New Andersen WD hitch

[JBarca]

A fellow camper bud showed me this. It's new and different.

Anyone using one?

Andersen WD hitches

A U-tube video with the factory guy explaining it. You have to get past MR Truck doing his intro. Interesting 5th wheel hitch too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvM7mCnqmwo&feature=related

It looks like this



I'll hold my comments for a short while to not cloud your thoughts. Ideally we can find someone here using one to quiz them on it.

John

[Ron_Gratz]

BenK wrote:
Since the WD Springs only have a limited travel, if the receiver assembly requires more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there isn't going to be 'enough' WD imparted onto the TV...

I agree with this because it can be directly inferred from what I said a few posts back.
But, a corollary to this is --
if the receiver assembly does not require more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there will be enough WD imparted.
This contradicts your previous statement about transfer of weight to the front axle.
So, perhaps the exchange between Barney and me has done some good.

So far, we've seen no evidence that Renojack's receiver assembly requires more travel than his WD hitch system can provide.
IMO, it's a bit premature to tell him he needs to replace the receiver in order to get more load transfer.

And, of course, his WD hitch system has no "WD spring bars" or lift chains or rearward tilt.
It seems to me that, with the Andersen hitch,
IF you need to compensate for receiver rotation (a.k.a. "twist"}, you just move the frame brackets farther to the rear and/or further tighten the nuts against the bushings.

Ron

[Ron_Gratz]

BarneyS wrote:
No Ron. You are reading more into what I said than what I intended. All I was trying to say is that the force on the ends of the spring bars remain the same. If they remain the same, does the receiver bending upward reduce the weight transferred to the front axle or not?
I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to get it clear in my head what you are trying to say. What you posted just does not compute in my mind.

Barney, let's go back to what Ben said in this post.

BenK wrote:
If GMT800 (2000-2006), then the receiver should be replaced with a proper one. The OEM receiver bends and consume WD forces. So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces

If the bars attached to the "OEM" receiver (assumed less "stiff") and the bars attached to the "traditional" receiver (assumed more "stiff") are loaded to the SAME "WD spring forces" the WDH will transfer the SAME amount of load to the front axle. The difference is that the rear end of a bar attached to the less stiff receiver will have to be lifted higher above its initial unloaded height. If the bars attached to the less stiff receiver are lifted high enough to experience the same amount of load as the bars attached to the more stiff receiver, there will be no difference in load transfer. That is contrary to what Ben

is saying

was saying a couple pages back

.

BarneyS wrote:
It sure seems to me that, if you want to transfer x amount of weight, and you draw up the bars using x amount of links, and the receiver bends upwards x amount, you are going to have to raise the bars even farther with x+ links to get x amount of weight transfer as opposed to a receiver that does not bend upwards when WD is applied.
Is my thinking correct? I agree with your statement in blue text which seems to me to be in agreement with my thinking.

Yes, we are in agreement (except I think it would be "x-" rather than "x+" links under tension). That's essentially what I said a few posts back -- except I added increased rearward tilt as another means of compensating for receiver rotation.

The whole point is that the less stiff receiver CAN transfer the same amount of load as the more stiff receiver as long as you do not exceed the yield strength and as long as you can increase rearward tilt and/or reduce number of links under tension. If the bars are loaded to the same "WD spring forces" they WILL transfer the same amount of load.

Ron

On Edit: I didn't notice the post by Ben a couple posts back. The text in

blue

above replaces the text in

red

.

[BarneyS]

Clear to me Ben. :). I think Ron and I are just playing picky semantic games. :B
Barney

[BenK]

Maybe this will help...a bit...

WD springs (round bar, trunnion and now Andersen plastic bushings) all have a
fairly short travel with the plastic bushings the shortest

Most receiver pin boxes are mounted (welded, etc) onto the receiver cross tube.
Some tubes are square, others round. Some are straight, others bent to go around
stuff. Some even have a 1/2" or so thick plate bent around exhaust pipes.

