Michael in MN wrote:
One application I can see for this is for the minivan + 3500# trailer combination. On the light weight end of the towing spectrum, traditional WD hitches add significantly to the tongue weight, and this design is probably 100# lighter than other designs, so perhaps this WD design is appropriate even though there may be limitations that make it unsuitable for heavy trailers?
--Mike
Mike,
I too saw possible lighter weight applications, for example a PU. On a PU the Reese mini is about the only one I have seen. And on a PU it is complex in the center of the A frame with every thing they have there. This hitch mounts different.
However...
They need to make a 2" ball version. Very doable.
The coupler latch "may" even be more of a problem on the PU. The latch system is very light duty as the trailer tongue is usually less then 500#.
Coupler latch types is becoming a new learning for me. There may be coupler latches made for a WD hitch and those that are not even if it is a conventional hitch. Even my big Shelby rated for 1,950# tongue weight does not mention it is rated WD.
The other caution is A frame tube crush on a PU. Anderson may need to back off the one size fits all and create a lighter duty system as putting 5/8" bolts clamping at 150 ft lb each on a PU frame for the spring brackets will be an issue.
This post has been fun and interesting. Learning about new things is always good even if you do always agree with everything new. It makes you go back and think about what you have and learn it even more. I never thought twice about my ball coupler being put to the test until this post.
John