Andersen Ultimate 5th Wheel Connection -- Wreck ????

[TenOC]

I have read a lot of posting that bad mouth this hitch as been too weak since it is make of aluminum and the design is different from all other hitches.

Does anyone know of a Anderson hitch that has failed?? . . . :h

I am sure that all hitches MAY fail in a wreck. If I have a wreck I may want my 5er to come lose from my TV. I do not know which would be best, I think it would depend on the wreck.

[laknox]

Me Again wrote:

laknox wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
^^^^^ Correct the PUCK Companion attaches to the pucks that directly attach to the frame. The regular Companion attaches to a post that attaches to a Gooseneck hitch mounted under the bed.

To further clarify, the GN base takes virtually all of the vertical load on the hitch; the base =stabilizes= the unavoidable fore/aft flex in the hitch system. I can only assume that the puck system transfers the load directly to the frame =and= stabilizes the fore/aft forces at the same time. Haven't yet seen one in person.

Lyle

Lyle please explain the alt physics that allow the GN base to takes any direct load. With the bed between the base and the hitch base the load is on the bed floor. With the addition of the strips to fit in the bed valley things improved. however the GN base is only under the very center area front to back and the hitch base extends both ahead and behind the GN base. Rather than Companion, it should be named Compromise.

Um, NO. I got my info directly from a B&W engineer when I called them last year. I posted that info in another discussion, on the same day I called them. Their number is 800.810.4918; call them and ask for yourself. The guy I talked to even said that they'd had 2 or 3 similar calls over a couple days; I can only assume that it was in reference to the discussion that was going on here. The TO Ball base carries the load; the Companion base =stabilizes= the load.

Also, from personal experience, very early on, I "high-hitched" my entire Companion in the base and didn't realize it was not firmly down against the bed, by about 1". Hell, I even torqued the entire thing! I hitched up my FW and towed it from storage to my house, about 12 miles. Felt a little different, but it handled just fine, and without any damage, whatsoever. Scared the bejesus out of me when I realized what I'd done, though! :E

Lyle

[fj12ryder]

I would imagine the "alt physics" are the same ones that work with a direct gooseneck hitch. The load is supported by the gooseneck ball which is bolted to the Companion base. Pretty easy to understand. The bed will probably deform some as the weight is applied, but only until the weight is supported by the turnover ball, then the weight is supported by the gooseneck/turnover ball structure under the bed, that is bolted to the frame.

[Me_Again]

laknox wrote:

Cummins12V98 wrote:
^^^^^ Correct the PUCK Companion attaches to the pucks that directly attach to the frame. The regular Companion attaches to a post that attaches to a Gooseneck hitch mounted under the bed.

To further clarify, the GN base takes virtually all of the vertical load on the hitch; the base =stabilizes= the unavoidable fore/aft flex in the hitch system. I can only assume that the puck system transfers the load directly to the frame =and= stabilizes the fore/aft forces at the same time. Haven't yet seen one in person.

Lyle

Lyle please explain the alt physics that allow the GN base to takes any direct load. With the bed between the base and the hitch base the load is on the bed floor. With the addition of the strips to fit in the bed valley things improved. however the GN base is only under the very center area front to back and the hitch base extends both ahead and behind the GN base. Rather than Companion, it should be named Compromise.

[laknox]

Cummins12V98 wrote:
^^^^^ Correct the PUCK Companion attaches to the pucks that directly attach to the frame. The regular Companion attaches to a post that attaches to a Gooseneck hitch mounted under the bed.

To further clarify, the GN base takes virtually all of the vertical load on the hitch; the base =stabilizes= the unavoidable fore/aft flex in the hitch system. I can only assume that the puck system transfers the load directly to the frame =and= stabilizes the fore/aft forces at the same time. Haven't yet seen one in person.

Lyle

[Cummins12V98]

^^^^^ Correct the PUCK Companion attaches to the pucks that directly attach to the frame. The regular Companion attaches to a post that attaches to a Gooseneck hitch mounted under the bed.

[Wayfarer]

If I am not mistaken on my BW Companion the main frame does not touch the bed of the truck. The 4 pucks transfer the load. I have often wondered why the main hitch does not sit on the bed of the truck. Also the main body of the hitch does not touch the truck where the four pucks are. You can actually see part of the studs that go into the pucks after you lock the hitch in place. I always thought that the studs should go further in and the feet of the hitch should sit on the floor of the truck.

Tom

Cummins12V98 wrote:
There is a reason Andersen re designed the aluminum Ultimate.

Personally I feel Anderson makes a quality US Made product. BUT, IMHO their ratings are way too high. For one they can and will deform the bed since the base is just using the bed to keep it stable. Hard braking or accelerating with a heavy RV will cause this problem. The old B&W Companion did the same thing (i know from personal experience) until they re designed it so the base placed its pressure points to the low part of the bed corrugation and to the bed cross rails.

I would consider an Andersen for the 250/2500 market but none higher. Oh, BTW the "crush test" video is a bit of a joke. How about a real world fore aft test???????

[Cummins12V98]

IdaD, yes we can disagree and be civil! Seems the part of my OPINION of how they are a quality US manufacturer gets lost in the dust.

[RCMAN46]

ralphnjoann wrote:

TenOC wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:

Never heard of anyone wanting a trailer (any trailer) to come loose in a wreck. Having logged over 1.2 million miles pulling trailers (non rv) I sure wouldn't want one coming loose....any time.

Per the link above and repeated here Wreck with 5er. Hitch failed Photo near the botton.

