Coast Resorts Open Roads Forum: Towing: New Andersen WD hitch

Print | Close

Topic: New Andersen WD hitch

Posted By: BenK on 01/25/12 11:09am

This other thread is pretty much what one of the issues with the coupler latch
Coupler repair

That thread is of a traditional system with none of the loading that this hitch
system would impart.

Good timing to see that next to this thread.

-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?...

Posted By: JBarca on 01/25/12 06:38pm

BenK wrote:

Any asked them about this and if so, what was their position ?

Since the original image did not have a latch, did they remove the
latch and is now riding on what?

Ben,

The original image of an A frame for a sale promo like this?

[image]

To me that is a Solid Works 3D model of an A frame. I do not think that is a real A frame setup, just a computer model for a sales promo printing. Look at it, it is suspended in mid air.

So far that I know with this hitch being so new, those of us here on RV.net are the only folks talking about the coupler latch issues and the chain bracket issues. I keep watching the Forest River forum where Anderson themselves joined the forum to see if we can see some data they promised.

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!)

Posted By: rexlion on 01/25/12 06:58pm

Excellent discussion. I think the Andersen should be able to work with lightweight trailers and unibody TVs. A 4000 lb. TT with 600 hitch wt seems like a good candidate, for example, since the latch stresses won't be nearly so high. And perhaps some unibodies (like Subaru, IIRC) that can't use traditional WD hitches with stiff bars may actually be able to utilize this design.

As for TTs that push close to the advertised 14000/1400 lb limit, however, we have considerable room for speculation and concern.

Mike G.
Liberty is meaningless where the right to utter one's thoughts and opinions has ceased to exist. That, of all rights, is the dread of tyrants. --Frederick Douglass
photo: Yosemite Valley view from Taft Point

Posted By: JBarca on 01/25/12 06:58pm

Michael in MN wrote:

One application I can see for this is for the minivan + 3500# trailer combination. On the light weight end of the towing spectrum, traditional WD hitches add significantly to the tongue weight, and this design is probably 100# lighter than other designs, so perhaps this WD design is appropriate even though there may be limitations that make it unsuitable for heavy trailers?

--Mike

Mike,

I too saw possible lighter weight applications, for example a PU. On a PU the Reese mini is about the only one I have seen. And on a PU it is complex in the center of the A frame with every thing they have there. This hitch mounts different.

However...

They need to make a 2" ball version. Very doable.

The coupler latch "may" even be more of a problem on the PU. The latch system is very light duty as the trailer tongue is usually less then 500#.

Coupler latch types is becoming a new learning for me. There may be coupler latches made for a WD hitch and those that are not even if it is a conventional hitch. Even my big Shelby rated for 1,950# tongue weight does not mention it is rated WD.

The other caution is A frame tube crush on a PU. Anderson may need to back off the one size fits all and create a lighter duty system as putting 5/8" bolts clamping at 150 ft lb each on a PU frame for the spring brackets will be an issue.

This post has been fun and interesting. Learning about new things is always good even if you do always agree with everything new. It makes you go back and think about what you have and learn it even more. I never thought twice about my ball coupler being put to the test until this post.

John

Posted By: JBarca on 01/25/12 07:32pm

Campin LI wrote:

It looks like the ball that comes with the hitch is round at the top. Back to the first post with the link to their web site. Looks like you have to use that ball because it is part of the system. On their web site scroll down to the picture that shows it and click on the picture to enlarge it.

Hi Campin,

H'mm good point as I too now remember that image of a complete round sphere. Like this one?
[image]

However I think we have been computer model tricked again. Those parts are suspended in mid air and a good 3D CAD program can look pretty real now a days. That total round top ball may be the CAD tech just left off the flat top. If you look at the hex head bolts on the shank there are no bolt grade stamp markings. It is a solid model image not the real thing.

See these pic's, this is a pic and not a computer model. It is the actual manufactured part, not a sales promo. These are clips off their video. Look at the flat spot on top of the ball.
[image]

Now that I see that flat spot on their tow ball it makes me question why is it there? Even my 1/2 a dozen 2" draw bars with 2" balls have a flat spot on the top. A thought is that the flat spot is machined in on purpose to not have the trailer tongue weight press exactly down on the coupler and ball center. Since it is machined off the tongue weight is moved to the outer sphere to support the load.

There is some intentional reason the ball has a flat spot on top. It is an additional setup step to machine off that flat. Any one know the reason?

Hope this helps

John

Posted By: JBarca on 01/25/12 07:36pm

To help settle my curiosity and learn more about my own setup, I have a call into Shelby Industries tech service who makes my TT coupler. I will ask about the load ratings on my coupler latch.

