Ron Gratz wrote:
-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
BarneyS wrote:
Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/awink.gif "awink")
) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile")
If the "WD spring forces" are the same, the load transfer to the front axle will be the same Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (
) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
BarneyS wrote:
Let me rephrase what you just posted to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
With 5 links under tension and everything remaining the same (rear overhang etc.) you will get the SAME weight transfer to the front axles of the tow vehicle regardless of whether the receiver bends upwards or not when the WD force is applied.
Is this an accurate statement of what you are saying in your post above? If so, then it is contrary to what I have thought all along and I have learned something new today.
Barney, your rephrasing is not an accurate statement of what I said.Let me rephrase what you just posted to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying.
With 5 links under tension and everything remaining the same (rear overhang etc.) you will get the SAME weight transfer to the front axles of the tow vehicle regardless of whether the receiver bends upwards or not when the WD force is applied.
Is this an accurate statement of what you are saying in your post above? If so, then it is contrary to what I have thought all along and I have learned something new today.
The post which you quoted, and my response, referred to "the same WD spring forces."
Your rephrasing implies to me that you believe there is a one-to-one correspondence between number of links under tension and "WD spring forces".
That is not correct. And that is why I stated, in this post,
However, if there is enough receiver rotation, you might find you need to increase the rearward tilt of the ball mount or decrease the number of links under tension
-- but you will be able to load the bars and transfer load.
Ron
I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to get it clear in my head what you are trying to say. What you posted just does not compute in my mind.
It sure seems to me that, if you want to transfer x amount of weight, and you draw up the bars using x amount of links, and the receiver bends upwards x amount, you are going to have to raise the bars even farther with x+ links to get x amount of weight transfer as opposed to a receiver that does not bend upwards when WD is applied.
Is my thinking correct? I agree with your statement in blue text which seems to me to be in agreement with my thinking.
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
WD springs (round bar, trunnion and now Andersen plastic bushings) all have a
fairly short travel with the plastic bushings the shortest
Most receiver pin boxes are mounted (welded, etc) onto the receiver cross tube.
Some tubes are square, others round. Some are straight, others bent to go around
stuff. Some even have a 1/2" or so thick plate bent around exhaust pipes.
Most are then welded/bolted to the end brackets, which then connect to the TV frame
Most all cross tubes are in torsional tension, which is really a torque tube
In working, that cross tube twists till it reaches a limit of 'twist' or travel
that will then transmit that force to the end brackets, then to the
TV frame
Going past the elastic point will have the cross tube and/or the pin
box assembly 'stay' bent. The design criteria is to have it twist
and not go into and past the plastic point. Goal is to have it stay in
the elastic range where it will snap back
The amount the GM GMT800 receiver's cross tube *AND* pin box assembly 'twists'
is much LARGER than a traditional receiver pin box assembly and cross tube does
It goes past the elastic point and into the plastic range easily since
the design is not stout enough. There are production issues too and
has to do with the poor welds. There are also design issues, but that
is discussed in other threads.
Since the WD Springs only have a limited travel, if the receiver assembly requires
more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there isn't going to be
'enough' WD imparted onto the TV...
Clear as mud, right?
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/biggrin.gif "biggrin")
. I think Ron and I are just playing picky semantic games. Barney
BarneyS wrote:
No Ron. You are reading more into what I said than what I intended. All I was trying to say is that the force on the ends of the spring bars remain the same. If they remain the same, does the receiver bending upward reduce the weight transferred to the front axle or not?
I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to get it clear in my head what you are trying to say. What you posted just does not compute in my mind.
Barney, let's go back to what Ben said in this post. No Ron. You are reading more into what I said than what I intended. All I was trying to say is that the force on the ends of the spring bars remain the same. If they remain the same, does the receiver bending upward reduce the weight transferred to the front axle or not?
I am not trying to split hairs here, just trying to get it clear in my head what you are trying to say. What you posted just does not compute in my mind.
BenK wrote:
If GMT800 (2000-2006), then the receiver should be replaced with a proper one. The OEM receiver bends and consume WD forces. So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces
If the bars attached to the "OEM" receiver (assumed less "stiff") and the bars attached to the "traditional" receiver (assumed more "stiff") are loaded to the SAME "WD spring forces" the WDH will transfer the SAME amount of load to the front axle. The difference is that the rear end of a bar attached to the less stiff receiver will have to be lifted higher above its initial unloaded height. If the bars attached to the less stiff receiver are lifted high enough to experience the same amount of load as the bars attached to the more stiff receiver, there will be no difference in load transfer. That is contrary to what Ben is saying was saying a couple pages back. If GMT800 (2000-2006), then the receiver should be replaced with a proper one. The OEM receiver bends and consume WD forces. So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces
BarneyS wrote:
It sure seems to me that, if you want to transfer x amount of weight, and you draw up the bars using x amount of links, and the receiver bends upwards x amount, you are going to have to raise the bars even farther with x+ links to get x amount of weight transfer as opposed to a receiver that does not bend upwards when WD is applied.
Is my thinking correct? I agree with your statement in blue text which seems to me to be in agreement with my thinking.
Yes, we are in agreement (except I think it would be "x-" rather than "x+" links under tension). That's essentially what I said a few posts back -- except I added increased rearward tilt as another means of compensating for receiver rotation.It sure seems to me that, if you want to transfer x amount of weight, and you draw up the bars using x amount of links, and the receiver bends upwards x amount, you are going to have to raise the bars even farther with x+ links to get x amount of weight transfer as opposed to a receiver that does not bend upwards when WD is applied.
