Considering the Andersen AUH?
Some food for thought, making the rounds on FB.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3576...3636666064067/
Hard telling where it went south.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3576...3636666064067/
Hard telling where it went south.
Some food for thought, making the rounds on FB.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3576...3636666064067/
Hard telling where it went south.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/3576...3636666064067/
Hard telling where it went south.
Wow! I read so many positive comments on Andersen's hitches, but the design of the AUH is a bit scary for the weight they rate it.
Look at Andersen's crush test video and you will see where it went south. They obviously are shooting for light weight... 35Lbs! They tested it to 54000lb crush, but the test conducted was tongue load only, which says nothing about what it can handle in an emergency stop. I'd like to see a simulated brake load test, which would place an asymmetrical load on the legs in a non-purely vertical direction. I'm no structural engineer, but wouldn't they be looking for test numbers in the 40,000 range for a brake test? 24,000 Lb rating x2 for spike loading (due to play in the connection points) + 50% for CYA insurance = 43,200 Lbs?
I would have gone with two plates mounted on the sides instead of four legs, reinforcement between them on the cab side to limit squatting during hard stops, and maybe some gussets for side to side loading. They may not have been able to use a teenage girl in their ad to drive the weight point home, but it can still be light enough for an adult to easily pick up with one hand.
If using four legs of tubing is required, I'd have selected larger diameter tubing to take bending failure out of the equation, and cut them at an angle to weld flat to the base at full diameter. Oval tube ends to increase strength in one direction is ok and common, but crushing the ends flat creates a weak point in one direction with little additional gain in the other direction Vs. an oval joint. In the face book post, the upper section of the hitch twisted, which is exactly what I would expect from vertically crushing the tubes like that. A vertically ovalized joint would have provided a lot more strength against twisting, while losing little vertical strength.
The bottom of the tubes being crushed horizontally is just plain wrong, IMO. They provide a pivot point for the tubes to bend vertically, which is what they did. Had the tubes been round, or even oval, and even oval in the wrong direction, they would have provided some support against bending vertically.
This is not to say this hitch does not meet the requirements to safely tow a 24,000 Lb trailer. Could be a defect in material or manufacture, but there are points where they could definitely improve the design and engineer more strength into it. If more strength is not required, those improvements could permit use of thinner tubing for even more weight savings.
But, yeah, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a gooseneck hitch rated for 24,000 Lbs weighing just 35 Lbs, and I slam down trails on a MTB with a frame that weighs less than 5 (but with 1/15th weight per pound of aluminum on it!).
Look at Andersen's crush test video and you will see where it went south. They obviously are shooting for light weight... 35Lbs! They tested it to 54000lb crush, but the test conducted was tongue load only, which says nothing about what it can handle in an emergency stop. I'd like to see a simulated brake load test, which would place an asymmetrical load on the legs in a non-purely vertical direction. I'm no structural engineer, but wouldn't they be looking for test numbers in the 40,000 range for a brake test? 24,000 Lb rating x2 for spike loading (due to play in the connection points) + 50% for CYA insurance = 43,200 Lbs?
I would have gone with two plates mounted on the sides instead of four legs, reinforcement between them on the cab side to limit squatting during hard stops, and maybe some gussets for side to side loading. They may not have been able to use a teenage girl in their ad to drive the weight point home, but it can still be light enough for an adult to easily pick up with one hand.
If using four legs of tubing is required, I'd have selected larger diameter tubing to take bending failure out of the equation, and cut them at an angle to weld flat to the base at full diameter. Oval tube ends to increase strength in one direction is ok and common, but crushing the ends flat creates a weak point in one direction with little additional gain in the other direction Vs. an oval joint. In the face book post, the upper section of the hitch twisted, which is exactly what I would expect from vertically crushing the tubes like that. A vertically ovalized joint would have provided a lot more strength against twisting, while losing little vertical strength.
The bottom of the tubes being crushed horizontally is just plain wrong, IMO. They provide a pivot point for the tubes to bend vertically, which is what they did. Had the tubes been round, or even oval, and even oval in the wrong direction, they would have provided some support against bending vertically.
