Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-31-2013, 05:00 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 89
Whats nice about the Andersen is adjustments on the go are very easy take 1/4 turn on the tension nuts and try again until you get it just the way you want.
__________________

__________________
2012 Coachmen Freedom Express Deep Slide 270FLDS
2012 Ford F150 Eco Boost
Andersen WDH
uncle46 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 06:58 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Hutch333id's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Cochrane, AB
Posts: 759
I have used my Andersen all through this season and towed many miles without any problems whatsoever. No sway, no noise, easy to set up and take down, fairly light in comparison to other hitches and very affordable. I am. Towing a 35' 8315BSS with an F350 dually and I don't know the trailer is there half the time. I certainly don't feel anything when being passed by 18 wheelers.
__________________

__________________


Richard & Diane
2014 Cedar Creek 38FL
2016 F350 Lariat CC DRW
Retired Metropolitan Police (UK)
Hutch333id is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-31-2013, 07:30 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 6,745
I hope you mean't Labor Day weekend; otherwise, it'll be quite a while until you get out.
__________________
rockfordroo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 02:27 PM   #14
daydreaming about camping
 
jeeplj8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: KC area
Posts: 1,400
From posts on this forum, people with small to medium size trailers seem to really love the Anderson. As has been asked frequently, getting scale numbers to see exactly how much weight distribution is going on helps others make a decision. seat of your pants impression only goes so far.

However, everyone I have seen who has used the Anderson with larger trailers (30 foot or more) has posted limited results. Most appear to have abandoned the Anderson after a while and very few post their scale numbers.
__________________

2013 Coachmen Freedom Express 320BHDS pulled by a 2005 F250 King Ranch CC

A rainy day camping is better than a sunny day at work.
jeeplj8 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 02:44 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
avolnek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 630
Still my fear is that the chains are pulling the truck into the camper and the camper into the truck to accomplish the weight distribution. By doing this it would have to be putting tremendous amount of force onto the latching mechanism of the trailer coupler. I believe 2,000LBS of force per chain, totaling 4,000LBS of force onto this piece. Meaning to me unless the force to pull the camper out weighs the 4,000 lbs of force the camper will be pulled by the chains rather than the coupler... which to me is concerning!

I apologize to boxer for the use of his picture without prior permission, but I created a crude drawing to illustrate my fear...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Untitled.jpg
Views:	239
Size:	47.1 KB
ID:	39158  
__________________

TV- 2015 Ram 2500 CCLB 6.7 Cummins 3.42 gears
Camper - 2015 Saber 322BHTS
avolnek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 02:54 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
thebrakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, Michigan
Posts: 1,105
Am I looking at that picture wrong? Looks like the safety chains are connected to the Anderson plate, instead of the trailer frame!!!
Boxer?
__________________
thebrakeman ('70), DW ('71), DD ('99), DD ('01), DD ('05)
2004 Surveyor SV261T (UltraLite Bunkhouse Hybrid)
2006 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD Premier
Equal-i-zer WDH (10k), Prodigy Brake Controller
thebrakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 02:58 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
avolnek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 630
no, the chains are mounted to the trailer just behind where the triangle plate is. The chains that are stretched straight are the weight distribution chains. the loose ones are connected to the tv and the tt. Does look funny though now that you pointed that out.
__________________

TV- 2015 Ram 2500 CCLB 6.7 Cummins 3.42 gears
Camper - 2015 Saber 322BHTS
avolnek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-03-2013, 04:03 PM   #18
Travel Trailer Newb
 
Boxerglocker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by avolnek View Post
Still my fear is that the chains are pulling the truck into the camper and the camper into the truck to accomplish the weight distribution. By doing this it would have to be putting tremendous amount of force onto the latching mechanism of the trailer coupler. I believe 2,000LBS of force per chain, totaling 4,000LBS of force onto this piece. Meaning to me unless the force to pull the camper out weighs the 4,000 lbs of force the camper will be pulled by the chains rather than the coupler... which to me is concerning!

I apologize to boxer for the use of his picture without prior permission, but I created a crude drawing to illustrate my fear...
I was thinking about your comment when making the decision to go with the Andersen. I have to respectfully disagree the chains don't pull the camper into the TV at all. Looking at your outline in my picture that you diagrammed. Remember the coupler and ball both rotate together with the aluminum hitch housing. The tension of the chains change the angle of the tapered ball pin withing the aluminum mount housing.
The change in geometry as the ball/taper pin move withing the housing surrounded by the brake material is what provides the WD. More turns in on the chain bolts comm press the urethane springs shortened the chain pulls the ball forward changing the angle. The effect is more weight is transferred to the forward wheels thus the forward wheel well lowers.

