ScottG wrote:
LarryJM wrote:
Based on my non techincal assessment of the Equal-i-zer vs Reese dual cam I can see one actual real difference and that is the Equal-i-zer produces an even "friction force" for all 'YAW ANGLES" where as the Reese Dual Cam "friction force" is larger the greater the "YAW ANGLE". Not sure if there is much advantage of one over the other except it seems that the Dual Cam would allow a trailer to "wiggle" slightly back and forth off the center line position since the friction force would be less for these very small "YAW ANGLES" than the Equal-i-zer which would have a larger "fricton force" for very small "YAW ANGLES". Also, it seems from all the posts by users of the Dual Cam is that it needs to be adjusted much more accurately to ensure the bar notches are on the cams correctly than the Equal-i-zer which doesn't have that concern.
Larry
There's no evidence that the initial restriction of either is stronger than the other. In my own experience, the DC has worked much better than Equalizer and I don't believe it allows "wiggle". It also doesn't make the strange noises that he friction part started making after getting wet a few times.
The DC does indeed need to be adjusted correctly. This part took my perhaps another 30 minutes and then a couple of checks on the road. Worth it IMHO.
YMMV.
Scott
The only evidence I can point to on the differences in the "friction forces" differences between the Equal-i-zer and Reese Dual Cam as a function of "YAW ANGLE" is the comments saying there is from Ron and while I can't point to a specific post of his on this IIRC he did some fairly extensive mechanical calculations of the relative forces as a function of "YAW ANGLE" for the Reese Dual Cam in one of his analytical post on that system in the past.
Yes the "wiggle" comment was purely speculation on my part based on the variable friction force effect for the Dual Cam.
Larry
