CHD Dad wrote:
Hey guys - since we obviously have some engineers on here, has the coupler/latch issue ever been figured out? I know many pages back there was talk of contacting one of the big coupler manufacturers about it but I dont recall ever seeing a followup to that post. To me that is the single biggest flaw and/or safety issue with the Andersen design. Having the latch fail either while towing or when it comes time to just disconnect would be a major issue!
Hey guys - since we obviously have some engineers on here, has the coupler/latch issue ever been figured out? I know many pages back there was talk of contacting one of the big coupler manufacturers about it but I dont recall ever seeing a followup to that post. To me that is the single biggest flaw and/or safety issue with the Andersen design. Having the latch fail either while towing or when it comes time to just disconnect would be a major issue!
Only time will tell on how the latch(s) last or not.
Not just a couple of trips, but tens of thousands of miles and years
of service. Even then, dependent on the terrain, size of the trailer,
the driving style with lots of etc, etc, etc...
I think the coupler needs to be a custom for an Andersen system. It
should be 'backwards' with the latch in 'front' and the shaped area to
capture the ball in 'back'...or...some how remove the forces on the
latch, which was never designed to handle that level of forces
Again, I still think the Andersen is an elegant architecture, but the
devil is in the details and the latch is only one of those details
Not just unhooking (not being able if that latch comes apart or is
deformed), but during a whoopee-doo where the ball wants to go down
and the coupler wants to go up...the shape of the coupler (front)
captures the ball for this and the latch keeps the ball from moving
backwards OUT of the coupler front capture area...
-Ben Picture of my rig
1996 GMC SLT Suburban 3/4 ton K3500/7.4L/4:1/+150Kmiles orig owner...
1980 Chevy Silverado C10/long bed/"BUILT" 5.7L/3:73/1 ton helper springs/+329Kmiles, bought it from dad...
1998 Mazda B2500 (1/2 ton) pickup, 2nd owner...
Praise Dyno Brake equiped and all have "nose bleed" braking!
Previous trucks/offroaders: 40's Jeep restored in mid 60's / 69 DuneBuggy (approx +1K lb: VW pan/200hpCorvair: eng, cam, dual carb'w velocity stacks'n 18" runners, 4spd transaxle) made myself from ground up / 1970 Toyota FJ40 / 1973 K5 Blazer (2dr Tahoe, 1 ton axles front/rear, +255K miles when sold it)...
Sold the boat (looking for another): Trophy with twin 150's...
51 cylinders in household, what's yours?...
BenK wrote:
I think the coupler needs to be a custom for an Andersen system. It
should be 'backwards' with the latch in 'front' and the shaped area to
capture the ball in 'back'...or...some how remove the forces on the
latch, which was never designed to handle that level of forces
I think the coupler needs to be a custom for an Andersen system. It
should be 'backwards' with the latch in 'front' and the shaped area to
capture the ball in 'back'...or...some how remove the forces on the
latch, which was never designed to handle that level of forces
Bulldog couplers should work well with the Anderson hitch. I do like the simplicity of the Anderson, and its unlimited turning angle (I lose round and trunnion bars all the time making U-turns). But I personally wouldn't trust a standard coupler to hold up under that kind of continuous loading.
![[image]](http://www.bulldogproducts.net/content/prodphoto/028463.jpg)
2000 Ford E450 V10 VAN! 450,000+ miles
2014 ORV really big trailer
2015 Ford Focus ST
to the latch issue.
Wonder how much it would cost to change to that ?
It lots, the Andersen's cost advantage shrinks, but for me, cost lower than
performance and safety on my 'have to have' list
BenK wrote:
Wonder how much it would cost to change to that ?
Wonder how much it would cost to change to that ?
A good certified welder would probably charge 1.5-hours or so, to R&R a coupler. Figure around $100-$120 for retail hourly rates.
The coupler itself is about $80-$140 depending on weight range, and if it is height adjustable (plus a little more for the other half of the height adjustment bracket if not already equipped).
