AUH failures

[kobra]

Here are the installation instructions... https://help.andersenhitches.com/install-ultimate-5th-wheel-connection
For many 5th wheel hitches, the adapter is mounted behind the 5th wheel pin, which means the overall offset behind the goose ball is about 2"... my prior 5th was totaled and I haven't taken delivery of my new one so no photos of my setup.

As to your math, I have no idea on what that math is; can you explain?
Because if it's simply that a ball behind the axle lowers GVWR then I don't think that's the whole story; the new gen GMC's have moved the goose ball 2" behind prior gens and none of their GVWR's were lowered, and some were increased.

But as to what photos you're looking for? Sorry I have no idea what you are getting at...

B

 

[kobra]

@DaelorO12 - I have never seen or used the Reese Goosebox, but they look very interesting and I like the concept. The only negatives I've heard is how it is difficult to land the hitch over the ball, and you cannot see from the bed cam; some folks have installed an aftermarket cam on the bed beside the goose ball...

I'd be curious what experiences others have had...

B

 

[Wmhjr]

Here are the installation instructions... https://help.andersenhitches.com/install-ultimate-5th-wheel-connection
For many 5th wheel hitches, the adapter is mounted behind the 5th wheel pin, which means the overall offset behind the goose ball is about 2"... my prior 5th was totaled and I haven't taken delivery of my new one so no photos of my setup.

As to your math, I have no idea on what that math is; can you explain?
Because if it's simply that a ball behind the axle lowers GVWR then I don't think that's the whole story; the new gen GMC's have moved the goose ball 2" behind prior gens and none of their GVWR's were lowered, and some were increased.

But as to what photos you're looking for? Sorry I have no idea what you are getting at...

B

The math is very simple. It's called leverage. And we'll make it VERY simple. Your truck has a payload of X. The correct placement of the ball for a gooseneck was defined by the engineers of FCA and places it just in front of the axle. I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single, solitary GN factory or B&W hitch that mounts the ball or entire assembly behind the axle. In all cases that I'm aware of other than somebody doing some redneck engineering, the weight is always in front of - or worst case, to the line of, the rear axle.

When you displace weight to the rear of the axle, you create leverage - think of it as a minor Bumper pull. Every mm that you move that placement to the rear amplifies the static weight hitting the back end of that truck. Do you think it's an accident that the ball is where it is? Do you think it's just a mistaken idea that nobody thought that for short bed trucks, heck, just move the whole gooseneck and ball back? No. That's exactly why GN extenders and replacement gooseneck adjustable tubes with extended arms were created. To insure that you could STILL have cab clearance WITHOUT negatively affecting the load rating and handling of the towing system. By all accounts, general best practice is for the gooseneck ball to be mounted between 2" and 6" IN FRONT OF THE AXLE. The AUS compromises that by creating a lattice structure, where the weight is displaced across a wider area - including behind the axle. It's that simple.

 

[Wmhjr]

 

[Wmhjr]

The above image directly from the AUS installation guide says it all better with a single pic than I can say in words. The rear of that support assembly is fully all the way to the rear of the wheel houses. If no weight is distributed to that area behind the axle, why does that structure exist? It would provide no support and no value. Weight is in fact distributed there. But they "trick you" because the "ball" is still in the proper place. But they can't trick physics.

 

[kobra]

The math is very simple. It's called leverage. And we'll make it VERY simple. Your truck has a payload of X. The correct placement of the ball for a gooseneck was defined by the engineers of FCA and places it just in front of the axle. I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single, solitary GN factory or B&W hitch that mounts the ball or entire assembly behind the axle. In all cases that I'm aware of other than somebody doing some redneck engineering, the weight is always in front of - or worst case, to the line of, the rear axle.

When you displace weight to the rear of the axle, you create leverage - think of it as a minor Bumper pull. Every mm that you move that placement to the rear amplifies the static weight hitting the back end of that truck. Do you think it's an accident that the ball is where it is? Do you think it's just a mistaken idea that nobody thought that for short bed trucks, heck, just move the whole gooseneck and ball back? No. That's exactly why GN extenders and replacement gooseneck adjustable tubes with extended arms were created. To insure that you could STILL have cab clearance WITHOUT negatively affecting the load rating and handling of the towing system. By all accounts, general best practice is for the gooseneck ball to be mounted between 2" and 6" IN FRONT OF THE AXLE. The AUS compromises that by creating a lattice structure, where the weight is displaced across a wider area - including behind the axle. It's that simple.

