Little bit of a bummer that it costs $499 when there seems to be alot less steel involved when compared to the benchmark Equal-i-zer or Reese Dual Cam.
If they wanted to shake up the market they could have priced it less than the two top dogs....oh well.
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/rolleyes.gif "rolleyes")
I'll be watching for some more real-world reviews.
Mike
So far we have had two 80 mile trips with the Lance. The first was without any suspension enhancement, and the Honda really sagged in the rear. Then had Timbrens installed, and there was considerably less sag and improved handling on the second trip. Still thought it sagged a little too much, and also would like the assurance of sway control even though there haven't been any sway issues with the Lance. So, decided on the Andersen.
The hitch is installed and have utlized the local CAT scale, measuring and weighing various configurations. The data is contained on the attached spreadsheet. Don't know how to attach a spreadsheet, so I scanned it and attached it as a photo.
I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
You will notice a 20 lb. discrepancy in the figures. Nothing changed in either the TV or TT that would cause that. I am surmising that the CAT scale weighs in 20 lb. increments and that maybe the rig was right on the bubble.
Am comtemplating another visit to the CAT scale where I measure and weigh each 1/16 increment of spring compression, up to 1/4 inch. This should give me the info need to "fine tune" the setup.
![[image]](http://i1260.photobucket.com/albums/ii568/lodilinkster/AndersenHitchsetup.jpg)
Moderator edit to re-size picture to forum limit of 640px maximum width to avoid scrolling.
* This post was edited 03/09/12 02:16pm by an administrator/moderator *
2012 Lance 1575 TT pulled by 2013 4WD Expedition with HD Tow Package
Bruce H. wrote:
I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
You will notice a 20 lb. discrepancy in the figures. Nothing changed in either the TV or TT that would cause that. I am surmising that the CAT scale weighs in 20 lb. increments and that maybe the rig was right on the bubble.
Am comtemplating another visit to the CAT scale where I measure and weigh each 1/16 increment of spring compression, up to 1/4 inch. This should give me the info need to "fine tune" the setup.
I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
You will notice a 20 lb. discrepancy in the figures. Nothing changed in either the TV or TT that would cause that. I am surmising that the CAT scale weighs in 20 lb. increments and that maybe the rig was right on the bubble.
Am comtemplating another visit to the CAT scale where I measure and weigh each 1/16 increment of spring compression, up to 1/4 inch. This should give me the info need to "fine tune" the setup.
Hi Bruce,
Your spread sheet is great. Thanks for sharing. You have a smaller truck and camper but we can see what is going on at the axles.
The 20 lb difference you are seeing at the scales is scale error. It is common to see that much. Remember they also weigh 80,000# semi's with these same scales....
By your numbers your truck has took on 320# of the 400# of your TT tongue weight. And in your case the rear axle is holding the 320#.
I checked the Andersen manual that states this:
Andersen wrote:
The goal of the weight distribution system is to get the tow vehicle and trailer as level as you can. With that in mind, here is the OPTIMUM setting for most installations:
FRONT WHEEL WELL: the SAME or within 1" ABOVE the initial measurement you took on page 4
REAR WHEEL WELL: the SAME or LESS than the initial measurement (but not drastically less –see next page).
If you are already within the above parameters, then tow your trailer for a few blocks to let everything settle and remeasure. If everything is good, then you are at the optimum tension for towing your trailer.
The goal of the weight distribution system is to get the tow vehicle and trailer as level as you can. With that in mind, here is the OPTIMUM setting for most installations:
FRONT WHEEL WELL: the SAME or within 1" ABOVE the initial measurement you took on page 4
REAR WHEEL WELL: the SAME or LESS than the initial measurement (but not drastically less –see next page).
If you are already within the above parameters, then tow your trailer for a few blocks to let everything settle and remeasure. If everything is good, then you are at the optimum tension for towing your trailer.
I highlighted the wording "The same" on the rear axle as "optimum". They are shooting for a level truck it seems. Level can be hard to do pending the truck especially if the rear axle in high to start with. I'm not saying level is not good, but more about what the weights are doing verses being level and you have the weights.
There are many opinions on what is proper WD on a truck and one size does not always fit all. From my experience I would not recommend you go to the "same" on the rear axle. That will push more weight up front and lessen the weight on the rear. With only 320# added to the rear axle that is the added weight to help rear wheels traction on slippery surfaces. Making that less may break free traction in some cases.
What does Honda say in your owners manual for what proper WD is for this specific vehicle? Some times they do and some times they do not. Does your truck receiver have a "weight distributing" rating? I looked up a 2006 Honda Pilot and on page 217 of the owners manual version I found is says something about a WD hitch. The weights of your TT seem to be under what Honda recommends for "other" trailers then a boat. So weight wise things look in line including your GCW.
If you follow the guidelines of the new SAE recommendation they want the front a little lighter then they use to. They are worried about oversteer. The concern is a heavy front may bite in so to speak and send the truck and trailer into jack knife faster when turning.
I would not add any more weight up front. A small amount less may help with the new SAE guideline. I would check your owners manual on a WD hitch and what is the sticker rating on the truck receiver. By what little they said on a WD hitch you for sure do not want to take off any more weight off the rear axle and add any more to the front.
Good luck and hope this helps. You provided an excellent weight chart. Congrats on this now you know what is going on with the WD part.
