Ron Gratz wrote:
In my previous post, I stated, "The amount of load transferred to the TT typically is equal to 15-25% of TW, although some people achieve 30%."
With a properly-adjusted WDH, it would be reasonable to assume a load equal to 20% of the tongue weight is transferred to the TT's axles.
That would mean a load equal to 80% of TW is added to the TV.
If the WDH is adjusted to return the TV's front axle to its unhitched load, the net TT-induced load on the front axle is zero and the net TT-induced load on the rear axle is equal to about 80% of the TW.
So, if your WD goal is to return the TV's front axle to its unhitched load, a reasonable estimate of TW distribution is 0%/80%/20% for front/rear/trailer.
Ron
Thanks Ron.
I get the math, but what I'm not understanding is the impact to the TV payload to support the hitch weight. Is it unchanged when using load-distribution?
In your great write up on this forum on WD, you make it clear that the tongue weight doesn't change just the impact on the TV and where that weight is distributed across the vehicles and axles. But your latest response above seems to imply the actual hitch weight will be lighter when using WD due to TT axles supporting more of the tongue weight. So using your percentage example, tongue weight without WD looks like this: 0%/100%/0% where the hitch is taking 100% of the tongue weight. But with WD in place, tongue weight is distributed and now looks like this: 0%/80%/20% and the hitch only takes 80% of the TW. So wouldn't the hitch weight actually be different between WD and without, therefore consuming less payload from the TV with WD in place?
I get that there's leverage involved at the root of the WD system and that the actual tongue weight of the TT doesn't physically change. But where I'm trying to make the comparison is between tongue-weight and hitch-weight, which I think could be two different values with WD involved.
