check out the new remote control Jockey Wheel SmartBar Salute Caravans
Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Rear Axle Load


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 2756
Date:
RE: Rear Axle Load
Permalink Closed


yobarr wrote:

Ivan, you are so lost in the WDH wilderness that you should ALMOST be able to sight Alan. For a couple of days I decided to just sat back, taking the view that, like Montie, I'd done as much as I could to help, and let those who know little continue their waffle about WDHs, but your post contains so many untruths that I had to reply. Let's first consider JOHN CADOGAN whose credentials you seem to doubt, which you're entitled to do, no matter how wrong you are. The man is either an Engineer or he is not. However, it must be noted that he is not recommending a WDH, but simply explaining how it works. He shows that a WDH transfers weight FROM the car's REAR AXLE to the car's FRONT AXLE, and to the VAN'S AXLE GROUP. Simple stuff. You then proceed to tell anyone silly enough to believe you that Collyn Rivers is no more than a journalist with experience in testing cars for some manufacturers. This is either a blatant lie or you are totally ignorant of the man's achievements which include designing suspensions etc for car manufacturers, vast travel in Africa, Libya and Australia, and being the author of many books (RV books) on topics such as Caravanning, Solar and Electronics. This all is documented in the list of his credentials posted by Plain Truth ( To call him 'Alan' might cause him to be confused with another member who, despite pages and pages of facts and reference to appropriate sites, STILL doesn't understand that a WDH DOES NOT change towball weight) Thanks Plain Truth for posting this as I have it somewhere but couldn't find it in my records. We now will visit the supplied picture of the car and van. (Oldsmobile?) If you had ANY understanding of a WDH you would know that all it does is create what is essentially a "stiff arm" from the car's front axle, through the hitch point, to the van's axle group. Many times I have pointed out that because of the weight being removed from the car's REAR AXLE there is increased risk of OVERSTEER, which CAN be dangerous. Can you begin to imagine the enormous stresses on the chassis of both the car and the van, as well as on the towbar unit? How you can determine that this means that weight is removed from the towball is beyond any comprehension, and defies both logic and simple physics. Where did all the REAR AXLE WEIGHT go? Spare me! The physics is so simple, but it is concerning that so many don't appear to understand. Seems we have a case of "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see". Cheers


Chris, there is nothing wrong with distributing a bit of weight around, all the world is not going to end if you use a WDH properly. Some tugs have their headlights pointing skywards and a little bit of levelling helps the ride as intended.

I and many others have been using them since you were in short pants, no broken chassis or drawbars here, and yes the towball weight does not change, they are a legal aid to towing, as are rear axle upgrades which I would never consider as I prefer a smoother ride.

Stop being so overbearing and against what others have an opinion of. As for Montie he has stated that TBW does not change, but has never stated that he is totally against WDH's or that he has ever used one or recommended one to potential buyers.

Each to their own Cobber.

Cheers Bob



__________________

Make it Snappy......Bob



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5173
Date:
Permalink Closed

Bobdown wrote

Chris, there is nothing wrong with distributing a bit of weight around, all the world is not going to end if you use a WDH properly. Some tugs have their headlights pointing skywards and a little bit of levelling helps the ride as intended.

I and many others have been using them since you were in short pants, no broken chassis or drawbars here, and yes the towball weight does not change, they are a legal aid to towing, as are rear axle upgrades which I would never consider as I prefer a smoother ride.

Stop being so overbearing and against what others have an opinion of. As for Montie he has stated that TBW does not change, but has never stated that he is totally against WDH's or that he has ever used one or recommended one to potential buyers.

Each to their own Cobber.

Cheers Bob


Bob, thanks for this post. Whilst there is little dispute that a WDH has many faithful users, and will help a car do things for which it never was designed, and that some members have successfully used one for many years, there still are many people who have no idea how to correctly use their WDH, nor how it actually works. Trying to get useful information from people such as car sellers and RV dealers is fraught with danger, as these people may have a vested interest, and are unlikely to tell you anything that may jeopardise a sale. Think 'commission' . Certainly there are reputable dealers, such as our resident RV expert, Montie, but there also are many who are less honest, or simply don't know the facts themselves. Never have I met a car dealer, RV dealer or indeed even a WDH retailer who actually knowsweights when searching questions are asked. Because of this it follows that the more often that WDHs are discussed here, and the true facts presented, the greater are the chance that readers will learn about the positives, as well as the many negatives. Rote learning usually works well, but only with those who are receptive to advice. Often discussion is restarted by members posting absolute nonsense, which disputes not only common sense, but also the simple laws of physics. Sometimes I wonder if these members are not simply being mischievous, or are trying to bait those of us who do know. Not knowing and not understanding things is acceptable, but refusing to learn when relevant facts are presented is not. Neither is the frequent peddling of misinformation, although I must admit that sometimes I wonder if some of the stuff posted is not disinformation. Cheers

P.S How to spend many thousands of dollars trying to make a car do things for which it never was designed.

