WD Hitch Weight % Transferred

xcntrk wrote:

Ron Gratz wrote:
Your example shows, for no WD,
the steer axle lost 3200-3040 = 160# and
the drive axle gained 3880-2840 = 1040#.

With no WD, I would expect the steer axle to lose an amount equal to about 40-50% of the 880# TW and the drive to gain about 140-150% -- depending on TV wheelbase and ball overhang.
How did you calculate the front axle loss and the rear axle gain?

Those are real CAT scale weights captured from another user here (empty TV, loaded TT w/no WD, and loaded TT w/WD) each individually measured.

Thanks for the link to the source of the weight values which you entered into your spreadsheet. Posts #1 and #5 clear up the mystery about the steer and drive axle load changes.

Post #1 says the tongue weight as measured by Sherline is ~650# (rather than 880#).
Post #5 says that the front & rear unhitched loads of 3200 & 2840 were from a previous weighing which did not include dogs and kennels.
Unhitched individual axle loads were not measured during the later weighing, but the TV GVW was 6270# instead of 6040#.

Assuming TW = 650#, wheelbase = 157", and ball overhang = 61" would cause approximately 250# removed from the steer axle and 900# added to the drive axle.
This indicates the unhitched steer axle load should be around 3040+250 = 3290#
and the unhitched drive axle load should be around 3880-900 = 2980#,
adding up to the reported GVW of 6270#.

With WD applied, the steer axle would have lost 10# relative to unhitched while the drive axle gained 540#.
The front axle load restoration was close to 100%.

xcntrk wrote:
With this user's numbers and WD enabled, 240# came off the rear axle and went back to the front axle, and 140# came off the rear axle and went back to the TT axles, for a total of 360# total distributed due to the WD hitch. Percentage wise you could say 41% of the TW was redistributed by the WD hitch (including both TV and TT weight changes), but I don't call that percentile out in my spreadsheet because a large portion of it still remains on the TV (just moved from rear to front). This is where the 14% comes from; the 104# that went back to the TT axles or 14% of the original TW.

If you used 104# -- that value should have been 140#. And, the TW should have been 650# rather than 880#.
This would mean the transfer to the TT's axles was approximately 140/650 = 22% of TW.

Ron