LAdams
Northern Illinois
Senior Member
Joined: 10/06/2000
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
 Offline
|
Congratulations guys - to all who have contributed to this thread... I was a little concerned for a while as the discussion was getting heated for a bit but all the contributors kept it under control and avoided any flaming or personal remarks...
Well done to all - you deserve a big pat on the back so consider this post that "Pat" ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin") ...
Well done and keep them coming...
Les
2000 Ford F-250SD, XLT, 4X4 Off Road, SuperCab
w/ 6.8L (415 C.I.) V-10/3:73LS/4R100
Banks Power Pack w/Trans Command & OttoMind
Sold Trailer - not RV'ing at this point in time
HUNTER THERMOSTAT INSTALL
HOME MADE WHEEL CHOCKS
|
tluxon
Kirkland, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 08/12/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:Ron Gratz wrote:
...
So, please consider the following two statements:
1) The WD system distributes tongue weight over both the front and rear axle (that is the purpose of it), and
2) The WD system removes load from the TV's rear axle and distributes it to the TV's front axle and to the TT's axles.
Which of these do you think is the better definition (meaning less subject to misinterpretation) of the purpose of a WD hitch?
While I totally agree that the first statement is subject to misinterpretation (gosh - what isn't?) if taken as a defacto definition, it is not false (as I believe most have agreed). I can't think of a TT that doesn't have its total weight split up in two parts, axle weight and tongue, or remaining weight. Without a WD system, the TV must bear ALL the tongue weight and it will be borne at the point of attachment, normally some distance behind the rear axle. As is common understanding, this results in adding load to the rear axle and actually removing some of the load borne by the front axle. Adding a WD system into the mix simply takes that loading and changes it so more weight is on the front axle and less weight is on the rear axle than would otherwise be there. The fact that this type of weight distribution also places some additional load on the TT axle(s) doesn't negate the validity of the first statement, IMO.
Regarding the second statement, I believe it's more ambiguous to not talk about tongue weight at all, since virtually all TT manufacturers use the terms axle weight and tongue weight to describe how the trailer's total weight is distributed (empty, of course). Other than that, the statement is definitely more enlightening.
Therefore, if we want a more fully accurate definition, I would propose that we combine both definitions into something like the following.
A weight distribution system enables a tow vehicle to more effectively handle the tongue weight of a trailer by removing load from the tow vehicle's rear axle and distributing it to the tow vehicle's front axle and the trailer's axle(s).
Comments?
Tim -
wife Beverly & 2 boys who love camping
2002 K2500 Suburban 8.1L 4.10 Prodigy
2005 Sunnybrook 30FKS HP Dual Cam
Replaced 2000 Sunnybrook 26FK on 8/6/04
|
BarneyS
S.E. Lower Michigan
Moderator
Joined: 10/16/2000
View Profile
|
Tim, I think you have hit the nail on the head. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile") What do you think guys? Can we all agree on this definition? If so, then I will lock the thread and ask Admin to make it sticky at the top of the Towing forum. We will have to wait for awhile though, until Ron gets back from his fishing trip to Canada.
Barney
|
DavidG
Richland, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 01/01/2003
View Profile
Good Sam RV Club Member
Offline
|
In my experimenting with my setup, I feel that definition #2 is more accurate. In all the playing around I did, I was never able to get the front axle weight when hitched up back up to the same level (weight) as when unhitched. Since the added (tongue) weight on the rear leverages some weight off the front, and attaching the WD bars redistributes some of that weight (tongue weight AND weight removed from front axle), definition #1 is not as accurate as #2.
And this may have something to do with the short 130” wheelbase I have. Adding 1000# off the rear has a good leveraging effect, which I think is aided by the short wheelbase. It would be interesting to play around with a 2500 pickup with a longer wheelbase to see what, if anything, would change.
Perhaps a slight wording change to #2…
“Attaching the WD system removes weight from the TV’s rear axle and distributes it to the TV’s front axle and to the TT axles.”
And Tim’s synopsis is very good as well!
2003 Suburban K2500LT 4WD, 8.1L, 3.73
2008 Adirondack 31RK-DSL
Our blog
|
thomas malenich
sound beach, new york 11789
Senior Member
Joined: 08/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
Tomorrow we head to Canada for a week of fishing, so you won't be hearing from me for a while. Don't distribute any tongue weight while I'm away.
Ron
_____________________________________________________________________
Ron, while were on the subject of fishing, did you ever think about what is involved in distributing the lure weight.