This is not to say this hitch does not meet the requirements to safely tow a 24,000 Lb trailer. Could be a defect in material or manufacture, but there are points where they could definitely improve the design and engineer more strength into it. If more strength is not required, those improvements could permit use of thinner tubing for even more weight savings.
But, yeah, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a gooseneck hitch rated for 24,000 Lbs weighing just 35 Lbs, and I slam down trails on a MTB with a frame that weighs less than 5 (but with 1/15th weight per pound of aluminum on it!).
Wow! I read so many positive comments on Andersen's hitches, but the design of the AUH is a bit scary for the weight they rate it.
Look at Andersen's crush test video and you will see where it went south. They obviously are shooting for light weight... 35Lbs! They tested it to 54000lb crush, but the test conducted was tongue load only, which says nothing about what it can handle in an emergency stop. I'd like to see a simulated brake load test, which would place an asymmetrical load on the legs in a non-purely vertical direction. I'm no structural engineer, but wouldn't they be looking for test numbers in the 40,000 range for a brake test? 24,000 Lb rating x2 for spike loading (due to play in the connection points) + 50% for CYA insurance = 43,200 Lbs?
I would have gone with two plates mounted on the sides instead of four legs, reinforcement between them on the cab side to limit squatting during hard stops, and maybe some gussets for side to side loading. They may not have been able to use a teenage girl in their ad to drive the weight point home, but it can still be light enough for an adult to easily pick up with one hand.
If using four legs of tubing is required, I'd have selected larger diameter tubing to take bending failure out of the equation, and cut them at an angle to weld flat to the base at full diameter. Oval tube ends to increase strength in one direction is ok and common, but crushing the ends flat creates a weak point in one direction with little additional gain in the other direction Vs. an oval joint. In the face book post, the upper section of the hitch twisted, which is exactly what I would expect from vertically crushing the tubes like that. A vertically ovalized joint would have provided a lot more strength against twisting, while losing little vertical strength.
The bottom of the tubes being crushed horizontally is just plain wrong, IMO. They provide a pivot point for the tubes to bend vertically, which is what they did. Had the tubes been round, or even oval, and even oval in the wrong direction, they would have provided some support against bending vertically.
This is not to say this hitch does not meet the requirements to safely tow a 24,000 Lb trailer. Could be a defect in material or manufacture, but there are points where they could definitely improve the design and engineer more strength into it. If more strength is not required, those improvements could permit use of thinner tubing for even more weight savings.
But, yeah, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a gooseneck hitch rated for 24,000 Lbs weighing just 35 Lbs, and I slam down trails on a MTB with a frame that weighs less than 5 (but with 1/15th weight per pound of aluminum on it!).
Look at Andersen's crush test video and you will see where it went south. They obviously are shooting for light weight... 35Lbs! They tested it to 54000lb crush, but the test conducted was tongue load only, which says nothing about what it can handle in an emergency stop. I'd like to see a simulated brake load test, which would place an asymmetrical load on the legs in a non-purely vertical direction. I'm no structural engineer, but wouldn't they be looking for test numbers in the 40,000 range for a brake test? 24,000 Lb rating x2 for spike loading (due to play in the connection points) + 50% for CYA insurance = 43,200 Lbs?
I would have gone with two plates mounted on the sides instead of four legs, reinforcement between them on the cab side to limit squatting during hard stops, and maybe some gussets for side to side loading. They may not have been able to use a teenage girl in their ad to drive the weight point home, but it can still be light enough for an adult to easily pick up with one hand.
If using four legs of tubing is required, I'd have selected larger diameter tubing to take bending failure out of the equation, and cut them at an angle to weld flat to the base at full diameter. Oval tube ends to increase strength in one direction is ok and common, but crushing the ends flat creates a weak point in one direction with little additional gain in the other direction Vs. an oval joint. In the face book post, the upper section of the hitch twisted, which is exactly what I would expect from vertically crushing the tubes like that. A vertically ovalized joint would have provided a lot more strength against twisting, while losing little vertical strength.