Really not interested in arguing with you. It's clear you have an agenda and an opinion and are not willing to accept an alternative to your own opinion. Read up on the GMC's, and how the front end gets lighter when you add a load, then come back and explain your math again.

The math is very simple. It's called leverage. And we'll make it VERY simple. Your truck has a payload of X. The correct placement of the ball for a gooseneck was defined by the engineers of FCA and places it just in front of the axle. I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single, solitary GN factory or B&W hitch that mounts the ball or entire assembly behind the axle. In all cases that I'm aware of other than somebody doing some redneck engineering, the weight is always in front of - or worst case, to the line of, the rear axle.

When you displace weight to the rear of the axle, you create leverage - think of it as a minor Bumper pull. Every mm that you move that placement to the rear amplifies the static weight hitting the back end of that truck. Do you think it's an accident that the ball is where it is? Do you think it's just a mistaken idea that nobody thought that for short bed trucks, heck, just move the whole gooseneck and ball back? No. That's exactly why GN extenders and replacement gooseneck adjustable tubes with extended arms were created. To insure that you could STILL have cab clearance WITHOUT negatively affecting the load rating and handling of the towing system. By all accounts, general best practice is for the gooseneck ball to be mounted between 2" and 6" IN FRONT OF THE AXLE. The AUS compromises that by creating a lattice structure, where the weight is displaced across a wider area - including behind the axle. It's that simple.

Let us know when you get the facts all sorted out... https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/235065-location-of-gooseneck-ball/

B

 

[Wmhjr]

Really not interested in arguing with you. It's clear you have an agenda and an opinion and are not willing to accept an alternative to your own opinion. Read up on the GMC's, and how the front end gets lighter when you add a load, then come back and explain your math again.


Let us know when you get the facts all sorted out... https://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/235065-location-of-gooseneck-ball/

B

I have no agenda other than honesty.

And I have my facts softer out. Did you even bother to READ the link you sent me? I don't think so....

Physics are physics. It's that simple. You can rationalize whatever you want. But it is what it is. It should derate. Period.

 

[kobra]

I have no agenda other than honesty.

And I have my facts softer out. Did you even bother to READ the link you sent me? I don't think so....

Physics are physics. It's that simple. You can rationalize whatever you want. But it is what it is. It should derate. Period.

haha, of course I read it...
Quote from your post: "I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None." ... and yet that is false. GM has moved the placement of their goose balls behind the axles, 2"; exactly as I mentioned. And, also as I stated, GM have not reduced GVWR nor the resultant cargo capacity when they did so. And, that was merely the first link that popped up in a search. If you want more, go to the Ike's towing review that tfltruck did on the new GM's where they talk in detail about it and even show the axle weights unloaded and loaded.

I find it hard to believe that your agenda is honesty when in your first post you admitted your agenda to be this, "I'd never consider using one. I looked at them some time ago but quickly realized that the design was flawed and permanently disregarded them." That definitely sounds like an agenda, but one that is biased, not one seeking to understand or review the information honestly. And, your followup posts have proven you are willing to be anything but honest in order to prove your point.

Here's my honest opinion... I still don't get why this product is so polarizing and why people throw out dire warnings without proper evidence...

B

 

[Epsilon Plus]

I'm not sure why people are having a hard time buying that the thin and lightweight aluminum nature of that thing doesn't lend it's self to folding like a taco when subjected to enormous (relatively) thrusting weight?

I get it. You want to save weight in the bed for your heavy pin weight, gear...etc.

That's not the place to save weight. Funny you don't see aluminum bumper pull couplers out there doing essentially the same job. Wonder why?

 

[kobra]

@Epsilon Plus I also questioned how a 35lb aluminum hitch can do the job...

But, I'm not an engineer, so I have to accept that those who designed this hitch know more than I do. And, there is a 50+ year old company that designed, built and has sold tens of thousands of these units. At some point, we have to admit that this hitch has been proven to work despite its unusual design.
Are they perfect? No. Has there been some failures? It seems so. Has the company stood behind those? Yes, that seems true also. Have there been tens of thousands of these sold which have safely done the job as designed without failure? Yes.

To compare, there are lots of imperfections on the trucks we drive also, including things that impact safety. And some of those safety issues on our trucks have caused injury, even deaths. Yet we buy them and drive them and we accept that the company behind the product is trustworthy and will correct any issues if they arise.

And, even though I've asked for this, no one has brought evidence that anyone has been injured or killed due to a failure of an AUH. So, to me, if we really wanted to raise alarms about safety, the trucks we drive have had more serious issues than this hitch has.

