Hensley Arrow: How does it REALLY work?
There have been several discussions on this hitch that have become somewhat 'controversial'. I am NOT trying to stir this controversy/bashing back up. Instead, I'd like to see a good, intelligent di...
Forum Discussion
I don't think we could do this discussion justice without you, Ron. I'm glad your joining in, and I know you'll bring a lot to the table that will help us think through the very intriguing design of the Hensley hitch.
I can understand the concern about the misleading nature of Bill Basham's diagram, but I also think it serves a purpose at an elementary level. Those who have towed with a Hensley will attest that the TT doesn't track behind their TV the same as it does with a conventional hitch. If you ignore the terminology Bill uses, his diagram is a good representation of the angle created between the TV and the TT with the Hensley and how it differs from the angle created with a conventional hitch.
I think it is useful to give a name to this angular behavior, and I don't have any problem with using the term "apparent" pivot pointin the same way Bill did. Also, it makes sense to me to use the word "apparent" since it implies that it's simply what it looks like - as opposed to what it really is. Clearly, as the angle between the TV and the TT change, the point of intersection between their centerlines changes, and this way we have a name to reference that moving point.
Now, there is another very important dynamic point to consider that needs to be defined, and that is that "point of convergence of the projections of the two side links" that Ron mentioned. He called it the "virtual" pivot point, and I'm okay with that. One reservation I have, however, is that some might confuse one with the other since "apparent" and "virtual" have similar meanings. Perhaps a more distinctive term would be virtual load point or something to that effect. Any thoughts on that?
As we have time to look at loads on the hitch in more detail, I think it would be quite helpful if diagrams were used to help us all follow along, especially since the ever-changing geometry is an all-important part of why this hitch is effective.
Cheers,
Tim
I can understand the concern about the misleading nature of Bill Basham's diagram, but I also think it serves a purpose at an elementary level. Those who have towed with a Hensley will attest that the TT doesn't track behind their TV the same as it does with a conventional hitch. If you ignore the terminology Bill uses, his diagram is a good representation of the angle created between the TV and the TT with the Hensley and how it differs from the angle created with a conventional hitch.
I think it is useful to give a name to this angular behavior, and I don't have any problem with using the term "apparent" pivot pointin the same way Bill did. Also, it makes sense to me to use the word "apparent" since it implies that it's simply what it looks like - as opposed to what it really is. Clearly, as the angle between the TV and the TT change, the point of intersection between their centerlines changes, and this way we have a name to reference that moving point.
Now, there is another very important dynamic point to consider that needs to be defined, and that is that "point of convergence of the projections of the two side links" that Ron mentioned. He called it the "virtual" pivot point, and I'm okay with that. One reservation I have, however, is that some might confuse one with the other since "apparent" and "virtual" have similar meanings. Perhaps a more distinctive term would be virtual load point or something to that effect. Any thoughts on that?
As we have time to look at loads on the hitch in more detail, I think it would be quite helpful if diagrams were used to help us all follow along, especially since the ever-changing geometry is an all-important part of why this hitch is effective.
Cheers,
Tim