Let's say your lure weighs 1.8 grams as it hangs downward off the end of your fishing pole. You know this because you weighed it first and after attaching it to your line you feel its mass.
Next you recoil your pole and cast your lure as hard as you can. You are now distributing that lure weight across the lake. Now the object would normally be considered a projectile, but the definition of a projectile is an object upon which the only force acting is gravity. Unfortunately now the lure is also subject to the drag placed on it by your reel in addition to gravity. This reel drag slows the lure's inertia and it moves downward by the force of gravity sooner than if it was a true projectile.
It is not long before your lure hits the water. Because the lure has a specific gravity of greater than 1, it starts to sink. Gravity still acts on the lure and its weight is now distributed downward but it falls much slower than it would had it been falling straight down in the air. This is because of the density of the water in the lake. Although the density of water varies somewhat with temperatue and pressure, and is higher for salt water than fresh water, you can use about 62#s per cubic foot for its weight density in English units.
If you tried to weigh your lure while in the water, it would weigh its weight in a vacuum minus the weight of the fluid it displaced. The density of a material is its mass per unit volume. The ratio of the density of an object compared with the density of water is defined as the material's specific gravity.
The lure continues falling through the water at about 9.8 meters per second squared of course slowed by the buoyancy effect and friction. Finally the lure hits the bottom of the lake and comes to rest. So even as the lure's weight was distributed through the air and water and was acted upon by many forces, it still weighs the same its just in a different place.
* This post was
edited 09/01/04 01:13pm by thomas malenich *
Thomas and Laura Malenich
1988 Suburban 1500, 4WD
Scotty 16 1/2' , smaller and loving it
2 kids and 3 dogs
|
|
|
tluxon
Kirkland, WA
Senior Member
Joined: 08/12/2001
View Profile
Offline
|
Quote:thomas malenich wrote:
...So even as the lure's weight was distributed through the air and water and was acted upon by many forces, it still weighs the same its just in a different place.
I'm sorry but I just couldn't resist this one.
Although the mass of the lure is the same, it's weight is not the same in water as it is in air. You said so yourself.
Quote:thomas malenich wrote:
...in the water, it would weigh its weight in a vacuum minus the weight of the fluid it displaced...
I guess it helps if you read what you cut-and-paste into a post. ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif "awink")
BTW, what did you think of my combined definition?
|
thomas malenich
sound beach, new york 11789
Senior Member
Joined: 08/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
I did not cut and paste, it is all hand typed (I admit I dug up a little helpful info though ![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/wink.gif "wink") )
Please do not continue to pick apart my post as it is only meant as a joke. Your supposed to be laughing.
PS - I think I like your definition - I will read it again after I send this.
* This post was
last
edited 09/03/04 07:58pm by thomas malenich *
View edit history
|
thomas malenich
sound beach, new york 11789
Senior Member
Joined: 08/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
How about this:
A wieght distribution (WD) system allows a tow vehicle to better handle the tongue weight of a trailer by removing load from the tow vehicle's rear axle and distributing it to the tow vehicle's front axle and the trailer's axle(s). When the WD system is engaged the tongue weight does not change.
|
BarneyS
S.E. Lower Michigan
Moderator
Joined: 10/16/2000
View Profile
|
I still like Tim's definition the best with one small modification.
A weight distribution system enables a tow vehicle to more effectively handle the tongue weight of a trailer by removing some of the load from the tow vehicle's rear axle and distributing it to the tow vehicle's front axle and the trailer's axle(s).
I have inserted the "some of the" in bold above. It could have been interpreted before as removing all of the load.
I would also add Thomas's last sentance When the WD system is engaged the tongue weight does not change. to the definition above. I would insert the word "actual" in front of the word "tongue"
The whole thing would then read:
A weight distribution system enables a tow vehicle to more effectively handle the tongue weight of a trailer by removing some of the load from the tow vehicle's rear axle and distributing it to the tow vehicle's front axle and the trailer's axle(s). When the WD system is engaged the actual tongue weight does not change.
Barney
2004 Sunnybrook Titan 30FKS TT
Hensley "Arrow" 1400# hitch (Sold)
Not towing now.
Former tow vehicles were 2016 Ram 2500 CTD, 2002 Ford F250, 7.3 PSD, 1997 Ram 2500 5.9 gas engine
|
thomas malenich
sound beach, new york 11789
Senior Member
Joined: 08/29/2003
View Profile
Offline
|
Barney,
That sounds good to me - you have my vote. Nice addition with the "some of".
|
|
|