I think if a Ford or GM owner posted on a thread regarding something like towing, and ended with something like "Please think of yours and others safety and don't buy a RAM"... I suspect I would have lots more support on this forum in challenging that person to bring forth evidence to support their strong accusations. And, wouldn't we press even more so if they responded with partial information or even falsehoods in order to support the claim that RAM trucks are unsafe and no one should ever buy them?

IOW, it seems many are willing to give RAM (a foreign owned corporation) the benefit of the doubt that their products are designed and built to be safe enough and we trust that the company resolves any issues, but somehow they are not willing to give that same benefit of the doubt to a small family owned American company.

I find that odd, actually.

B

 

[kobra]

@Epsilon Plus ... just thought of one other puzzling product made of aluminum... have you been able to fly in the new Dreamliner yet? My wife and I did last year, and it's a little disconcerting to see the the tips of those aluminum wings moving up and down several FEET!!
And, yet, engineers have built the Dreamliner with lighter weight aluminum structures that made it the smoothest plane I've ever flown in.
...ok, let's not throw the MAX fiasco into the above, lol...

I hope it can make the point that just because something is lighter weight and made of aluminum does not automatically make it an unsafe design.

B

 

[Wmhjr]

haha, of course I read it...
Quote from your post: "I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None." ... and yet that is false. GM has moved the placement of their goose balls behind the axles, 2"; exactly as I mentioned. And, also as I stated, GM have not reduced GVWR nor the resultant cargo capacity when they did so. And, that was merely the first link that popped up in a search. If you want more, go to the Ike's towing review that tfltruck did on the new GM's where they talk in detail about it and even show the axle weights unloaded and loaded.

I find it hard to believe that your agenda is honesty when in your first post you admitted your agenda to be this, "I'd never consider using one. I looked at them some time ago but quickly realized that the design was flawed and permanently disregarded them." That definitely sounds like an agenda, but one that is biased, not one seeking to understand or review the information honestly. And, your followup posts have proven you are willing to be anything but honest in order to prove your point.

Here's my honest opinion... I still don't get why this product is so polarizing and why people throw out dire warnings without proper evidence...

B

Done with your rationalization. Clearly you're rationalizing whatever you read. Did you read about where the MOUNT for that ball is on the GM? Didn't think so. Please take this drivel elsewhere.

I am also insulted by your accusation that I have an "agenda" just because I looked at it and found it flawed. What the heck is wrong with you? Welcome to Ignore. Congrats. You're the first and only one.

 

[kobra]

so... hurts when you are caught spreading incorrect information?

Hey, you're the one who made the accusations against the AUH and the burden of proof is on you. All you've proven so far is that the ball on the AUH is behind the truck's goose ball location. But, you've brought no evidence on how that is unsafe. And, when I challenged you on the new GM design, you replied in a dismissive and uninformed way. I think you were caught finding out for the first time that GM actually places the ball behind the axle (and yes I already did know about the overall design as I researched GMC before I purchased RAM; that's why I sent the link I did showing how they placed the ball behind the axle but in the center of the springs; still doesn't prove your point at all). Glad I could help you understand their design better.

Good thing I'm not easily insulted; I think you "win" the battle of how many insults have been thrown out.

And, if you want to know what I think is wrong with your responses, read my reply to @Epsilon Plus above about how easily some want to accuse a family owned American company with no solid evidence... all should have the right to be innocent until proven guilty, but you seem to want it to be the other way around. Haters going to hate?

You sure seem to be trying hard to convince us that your armchair engineering and simple math is all there is to this puzzle. It isn't, but you don't want to hear it. And, curiously, somehow, you would like us to believe that if you end your points in emphatic one word sentences, we should all accept that you must be right. Period.

I think this thread has presented a lot of opinions back and forth, and I do hope others find it useful. But, I don't think it's productive anymore...
I came to this forum to learn more about my new RAM 3500, but ended up having to defend a small American company that isn't here to defend themselves; and that is way off topic...

So, for that reason, I'm out. Peace.

B

 

[Brutal_HO]

That's enough with the bickering and veiled insults.

No more or the thread gets edited/locked.


P.S. The airplane argument is weak and overused.

 

[regal2800]

There are actually many structural objects made from aluminum that are considered strong and safe. winch bumpers, aluminum trailers, aluminum boats, bridges, concrete shoring scaffold etc.......I dont think you can say the AUH is unsafe just because it is built from aluminum.