Most are then welded/bolted to the end brackets, which then connect to the TV frame

Most all cross tubes are in torsional tension, which is really a torque tube

In working, that cross tube twists till it reaches a limit of 'twist' or travel
that will then transmit that force to the end brackets, then to the
TV frame

Going past the elastic point will have the cross tube and/or the pin
box assembly 'stay' bent. The design criteria is to have it twist
and not go into and past the plastic point. Goal is to have it stay in
the elastic range where it will snap back

The amount the GM GMT800 receiver's cross tube *AND* pin box assembly 'twists'
is much LARGER than a traditional receiver pin box assembly and cross tube does
It goes past the elastic point and into the plastic range easily since
the design is not stout enough. There are production issues too and
has to do with the poor welds. There are also design issues, but that
is discussed in other threads.

Since the WD Springs only have a limited travel, if the receiver assembly requires
more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there isn't going to be
'enough' WD imparted onto the TV...

Clear as mud, right? :B :B :B :B :B :B :B :B:B :B :B :B :B :B :B :B

[BarneyS]

No Ron. You are reading more into what I said than what I intended. All I was trying to say is that the force on the ends of the spring bars remain the same. If they remain the same, does the receiver bending upward reduce the weight transferred to the front axle or not?
I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to get it clear in my head what you are trying to say. What you posted just does not compute in my mind.

It sure seems to me that, if you want to transfer x amount of weight, and you draw up the bars using x amount of links, and the receiver bends upwards x amount, you are going to have to raise the bars even farther with x+ links to get x amount of weight transfer as opposed to a receiver that does not bend upwards when WD is applied.
Is my thinking correct? I agree with your statement in blue text which seems to me to be in agreement with my thinking.
Barney

[Ron_Gratz]

Ron Gratz wrote:

BarneyS wrote:
Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (:W) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.:)

If the "WD spring forces" are the same, the load transfer to the front axle will be the same
-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.

BarneyS wrote:
Let me rephrase what you just posted to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
With 5 links under tension and everything remaining the same (rear overhang etc.) you will get the SAME weight transfer to the front axles of the tow vehicle regardless of whether the receiver bends upwards or not when the WD force is applied.

Is this an accurate statement of what you are saying in your post above? If so, then it is contrary to what I have thought all along and I have learned something new today.

Barney, your rephrasing is not an accurate statement of what I said.
The post which you quoted, and my response, referred to "the same WD spring forces."

Your rephrasing implies to me that you believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between number of links under tension and "WD spring forces".

That is not correct. And that is why I stated, in this post,

However, if there is enough receiver rotation, you might find you need to increase the rearward tilt of the ball mount or decrease the number of links under tension
-- but you will be able to load the bars and transfer load.

Ron

[BarneyS]

Ron,
Let me rephrase what you just posted to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
With 5 links under tension and everything remaining the same (rear overhang etc.) you will get the SAME weight transfer to the front axles of the tow vehicle regardless of whether the receiver bends upwards or not when the WD force is applied.

Is this an accurate statement of what you are saying in your post above? If so, then it is contrary to what I have thought all along and I have learned something new today.
Barney

[Ron_Gratz]

BarneyS wrote:
Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (:W) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.:)

If the "WD spring forces" are the same, the load transfer to the front axle will be the same
-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.

---BUT it is also possible his receiver is bending like so many others have. It is something he should check on instead of being unaware of a possible problem.

The amount of receiver rotation which would result in being able to transfer only 40# to the front axle would be so great as to be easily detected.
And, IMO, there would have to be some major cracking.
renojack stated he had the receiver checked and all was in order as far as loose or cracked welds.

I think we should wait to see what happens after he gets the compression charts from Andersen.

Ron

[PHS79]

renojack, with as heavy as your trailer is I would try using atleast 1/4" of compression of the bushings which was roughly 9 threads. With only 7 thread you aren't getting anywhere near enough compression on the bushings to transfer the weight.

