Equalizer vs Dual Cam

Huntindog wrote:
The DC is a friction based control as well. Ron Gratz our resident engineer has studied it in detail..Even once figuring out just how much anti sway the cams actually added to the system. It wasn't a lot as I recall. Good for marketing though. If one were to stop and think about it, the cams are touted as being able to force the TT/TV into a straight line....This is not always desireable. What about turning on a slick road? If the cams really did what they are marketed as doing, then there would be some incidents reported under such conditions.
There is not. Draw your own conclusions.

But the main reason I chose the Equalizer over the DC is a more important one to me. Ground clearance. A properly adjusted DC often has the bars hanging really close to the ground. That is a no starter with me.

The Equalizer does a fine job, and all of the parts tuck up nicely right next to the frame.

I choose the Equal-i-zer over the DC when we got our current trailer back in 2007 (neither the Blue-Ox or Anderson existed or were main stream at the time) for many of the same reasons as you and especially with my molded front propane/battery cover.

As you correctly noted the tauted indent/centering cam setup from the DC system might not be wanted or undesirable in low traction situations by putting extranious forces on the Sway system. I want my Sway system to stiffen up and resist any non TV induced movement and IMO the Equal-i-zer system is hard to beat when that is your main criteria ... of course the ultra premium, HA, Propride, Pull-rites are in a class by themselves and are non friction based for the most part.

My only complaint with the Equal-i-zer is the L bracket "L-pin" configuration. I like things tight and wish the "L-Pin" fit more snugly in the L bracket and I have even made some "shims" to tighten up that connection. Functionally the slop doesn't affect anything, but for me it could have been designed better for my liking.

Larry