bottom rails of the hitch base so did his.

We contacted B&W they said they were aware of the problem. The fact is truck beds are getting lighter that means thinner steel. Also the main pressure point of the base was over a valley not on top of a rib like the same hitch was in my 98 RAM. They sent us both complete new bases with filler strips so the base could press down onto the strips and then the weight would transfer to the bed cross rails. They have since changed the base and upped the rating from 18-20K. I was towing at the 18K range at the time my dad's was around 15K.

So maybe those thinking I am "Bashing" Andersen for their Ultimate design where the base is sitting on the bed and actually carrying much of the load especially when braking hard will realize I do have personal experience on this subject.