8A87B6AA-CB8A-431F-B76B-DCA90016CFF7.png



-- Edited by yobarr on Wednesday 27th of July 2022 08:57:53 PM

Attachments
__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Bobdown wrote:
yobarr wrote:

Ivan, you are so lost in the WDH wilderness that you should ALMOST be able to sight Alan. For a couple of days I decided to just sat back, taking the view that, like Montie, I'd done as much as I could to help, and let those who know little continue their waffle about WDHs, but your post contains so many untruths that I had to reply. Let's first consider JOHN CADOGAN whose credentials you seem to doubt, which you're entitled to do, no matter how wrong you are. The man is either an Engineer or he is not. However, it must be noted that he is not recommending a WDH, but simply explaining how it works. He shows that a WDH transfers weight FROM the car's REAR AXLE to the car's FRONT AXLE, and to the VAN'S AXLE GROUP. Simple stuff. You then proceed to tell anyone silly enough to believe you that Collyn Rivers is no more than a journalist with experience in testing cars for some manufacturers. This is either a blatant lie or you are totally ignorant of the man's achievements which include designing suspensions etc for car manufacturers, vast travel in Africa, Libya and Australia, and being the author of many books (RV books) on topics such as Caravanning, Solar and Electronics. This all is documented in the list of his credentials posted by Plain Truth ( To call him 'Alan' might cause him to be confused with another member who, despite pages and pages of facts and reference to appropriate sites, STILL doesn't understand that a WDH DOES NOT change towball weight) Thanks Plain Truth for posting this as I have it somewhere but couldn't find it in my records. We now will visit the supplied picture of the car and van. (Oldsmobile?) If you had ANY understanding of a WDH you would know that all it does is create what is essentially a "stiff arm" from the car's front axle, through the hitch point, to the van's axle group. Many times I have pointed out that because of the weight being removed from the car's REAR AXLE there is increased risk of OVERSTEER, which CAN be dangerous. Can you begin to imagine the enormous stresses on the chassis of both the car and the van, as well as on the towbar unit? How you can determine that this means that weight is removed from the towball is beyond any comprehension, and defies both logic and simple physics. Where did all the REAR AXLE WEIGHT go? Spare me! The physics is so simple, but it is concerning that so many don't appear to understand. Seems we have a case of "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see". Cheers


Chris, there is nothing wrong with distributing a bit of weight around, all the world is not going to end if you use a WDH properly. Some tugs have their headlights pointing skywards and a little bit of levelling helps the ride as intended.

I and many others have been using them since you were in short pants, no broken chassis or drawbars here, and yes the towball weight does not change, they are a legal aid to towing, as are rear axle upgrades which I would never consider as I prefer a smoother ride.

Stop being so overbearing and against what others have an opinion of. As for Montie he has stated that TBW does not change, but has never stated that he is totally against WDH's or that he has ever used one or recommended one to potential buyers.

Each to their own Cobber.

Cheers Bob


Bob,

We have always advised the use of WDH where recommended or necessary.



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

Yobarr

It is you who is confused.

If you took the time to examine the figures I have provided maybe light will dawn. You keep talking about simple physics , but you seem to have little knowledge of the subject bar maybe simple levers.

You still, after all this time cling to any OPINION that supports your assertion, but have not come up with FACTS or MATHMATICS to prove your point. Does this mean you cannot and just argue for its own sake.

Alan



-- Edited by Brenda and Alan on Thursday 28th of July 2022 09:28:56 AM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 877
Date:
Permalink Closed

Yobarr said this

Ivan, you are so lost in the WDH wilderness that you should ALMOST be able to sight Alan. For a couple of days I decided to just sat back, taking the view that, like Montie, I'd done as much as I could to help, and let those who know little continue their waffle about WDHs, but your post contains so many untruths that I had to reply. Let's first consider JOHN CADOGAN whose credentials you seem to doubt, which you're entitled to do, no matter how wrong you are. The man is either an Engineer or he is not. However, it must be noted that he is not recommending a WDH, but simply explaining how it works. He shows that a WDH transfers weight FROM the car's REAR AXLE to the car's FRONT AXLE, and to the VAN'S AXLE GROUP. Simple stuff. You then proceed to tell anyone silly enough to believe you that Collyn Rivers is no more than a journalist with experience in testing cars for some manufacturers. This is either a blatant lie or you are totally ignorant of the man's achievements which include designing suspensions etc for car manufacturers, vast travel in Africa, Libya and Australia, and being the author of many books (RV books) on topics such as Caravanning, Solar and Electronics. This all is documented in the list of his credentials posted by Plain Truth ( To call him 'Alan' might cause him to be confused with another member who, despite pages and pages of facts and reference to appropriate sites, STILL doesn't understand that a WDH DOES NOT change towball weight) Thanks Plain Truth for posting this as I have it somewhere but couldn't find it in my records. We now will visit the supplied picture of the car and van. (Oldsmobile?) If you had ANY understanding of a WDH you would know that all it does is create what is essentially a "stiff arm" from the car's front axle, through the hitch point, to the van's axle group. Many times I have pointed out that because of the weight being removed from the car's REAR AXLE there is increased risk of OVERSTEER, which CAN be dangerous. Can you begin to imagine the enormous stresses on the chassis of both the car and the van, as well as on the towbar unit? How you can determine that this means that weight is removed from the towball is beyond any comprehension, and defies both logic and simple physics. Where did all the REAR AXLE WEIGHT go? Spare me! The physics is so simple, but it is concerning that so many don't appear to understand. Seems we have a case of "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see". Cheers



Yobarr,

I am sick of your condescending comments to me and others where you misquote others to twist comment to suit your misguided agenda.



Lets face it Yobarr,

Your main agenda although disguised, is to criticise the users of all vehicles except the 79 series for the sole reason, as you claim in this topic and several others on here that this vehicle is the only vehicle that anyone of us should use to tow a van.

It has been stated by many others that they (and I) dont ever wish to drive a 79 series let alone be forced to pay an exorbitant amount of money for such an uncomfortable and impractical vehicle.

To continue this attack on others is becoming boring.
I know other members who wont even comment on many of your posts.

I know other members who have stopped contributing to this forum after your arrogance in these topics has been consistently directed at them.


You wont and dont answer valid questions because you cant.