 

[Wmhjr]

Every working material has it's characteristics that demand consideration when using it for a particular application. Aluminum is certainly used in a number of structural applications. One of my trailers (a gooseneck horse trailer) is fundamentally an aluminum trailer. However, there are even key components of it that are steel. Such as, the entire gooseneck hitch assembly (on the trailer side), and the subframe (where the axles, etc are mounted). The trailer frame components that are aluminum are thicker and beefier than their steel trailer counterparts. It's a darned good, solid, quality trailer. Four Star. I'm not sure anyone is saying that the AUH is unsafe because it's aluminum. However, AL DOES fracture far more easily and requires some pretty significant care when using it in high stress load bearing applications. Aluminum is more "rigid" than steel. Don't believe me? Go ride a Chrome Moly steel bicycle and then put the same wheels on an aluminum frame unsuspended bicycle and ride the same rough road. Chrome moly is more pliable. Aluminum beats the heck out of you. I think if the AUS was machined out of a block fo solid aluminum and was thicker, people would not be having the same concerns (or failures perhaps). The whole derating issue is simply a math equation and frankly cannot be disputed with any educated awareness of the principles of force. That part wouldn't matter if it were made of forged armor plating or unobtainium. Look at bumper receiver hitches. There are all aluminum ones. Are they rated for as high a load as solid steel B&W? No? There's an indication.... Also - does anyone made an aluminum gooseneck trailer where the entire hitch assembly is aluminum? There's another indication.... How is that one manufacturer is apparently smarter than the rest of the universe?

 

[Great White North Eh]

Th design element that I can’t rap my head around is those pinched tubes! It would look way better and be much stronger to have a proper notched joint. I wonder how many race car drivers would get in a race car with pinched joints?

 

[Epsilon Plus]

All aluminum is not equal. Do they publish the type and strength rating of it's alloy? To assume strength just because an engineer thought it up on paper and other strong things have been aluminum is silly too.

I work as a drinking water plant operator. I find ways all day to make work in practice what engineers thought would be fine on paper. Don't automatically assume something is gospel because it came from an engineer. It's the same annoying logic that people assign to politically bent agendas. A scientist said it! Follow the science! Don't you believe in science??!?!?!?

 

[Distillusion]

The math is very simple. It's called leverage. And we'll make it VERY simple. Your truck has a payload of X. The correct placement of the ball for a gooseneck was defined by the engineers of FCA and places it just in front of the axle. I'm not aware of ANY GMs moving their placement to behind the axle. None. As a matter of fact, I'm not aware of a single, solitary GN factory or B&W hitch that mounts the ball or entire assembly behind the axle. In all cases that I'm aware of other than somebody doing some redneck engineering, the weight is always in front of - or worst case, to the line of, the rear axle.

When you displace weight to the rear of the axle, you create leverage - think of it as a minor Bumper pull. Every mm that you move that placement to the rear amplifies the static weight hitting the back end of that truck. Do you think it's an accident that the ball is where it is? Do you think it's just a mistaken idea that nobody thought that for short bed trucks, heck, just move the whole gooseneck and ball back? No. That's exactly why GN extenders and replacement gooseneck adjustable tubes with extended arms were created. To insure that you could STILL have cab clearance WITHOUT negatively affecting the load rating and handling of the towing system. By all accounts, general best practice is for the gooseneck ball to be mounted between 2" and 6" IN FRONT OF THE AXLE. The AUS compromises that by creating a lattice structure, where the weight is displaced across a wider area - including behind the axle. It's that simple.

Actually, the physics are far more complicated than you describe. The frame of the truck is intended to be rigid, in that it doesn't bend down in the rear as you add load weight within its design parameters. The frame of the hitch itself should be designed to be rigid with respect to the frame. It should not move or flex. If executed properly, all weight on the hitch will be felt on the frame, as leverage down off the front axle as a fulcrum. Now, leverage around the rear axle as a fulcrum is effected by the weight of the front end of the truck, as carried by the front axle. That's going to be different, depending on the front load as determined by the engine (gas or diesel) and the driver/occupants. There are many other parameters that feed into this. Tongue weight of the trailer is a huge variable, much bigger than moving the ball forward or backward a few inches, assuming the hitch is rigid and well mounted. The general theory is still that the best location is on or just ahead of the rear axle for maximum design trailer load. When you're running a trailer that's 50% of that load, the physics give you a lot of leeway. If you're pulling a 9,000 lb trailer on a truck designed for 19,000 lbs, there is simply a lot more leeway.

