Hensley Arrow: How does it REALLY work?

Stressor wrote:
And once again, Ron trots out his red herring, stating that I was fortuitous in finding exactly the right angle. There is only one place the cable can be attached that duplicates the strut attachment.

Okay, let's ignore the fact that the ball coupler and both stuts are involved in the transfer of forces between TT and TV. Let's blindly assume that the tension in one strut can properly represent the load transfer. Then, the statement, "There is only one place the cable can be attached that duplicates the strut attachment.", is correct given the incorrect assumptions. But, the statement blindly ignores the fact that forces are vectors which have magnitude and direction. And to duplicate strut tension, you must properly duplicate the location of the attachment point, the magnitude of the force, AND THE DIRECTION of the force.

Milt either:
1. does not know what the "demonstration" cable angle was or,
2. he does know and is refusing to tell us.

The cable angle shown in the photo is about one half of what the correct strut angle should be. This "fortuitous", non-representative angle gives a force vector which passes through or very close to the VPP. If the cable were pulling at the correct angle for a properly connected TT, the tension vector would not pass through the "straight ahead" VPP location; and the rear unit would swing to the right. No wonder Milt repeatedly refuses to address questions about the cable angle.

Once again, he fails to demonstrate how these forces might come about, or how they may be applied to the hitch except at the mechanical points of connection, which is where the cable is attached.

Once again, Milt is unaware that his TT has a ball coupler.

Milt, I'm going to assume you're talking about the forces which are transferred between TT and TV. I's obvious that you do not know how these forces come about or you would not be attempting to model them the way you do.

First, some basics. That round, greasy, about 2" diameter object attached near the rear center of the upper hitch unit is the ball. And, there are two struts -- not just one. The TT A-frame has a ball coupler which connects the TT to the ball. When the struts are tensioned, and with no push or pull from the TT, the ball coupler is pushing forward on the ball and the struts are pulling rearward and outward on their pins. The ball coupler is under a forward "pre-load".

During straight-ahead towing, the TT exerts a rearward force on the ball/strut system. Some of this rearward "drag" is reacted by increased tension in the struts, some of it causes a reduction in the forward pre-load on the ball coupler. If the TT tries to yaw CCW (rear of TT swinging to the right), the tension in the right strut will decrease and the tension in the left strut will increase. This is what prevents the TT from pivoting on the ball.

As regards the resultant force acting on the HA's rear unit during an attempted yaw, a decrease of tension in the right strut combined with an increase of tension in the left strut results in an increased left force on the HA's rear unit. Simultaneously, the tension changes in the struts result in an increased right force of equal magnitude on the A-frame. This increased right force is transmitted through the A-frame to the ball coupler. The net lateral force on the HA's rear unit is zero. Also, the net longitudinal forces are zero. However, the increased forward force on the left side of the A-frame combined with a decreased forward force on the right side of the A-frame, results in a moment which resists the pivoting of the TT on the ball. This moment also must be transmitted via the HA's linkage to its front unit. You should be attempting to model the moment and not the strut tension. Your photos prove nothing.

How's that for a red herring?