You continue to quote the observations of others when those observations suit you but ridicule and defame others, even manufacturers who may offer a different theory.

It has been posted in similar topics, evidence on weighbridges supporting weight distribution hitches and their affects but you are still in denial.


You have been asked in other topics to supply your credentials to be so adamant that your statements are correct.
To date you havent told any of us of your qualifications apart from having an IQ of 160.biggrin


From your ramblings above.

I dont doubt Cardogans engineering qualification, it gives him some cred when he is spruking how good and bad some brands are.

I wonder which brands pay for his opinion and others suffer with poor reports in some areas.

Then we note Mr Rivers whose recommendations come from other journalists as evident in PTs posted picture.

The internet is full of experts with opinions on almost any subject but unfortunately many of them are paid for comment or the promotion of a book or articles and therefore the author or host stands to gain financially.

Yobarr,

You are well on your way to total dominance of the anti WDH brigade on this forum and as like others, I will no longer be participating in any topic of this nature from here on, on this forum.

Good luck with your effort to convince all members that they should trade down to a 79 series and good luck to any new member who thinks that your knowledge and outlandish statements are the advice that they need to operate their vehicle and van combination safely.



-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Thursday 28th of July 2022 10:03:22 AM

__________________

Welcome to Biggs Country many may know it as Australia

This members posts may contain;

The actual truth

If offended, scroll on by.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1093
Date:
Permalink Closed

Having just waded through all six pages of this thread I have reached the conclusion that this is a prime example of a circular thread, going nowhere. We have a 22ft van with Simplicity independent suspension. When we purchased it we were told about the merits of a WDH, having had vans for over 30yrs mostly single axle ones we thought that, with the extra size and weight, a hitch would be the way to go so, for the next 12 months or so we used a HR hitch. No problems.

Whilst in a park I was talking to a bloke nearby who, looking at the van, asked why I was using a hitch. He said "try it without the hitch, with that suspension should not need one". I have alway had all my rigs as level as I could get them, and have always been very conscious of weight distribution. I removed the hitch and the rig tows perfectly and I don't have to strain lifting those levers up and worrying whether they are at the right tension. I know nothing about physics, have very little mechanical knowledge, but I know when things are not right whilst on the road.

There are merits for and against the use of a WDH and far be it for me to say otherwise, but I do believe that Montie and Yobarr are correct in in their view on towball weights. Just seems to make sense to me. Horses for courses, it is whatever you are happy with or, to quote a very good mate, "whatever floats your boat!"



__________________

It is what it is, but it aint what it used to be.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Ivan 01 wrote:

Yobarr said this

Ivan, you are so lost in the WDH wilderness that you should ALMOST be able to sight Alan. For a couple of days I decided to just sat back, taking the view that, like Montie, I'd done as much as I could to help, and let those who know little continue their waffle about WDHs, but your post contains so many untruths that I had to reply. Let's first consider JOHN CADOGAN whose credentials you seem to doubt, which you're entitled to do, no matter how wrong you are. The man is either an Engineer or he is not. However, it must be noted that he is not recommending a WDH, but simply explaining how it works. He shows that a WDH transfers weight FROM the car's REAR AXLE to the car's FRONT AXLE, and to the VAN'S AXLE GROUP. Simple stuff. You then proceed to tell anyone silly enough to believe you that Collyn Rivers is no more than a journalist with experience in testing cars for some manufacturers. This is either a blatant lie or you are totally ignorant of the man's achievements which include designing suspensions etc for car manufacturers, vast travel in Africa, Libya and Australia, and being the author of many books (RV books) on topics such as Caravanning, Solar and Electronics. This all is documented in the list of his credentials posted by Plain Truth ( To call him 'Alan' might cause him to be confused with another member who, despite pages and pages of facts and reference to appropriate sites, STILL doesn't understand that a WDH DOES NOT change towball weight) Thanks Plain Truth for posting this as I have it somewhere but couldn't find it in my records. We now will visit the supplied picture of the car and van. (Oldsmobile?) If you had ANY understanding of a WDH you would know that all it does is create what is essentially a "stiff arm" from the car's front axle, through the hitch point, to the van's axle group. Many times I have pointed out that because of the weight being removed from the car's REAR AXLE there is increased risk of OVERSTEER, which CAN be dangerous. Can you begin to imagine the enormous stresses on the chassis of both the car and the van, as well as on the towbar unit? How you can determine that this means that weight is removed from the towball is beyond any comprehension, and defies both logic and simple physics. Where did all the REAR AXLE WEIGHT go? Spare me! The physics is so simple, but it is concerning that so many don't appear to understand. Seems we have a case of "There is none so blind as he who WILL NOT see". Cheers



Yobarr,

I am sick of your condescending comments to me and others where you misquote others to twist comment to suit your misguided agenda.



Lets face it Yobarr,

Your main agenda although disguised, is to criticise the users of all vehicles except the 79 series for the sole reason, as you claim in this topic and several others on here that this vehicle is the only vehicle that anyone of us should use to tow a van.

It has been stated by many others that they (and I) dont ever wish to drive a 79 series let alone be forced to pay an exorbitant amount of money for such an uncomfortable and impractical vehicle.

To continue this attack on others is becoming boring.
I know other members who wont even comment on many of your posts.

I know other members who have stopped contributing to this forum after your arrogance in these topics has been consistently directed at them.


You wont and dont answer valid questions because you cant.

You continue to quote the observations of others when those observations suit you but ridicule and defame others, even manufacturers who may offer a different theory.

It has been posted in similar topics, evidence on weighbridges supporting weight distribution hitches and their affects but you are still in denial.