John
John & Cindy
2005 Ford F350 Super Duty, 4x4; 6.8L V10 with 4.10
CC, SB, Lariat & FX4 package
21,000 GCWR, 11,000 GVWR
Ford Tow Command
1,700# Reese HP hitch & HP Dual Cam
2 1/2" Towbeast Receiver
2004 Sunline Solaris T310SR
(I wish we were camping!)
Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
Thanks again,
Bruce
Bruce H. wrote:
John,
Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
Thanks again,
Bruce
John,
Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
Thanks again,
Bruce
Bruce,
Picked you note up during lunch. I will be out camping this weekend (yeh!) but will hunt it up when I get back if someone else does not post.
Ron Gratz may have this handy and post. I know he has referenced this before. Plus he is "King of the Links"!
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile")
Thanks
John
Here is a good explanation of hitch standards.
Barney
Edit: Not sure the link I gave above is correct. Ron gives a reference to the new standard (SAE J2807 - I think) in the next page or this thread. I am not sure as to the exact wording as I have not purchased a copy of it.
* This post was edited 03/10/12 01:48pm by BarneyS *
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
Bruce H. wrote:
I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
With no WD applied, the front height increased 5/8".I adjusted the spring tension until the front fender was within 1/8", which amounted to 1/4" of spring compression. I am a newbie at this weight distribution stuff, but I am thinking that there may be a little too much weight distributed to the front axle and trailer axle. Would appreciate your input on this.
After application of WD, the front was up 1/8".
This means that application of WD eliminated 80% of the front-end rise.
For comparison, Ford now is specifying that WD should be adjusted to eliminate 50% of the rise, and
Equal-i-zer specifies that you should eliminate at lease 50% of the rise.
Since it appears that Honda recommends against using a WDH on the Pilot,
it might be good to shoot for a little bit less load distribution -- perhaps ending up with 1/4" front-end rise versus 1/8". Placing too much load back onto the front axle can result in a tendency toward oversteer, and oversteer, when towing, is not a good thing.
There is nothing wrong with having 1-2" of rear-end squat.
Ron
Andersen wrote:
The goal of the weight distribution system is to get the tow vehicle and trailer as level as you can.
IMO, the goal of weight distribution is to restore some or all of the load which was removed from the TV's front axle. The tow vehicle does not need to be "level". Leveling of the trailer should be done via hitch head height adjustment.
With that in mind, here is the OPTIMUM setting for most installations:
FRONT WHEEL WELL: the SAME or within 1" ABOVE the initial measurement you took on page 4
REAR WHEEL WELL: the SAME or LESS than the initial measurement (but not drastically less –see next page).
IMO, suggesting that the WDH may be adjusted to make the rear wheel well height the SAME before and after indicates the manufacturer has a fundamental misunderstanding of how weight distribution works.
If the rear is the same height before and after, that means the rear springs essentially are carrying the same load before and after. IOW, no load has been added to the rear springs. If no load has been added to the rear springs, that means all the load added to the TV is added to the front springs, and that certainly would not be advisable.
The purpose of WD is to return the front end to, or slightly above, its unhitched height. When you get the front right, the rear end will take care of itself. If you don't like the resulting rear-end squat, air bags can be added. Of course, air must be added prior to adjusting the WDH.
The goal of the weight distribution system is to get the tow vehicle and trailer as level as you can.
IMO, the goal of weight distribution is to restore some or all of the load which was removed from the TV's front axle. The tow vehicle does not need to be "level". Leveling of the trailer should be done via hitch head height adjustment.
With that in mind, here is the OPTIMUM setting for most installations:
FRONT WHEEL WELL: the SAME or within 1" ABOVE the initial measurement you took on page 4
REAR WHEEL WELL: the SAME or LESS than the initial measurement (but not drastically less –see next page).
IMO, suggesting that the WDH may be adjusted to make the rear wheel well height the SAME before and after indicates the manufacturer has a fundamental misunderstanding of how weight distribution works.
If the rear is the same height before and after, that means the rear springs essentially are carrying the same load before and after. IOW, no load has been added to the rear springs. If no load has been added to the rear springs, that means all the load added to the TV is added to the front springs, and that certainly would not be advisable.
The purpose of WD is to return the front end to, or slightly above, its unhitched height. When you get the front right, the rear end will take care of itself. If you don't like the resulting rear-end squat, air bags can be added. Of course, air must be added prior to adjusting the WDH.
Ron
JBarca wrote:
Bruce,Bruce H. wrote:
John,
Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
Ron Gratz may have this handy and post. I know he has referenced this before.---John,
Thank so much for your response--just the kind of informed feedback I was hoping for. You make reference to the new SAE guidelines for weight distribution. I googled it but so far haven't come up with anything specific to weight distribution. Can you provide me with a link? I most definitely want to be within the SAE guidelines.
As far as I can tell, the forthcoming
SAE J2807 "Performance Requirements for Determining Tow-Vehicle Gross Combination Weight Rating and Trailer Weight Rating"
does not give direct guidance for weight distribution.
I do know that Equal-i-zer, about two years ago, updated its weight distribution recommendations.
And, according to this post by ORF member typerr,
the change in philosophy was based on results of testing conducted by SAE and RVIA.
About the same time, Ford revised its recommendations for its F-Series trucks.
If you adjust your new WDH so the front end of the TV is returned to a height of 1/8 - 1/4" above the unhitched value,
you would be achieving a good compromise between what Equal-i-zer and Ford now specify.
Ron