Help with hitch / tongue weight

Ron Gratz wrote:

LarryJM wrote:
I will say that in reality this issue probably won't really effect the vast majority of folks, but the real issue was the mistaken concept that the tongue wt as seen by the WDH system and IMO also the receiver is not just limited to what you might measure the tongue wt. on a Sherline scale, it can be hundred of lbs more in certain cases. THATS THE REAL POINT and what caused all the initial discussion here, not whether the weights were significant or not.

Okay, let's discuss the "real issue".

Can you define what you mean by "the tongue wt as seen by the WDH" and "the tongue wt as seen by the receiver"?

This might remove the possible confusion of having three different definitions of "tongue wt".

Ron

"tongue wt as seen by the WDH" is simply the CEQUENT definition of Hitch Wt. and is used for sizing the WDH system.

For "the tongue wt. as seen by the receiver" that is simply what Cequent calls and provides the formula for on pg D-16 of their catalog as "the hitch weight formula for determining the load
which the hitch must carry:"

BTW those terms were used way back in this thread (fives of my posts previous to this one) in more of a qualitative response to another post and were not meant to specifically define any actual quantity and that is why I used the term "CONCEPT" as part of the lead in.

What you are IMO still doing is nitpicking or selectively "cherry picking" various terminology used in more of a qualitative reply more to illustrate some point than to try and be absolutely technically correct as a stand alone statement like your questions which IMO took them out of context in which they were made. This last post where I talked about payload calculations, etc. are I believe the correct quantative level description of what the various terms are and how they IMO should be used and not something I said five post ago to another poster in response to something he/she might have said.

I sort of wish you would stay with the current conversation and not insert something like this last quote of mine that was made many posts previously and are not contextually correct or even germane to the current conversation and the immediate prior post or two. If you are trying to attack my consistency I might have to plead the 5th since I try and respond to what I quote is sort of the same level of specificity so that person might get or understand what I'm trying to get across. Doing this post "previous post cherry picking" only confuses what is currently being discussed further and muddies up the water, but maybe that is your intent, but I would hope not.

In the final analysis I'm happy and content with the way CEQUENT has defined things and have no problem with what they choose to call them since it's their document and they IMO have explained them so at least I'm not confused, understand and agree with them. I might choose to call them something slightly different, but just like you defined some of these terms I tired to do likewise where I felt it was important and germane to what was currently being discussed.

Larry