You have been asked in other topics to supply your credentials to be so adamant that your statements are correct.
To date you havent told any of us of your qualifications apart from having an IQ of 160.biggrin


From your ramblings above.

I dont doubt Cardogans engineering qualification, it gives him some cred when he is spruking how good and bad some brands are.

I wonder which brands pay for his opinion and others suffer with poor reports in some areas.

Then we note Mr Rivers whose recommendations come from other journalists as evident in PTs posted picture.

The internet is full of experts with opinions on almost any subject but unfortunately many of them are paid for comment or the promotion of a book or articles and therefore the author or host stands to gain financially.

Yobarr,

You are well on your way to total dominance of the anti WDH brigade on this forum and as like others, I will no longer be participating in any topic of this nature from here on, on this forum.

Good luck with your effort to convince all members that they should trade down to a 79 series and good luck to any new member who thinks that your knowledge and outlandish statements are the advice that they need to operate their vehicle and van combination safely.



-- Edited by Ivan 01 on Thursday 28th of July 2022 10:03:22 AM


Ivan,

I have no further interest in contributing to the WDH debate but I do know Collyn Rivers very well having exchanged many a debate with him on another forum a few years back.

When it comes to RV technical and engineering subjects Collyn would be the most knowledgeable person I know and I can assure you that there is nobody on this forum, including myself, who has the qualifications to question his credentials.

Sadly, Collyn does not contribute to any forum these days being obviously too busy with his RV books.



-- Edited by montie on Thursday 28th of July 2022 11:34:16 AM

__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Senior Member

Status: Offline
Posts: 179
Date:
Permalink Closed

Hitch with built in scales.

www.everythingcaravancamping.com.au/a/4x4-towbar-accessories/flash/flash-integrated-scale-ball-mount/100030135%20Newsletter%2027%2F07%2F2022&utm_medium=email&utm_source=EverythingCaravanCampingEDM&dm_i=79HJ%2C7192%2C3DNO7Y%2CR4BX%2C1

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

This whole thread has degenerated into a he said she said, get nowhere show.

Lets get back to simple to follow basics.

Still using the haymen reece chart as the starting point.

Look at the points below. if you don't agree with any point please post your reasons.

1 The mass of both the car and van remain unchanged through out. No mass is put into or taken out of either.

2 If their respective mass is constant their weights must also be constant.

3 Towball download (weight) is a force not a mass directed downwards.

4 Look at chart in the top row it shows the weight of the car is (930 + 760) 1690 Kg Wt and the van is (220 + 590 +640) 1450 Kg Wt.

5 Now in the second row the towbar is removed from the scales and hitched to the car. The scales now show (790 + 1120) 1910 Kg Wt. This is as expected as it is the weight of the car plus the downwards force exerted by the towbar (220 + 1690) 1910 Kg Wt

6 Now the clincher. In the third row the WDH is tensioned. the scales under the car show a reduction in weight of weight to (1020 + 830) 1850 KG Wt.

7 We know that the cars contribution to the scales is 1690 Kg WT from the first row so the contribution from the tow bar MUST have been reduced to (1850 -1690) 160 Kg Wt. This is a reduction of 60 Kg Wt to the original towball download.

8 This reduction can be confirmed by looking at the weight on the caravan wheels 1230 Kg WT before tensioning the WDH and 1290 Kg Wt after, an increase of 60 Kg Wt. We know that the van cannot weigh anything other than the original 1450 Kg Wt. So the towball down load must be (1450 - 1290) 160 Kg Wt.

Please refrain from side tracking and stick to the points.

Alan



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Brenda and Alan wrote:

This whole thread has degenerated into a he said she said, get nowhere show.

Lets get back to simple to follow basics.

Still using the haymen reece chart as the starting point.

Look at the points below. if you don't agree with any point please post your reasons.

1 The mass of both the car and van remain unchanged through out. No mass is put into or taken out of either.

2 If their respective mass is constant their weights must also be constant.

3 Towball download (weight) is a force not a mass directed downwards.

4 Look at chart in the top row it shows the weight of the car is (930 + 760) 1690 Kg Wt and the van is (220 + 590 +640) 1450 Kg Wt.

5 Now in the second row the towbar is removed from the scales and hitched to the car. The scales now show (790 + 1120) 1910 Kg Wt. This is as expected as it is the weight of the car plus the downwards force exerted by the towbar (220 + 1690) 1910 Kg Wt

6 Now the clincher. In the third row the WDH is tensioned. the scales under the car show a reduction in weight of weight to (1020 + 830) 1850 KG Wt.

7 We know that the cars contribution to the scales is 1690 Kg WT from the first row so the contribution from the tow bar MUST have been reduced to (1850 -1690) 160 Kg Wt. This is a reduction of 60 Kg Wt to the original towball download.

8 This reduction can be confirmed by looking at the weight on the caravan wheels 1230 Kg WT before tensioning the WDH and 1290 Kg Wt after, an increase of 60 Kg Wt. We know that the van cannot weigh anything other than the original 1450 Kg Wt. So the towball down load must be (1450 - 1290) 160 Kg Wt.

Please refrain from side tracking and stick to the points.

Alan


Alan,

I know I have said I would not contribute further to this thread but I feel the correct information needs to be posted for the benefit of all members.

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kg

A simplified version of the HR chart: You hook up and add 220kg weight to the ball. The results of this are as follows:

No WDH

Ball Weight..............220kg

Rear Axle Weight......1120kg

Front Axle Weight.....790kg

Total........................1910kg

With WDH

Ball Weight....................220kg

Rear Axle Weight...........830kg

Front Axle weight...........1020kg

Distribute to Van wheels.............60kg

Total........................1910kg


Ball weight remains constant at 220kg. 290kg removed from rear axle. 230kg added to front axle. 60kg added to van wheels = 0

I hope this clarifies it for you.