Ended up with voice mail today as I called late in the day. If I find out anything I will report back.

John

Posted By: rexlion on 01/25/12 08:00pm

JBarca wrote:

However...

They need to make a 2" ball version. Very doable.

According to Andersen's website:
2" or 2-5/16" ball included –no extras to buy
At least that detail is covered! Good point about possibility of lighter duty couplers on light TTs, though. I had not thought of it.

Posted By: Ron Gratz on 01/25/12 08:59pm

JBarca wrote:

There is some intentional reason the ball has a flat spot on top. It is an additional setup step to machine off that flat. Any one know the reason?

Maybe because it makes a good place to stamp the ball size and rating?

Ron

Posted By: BenK on 01/25/12 09:18pm

Never really thought about why the ball has a flat spot on top,
but now in noodling it...it must have to do with releasing the ball
from the complimentary formed sheetmetal glob of the coupler.

After posting those images (repeated'm below)...noticed that the coupler glob
did NOT circumvent the whole ball, but stopped at the top.

The latch when engaged...completes the 360* glob on top and below (critical)
the equator.

This then captures the ball and an interference for it keeping it from coming
out as long as the latch is in place & engaged.

Wonder even more how the forces will do to the latch mechanism over
time. Especially since the images shows a cantilevered latch system
that is held mainly at the coupler formed sheet metal at the top on
the first two images. The 3rd image shows some cross rods and wonder
how they are captured.

[image]

This one shows what am talking about best. See how the latch has to move out
of the way to then allow the ball to move rearwards in order to come out...but...
that is exactly the direction this new hitch places all of it's
forces. But then, this image also shows a 'top' on the ball covering
that flat spot...or is just missing the lines of the diagram?
[image]

Another thought is that the flat spot is to allow or make sure the
ball goes in all the way. If there is something there, like pebble,
would that then allow the latch to close, but the ball is not fully
captured?

Yet another thought is that the flat spot allows the ball to get 'up
there' far enough while not in place. To then slide forward to make
the complimentary coupler glob. Then the latch closes it to circumvent
the ball.

This also says the coupler glob is oblong or straight on the sides to
allow the ball to move backwards and out of the glob that tightly
holds the ball

John's image here looks like the sided are straight and not curved
[image]

Some one want to mix up some epoxy and top off the flat spot of the
ball and then try to install & latch it? [emoticon]

Also thought that this would be best, as it is, on lighter trailers,
but after a couple of comments that the tongue and coupler would/might
be of lighter material...says this would not be a candidate on that
lighter coupler latch (assumption that it is lighter duty)

Posted By: Ron Gratz on 01/26/12 04:48pm

VEHICLE EQUIPMENT SAFETY COMMISSION Regulation VESC V-5

"MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR MOTOR VEHICLE CONNECTING AND DEVICES AND TOWING METHODS"

and

SAE J684 "TRAILER COUPLINGS, HITCHES, AND SAFETY CHAINS—AUTOMOTIVE TYPE"

are the current standards for certification of hitch balls and couplers.

These documents state:

6.5.3 BALL IDENTIFICATION—The nominal diameter of the ball and the maximum trailer GVWR for which the ball is designed shall be permanently marked on the ball. The markings shall be clearly visible when the ball is attached to the hitch.
It seems the flat top of a ball is a good place for displaying the ball information.

The documents also state:

5.5 Coupling Ratings—There shall be a minimum strength test for couplings by class as indicated in Table 2.

Table 2 states a Class 3 coupler must withstand LONGITUDINAL TENSION AND COMPRESSION of 15,000# and a Class 4 coupler must withstand loads of 3 times the Gross Trailer Weight.

However, the documents also state:

5.7 Coupling Test Procedure—A coupling or ball shall withstand the test loads indicated in Table 2 without incurring failure. For the purpose of this section, failure is defined as the point at which the coupling or ball will accept no additional test load without separation of the ball from the coupling ball socket, or the occurrence of a metal fracture of either coupling ball or coupling assembly which results in separation of the ball from the coupling ball socket. Distortion or bending of the ball or of a coupling assembly component occurring during testing does not constitute a failure as defined herein unless actual separation of the ball from the coupling socket occurs prior to the designated test loads indicated in Table 2. When conducting tests, a new coupling or ball shall be used for each mode of load application.

Unfortunately, there is no way to know how much damage might be done to a coupler before "actual separation" occurs. But is does seem to me that a certified coupler probably is able to withstand much more force in both longitudinal tension and compression than one might infer from looking at cross-section diagrams.

Ron

Print | Close