The REALLY good reason for having the hitch mounted ahead of the axle from the physics perspective is the steering. You gain leverage on side-to-side motion with the steering fulcrum - the ball - mounted closer to center of the truck. And as a result, you gain stability at speed. Not enough to make it worth the cost of turning a small trailer into a gooseneck or fifth wheel, but on the big loads, it adds up.

None of this is in support or against the AUH. I don't have one and don't care about it one way or another. This is just a discussion of the physics involved. But the frame/hitch rigidity does seem to be the issue surrounding the AUH. If it's not strong enough to retain rigidity, hence collapses and stress fractures from sheer forces, that's a huge design flaw.

 

[Wmhjr]

Actually, the physics are far more complicated than you describe. The frame of the truck is intended to be rigid, in that it doesn't bend down in the rear as you add load weight within its design parameters. The frame of the hitch itself should be designed to be rigid with respect to the frame. It should not move or flex. If executed properly, all weight on the hitch will be felt on the frame, as leverage down off the front axle as a fulcrum. Now, leverage around the rear axle as a fulcrum is effected by the weight of the front end of the truck, as carried by the front axle. That's going to be different, depending on the front load as determined by the engine (gas or diesel) and the driver/occupants. There are many other parameters that feed into this. Tongue weight of the trailer is a huge variable, much bigger than moving the ball forward or backward a few inches, assuming the hitch is rigid and well mounted. The general theory is still that the best location is on or just ahead of the rear axle for maximum design trailer load. When you're running a trailer that's 50% of that load, the physics give you a lot of leeway. If you're pulling a 9,000 lb trailer on a truck designed for 19,000 lbs, there is simply a lot more leeway.

The REALLY good reason for having the hitch mounted ahead of the axle from the physics perspective is the steering. You gain leverage on side-to-side motion with the steering fulcrum - the ball - mounted closer to center of the truck. And as a result, you gain stability at speed. Not enough to make it worth the cost of turning a small trailer into a gooseneck or fifth wheel, but on the big loads, it adds up.

None of this is in support or against the AUH. I don't have one and don't care about it one way or another. This is just a discussion of the physics involved. But the frame/hitch rigidity does seem to be the issue surrounding the AUH. If it's not strong enough to retain rigidity, hence collapses and stress fractures from sheer forces, that's a huge design flaw.

I'm going to have to disagree with your narrative. If in fact the frame of the truck is intended to be rigid (which I agree with) and if in fact the bed of the truck is relatively rigid with respect to mounting to the frame (which I mostly agree with), then positioning of weight is actually quite accurately that "fulcrum" concept. And in fact, as you move rearward behind the axle, you've added more arm length to that fulcrum. Now, I want you to recall that I never said "how much" the AUH should derate the truck. However, even in the apparently misunderstood threads concerning the movement of the GM "ball" (which is NOT the mounting of the assembly to the frame), actual weight measurements proved that moving that ball backwards increased the applied force by a resulting increased weight measurement at the pin - with the same exact trailer.

Now - my beef with the AUH and "derating" is that it doesn't move the application of weight an inch or so. It seems to significantly distribute that weight further back along the surface of the bed - at least back to the very back of the rear wheel houses. Now, how much weight does it move back there? We really don't know. And Anderson doesn't even mention it. Let's face it. Look at over the road tractors. Exactly how many of them have that pin all the way back? That would be none.

Now, when you combine this unknown change to weight distribution with people even using them in Cummins powered 2500's that already have a narrow payload window, to me it's like rolling the dice. Pulling a 9000lb trailer with a truck designed to PULL 18000lbs does NOT give you leeway if it's a gooseneck or 5th wheel trailer, on a truck with already limited payload. Then, you can even make it worse. If you then add air bags to stiffen the rear end, you're now lightening the front end of the truck further.

I do agree that the major issue with the design is - well - the design. We can argue all day long about how many AUH failures are the result of improper installation, etc. But we don't see those kinds of failures with B&W installed hitches do we? Gooseboxes? To me, if it were structurally sound (which frankly I don't believe) then one could just try and estimate the impact of that distributed weight. I believe you still should have to. I honestly think that there should be a very VERY caution and warning telling people about the likely change in applied pin load. But for me, it's like I said. Plenty of people have used them. Plenty of people drove Ford Pintos. A blind man can walk across a busy street and not get hit. That doesn't make any of those decisions "smart" - it just makes people a little luckier. Maybe your risk with the AUH isn't all that great. But I completely and totally believe it's a higher risk than with a traditional hitch assembly - and towing heavy is simply not something that I'm willing to take unnecessary risks with.