A fellow camper bud showed me this. It's new and different. Anyone using one?Andersen WD hitchesA U-tube video with the factory guy explaining it. You have to get past MR Truck doing his intro. Interesting 5th wheel hitch too. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvM7mCnqmwo&feature=relatedIt looks like thisI'll hold my comments for a short while to not cloud your thoughts. Ideally we can find someone here using one to quiz them on it. John

First blush is that the brake friction material in the ball/hitch head isgoing to be both a maintenance issue and just like friction anti-sway bars. Gettingthem wet, oil, wearing out the friction material, etc problems.The way they do the WD is placing a new force on the coupler and wonder if thecoupler is designed for that kind of loading. Especially the pawl that holdsthe coupler to the ball, as that is where the forces gets localizedTraditional cam'ed spring bars (round and trunnion) both hold back the amountof off angle the trailer can move and increases the amount of spring bar tensionThis has none of that and mainly works on the friction between the tappered ballmount to the complimentary cavity in the hitch head.As that 1/4" of friction material wears...does the ball shank then need to betightened? What happens to the union of that tappered ball shank and cavity on a whoopee-do when the tongues goes negative weight ? Is the nut holding in the tappered ball shank have a spring to account for that situation?That kind of force for each 'compliant' bushing has it held onto the tongue witha clamping mechanism. Will it slip? How's about when it gets wet? Or oil getson there? That plate at the hitch head end also rotates in tandem with thetongue...I'd think they would want it fixed to increase pressure on that compliant bushing to prevent the tongue from swayingSince the coupler is forced into the ball (that wear and whether the coupleris designed for that kind of load) will it bang when the trailer brakes areinitiated to pull it the other way? What will that increased force do to thecompliant bushing over time? Will then bang back onto the coupler pawl whenthe brakes are let go and throttle given?Just some first glance thoughts...

Ben brought up the same things I was thinking about. My opinion is: I don't like the design at all. I don't see where it's any better than spring bars and I can see where it's worse in many ways.

I'll take the other side here guys... Rather innovative I think and a novel design... Admittedly, it's just another friction control device but rather well though out...I suppose the brake material will wear some but that has yet to be determined how fast it will wear and how much replacement is...My question is: how does one arrive at the same w/d pressures by just tightening the nuts on the end of the neoprene cushions... I would assume that in the instruction there is a guide to tell you how many turns equals X amount of pressure... IMO, if the hitch has any disadvantages, it is the tightening and untightening of the chains for weight distribution...We're all always resistant to change, human nature being what it is, but I like the design of this hitch... If it works well, it jusy may become the defacto standard of those who tow with hitches like the dual cam amd Equal-i-zer... If it doesn't work well, it will fail and go by the wayside...It's a rather neat design and I look forward to the first actual usage report by one of our members...How about John, you gonna spring for one of these :WLes

Don't get me wrong, as am a designer by training and in the heart. Love contraptionsof any kind...but...also by training look at how things fail in order to make my designs 'good' to 'better'. Also lots of forensics from my own designs andwork fixing others design. Taught that Mr Murphy lives everywhere and to designfor the idiot and gorilla...as if it can go wrong, it will...I've had some PE/ME's get into a Rube Goldberg situation trying todesign something marketing told them to. Easy to get myopic and lose sight of the big picture and get caught up in a rat hole.Les, the spring/bushings pull back on the plate below the hitch head ball andthat then pushes the tongue forward against the ball.The contact point is inside the coupler at the pawl is my guess. Unless theyhave a special coupler. This is the leverage arm, I'd guess about 4 inches vs the Trunnion/Round barslever arm of 18"-20" times 2. That is a whole lot of PSI on that coupler pawl.{edit}...okay, take this one back...the Trunnion/Round Bars do endup in an area of about 4", so this is the same or no difference.That is where I see a weakness, as am wondering if the coupler pawl is designedfor that kind of service.Thinks like the surface area factored by the co-efficient of friction factoredby the moments (lever arm) telling to me that the amount of clamping force mustbe huge. Plus the 'normal' recommended torque for any large ball (dia in the 2 5/16 range requires 500 ft/lbs of torque. Oh on that, the momenton that friction material is the distance from the ball center lineto the trailer wheelsThen will the nut holding that ball shank back off with that kind of 'allowed'rotation? As they allow the ball to turn along with the coupler (assumption)and does the nut too? Then how do they manage the bearing and the loads on thatball against whatever boss it rides on? Does it then need grease? If so, thenhow do they manage from getting grease on/in the friction material mating surface?It is right thereAllowing the ball to rotate along with the coupler and also havingto maintain something in the 500 ft/lb range requires a nifty bearingsetup. To allow the ball shank/nut to freely rotate and NOT back offthe nut, but to also maintain enough PSI on the friction materialto do it's job against that very, very long lever armSince friction material, assume it is the typical stuff I'm familiar with. I'dwonder how well it does with the 'normal' banging all balls see during towing.If it compresses does it go plastic or remains elastic? Will then wobble out ?