"If the truck had rolled over too, Mark and Doran could have easily been very badly injured or even killed. However, because the truck stayed upright, they walked away unscathed. Thank heavens!!"

That's a bit of speculation. They could have been killed or badly injured if the upright truck had careened into oncoming traffic.

Lets speculate that the hitch failure had occurred on a two lane highway. Lose trailer hits an oncoming small car and kills all aboard. I want my trailer to stay connected.

There is a reason most states require safety chains on most ball hitched trailers.

Plus we do not know if the truck and trailer would have rolled if the hitch had not failed.

[IdaD]

He's entitled to his opinion but that's about as much weight as I'd give it too. I dont see myself ever going back to a standard fifth wheel hitch - as far as I'm concerned they don't work as well and they're more of a hassle to deal with. Just my opinion of course.

[Cummins12V98]

There is a reason Andersen re designed the aluminum Ultimate.

Personally I feel Anderson makes a quality US Made product. BUT, IMHO their ratings are way too high. For one they can and will deform the bed since the base is just using the bed to keep it stable. Hard braking or accelerating with a heavy RV will cause this problem. The old B&W Companion did the same thing (i know from personal experience) until they re designed it so the base placed its pressure points to the low part of the bed corrugation and to the bed cross rails.

I would consider an Andersen for the 250/2500 market but none higher. Oh, BTW the "crush test" video is a bit of a joke. How about a real world fore aft test???????

[IBcarguy]

WTP-GC wrote:
one should expect failure of this product...just like one should expect failure of any man-made device. There will always be the chance that a weld was done improperly or a material defect exists beyond the manufactuer's control. But The overall number of failed UH's is minuscule. I can count only one time where pictures have been posted of this, plus 3 or 4 other written claims. All things considered, that's not even enough to raise an eyebrow at.

This entire forum seems to be a dedicated place for RV owners to come vent or rant about one problem or another with their rig. Blowouts, water damage, delam, reefer issues, water heater issues, etc. etc. etc. The Andersen UH doesn't even rank on the list of common complaints from actual users.

Amen...

[ralphnjoann]

TenOC wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:

Never heard of anyone wanting a trailer (any trailer) to come loose in a wreck. Having logged over 1.2 million miles pulling trailers (non rv) I sure wouldn't want one coming loose....any time.

Per the link above and repeated here Wreck with 5er. Hitch failed Photo near the botton.

"If the truck had rolled over too, Mark and Doran could have easily been very badly injured or even killed. However, because the truck stayed upright, they walked away unscathed. Thank heavens!!"

That's a bit of speculation. They could have been killed or badly injured if the upright truck had careened into oncoming traffic.

[fj12ryder]

ralphnjoann wrote:

WTP-GC wrote:
one should expect failure of this product...just like one should expect failure of any man-made device. There will always be the chance that a weld was done improperly or a material defect exists beyond the manufactuer's control. But The overall number of failed UH's is minuscule. I can count only one time where pictures have been posted of this, plus 3 or 4 other written claims. All things considered, that's not even enough to raise an eyebrow at.

This entire forum seems to be a dedicated place for RV owners to come vent or rant about one problem or another with their rig. Blowouts, water damage, delam, reefer issues, water heater issues, etc. etc. etc. The Andersen UH doesn't even rank on the list of common complaints from actual users.

I agree 100%. The B&W Companion, for example, is a highly regarded hitch on these forums and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if it met my needs. But here is a LINK to a report showing a catastrophic failure of the hitch when the trailer overturned. Would this single example be a reason not to buy the hitch? Not for me - stuff happens.

I don't know that you could call this a "catastrophic failure". If your trailer comes apart in a crash is that a "catastrophic failure", or the results of the crash? If the frame of your truck deforms after hitting a tree at 70 mph is that a "catastrophic failure" or the results of hitting a tree at 70 mph?

Personally I think the B&W hitch deformed when subjected to extreme forces in a rollover crash. I don't know that subjecting something to forces way beyond its design parameters should lead to surprise when there are problems. If you drive a 20 ton load over a bride rated for 5 tons you shouldn't be surprised when it collapses.

Yeah, I love my B&W hitch. 🙂

[TenOC]

JIMNLIN wrote:

Never heard of anyone wanting a trailer (any trailer) to come loose in a wreck. Having logged over 1.2 million miles pulling trailers (non rv) I sure wouldn't want one coming loose....any time.

Per the link above and repeated here Wreck with 5er. Hitch failed Photo near the botton.

"If the truck had rolled over too, Mark and Doran could have easily been very badly injured or even killed. However, because the truck stayed upright, they walked away unscathed. Thank heavens!!"

[ralphnjoann]

WTP-GC wrote:
one should expect failure of this product...just like one should expect failure of any man-made device. There will always be the chance that a weld was done improperly or a material defect exists beyond the manufactuer's control. But The overall number of failed UH's is minuscule. I can count only one time where pictures have been posted of this, plus 3 or 4 other written claims. All things considered, that's not even enough to raise an eyebrow at.

This entire forum seems to be a dedicated place for RV owners to come vent or rant about one problem or another with their rig. Blowouts, water damage, delam, reefer issues, water heater issues, etc. etc. etc. The Andersen UH doesn't even rank on the list of common complaints from actual users.

I agree 100%. The B&W Companion, for example, is a highly regarded hitch on these forums and I wouldn't hesitate to buy one if it met my needs. But here is a LINK to a report showing a catastrophic failure of the hitch when the trailer overturned. Would this single example be a reason not to buy the hitch? Not for me - stuff happens.