Andersen Hitch Users?

[Campinginva]

Hi folks. Really new to the forum but really am thankful to have a board like this one with folks willing to offer good advice. We have decided to leave the tent and step up to a hybrid Shamrock 183. Our TV is a 2008 Buick Enclave with a max tow rating of 4500 lbs. Really like the ease of the Andersen hitch. Dealer wants to install bars and chains. Had them on my boat and they were a pain. Grease all the time and very noisy. Anyone have success with the Andersen? Do I really need a set up like this one. Dealer says just bars and sway. Andersen accomplishes both it looks like. Any thoughts?

[BigBaron]

I don't have one but several have commented how they like it. Definitely easier than bars and chains.

[jeerme]

My brother and I have been using the ANDERSON for two years now. My set up is a Nissan titan with a sp280 surveyor sport. Super easy to hook up and unhook. We live in Nebraska and we are almost always towing with some type of wind and no issues. I've had questions about the product and I have always had a good experience calling Anderson directly and have even talked to the owner on one occasion. We have had no issues, good product and I would have no problems recommending based on my use.

[jawga]

We have a ford explorer and a wildwood x-lite 195bh. We have the anderson wdh hitch. I have towed with and without any wdh and can tell you we have no sway with the anderson hitch. It is very easy to set up and use. I ended up buying a 1&1/4 wrench instead of using the supplied socket since I didnt want to carry around a ratchet also. Once its set up its easy to take on and off and also I like being able to adjust it on the fly instead of having a set weight a normal wdh would have. We also looked at the other wdh hitches but couldnt justify the extra weight vs the weight of the anderson hitch. Also it doesnt take up much room when we are not using it. Would recommend the anderson hitch based on our experience.

[Boxerglocker]

I love my Andersen WDH set-up. I didn’t have a lot of experience with any other typical set-ups prior but now after 3 trips with our Surveyor gained a lot of knowledge. I talked to friends and met others on trips about their rigs. Most actually initially approached me about the look of the Andersen and comment on how quiet it was when driving in or out of that camp ground. I would ask them about theirs. They have seen how easy it is to set-up, my wife can actually do it herself.
The one thing I like the most about it the ease to adjust it on the fly. Our trailer and TV can vary in weight depending on the purpose of the trip. It’s super simple “compress the urethane springs and the nose goes down”. This feature is in my opinion invaluable particularly here in the PNW where roads conditions can vary day in day out. I like to know that my TV is getting the max amount of traction at all times. I carry a tool bag for maintenance of my trailer and the wheels and hitch. The ratchet doubles for the wheel lug nuts and water heater plug. I keep a couple of magnetic base bubble levels and tape measure to adjust the fender heights in there as well.

It does what it is advertised to do. It was super simple to install, weighs nothing
when you take it off. I small rubbermade heavy duty tote that I place hitch and the coupler bracket / chains / springs / hardware all in when not in use. It’s unobtrusive and can fit either under the back seat of my truck or the forward compartment of my trailer.

[Campinginva]

Thanks for all the input. Looks like Andersen will fit the bill for our needs.

[thebrakeman]

I you had a 1/2-ton truck or more, I'd say give it a try. But with only 4500 lbs tow rating, I would not use the Anderson with that trailer. The Anderson has not been shown able to transfer very much weight, as measured by front axle weight changes, or wheel well height change. If you have plenty of excess capacity, then not much WD is needed. But for a minivan or crossover, you'll need to transfer quite a bit to get the front loading back to stock. The Anderson's design simply runs out of room, since the chains pull parallel to the vertical force required, rather than having bars that are lifting upward in concert wiht the vertical force required.

No, I haven't used the thing. But as an engineer, this is my opinion of the design. I believe it has it's uses, is likely quiet, and no grease. But it's limited, compared to a conventional WDH with spring bars.

[BigBaron]

As an engineer, you should also know that the forces generated by the spring bars on a traditional WDH are torsion forces that act as a lever on the frame of the TV, transferring some of the weight from the rear of the TV to the front.
The direction of the forces that create this torsion is completely irrelevant to the transfer of weight on the TV. Only the direction and magnitude of the torsion that creates the transfer matters.
The Anderson appears to create this torsion just fine.