Heres a nice post from another site which explains some more.Anderson Hitch post

New Andersen WD hitch | Good Sam Community

514 Replies

Clanton24V
Explorer
Mar 12, 2012
I got back from my second trip out with the new trailer and hitch. I am very happy with this hitch. I am tempted to try and not have to mess with the chains but they really haven't been a big hastle I just crank it the same amount as before. And because it's still so new to me I take quick measurements of the wheels to make sure I'm still within specs. My next trip out will be about 2.5hrs 1 way with varrying road conditions and curves so it should be a food test. I have that trip coming up in about a month.
PHS79
Explorer
Mar 12, 2012
I am in the market for my first WD hitch and I am seriously considering the Andersen hitch. Granted my TT (2012 Grey Wolf 26BH) is fairly light with a gvw of only 7500 lbs and a "dry hitch" weight of 402 lbs. And my 2004 F150 FX4 towed it home easily even with 35 mph crosswinds for about 10 miles the day we picked it up.

I was also thinking that for me hooking and unhooking I may not even have to loosen the chains at all. I have Ride-Rite bags under the rear of my truck, so between the bags and the electric tongue jack I should be able to just set up the tension on the chains once and shouldnt have to mess with them again. Maybe....

But if I keep hearing reviews like the few I have read here I think I may take the plunge and order the Andersen.
JBarca
Nomad II
Mar 11, 2012
Bruce H wrote:

Hi Bruce,

Just made it back from camping and it seems you have been busy. Super data! :C

You are on the right track, best of luck to you. You are now starting to understand how WD works. Good for you.

For us techy types, your data is the 1st we have actually seen on how this hitch works with WD. We now have some folks out there using the hitch and are responding back which is really good.

If I added up the users right we have 2 ORF members using 2500 suspension towing , 1 using a F150 and you on your Honda Pilot. That is a range...

It would be interesting to see the scale data with spring compression like you have listed on a 800#, 1,000# or 1,200# tongue weight as a comparison.

You used 1/4" of compression on a 400# TW. Small rear overhang, short WB and short ball to TT axle distance. According to this sales video it was listed 1/4" is about 2,000# (see at the 3:22 time mark) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvM7mCnqmwo&feature=related

There is no reference to what TV, TW or trailer that 1/4" = 2000# lines up with. If you where using 1/4" and now on 3/16 to 1/8", really curious on what the higher TW's would use.

I have used urethane springs as punch strippers in the past. Very common and Andersen even states this. http://www.polyprod.com/closed-end-punch-inch.html

Just I have not used these like a compression spring as being used here. The durometer, free length and size changes the force. On the bottom of this page are some force graphs of these common in the industry. http://www.polyprod.com/inch-tube-springs.html We do not know which spring Andersen is using other then 1/4" compression is about 2,000#.

Hopefully one of our members with a heavier TW can make it to the scales and report back.

This same hitch has a max rating of 1,400# tongue weight and there does not seem to be a change in ordering for any size less then this. At this point we can see it goes down to a 400# TW.

Thanks for sharing and good luck on your trip.

John
Bruce_H_
Explorer
Mar 11, 2012
Ron,

We are leaving on a several day camping trip tomorrow--about 400 miles total. I will try both 1/8" and 3/16" urethane spring compression settings, and maybe even something in between, and and see if I can find that sweet spot where everything seems just right.

Thanks,

Bruce
Bruce_H_
Explorer
Mar 11, 2012
Ron Gratz wrote:
If you adjust your new WDH so the front end of the TV is returned to a height of 1/8 - 1/4" above the unhitched value,
you would be achieving a good compromise between what Equal-i-zer and Ford now specify.

Hi Ron,

Thank you very much for your information and advice. It inspired me to spend much of yesterday trying to fine-tune the measurements and weights. Thank goodness the nice folks at the Flying J are tolerant of my numerous trips through their CAT scale.