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5173
Date:
Permalink Closed

Brenda and Alan wrote:

This whole thread has degenerated into a he said she said, get nowhere show.

Lets get back to simple to follow basics.

Still using the haymen reece chart as the starting point.

Look at the points below. if you don't agree with any point please post your reasons.

1 The mass of both the car and van remain unchanged through out. No mass is put into or taken out of either.

2 If their respective mass is constant their weights must also be constant.

3 Towball download (weight) is a force not a mass directed downwards.

4 Look at chart in the top row it shows the weight of the car is (930 + 760) 1690 Kg Wt and the van is (220 + 590 +640) 1450 Kg Wt.

5 Now in the second row the towbar is removed from the scales and hitched to the car. The scales now show (790 + 1120) 1910 Kg Wt. This is as expected as it is the weight of the car plus the downwards force exerted by the towbar (220 + 1690) 1910 Kg Wt

6 Now the clincher. In the third row the WDH is tensioned. the scales under the car show a reduction in weight of weight to (1020 + 830) 1850 KG Wt.

7 We know that the cars contribution to the scales is 1690 Kg WT from the first row so the contribution from the tow bar MUST have been reduced to (1850 -1690) 160 Kg Wt. This is a reduction of 60 Kg Wt to the original towball download.

8 This reduction can be confirmed by looking at the weight on the caravan wheels 1230 Kg WT before tensioning the WDH and 1290 Kg Wt after, an increase of 60 Kg Wt. We know that the van cannot weigh anything other than the original 1450 Kg Wt. So the towball down load must be (1450 - 1290) 160 Kg Wt.

Please refrain from side tracking and stick to the points.

Alan


Alan, surely you jest? Can't help wondering if you're just being mischievous here, because nothing you write makes any sense or has any credibility? How you can regurgitate this rubbish more than 2 years after you were shown that you were wrong is beyond me. As I have said several times previously, why do you not contact Hayman Reese direct and advise them of the new "Physics, according to Alan" theory? They surely would be most interested to learn that after 60 years designing and manufacturing WDH systems they still are ignorant of the facts? If you choose not to help Hayman Reese and report back on their gratitude, all I can suggest is that you go back to sleep. Cheers

P.S Before you make a fool of yourself by contacting Hayman Reese, perhaps you could do yourself, and those of us who do know WDHs, a favour, and access RV books by Collyn Rivers. The time you spend reading these books would be vastly more productively spent than is the time that you spend on here, coming up with hare-brained theories and waffling-on about things that you clearly do not understand, confusing others in the process.

P.P.S Total weight on wheels of car and van, with van attached to car but WDH not tensioned = 3140kg. . Total weight on wheels of car and van, with van attached to car and WDH tensioned =3140kg



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 902
Date:
Permalink Closed

Arrgghh! I was going to keep out of this as well.

As usual, Yobarr makes no explanation other than "you are wrong and I have told you before that you are wrong". That is because he can't explain it. Montie, for once used some figures to support his position. Nothing wrong with the figures he quoted but he totally ignored the point being made by Alan.

The formatting in Alan's post makes it a bit harder to read. I have attempted to simplify the main points here.


Step 1. Before connecting, the scales read:
Car = 1690, van = 1450 (wheels 1230, jockey wheel 220) - (total 3140)

Step 2. After connecting, some of the van weight is resting on the towball. The scales read:
Car = 1910, van wheels = 1230 (total 3140)

Step 3. With WDH applied, the scales read:
Car = 1850, van wheels = 1290 (total 3140)

The contentious point:

The car weighs 1690kg. When the van is connected. the scales read 1910, so it is bearing 220kg of the van total weight (1690 + 220 = 1910). With the WDH tensioned, the scales for the car read 1850. So, it must now be bearing only 160kg of the van's weight (1690 + 160 = 1850). That is why the rear end rises.

So the effect of the WDH on the car is a reduction of 60kg at the towbar.

That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. Overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).



-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 29th of July 2022 01:34:08 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Are We Lost wrote:

Arrgghh! I was going to keep out of this as well.

As usual, Yobarr makes no explanation other than "you are wrong and I have told you before that you are wrong". Montie, for once used some figures to support his position. Nothing wrong with the figures he quoted but he totally ignored the point being made by Alan.

Step 1. Before connecting, the scales read:
Car = 1690, van = 1450 (wheels 1230, jockey wheel 220) - (total 3140)

Step 2. After connecting, some of the van weight is resting on the towball. The scales read:
Car = 1910, van wheels = 1230 (total 3140)

Step 3. With WDH applied, the scales read:
Car = 1850, van wheels = 1290 (total 3140)

The contentious point:

The car weighs 1690kg. When the van is connected. the scales read 1910, so it is bearing 220kg of the van total weight (1690 + 220 = 1910). With the WDH tensioned, the scales for the car read 1850. So, it must now be bearing only 160kg of the van's weight (1690 + 160 = 1850). That is why the rear end rises. That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. So overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).


No, the tug weight dropped by 60kg and the weight on the van wheels increased by 60kg

1690 + 220 - 60 = 1850kg

How can the van gross weight remain the same when you add 60kg to the wheels?

1290 + 220 = 1510 for hitched van and 1290 + 220 - 60 = 1450 for unhitched van.

Please read my post, you cannot use the weight of the unhitched van for this calculation because the unhitched van does not include the 60kg transferred from the tug..