BenK wrote:
Don't believe that the GMT800 receiver pin box moves more than most other traditional designed receivers...here are some links and pics
GM Hitch Deflection Measured - Comments Welcome
John's comment on his GMT800 receiver:
"The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing"
Ben, I think you should have included the entire paragraph from which this excerpt was taken:Don't believe that the GMT800 receiver pin box moves more than most other traditional designed receivers...here are some links and pics
GM Hitch Deflection Measured - Comments Welcome
John's comment on his GMT800 receiver:
"The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing"
JBarca wrote:
The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing. This was measured down the centerline of the truck as the hitch would deflect when I hooked up my TT. I did not measure side to side turning deflection. The also amazing part is the Putnam also deflected in this manner as well. The failures I have seen seem to be more side load related than up and down. This may be the week link of the GM.
(Red and bold added for emphasis)The amount of deflection of the GM hitch was amazing. This was measured down the centerline of the truck as the hitch would deflect when I hooked up my TT. I did not measure side to side turning deflection. The also amazing part is the Putnam also deflected in this manner as well. The failures I have seen seem to be more side load related than up and down. This may be the week link of the GM.
Also, I think you should include this:
JBarca wrote:
Here is the same scale dim after dropping a 1,100# tongue weight on the hitch. 1,100# tongue in weight carrying mode, no spring bars, now at 7/16". The GM hitch is suppose to take this weight in weight carrying mode.
After I connected both 800# spring bars the gap changed to 0.219". Basically the hitch now went back up to allmost the zero state of 3/16".
(Red and bold added for emphasis)Here is the same scale dim after dropping a 1,100# tongue weight on the hitch. 1,100# tongue in weight carrying mode, no spring bars, now at 7/16". The GM hitch is suppose to take this weight in weight carrying mode.
After I connected both 800# spring bars the gap changed to 0.219". Basically the hitch now went back up to allmost the zero state of 3/16".
IOW, the GM hitch deflected under "weight carrying" and then went back almost to the unloaded state after WD was applied.
And then there's the "Chart with GM and Putnam measured dim.'s"
If you look at the numbers on the chart, I think they show:
For 1000# tongue weight, the changes in distance A+B is --
GM Receiver: "weight carrying" A+B = -0.358", WD A+B = +0.014"
Punnam Rcvr: "weight carrying" A+B = -0.407", WD A+B = -0.025"
IMO, there is no significant difference in GM versus Putnam deflections.
John then concludes:
JBarca wrote:
So after seeing all this and seeing the failures on this forum, they appear to be side loaded or twisting the hitch off going around a turn as opposed to an up and down break.
It would be nice to know what their tongue weight was and what WD hitch they had and how it broke the GM hitch. My new Putman is very reinforced in the left to right direction even though it does deflect up and down some like the GM hitch.
(Red and bold added for emphasis.)So after seeing all this and seeing the failures on this forum, they appear to be side loaded or twisting the hitch off going around a turn as opposed to an up and down break.
It would be nice to know what their tongue weight was and what WD hitch they had and how it broke the GM hitch. My new Putman is very reinforced in the left to right direction even though it does deflect up and down some like the GM hitch.
This post by John Barca is very informative. Thanks for providing the link.
Ron
![[emoticon]](http://www.coastresorts.com/sharedcontent/cfb/images/smile.gif "smile")
2007 Rockwood 8315SS
2004 GMC 2500HD Crew Cab Duramax Diesel
1999 Dodge 1500 5.9L Gas
mecreature wrote:
It raises the rear end just fine though.. (Red and bold added for emphasis.)
chadsalt wrote:
I understand... but when I engage my bars I cringe when I see the hitch flex..mecreature wrote:
I have been keeping an eye out on mine..
I dont haul near the weight alot of you do ... but when engaging the W/D you can see a good bit of flex in the hitch..
Planning on a hitch over the winter. that MagnumV looks good..