You suggested that 1/8 to 1/4" increase in wheel well height over the unloaded height would be optimal.

I focused yesterday on the measurements and weighs with 1/8" and 3/16" spring compressions. At 3/16" spring compression, the front wheel well was 1/4" higher than the unloaded height. At 1/8" spring compression, the front wheel well was 7/16" higher than the unloaded height.

I have updated the spreadsheet with the new information and again attached it as a photo. Hopefully sized correctly this time.

Thanks again for your great help.

Bruce H.
Ron_Gratz
Explorer
Mar 10, 2012
JBarca wrote:
Bruce H. wrote:
John,

Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
Ron Gratz may have this handy and post. I know he has referenced this before.---
Bruce,

As far as I can tell, the forthcoming
SAE J2807 "Performance Requirements for Determining Tow-Vehicle Gross Combination Weight Rating and Trailer Weight Rating"
does not give direct guidance for weight distribution.

I do know that Equal-i-zer, about two years ago, updated its weight distribution recommendations.
And, according to this post by ORF member typerr,
the change in philosophy was based on results of testing conducted by SAE and RVIA.
About the same time, Ford revised its recommendations for its F-Series trucks.

If you adjust your new WDH so the front end of the TV is returned to a height of 1/8 - 1/4" above the unhitched value,
you would be achieving a good compromise between what Equal-i-zer and Ford now specify.

Ron
Ron_Gratz
Explorer
Mar 10, 2012
Andersen wrote:
The goal of the weight distribution system is to get the tow vehicle and trailer as level as you can.
IMO, the goal of weight distribution is to restore some or all of the load which was removed from the TV's front axle. The tow vehicle does not need to be "level". Leveling of the trailer should be done via hitch head height adjustment.

With that in mind, here is the OPTIMUM setting for most installations:

FRONT WHEEL WELL: the SAME or within 1" ABOVE the initial measurement you took on page 4

REAR WHEEL WELL: the SAME or LESS than the initial measurement (but not drastically less –see next page).
IMO, suggesting that the WDH may be adjusted to make the rear wheel well height the SAME before and after indicates the manufacturer has a fundamental misunderstanding of how weight distribution works.

If the rear is the same height before and after, that means the rear springs essentially are carrying the same load before and after. IOW, no load has been added to the rear springs. If no load has been added to the rear springs, that means all the load added to the TV is added to the front springs, and that certainly would not be advisable.

The purpose of WD is to return the front end to, or slightly above, its unhitched height. When you get the front right, the rear end will take care of itself. If you don't like the resulting rear-end squat, air bags can be added. Of course, air must be added prior to adjusting the WDH.

Ron
Ron_Gratz
Explorer
Mar 10, 2012
Bruce H. wrote:
I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
With no WD applied, the front height increased 5/8".
After application of WD, the front was up 1/8".
This means that application of WD eliminated 80% of the front-end rise.
For comparison, Ford now is specifying that WD should be adjusted to eliminate 50% of the rise, and
Equal-i-zer specifies that you should eliminate at lease 50% of the rise.

Since it appears that Honda recommends against using a WDH on the Pilot,
it might be good to shoot for a little bit less load distribution -- perhaps ending up with 1/4" front-end rise versus 1/8". Placing too much load back onto the front axle can result in a tendency toward oversteer, and oversteer, when towing, is not a good thing.

There is nothing wrong with having 1-2" of rear-end squat.

Ron
BarneyS
Nomad
Mar 09, 2012
Not trying to unseat Ron as "King of Links" but here is a link to SAE J684 the new standard which replaces the V5 standard.

Here is a good explanation of hitch standards.
Barney
Edit: Not sure the link I gave above is correct. Ron gives a reference to the new standard (SAE J2807 - I think) in the next page or this thread. I am not sure as to the exact wording as I have not purchased a copy of it.
JBarca
Nomad II
Mar 09, 2012
Bruce H. wrote:
John,

Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.

Thanks again,

Bruce

Bruce,

Picked you note up during lunch. I will be out camping this weekend (yeh!) but will hunt it up when I get back if someone else does not post.

Ron Gratz may have this handy and post. I know he has referenced this before. Plus he is "King of the Links"! :)

Thanks

John

Forum Discussion

New Andersen WD hitch

514 Replies

About RV Tips & Tricks

Related Content

Andersen hitch

Andersen Hitch Failure

Andersen Hitch

Andersen Hitch

Andersen Hitch