See comments in blue
Ron Gratz wrote:
John, I copied the following from the last post on Page 37.
I think it agrees with your statements above.
Ron Gratz wrote:
I think we're saying the same thing -- if the WD spring force is the same, the load transfer will be the same -- regardless of receiver torsional stiffness.
I think we also agree that, if receiver torsional stiffness is sufficiently low, physical restrictions on ball mount tilt and/or lift chain length might limit WD bar force.
Just one point of clarification --
JBarca wrote:
On a low stiffness system you may need to go 1.5 to 2 times the chain link less to get the same weight to move to the front axle. The hitch head may have rotated 3 to 4 degrees now for the same weight transfer.
If the receiver rotates 3.5 degrees, the excess rise at the end of a WD bar would be about 2.5". You would need to shorten the length of chain under tension by 2.5" to compensate for the receiver rotation. Is that essentially what you meant by "go 1.5 to 2 times the chain link less"? Yes this is correct. I did not do the exact math, I estimated from prior field observations.
Alternatively, you would need to increase the rearward tilt of the ball mount by 4-5 degrees. Or, you could use some combination of increased tilt and fewer links under tension.
Ron
Ron,
I do believe we have come to alignment! :)
Back to the Andersen hitch, there is no hitch head rotation due to the design concept which is one less adjustment availble. Only urathane spring compression. An RV'er following the directions may not be able to get the hitch to apply WD correctly if the reciever system has excess rotation and a low torsional stiffness. This is just a heads up to folks starting to use this hitch for something to look out for.
John