Its amazing the difference in the way these hitches differ from the OEM.
keep in mind the aftermarket hitches are rated higher, youre comparing apples to oranges.I have been keeping an eye out on mine..
I dont haul near the weight alot of you do ... but when engaging the W/D you can see a good bit of flex in the hitch..
Planning on a hitch over the winter. that MagnumV looks good..
Its amazing the difference in the way these hitches differ from the OEM.
It raises the rear end just fine though.. (Red and bold added for emphasis.)
Apparently this hitch was able to transfer load "just fine" even though it did flex.
We should be aware that the VESC V-5 Regulation and the corresponding SAE J684 Standard state that a deformation of 5 degrees is acceptable.
Ron
shakyjay wrote:
Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents.
Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents.
I agree, this has gone farther off topic than any of the other forums I visit! I do appreciate the knowledge being shared here but I wonder if forum mods could clean this thread up now that the hitch flex topic seems to have been settled. For a newcomer searching for info on this hitch they may have a tough time navigatig the most recent pages of this thread.
Maybe a new thread needs to be started just for users of this hitch since the debate over how and why it works along with it's advantages and shortcomings has pretty much run it's course.
Just my opinion!
(posted on my phone, please excuse typos!)
2012 FR Surveyor Sport 295
2015 Nissan NVP 3500 SL 5.6L
Tekonsha P3 / "New" Blue Ox Sway Pro
shakyjay wrote:
Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents.
shakyjay is correct. So let's try to get this back onto the subject of Andersen hitch:Can't help but notice how this thread has gone from the subject of the Anderson WD system to discussing flex on TV hitches. Nothing wrong with such a discussion, even though there have already been plenty of threads on the subject, just not really on topic for the thread at least in my opinion. Too bad since I really am interested in how the Anderson is working in real world applications and was hoping to hear from people who have some actual experience with the system. Oh well just my 2 cents.
BenK wrote:
To bring this back to the Andersen Hitch system...since the Andersen system has a shorter spring travel, any receiver that has lots of travel will have the Andersen system run out of gas (spring travel) so that it will no longer be able to 'WD' the tongue weight
Yes, it is correct that the Andersen system has a "shorter spring travel".To bring this back to the Andersen Hitch system...since the Andersen system has a shorter spring travel, any receiver that has lots of travel will have the Andersen system run out of gas (spring travel) so that it will no longer be able to 'WD' the tongue weight
However, the receiver rotation will have a much smaller dimensional effect on the Andersen system than it will on a system with 28-30" WD bars.
As mentioned in another post, a receiver rotation of 3.5 degrees will raise the end of a 28" WD bar by about 2.5".
Assuming the distance between ball and chains on the Andersen system is 8",
the Andersen spring compression nut would have to be advanced about 0.5" along the threaded shaft to compensate for the receiver rotation.
IMO, the Andersen system would not "run out of gas".
Ron
CHD Dad wrote:
Hey guys - since we obviously have some engineers on here, has the coupler/latch issue ever been figured out? I know many pages back there was talk of contacting one of the big coupler manufacturers about it but I dont recall ever seeing a followup to that post. To me that is the single biggest flaw and/or safety issue with the Andersen design. Having the latch fail either while towing or when it comes time to just disconnect would be a major issue!
According to the VESC V-5 Regulation and the SAE J684 Standard -- the longitudinal test load for a ball and coupler is:Hey guys - since we obviously have some engineers on here, has the coupler/latch issue ever been figured out? I know many pages back there was talk of contacting one of the big coupler manufacturers about it but I dont recall ever seeing a followup to that post. To me that is the single biggest flaw and/or safety issue with the Andersen design. Having the latch fail either while towing or when it comes time to just disconnect would be a major issue!
Class 3 -- 15,000# both forward and rearward
Class 4 -- 3 times trailer GVWR both forward and rearward
I don't know how much forward thrust against the ball will be produced by the Andersen system,
but it probably is considerably less than the VESC/SAE test specification.
Ron