I don't like the Anderson design because it puts a tremendous amount of force/strain on the hitch coupler handle assembly and underjaw. (see pic below) These parts were not designed/intended to be under constant tension, let alone the forces that a WDH can generate.
That's my two cents, but it is a simple WDH system and am glad (for you Anderson owners) that my opinion on the design is apparently wrong!

[comfun1]

I have had a TT with a Reese WDH with sway control, a fifth wheel and now have a TH with an Andersen Hitch. I could not be more pleased. The TH with the Andersen hitch tows just as well as my fifth wheel did. The Andersen is quick, clean, quiet, light and easy, all things the others are not.

[OldCoot]

[QUOTE=BigBaron;486658]...I don't like the Anderson design because it puts a tremendous amount of force/strain on the hitch coupler handle assembly and underjaw. (see pic below) These parts were not designed/intended to be under constant tension, let alone the forces that a WDH can generate.../QUOTE]

I agree, regardless of how good it works, the couplers are not designed for those tremendous loads and will wear out or break prematurely. The couplers are designed for the load on the front of the socket, not the back.

[Twisty]

I agree.
The underjaw is only meant to hold the socket on the ball.
It is not designed to deal with a 600 lb or 1400 lb load.

[thebrakeman]

Originally Posted by BigBaron

As an engineer, you should also know that the forces generated by the spring bars on a traditional WDH are torsion forces that act as a lever on the frame of the TV, transferring some of the weight from the rear of the TV to the front.
The direction of the forces that create this torsion is completely irrelevant to the transfer of weight on the TV. Only the direction and magnitude of the torsion that creates the transfer matters.

BigBaran,
First of all, love the Jack Nicholson avatar.
Secondly, and respectfully, you are incorrect. (Those not interested in a lesson in statics need not continue.)

You say that the direction of the force is irrelevant to the transfer of weight, and that only the direction and magnitude of the torsion matters. The problem with your statement is that you can not define the magnitude of the torsion unless you know the direction of the force.

Torque is a measurement of the torsional force about a point, due to a force at some other point. Torque equals the magnitude of the force, times the distance between the point and the force, perpendicular to the force. You can't know the perpendicular distance unless you know the direction of the force.

In the case of the traditional WDH, the force is nearly vertical, so the perpendicular distance is nearly horizontal. In the case of the Anderson, the force exerted by the chains is nearly horizontal, making the perpendicular distance nearly vertical.

The effect is profound, due to the trigonometry involved. You must have a tremendous amount of force from the Anderson to get a similar torsion from the traditional WDH. But as the Anderson coupler approaches level (angle is zero, and inline with the force exerted), there can be no more weight transfer, which is what limits the Anderson in actual weight transferred. Not so with a traditional WDH. The more you lift, the more is transferred. If fact you have to be careful that you don't actually unload the rear axle.

[BigBaron]

And that is the point-the forces needed to generate the torque can come from any direction as long as the torque is equal. I see the forces needed by an Anderson to be huge. The underfoot and latch bolt were not designed for forces of that magnitude. It seems to work though...

[Twisty]

I wonder what the coupler designers think of the Anderson.
I'd like to see pics of a coupler underjaw as the miles pass by.

[SPPD]

I have used both the Andersen and the ProPride. The ProPride is the better hitch, but not by as much as most would think. I really liked the Andersen and would recommend it to anyone looking for a quiet, light, and clean hitch system that works extremely well and is quick and easy to hitch up.

SPPD

[thebrakeman]

Originally Posted by BigBaron

And that is the point-the forces needed to generate the torque can come from any direction as long as the torque is equal. I see the forces needed by an Anderson to be huge. The underfoot and latch bolt were not designed for forces of that magnitude. It seems to work though...

Although I agree that couplers weren't designed to be used like this, I'm making a different point. You would break something on the Anderson before you could generate enough torque to do what some rigs would requires.

It's like tying a rope 2 feet up the side of a wall, holding the free end, and hanging a weight in the middle. Sure, if you pull straight horizontally on the free end, the weight will lift. But keep pulling and pulling, and you will eventually reach a point where the weight just won't rise any more. Once the angle between the 2 sections of rope becomes a single straight line, there is no more increase in torsion. Because the perpendicular distance has become zero. Keep pulling, and you will only succeed in breaking the rope.

Not so with the traditional WDH. You aren't pulling back on a limp rope, reducing the perp. distance to zero. You are lifting on a stiff bar and the perp. distance remains essentially constant.

Thanks for discussion.
Over and out.