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 01:22:47 PM

__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 902
Date:
Permalink Closed

I was doing an edit at the time of Montie's post. I added:

So the effect of the WDH on the car is a reduction of 60kg at the towbar.

That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. Overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).

The error in Montie's figures when he shows car weight before and after WDH is to include 60kg weight that is now on the van. The weight on the car wheels between his table 1 and table 2 is NOT the same. That is the point.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5173
Date:
Permalink Closed

Are We Lost wrote:

Arrgghh! I was going to keep out of this as well.

As usual, Yobarr makes no explanation other than "you are wrong and I have told you before that you are wrong". Montie, for once used some figures to support his position. Nothing wrong with the figures he quoted but he totally ignored the point being made by Alan.

Step 1. Before connecting, the scales read:
Car = 1690, van = 1450 (wheels 1230, jockey wheel 220) - (total 3140)

Step 2. After connecting, some of the van weight is resting on the towball. The scales read:
Car = 1910, van wheels = 1230 (total 3140)

Step 3. With WDH applied, the scales read:
Car = 1850, van wheels = 1290 (total 3140)

The contentious point:

The car weighs 1690kg. When the van is connected. the scales read 1910, so it is bearing 220kg of the van total weight (1690 + 220 = 1910). With the WDH tensioned, the scales for the car read 1850. So, it must now be bearing only 160kg of the van's weight (1690 + 160 = 1850). That is why the rear end rises. That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. So overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).


Stephen, In the past I have indeed used figures extensively, including those from my own weighing exercises with a WDH, but frankly I'm sick of having to repeat my posts. Some people obviously do not READ posts, but simply look at them, thus failing to absorb information that is supplied. There are so many holes in Alan's "calculations" that I wonder if he is not simply being mischievous, as little he waffles-on about makes even a modicum of sense. Have you viewed John Cadogan's video? Have you read books written by Collyn Rivers? Have you conducted your own extensive tests with the use of a WDH? Or are you simply shooting in the dark and developing hare-brained theories ala Alan? The rear end of the car rises through leverage, and your apparent inability to undestand levers is of concern, but it is impossible to help those who argue incessantly, with no apparent interest in learning. "There is none so blind as those who will not see", but since you seem to enjoy arguing against indesputable facts you may consider starting a post "Planet Earth is NOT round" and see how you fare? Cheers



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Are We Lost wrote:

I was doing an edit at the time of Montie's post. I added:

So the effect of the WDH on the car is a reduction of 60kg at the towbar.

That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. Overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).

The error in Montie's figures when he shows car weight before and after WDH is to include 60kg weight that is now on the van. The weight on the car wheels between his table 1 and table 2 is NOT the same. That is the point.


The tug weighs 60kg less with the WDH because the weight has been transferred to the van's wheels which means it is 60kg heavier.

My calculations take account of the 60kg on the hitched van. However if you add 60kg to the van's wheels you must also add it to the gross weight of the unhitched van.

A WDH does not reduce or eliminate weight it distributes it so the total weights must always be the same in this instance 1910kg.



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 01:50:36 PM

__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

yobarr wrote:


Alan, surely you jest? Can't help wondering if you're just being mischievous here, because nothing you write makes any sense or has any credibility? How you can regurgitate this rubbish more than 2 years after you were shown that you were wrong is beyond me. As I have said several times previously, why do you not contact Hayman Reese direct and advise them of the new "Physics, according to Alan" theory? They surely would be most interested to learn that after 60 years designing and manufacturing WDH systems they still are ignorant of the facts? If you choose not to help Hayman Reese and report back on their gratitude, all I can suggest is that you go back to sleep. Cheers

P.S Before you make a fool of yourself by contacting Hayman Reese, perhaps you could do yourself, and those of us who do know WDHs, a favour, and access RV books by Collyn Rivers. The time you spend reading these books would be vastly more productively spent than is the time that you spend on here, coming up with hare-brained theories and waffling-on about things that you clearly do not understand, confusing others in the process.

P.P.S Total weight on wheels of car and van, with van attached to car but WDH not tensioned = 3140kg. . Total weight on wheels of car and van, with van attached to car and WDH tensioned =3140kg


Perhaps with your immense knowledge you could tell me point by point where you think I am wrong.

Of course the total weight is unchanged it is a closed system. (nothing added or taken to the mass of the system)

Maybe it is you who should contact Haymen reece you are the one who can't see the wood for the trees, I am quite happy with my reasoning.

Alan



-- Edited by Brenda and Alan on Friday 29th of July 2022 02:14:57 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 902
Date:
Permalink Closed

montie wrote:
<snip>

How can the van gross weight remain the same when you add 60kg to the wheels?

1290 + 220 = 1510 for hitched van and 1290 + 220 - 60 = 1450 for unhitched van.

Please read my post, you cannot use the weight of the unhitched van for this calculation because the unhitched van does not include the 60kg transferred from the tug.


Exactly. Thank you Montie!

You have made my point. Gross weight can not change. The van will always be 1450kg gross weight. So, we both agree on something for once. We agree that 1510 is incorrect. Gross weight can never change.

So, something is wrong with that simple formula. We know the result of the addition must equal 1450. We also know the scales showed 1290. That means the only remaining item is the 220kg ball weight. It must have changed. The only way the formula works is to replace it with 160. We know the ball weight WAS 220kg because the scales measured that. We do not have a measurement for that any more. The only thing that we have that says it is still 220kg is because you say it is.