Is my thinking correct? I agree with your statement in blue text which seems to me to be in agreement with my thinking.
The whole point is that the less stiff receiver CAN transfer the same amount of load as the more stiff receiver as long as you do not exceed the yield strength and as long as you can increase rearward tilt and/or reduce number of links under tension. If the bars are loaded to the same "WD spring forces" they WILL transfer the same amount of load.
Ron
On Edit: I didn't notice the post by Ben a couple posts back. The text in blue above replaces the text in red.
* This post was edited 05/26/12 05:58pm by Ron Gratz *
BenK wrote:
Since the WD Springs only have a limited travel, if the receiver assembly requires more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there isn't going to be 'enough' WD imparted onto the TV...
I agree with this because it can be directly inferred from what I said a few posts back.Since the WD Springs only have a limited travel, if the receiver assembly requires more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there isn't going to be 'enough' WD imparted onto the TV...
But, a corollary to this is --
if the receiver assembly does not require more travel than the WD Hitch system can provide...there will be enough WD imparted.
This contradicts your previous statement about transfer of weight to the front axle.
So, perhaps the exchange between Barney and me has done some good.
So far, we've seen no evidence that Renojack's receiver assembly requires more travel than his WD hitch system can provide.
IMO, it's a bit premature to tell him he needs to replace the receiver in order to get more load transfer.
And, of course, his WD hitch system has no "WD spring bars" or lift chains or rearward tilt.
It seems to me that, with the Andersen hitch,
IF you need to compensate for receiver rotation (a.k.a. "twist"}, you just move the frame brackets farther to the rear and/or further tighten the nuts against the bushings.
Ron
I was not reading into Bens comments the same thing you were and, of course, not reading with an engineers critical eye for detail. Anyway, I thoroughly enjoyed our exchange and hope others got some meaningful information from it. That, in my mind, is the purpose of these forums.
Thanks!Barney
I was afraid I was going to have to dredge up this and subsequent posts
Ron
Ron, you found that 5 year old post.
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/cool.gif "cool")
LOL Ron Gratz wrote:
If the "WD spring forces" are the same, the load transfer to the front axle will be the same
-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
BarneyS wrote:
Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you () BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.
Ron, I learned long ago not to try to argue a point with you (
) BUT notice that Ben said "So it DOES NOT transfer as much weight to the front axle as a traditional receiver would with the same WD spring forces." (Bold added for emphasis) I still think his point was valid.If the "WD spring forces" are the same, the load transfer to the front axle will be the same
-- unless you change WD bar length, TV wheelbase, ball overhang, ball to TT axles distance, or tongue weight.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
Ron, I agree with your statements as per the words on the screen. There is an element not being stated that does occur on certain receivers. Receiver efficiency to transfer an adjustment of a WD setting into the TV frame is a factor.
This leads to the receiver torsional stiffness discussion. The difference is the WD spring forces are not the same per what some may declare as a normal WD adjustment when a receiver has excess flex. When you do reach the WD spring force to be the same on a less efficient receiver after over adjusting the hitch, then yes the WD on the TV will be the same. If you happen to be an unlucky RV’er with a weaker receiver stiffness there are times you just run out of WD adjustment on the hitch before proper WD on the TV is ever obtained. The excess pin box to shank play (excess clearance) falls in here as well.
That being said, I totally agree Renojack is way off on his WD settings at this point. It may be he simply does not yet have the urethane springs tightened up enough. Or he has a combo problem. Since we have not seen a side view picture of his Anderson hitched to his Burb, we cannot tell if the pin box on the receiver has a large upward angle to it. Renojack, any chance of posting a side pic?
To all:
We have not yet run into a troubleshooting post on the Anderson hitch where the user has a low efficiency receiver where excess flex affects their ability to properly adjust the hitch. Sooner or later we will.
It will be really interesting to see this Anderson Urethane spring deflection chart. If someone obtains a copy, please post.
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!)
JBarca wrote:
Dog gone... Sorry I’m late to the party. Was out camping.
John, hope you had a good Memorial Day weekend. We had three days of rain here in the twin cities of Marinette, WI, and Menominee, MI. Dog gone... Sorry I’m late to the party. Was out camping.
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/frown.gif "frown")
Ron Gratz wrote:
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
Receiver torsional stiffness does not enter into the relationship between WD spring force and load transfer.
JBarca wrote:
---When you do reach the WD spring force to be the same on a less efficient receiver after over adjusting the hitch, then yes the WD on the TV will be the same.---
I think we're saying the same thing -- if the WD spring force is the same, the load transfer will be the same -- regardless of receiver torsional stiffness.---When you do reach the WD spring force to be the same on a less efficient receiver after over adjusting the hitch, then yes the WD on the TV will be the same.---
I think we also agree that, if receiver torsional stiffness is sufficiently low, physical restrictions on ball mount tilt and/or lift chain length might limit WD bar force.
However, 100% of the torque which is generated by the WD bars will be transmitted to the tow vehicle via the receiver. It has nowhere else to go. Nothing is "consumed" or "eaten up" by the receiver.
I am not aware of any cases where receiver rotation was great enough to prevent sufficient load transfer from being obtained. Perhaps you do. I think there were some cases where people were unable to achieve equal front-end "squat" on their GMC vehicles and attributed the problem to a "weak" receiver, being unaware that the vehicles had suspension travel limiters (a.k.a. jounce bumpers) on the front.
As a side note -- the VESC V-5 Regulation and the corresponding SAE Standard indicate that a rotation of up to 5 degrees is acceptable.
Ron