On my F150/Grey Wolf 26BH combo (with 650-700lb tongue weight), compressing the bushings 1/4" raised the rear of my truck to with-in about 1/4-3/8" of the unloaded height and dropped the front end 1/8" from the unloaded height. I don't have a scale locally, but just by taking measurements it is quiet evident that the hitch did transfer a good amount of weight on my truck.

Instead of counting threads I always measure the bushing. To me its a lot more accurate way of getting the same tension and WD with this hitch.

[renojack]

I appreciate your collective concern and have a list of things,(all valid suggestions) to check on before my next trip. Thank you all.

Renojack

[BarneyS]

Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (:W) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.:)

Who knows what is going to solve the OP's problem. It could very well be that he simply needs to tighten up his WD chains BUT it is also possible his receiver is bending like so many others have. It is something he should check on instead of being unaware of a possible problem.
Barney

[Ron_Gratz]

BarneyS wrote:
Ron, Even if it were caused by a pivot projection hitch, the receiver should not have failed. I think that is the point that Ben is making.---

Barney, I don't know what point Ben is making. All I know is what he posted:

BenK wrote:
If GMT800 (2000-2006), then the receiver should be replaced with a proper one. The OEM receiver bends and consume WD forces. So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces

BenK wrote:
What happens is that the receiver pin box assembly bends on the round cross bar to 'consume' WD forces till it reaches its limits...then it will transfer (distribute) the WD forces. There are a multitude of other issues with that design

Renojack asked, "Where does the claim that the stock Chevy hitch absorbs weight distribution come from." (bold added for emphasis) Renojack's posts are about weight distribution, and it is clear from his scales data that he simply does not have his chains sufficiently tensioned. IMO, his problem is not the receiver -- he simply needs to tighten the nuts.

Receivers do not 'consume' WD forces. Suggesting that his receiver needs to be replaced because the round cross bar 'consumes' WD forces is not going to solve his problem, IMO.

Ron

[springfield5]

I can't speak for the Anderson hitch since I run an Equalizer, but do have experience with the OEM Suburban hitch. I never noticed any issues when I had our Jayco hybrid which was much much lighter. Our new Cougar has a loaded tongue weight north of 1000lbs. I noticed after initially adjusting the WD bars for the new trailer I had a troubling amount of flex from the GM hitch. When the WD bars were loaded, the pin box was obviously not vertical, but tilted up a troubling amount. Would it have failed? I was not going to risk it. My hitch honestly looked to be in great condition with almost no rust but I installed a Reese Titan any way. In addition to being a stronger hitch, the mounting bars are almost twice as long as the OEM hitch. This will distribute forces over more of the frame which will also increase strength. After spending $25000 on a new trailer.... a $300 hitch was cheap insurance.

Also, after installing the Titan I had no more pin box flex. I am not sure how GM felt comfortable putting a 1200LB rating on this hitch. Sorry for the long rant but I just went through this two weeks ago so it is still fresh in my head!

Best of luck to you!

[BarneyS]

Ron, Even if it were caused by a pivot projection hitch, the receiver should not have failed. I think that is the point that Ben is making. Besides that, there have been MANY other posts about failures and bending of the GM hitch of certain years by using standard WD hitches, as I'm sure you are aware of. I am not aware of other makes of hitches failing like those years GM hitches did - regardless of type of WD hitch used. Renojack asked about where the claim came from about GM round tube hitches, and Ben answered him very well in my opinion.
Barney

[Ron_Gratz]

BenK wrote:
First reported here below and is of a GMT800 8.1L Suburban just like the OPs:

Hitch Failure, the first report in 2003

This the first image on any forum that I know of and from the above
thread

Ben,

There is no evidence to support the assertion that the hitch failure shown above was due to "WD forces".

Instead, people who take the time to read Burbman's description likely will conclude (as Burbman did) that the failure was due to yaw-axis torque and lateral force generated by a pivot point projection hitch.

Ron