The bottom of the tubes being crushed horizontally is just plain wrong, IMO. They provide a pivot point for the tubes to bend vertically, which is what they did. Had the tubes been round, or even oval, and even oval in the wrong direction, they would have provided some support against bending vertically.
This is not to say this hitch does not meet the requirements to safely tow a 24,000 Lb trailer. Could be a defect in material or manufacture, but there are points where they could definitely improve the design and engineer more strength into it. If more strength is not required, those improvements could permit use of thinner tubing for even more weight savings.
But, yeah, I don't think I'd feel comfortable with a gooseneck hitch rated for 24,000 Lbs weighing just 35 Lbs, and I slam down trails on a MTB with a frame that weighs less than 5 (but with 1/15th weight per pound of aluminum on it!).
Right or wrong, Andersen has a huge problem on their hands. (Let alone an ethical one where he defaced a national park, got caught, and apologized to the world about it, google it). Social media is brutal in these things, and my bet is if you want an Andersen hitch buy it soon. This is not the first time a collapsed hitch has plastered the pages.
Too bad, it solves a lot of problems for folks like me on the ragged edge of payload. Pullright makes a similar one out of steel.
I have seen this before This is the only negative post I have seen about the Andersen ultimate 5th wheel connection (from some one hat actually has and used one)
Good post falmingtaco also NOT mentioned or known is if the hitch was installed and torqued correctly.
I own and use an Andersen Ultimate 5th wheel connection. I am very careful to use a torque wrench and torque down according to installation instructions EVERY time I use it. It does not take long to double check the torque on three bolts.
I like my setup and will keep using it.
Good post falmingtaco also NOT mentioned or known is if the hitch was installed and torqued correctly.
I own and use an Andersen Ultimate 5th wheel connection. I am very careful to use a torque wrench and torque down according to installation instructions EVERY time I use it. It does not take long to double check the torque on three bolts.
I like my setup and will keep using it.
Wow, again. What a man-child! No respect for Leave No Trace, defaces a national feature by putting his narcissism on permanent display. There are no words.
Too bad the max fine was $1,000. Cost him only $1800, a drop in the bucket. Mr. 'Look at me!' needs to make a $100,000 donation to BLM.
I'll not be making any recommendations that will put money in his pockets, don't care how good his products might be. His products cater to outdoor enthusiasts, he should have known better than most that skullduggery of that type are off limits. His actions were a big F U to all of us.
18 months is not even remotely long enough. I support lifetime bans from ALL parks for acts like that. No excuses.
Too bad the max fine was $1,000. Cost him only $1800, a drop in the bucket. Mr. 'Look at me!' needs to make a $100,000 donation to BLM.
I'll not be making any recommendations that will put money in his pockets, don't care how good his products might be. His products cater to outdoor enthusiasts, he should have known better than most that skullduggery of that type are off limits. His actions were a big F U to all of us.
18 months is not even remotely long enough. I support lifetime bans from ALL parks for acts like that. No excuses.
Wow, again. What a man-child! No respect for Leave No Trace, defaces a national feature by putting his narcissism on permanent display. There are no words.
Too bad the max fine was $1,000. Cost him only $1800, a drop in the bucket. Mr. 'Look at me!' needs to make a $100,000 donation to BLM.
I'll not be making any recommendations that will put money in his pockets, don't care how good his products might be. His products cater to outdoor enthusiasts, he should have known better than most that skullduggery of that type are off limits. His actions were a big F U to all of us.
18 months is not even remotely long enough. I support lifetime bans from ALL parks for acts like that. No excuses.
Too bad the max fine was $1,000. Cost him only $1800, a drop in the bucket. Mr. 'Look at me!' needs to make a $100,000 donation to BLM.
I'll not be making any recommendations that will put money in his pockets, don't care how good his products might be. His products cater to outdoor enthusiasts, he should have known better than most that skullduggery of that type are off limits. His actions were a big F U to all of us.
18 months is not even remotely long enough. I support lifetime bans from ALL parks for acts like that. No excuses.