Prove it.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

montie wrote:

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kgWt

Of course i have used the unhitched weight of the van because this tells me the mass of the van is 1450 Kg and this does not change. then the contribution of the van the weight on the scales can only ever be 1450 Kg Wt What you suggest would mean the van has increased in mass by 60 Kg



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Are We Lost wrote:
montie wrote:
<snip>

How can the van gross weight remain the same when you add 60kg to the wheels?

1290 + 220 = 1510 for hitched van and 1290 + 220 - 60 = 1450 for unhitched van.

Please read my post, you cannot use the weight of the unhitched van for this calculation because the unhitched van does not include the 60kg transferred from the tug.


Exactly. Thank you Montie!

You have made my point. Gross weight can not change. The van will always be 1450kg gross weight. So, we both agree on something for once. We agree that 1510 is incorrect. Gross weight can never change.

So, something is wrong with that simple formula. We know the result of the addition must equal 1450. We also know the scales showed 1290. That means the only remaining item is the 220kg ball weight. It must have changed. The only way the formula works is to replace it with 160. We know the ball weight WAS 220kg because the scales measured that. We do not have a measurement for that any more. The only thing that we have that says it is still 220kg is because you say it is.

Prove it.


Easy...you can't transfer weight to an unhitched van!

If you add 60kg to the hitched van then you must also add that to the unhitched weight for the calculation.....basically if the GTM increases by 60kg then so does the ATM.

That's where Alan went wrong with his calculation...he didn't account for the 60kg in the ATM.

If you read my calculation you will see that the tug weighs 60kg less with WDH connected and that 60kg is transferred from the tug's rear axle to the van wheels thus making the van 60kg heavier.

I might also add at this point that if the manufacturer's engineers tells me that ball weight does not change then I would not question it. However, now that I have done the calculations there is no doubt that the manufacturer is correct.



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 02:07:04 PM

__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

montie wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:

I was doing an edit at the time of Montie's post. I added:

So the effect of the WDH on the car is a reduction of 60kg at the towbar.

That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. Overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).

The error in Montie's figures when he shows car weight before and after WDH is to include 60kg weight that is now on the van. The weight on the car wheels between his table 1 and table 2 is NOT the same. That is the point.


The tug weighs 60kg less with the WDH because the weight has been transferred to the van's wheels which means it is 60kg heavier.

My calculations take account of the 60kg on the hitched van. However if you add 60kg to the van's wheels you must also add it to the gross weight of the unhitched van.

A WDH does not reduce or eliminate weight it distributes it so the total weights must always be the same in this instance 1910kg.



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 01:50:36 PM


Montie you have already suggested that van increases in mass by 60 Kg and here you suggest the mass of the car has reduced by 60 Kg.

Go back to my point 2 and explain to me how the contribution of the car or van to the scale can possibly be any different to that applicable to their mass. You seem to have no understanding of the difference between the terms mass and weight









-- Edited by Brenda and Alan on Friday 29th of July 2022 02:31:02 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kgWt

Of course i have used the unhitched weight of the van because this tells me the mass of the van is 1450 Kg and this does not change. then the contribution of the van the weight on the scales can only ever be 1450 Kg Wt What you suggest would mean the van has increased in mass by 60 Kg


So how do you add 60kg to the GTM without increasing the ATM?



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:
Are We Lost wrote:

I was doing an edit at the time of Montie's post. I added:

So the effect of the WDH on the car is a reduction of 60kg at the towbar.

That 60kg is now showing as extra weight on the van wheels. Overall the van weighs the same (1290 + 160 = 1450).

The error in Montie's figures when he shows car weight before and after WDH is to include 60kg weight that is now on the van. The weight on the car wheels between his table 1 and table 2 is NOT the same. That is the point.


The tug weighs 60kg less with the WDH because the weight has been transferred to the van's wheels which means it is 60kg heavier.

My calculations take account of the 60kg on the hitched van. However if you add 60kg to the van's wheels you must also add it to the gross weight of the unhitched van.

A WDH does not reduce or eliminate weight it distributes it so the total weights must always be the same in this instance 1910kg.



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 01:50:36 PM


Montie you have already suggested that van increases in mass by 60 Kg and hear you you suggest the mass of the car has reduced by 60 Kg.

Go back to my point 2 and explain to me how the contribution of the car or van to the scale can possibly be any different to that applicable to their mass. You seem to have no understanding of the difference between the terms mass and weight


It's getting pretty elementary here now....reduces the tug weight by 60kg and increases the van weight by 60kg...pretty basic stuff!



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

montie wrote:
Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kgWt

Of course i have used the unhitched weight of the van because this tells me the mass of the van is 1450 Kg and this does not change. then the contribution of the van the weight on the scales can only ever be 1450 Kg Wt What you suggest would mean the van has increased in mass by 60 Kg


So how do you add 60kg to the GTM without increasing the ATM?


I don't it is you who was trying to do this, the weight of the van is 1450 Kg Wt and hitching it or turning it upside down won't change it. So weight on scales hitched and with WDH tensioned is 1290 Kg Wt. now 1450 - 1290=160 Kg Wt, This is the towball download after the WDH is tensioned.



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 5173
Date:
Permalink Closed

Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:
Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kgWt

Of course i have used the unhitched weight of the van because this tells me the mass of the van is 1450 Kg and this does not change. then the contribution of the van the weight on the scales can only ever be 1450 Kg Wt What you suggest would mean the van has increased in mass by 60 Kg


So how do you add 60kg to the GTM without increasing the ATM?


I don't it is you who was trying to do this, the weight of the van is 1450 Kg Wt and hitching it or turning it upside down won't change it. So weight on scales hitched and with WDH tensioned is 1290 Kg Wt. now 1450 - 1290=160 Kg Wt, This is the towball download after the WDH is tensioned.