I have to agree with the statement given previously that I'm skeptical that this system would be as effective with longer larger trailers, but I could be wrong. For my needs however it is perfect. I know that my load is never going to be close to maxed with my current trailer.
Even fully grossed I'm still going to be under 8500 pounds. The features the Andersen provide just make perfect sense in my case... low weight, ease of install and adjustment, quiet ride, no greasing, ease of hooking and unhooking. I would be curious and will someday get it on a scale but
the reality is for me the "seat of your pants" IS what it is all about, the stance of my truck before and after proves it is happening and the feel of the ride along with the absence of sway prove to me it was definitely worth while. Not to mention that the cost was lower in comparison to a more traditional system that gave me most of the comparable features that the Andersen does.
__________________
2014 Surveyor Cadet SC189
2013 Ford F150 XLT 4x4 Supercrew 3.5L "Ecoboost"
Boxerglocker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 05:34 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
thebrakeman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Canton, Michigan
Posts: 1,105
A little engineering-statics and trigonometry helps here:
The torque generated about a WD head or plate assy is approximately equal to the vertical component of load, times the perpendicular distance from the pivot point to that vertical load component. The vertical-component of the load is equal to the sine of the actual load vector.

The functional difference between a traditional WDH and this Anderson WDH is the direction that the load is applied. On a traditional WDH, the load applied is nearly vertical already (let's say 85 degrees). Sin(85deg) = 0.996. So if a load of 100 lbs was applied at 85 degrees head-tilt, 99.6lbs is contributed to the torque calculation.

But for the Anderson, the angle is at the other end of the spectrum...nearly zero. Actually, it would be approximately 5 deg, all things being equal (which they rarely are, but bear with me). The load applied is nearly horizontal, yet we must still consider the vertical load. Sin(5deg) = 0.0872. So if a load of 100 lbs was applied at 5 degrees, only 8.72 lbs is contributed to the torque calculation. To get an equivilent torque, the load on the chains must be drastically increased. 99.6/8.72 = 11.4 times! The load on the chains must be about 1140 lbs.

So what?! The chains can apparantly take it right? The problem is that the angle changes as the load is applied!! With the traditional WDH, this actually helps. As the traditional bars are lifted, the angle approaches 90 degrees, and the load applied is purely vertical. Nothing is lost. But as the Anderson chains are pulled, the axle of those chains decrease toward zero. The harder you pull, the less is actually contributing to the WD effect.

This is why people are finding that when you run well under the truck's capacity, things are fine. But I think we will continue to see that people running near the limit will not be able to get the front wheel heights where they would really like it to be, no matter how much harder they tighten those chains. The ride might be great, with no creaks and popping. But the main purpose of the WDH (returning lost front wheel load) may not be achieved.

If I were to try this hitch, I would get something well over-spec'ed, and try to get that head tilted to as steep an angle as possible to start with. That way, more of the load will count.
__________________
thebrakeman ('70), DW ('71), DD ('99), DD ('01), DD ('05)
2004 Surveyor SV261T (UltraLite Bunkhouse Hybrid)
2006 Mercury Mountaineer V8 AWD Premier
Equal-i-zer WDH (10k), Prodigy Brake Controller
thebrakeman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2013, 07:19 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
jawga's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Location: Georgia
Posts: 179
Ok so people are asking to see scale numbers so here we go. I did not tighten the chains anymore after weighing with just 1/4" compression on the bushing because it put me within the weight limit of the hitch. I had pulled the same trailer without any WDH on the interstate and it moved all over the place when cars or trucks went by. With the andersen WDH installed the trailer hardly moved at all. When coming back from the campsite I did compress the bushings to their max and the ride was a lot worse. It felt like there was too much weight off the hitch. Also keep in mind I don't drive too much over 60 mph because the gas mileage drops so much after that. My trailer is around 21' long including the rear bumper. Also without the WDH the difference between the front and rear height was 2 & 1/2" and with the WDH at 1/4" bushing compression it was 1 & 1/2". And like I said when I compressed the bushings even more it felt like there wasn't enough weight on the trailer hitch. I was worried about the whole tongue latch also, but I figure the chances of this breaking vs having a tire blowout is much smaller. Things are going to happen regardless of how much precaution is taken. What I mean by that is something is bound to fail, if it didn't why would we need safety chains, oh that's right the tongue itself could fail :-) Just a bit of humor at the end sorry. Had to lighten things up here. Just a note I will be weighing each time we go out since I don't want to exceed the trailer or vehicle capacity. I also use a P3 brake controller. My tow vehicle is a 2005 Ford Explorer 4dr 2wd V8.

Without trailer
FT AXLE 2480LBS
REAR AXLE 2740 LBS

With andersen hitch with no tension on chains
FT AXLE 2280LBS
REAR AXLE 3480LBS
TRAILER AXLE 3240LBS

With andersen hitch with only 1/4" compression on chains
FT AXLE 2360LBS
REAR AXLE 3380LBS
TRAILER AXLE 3260LBS
__________________

__________________
jawga is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by




ForestRiverForums.com is not in any way associated with Forest River, Inc. or its associated RV manufacturing divisions.


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:31 AM.