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

[renojack]

The front is 3/4 inch higher and the rear is 1.25 inches less than the unladen weight of the trailer. THe measurements are exactly the same as the 7 thread (hardly any weight transfer) scenario.

[Ron_Gratz]

renojack wrote:
---The trailer is dead on level, and the suburban is level within a 1/2".---

Can you explain what you mean by "the suburban is level within a 1/2"?

TV and TT front 3200, rear 3760 (+960 TW), TRLR Axle 7000Does this mean the scaled rear axle weight was 3760+960 = 4720#?

The total trailer weight may have changed by 200+ because the hot water heater and 12-15 gallons in the fresh water tank behind the axle was added between weighs.

Scales data indicate the WDH transferred 200# to the front axle.
This, in turn, indicates the WDH would have transferred about 100# to the TT axles.
The additional 120# on the TT axles could have been the weight of extra water.

The scales data indicate 460# was removed from the front axle when the TT was attached. The WDH replaced 200# of this.
Ford now recommends about 50% of the removed load be restored via the WDH.
However, Chevrolet/GMC still specify approximately 100% of the removed load should be restored.

Ron

[renojack]

The 3/4T does not have the auto level. It is a 4WD so extra weight up front.

[Ron_Gratz]

Renojack,

Does your Suburban have Automatic Level Control?

If so, did it cause the rear to rise after you adjusted the load on the WDH bushings?

Ron

[BenK]

Renojack, please keep this thread updated as time goes by. Would you
also include the terrain conditions too? Inclines, cross winds, etc.

You are on the heavy side of the users so far and always good to have both ends,
light and heavy, along with the majority's middle info to compare

Weird that they didn't get back to you, but can't do much about that for now

Your TV weight is about where mine is...7.4K lbs with me (180) and the
misc/tool box (+250). Both big blocks, which is right up there with diesels.

Is your's a 4x4? The 4x4 Suburban's has the front bump stops touching all the
time and WD'ing over to that front axle has two spring systems working

Ron knows the new setup that the OEMs recommend best. I'm old school with even drop and
my GMT400 does NOT have the 4x4 front bump stop touching at all. I understand
that new setup to avoid over steering and the subsequent jack knifing 'potential'

Again, please post as it goes for both how the Andersen behaves and how this
double front spring system of GMT800/GMT900 4x4 Suburbans does.

Am seeing or my opinion is that the Andersen bushings has a lot to do with how
they tow vs the traditional WD systems and their steel springs. Bouncing and
porpoising seems to NOT be as prevalent with the Andersen and think the release
speed of the plastic bushings key to that

[renojack]

I waited a week for Jason @ Anderson Hitch to respond with the compression in inches/ pounds of pull on the chains/ball, with noresponse so I tightened the chains/ compression springs from the inadequate 7 threads to 9 threads (about all I could get with the socket provided by Anderson). It seemed that even if I had a deeper socket I could not have gotten more compression. The urethane spring is now compressed to 2 17/32". The trailer is dead on level, and the suburban is level within a 1/2". Here is the distribution per the CAT scale:


TRUCK ONLY FRONT 3660, REAR 3280

Without WD

TV and TT front 3200, rear 3760 (+960 TW), TRLR Axle 7000

With WD

TV and TT, front 3400, rear 3480 (+960 TW) ,TT 7220 )

The total trailer weight may have changed by 200+ because the hot water heater and 12-15 gallons in the fresh water tank behind the axle was added between weighs.

The trailer pulled on the freeway in light winds better than this trailer has ever pulled. I hope that I can get some comment on whether the transfer is enought to be in an acceptable range. As I said everything is level and the trailer pulls better than ever (without my dealer provided round bar setup that had become worn at the receiver bar holes.

I am very happy unless someone bursts the bubble necessarily.

Renojack

[Ron_Gratz]

CHD Dad wrote:
Hey guys - since we obviously have some engineers on here, has the coupler/latch issue ever been figured out? I know many pages back there was talk of contacting one of the big coupler manufacturers about it but I dont recall ever seeing a followup to that post. To me that is the single biggest flaw and/or safety issue with the Andersen design. Having the latch fail either while towing or when it comes time to just disconnect would be a major issue!

According to the VESC V-5 Regulation and the SAE J684 Standard -- the longitudinal test load for a ball and coupler is:

Class 3 -- 15,000# both forward and rearward

Class 4 -- 3 times trailer GVWR both forward and rearward

I don't know how much forward thrust against the ball will be produced by the Andersen system,
but it probably is considerably less than the VESC/SAE test specification.

Ron

[Ron_Gratz]

shakyjay wrote:
Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents. 🙂

shakyjay is correct. So let's try to get this back onto the subject of Andersen hitch:

BenK wrote:
To bring this back to the Andersen Hitch system...since the Andersen system has a shorter spring travel, any receiver that has lots of travel will have the Andersen system run out of gas (spring travel) so that it will no longer be able to 'WD' the tongue weight

Yes, it is correct that the Andersen system has a "shorter spring travel".
However, the receiver rotation will have a much smaller dimensional effect on the Andersen system than it will on a system with 28-30" WD bars.