Time to give up, Alan, as you're talking rubbish and starting to confuse even yourself. Back to school for you? Cheers



__________________

v



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1162
Date:
Permalink Closed

yobarr wrote:

Time to give up, Alan, as you're talking rubbish and starting to confuse even yourself. Back to school for you? Cheers


Failed again Yobarr.

If you can't point out specifically where you think I am wrong then all the bluster in the world is pointless.

Alan



__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

yobarr wrote:
Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:
Brenda and Alan wrote:
montie wrote:

I have looked closely at your calculations and they are flawed.

Firstly you are using the weight of the unhitched van to calculate your towball weight forgetting the fact that by fitting and tensioning a WDH you have added 60kg to the van weight. Your calculation there should read 1450 + 60 -1290 = 220kgWt

Of course i have used the unhitched weight of the van because this tells me the mass of the van is 1450 Kg and this does not change. then the contribution of the van the weight on the scales can only ever be 1450 Kg Wt What you suggest would mean the van has increased in mass by 60 Kg


So how do you add 60kg to the GTM without increasing the ATM?


I don't it is you who was trying to do this, the weight of the van is 1450 Kg Wt and hitching it or turning it upside down won't change it. So weight on scales hitched and with WDH tensioned is 1290 Kg Wt. now 1450 - 1290=160 Kg Wt, This is the towball download after the WDH is tensioned.


Time to give up, Alan, as you're talking rubbish and starting to confuse even yourself. Back to school for you? Cheers


Alan,

I need you to explain to me.........you and HR have added 60kg to the GTM (Van Wheels) 1230kg to 1290kg...how does that not change the ATM by 60kgs?

If you hook up a 1450kg overall weight van and then add 60kgs doesn't increase the ATM (Overall Weight) to 1510kg. If not please explain why?



-- Edited by montie on Friday 29th of July 2022 02:53:38 PM

__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Finally......

Van Weight 1450kg + 60kg - 1230kg+60kg = 220kg.

You can't add 60kg to the van wheels without also adding it to the overall weight.

I think that proves that ball weight does not change.

Funnily enough HR believe so also.



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.



Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 902
Date:
Permalink Closed

Montie, with your logic attempts at maths I think you should give up. Below I have posted a list of the several errors from one of your earlier posts. Your attempts to prove things with maths remind me of this old puzzle. So old that the amounts mentioned made sense at the time.


Three tourists stop at a hotel, and the manager tells them that a shared room will cost $30. Finding the price agreeable, they pony up $10 each and retire to the room. Later that afternoon, the manager, who is honest, realizes that the room was meant to be priced at $25. The manager orders the bellhop to return the excess $5 to their guests. The bellhop, who is not honest, takes $5 from the register and returns only $1 to each tourist, pocketing the remaining $2. The guests dont have to fuss over uneven change that way.

Now, each of the three tourists has spent $9, for a total of $27. The bellhop has retained $2, which brings the total to $29. Where did the other dollar go?

The puzzle uses mathematical sleight of hand to put together an equation, 3 9 + 2 = 29, that appears to model the situation described, but really it does not. By juxtaposing dollars spent with dollars held, the equation manages to double-count some dollars while failing to represent others, leaving a total that is just slightly off what we would expect.

You continually do exactly the same, by mixing actual weights with weights transferred. Taking you back to your post at 11:20 this morning, that is what you have done.

No WDH

Ball Weight..............220kg No. It is included in the axle weights. Don't add it twice.

Rear Axle Weight......1120kg

Front Axle Weight.....790kg

Total........................1910kg This is the correct total for axle weights alone. It does not add up the way you have it. Your figures add to 2130kg.

With WDH

Ball Weight....................220kg Same error as above. Plus we have no verification of what the actual weight now is.

Rear Axle Weight...........830kg

Front Axle weight...........1020kg

Distribute to Van wheels.............60kg NO NO NO. See below

Total........................1910kg The axle weights are 1850kg. Compare apples with apples. Again, your list does not add up anyway.

The 60kg is not one of the measured weights of the car, so it is incorrect to total it with the other weights. The actual measured weights only total 1850kg. Putting the 60kg in with the car weights is like the puzzle above .... slight of hand with maths.

Your figures also assume ball weight is 220kg after the WDH is tensioned, which is the whole subject of recent discussion. That has not been measured.

Paraphrasing the explanation for the puzzle, you would get ...

By juxtaposing actual weights with weights transferred, ...... leaves a total that is just slightly off what we would expect.

If you want to show the weight transferred, put it AFTER all the actual weights as an explanation of why the difference.



-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 29th of July 2022 04:01:35 PM

__________________


Guru

Status: Offline
Posts: 1043
Date:
Permalink Closed

Guys I have explained it all in the simplest of terms and respectfully for other posters.
Quite frankly if some of you do not have a grasp of it by now I'm afraid I can't help you.

The maths are really pretty simple and straight forward and support Hayman Reece's statement on their website that the fitment of a WDH does not change ball weight.
All weights used in the calculation are deemed to be actual measured weights as opposed to ratings. The only weight you can transfer is a measured weight ....you certainly can't transfer a Rating. The ball weight of 220kg was measured by HR at the outset so there are no assumptions or "slight of hand". The WDH did what it is designed to do...distributed the weight from the tug's rear axle to the front axle and to the van wheels.

Thank you all for participating in the discussion and I sincerely hope that at least some of you has learned something.



__________________

Monty. RV Dealer.

«First  <  14 5 6 7  >  Last»  | Page of 7  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us
Purchase Grey Nomad bumper stickers Read our daily column, the Nomad News The Grey Nomad's Guidebook