As mentioned in another post, a receiver rotation of 3.5 degrees will raise the end of a 28" WD bar by about 2.5".
Assuming the distance between ball and chains on the Andersen system is 8",
the Andersen spring compression nut would have to be advanced about 0.5" along the threaded shaft to compensate for the receiver rotation.
IMO, the Andersen system would not "run out of gas".

Ron

[CHD_Dad]

shakyjay wrote:
Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents. 🙂

I agree, this has gone farther off topic than any of the other forums I visit! I do appreciate the knowledge being shared here but I wonder if forum mods could clean this thread up now that the hitch flex topic seems to have been settled. For a newcomer searching for info on this hitch they may have a tough time navigatig the most recent pages of this thread.

Maybe a new thread needs to be started just for users of this hitch since the debate over how and why it works along with it's advantages and shortcomings has pretty much run it's course.

Just my opinion!

(posted on my phone, please excuse typos!)

[Ron_Gratz]

BenK wrote:
One more thread on this: Receiver on GM seems to tilt up - best replacement?

Here's an interesting post from that thread:

mecreature wrote:

chadsalt wrote:

mecreature wrote:
I have been keeping an eye out on mine..

I dont haul near the weight alot of you do ... but when engaging the W/D you can see a good bit of flex in the hitch..

Planning on a hitch over the winter. that MagnumV looks good..

Its amazing the difference in the way these hitches differ from the OEM.

keep in mind the aftermarket hitches are rated higher, youre comparing apples to oranges.

I understand... but when I engage my bars I cringe when I see the hitch flex..

It raises the rear end just fine though..

(Red and bold added for emphasis.)

Apparently this hitch was able to transfer load "just fine" even though it did flex.

We should be aware that the VESC V-5 Regulation and the corresponding SAE J684 Standard state that a deformation of 5 degrees is acceptable.

Ron

[shakyjay]

Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents. 🙂

[Ron_Gratz]

BenK wrote:
Don't believe that the GMT800 receiver pin box moves more than most other traditional designed receivers...here are some links and pics

GM Hitch Deflection Measured - Comments Welcome
John's comment on his GMT800 receiver:

"The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing"

Ben, I think you should have included the entire paragraph from which this excerpt was taken:

JBarca wrote:
The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing. This was measured down the centerline of the truck as the hitch would deflect when I hooked up my TT. I did not measure side to side turning deflection.

The also amazing part is the Putnam also deflected in this manner as well.

The failures I have seen seem to be more side load related than up and down. This may be the week link of the GM.

(Red and bold added for emphasis)

Also, I think you should include this:

JBarca wrote:
Here is the same scale dim after dropping a 1,100# tongue weight on the hitch. 1,100# tongue in weight carrying mode, no spring bars, now at 7/16". The GM hitch is suppose to take this weight in weight carrying mode.

After I connected both 800# spring bars the gap changed to 0.219".

Basically the hitch now went back up to allmost the zero state of 3/16".

(Red and bold added for emphasis)
IOW, the GM hitch deflected under "weight carrying" and then went back almost to the unloaded state after WD was applied.

And then there's the "Chart with GM and Putnam measured dim.'s"
If you look at the numbers on the chart, I think they show:
For 1000# tongue weight, the changes in distance A+B is --
GM Receiver: "weight carrying" A+B = -0.358", WD A+B = +0.014"
Punnam Rcvr: "weight carrying" A+B = -0.407", WD A+B = -0.025"
IMO, there is no significant difference in GM versus Putnam deflections.

John then concludes:

JBarca wrote:
So after seeing all this and seeing the failures on this forum, they appear to be side loaded or twisting the hitch off going around a turn as opposed to an up and down break.

It would be nice to know what their tongue weight was and what WD hitch they had and how it broke the GM hitch. My new Putman is very reinforced in the left to right direction

even though it does deflect up and down some like the GM hitch.

(Red and bold added for emphasis.)

This post by John Barca is very informative. Thanks for providing the link.

Ron

[carringb]

BenK wrote:


Wonder how much it would cost to change to that ?

A good certified welder would probably charge 1.5-hours or so, to R&R a coupler. Figure around $100-$120 for retail hourly rates.

The coupler itself is about $80-$140 depending on weight range, and if it is height adjustable (plus a little more for the other half of the height adjustment bracket if not already equipped).

[BenK]

Bryan, thanks for re-posting that Bulldog coupler. It looks like the solution
to the latch issue.

Wonder how much it would cost to change to that ?

It lots, the Andersen's cost advantage shrinks, but for me, cost lower than
performance and safety on my 'have to have' list

[carringb]

BenK wrote:



I think the coupler needs to be a custom for an Andersen system. It
should be 'backwards' with the latch in 'front' and the shaped area to
capture the ball in 'back'...or...some how remove the forces on the
latch, which was never designed to handle that level of forces

Bulldog couplers should work well with the Anderson hitch. I do like the simplicity of the Anderson, and its unlimited turning angle (I lose round and trunnion bars all the time making U-turns). But I personally wouldn't trust a standard coupler to hold up under that kind of continuous loading.