Using an Anderson WDH on a BAL NXG Teardrop Frame

[Yoshi1]

Hi,

As you can see from my profile picture, we have a small 18' teardrop.

It uses a BAL NXG frame.

I use an Anderson Weight Distribution Hitch. It was recommended by my dealer because the weight of the trailer (3500 lbs) exceeds 50% of the weight of my tow vehicle (about 5500 lbs.) in addition the Jeep Grand Cherokee has a short wheelbase. These seem to be two criteria to use a WDH. The Jeep has a tow capacity of 6500 lbs.

Out of curiosity I contacted BAL to see if they had any concerns with using a WDH on this frame. They said they do not recommend it. I followed up as to why and if it was only for this frame. They said they do not recommend it for any of their frames because of "problems" down the road. No more specifics were given.

That response makes me pause a bit.

Do you think that is just a CYA response or could issues arise from using it? I do understand if the WDH is "cranked down very hard" there can be problems. But I don't. It does help with a bit of rear squat I get along with the anti-sway feature of the Anderson WDH.

Other users in my community of trailers use WDHs (not a high %) and I have not seen a report of issues.

Thanks for your thoughts.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Any WDH is going to torque the frame - that's how it shifts weight. If you are seeing a rear squat and adjust the WDH to corect it, then the WDH is applying pressure at the rear hitch points and lifting the frame. No unit-body chassis is happy with that and WDH hitch makers generally recommend against using their product on a unibody chassis like your GC.

I don't think there is a general answer to your question - an engineering analysis would be needed for your specific configuration to assess the actual risk. It's not just the initial "crank down" - the stress applied to the unibody varies with potholes, turns & grades as well. The WDH makers can't predict all of that risk so the CYA is a necessity. The gamble becomes your responsibility.

This brief answer on etrailer addresses your question but leaves the answer open (for the very reason I stated above).

https://www.etrailer.com/question-241876.html

 

[Yoshi1]

Thank you for the response..but my question was directed more toward the use of the WDH on the BAL NXG trailer frame and not the tow vehicle (maybe the answer is the same)

 

[Martian]

If the manufacturer says not to use a WDH, what is the issue? They gave a firm no to the idea. What makes you think that you need it in spite of the fact that it may damage the trailer? I would understand putting on sway bars but that is a light trailer and obviously not built for a WDH.

 

[Yoshi1]

If the manufacturer says not to use a WDH, what is the issue? They gave a firm no to the idea. What makes you think that you need it in spite of the fact that it may damage the trailer? I would understand putting on sway bars but that is a light trailer and obviously not built for a WDH.

@Martian Hi, The reason is stated in my original post. I've consistently read (and was told by my dealer) when those two criteria are met, a WDH is beneficial.

I was just getting thoughts from other experienced RVers..I understand the manufacturer said no...what seemed odd to me was they said no for any frame they build (small or big). BAL puts a lot of frames on RVs..not just small ones like mine..even some large ones which they also would say no for.

 

[Janet H]

Some BAL frames use huck-bolted (thinner-gauge) C channel. You might start by determining whether you have an I-beam frame or the lightweight NXG frame. These lighter-weight frames can be stressed, bent, or damaged by spring bar use.

I have used an Anderson hitch in the past. It spreads force in a more "linear" way and reduces the vertical "prying" that can cause frame damage. Possibly a very good alternative for you.

Some personal experience:

• Setup and adjustment are finicky and matter. There is good help available on their website.
• Hitching on unlevel ground can be problematic. More than once I had to hitch, pull to a level place, and then adjust, but I tend to boondock in unlevel places.
• The hitch is lightweight; easy to handle - I dislike lifting my ten-ton Blue Ox hitch.
• I got rid of my Anderson after the company owner defaced Corona Arch (BLM), near Moab.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Thank you for the response..but my question was directed more toward the use of the WDH on the BAL NXG trailer frame and not the tow vehicle (maybe the answer is the same)

Sorry - I misunderstood your concern.

The concern about WD on a trailer frame like the NXG is much the same as what I described for a unibody vehicle. The BAL NXG is designed with light weight as the primary criteria. Steel channel and bolts rather than I beams, so they rely on the engineering design and the fabrication more than the brute strength of the steel. I suspect you won't find that type of frame on a larger or higher quality rig where ruggedness and long term reliability is usually a top criteria. But just because it may not be the very strongest & best doesn't mean the NXG is no good. Or that yours won't hold up OK under the usage you plan. But BAL is telling you they aren't making any promises either, so it's a caveat emptor thing.

 

[Yoshi1]

Hi @Gary RV_Wizard and @Janet H

Thank you for the feedback..good info. I'm going to continue to use but only tighten the nuts on the spring nut just a bit ( a few threads). I do like the anti sway feature of the Anderson , is light weight and easy to get on /off

 

[Wmlunt-WO]

Any WDH is going to torque the frame - that's how it shifts weight. If you are seeing a rear squat and adjust the WDH to corect it, then the WDH is applying pressure at the rear hitch points and lifting the frame. No unit-body chassis is happy with that and WDH hitch makers generally recommend against using their product on a unibody chassis like your GC.

I don't think there is a general answer to your question - an engineering analysis would be needed for your specific configuration to assess the actual risk. It's not just the initial "crank down" - the stress applied to the unibody varies with potholes, turns & grades as well. The WDH makers can't predict all of that risk so the CYA is a necessity. The gamble becomes your responsibility.

This brief answer on etrailer addresses your question but leaves the answer open (for the very reason I stated above).

https://www.etrailer.com/question-241876.html

That info is almost 10 years old so may not apply to current conditions…

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

That info is almost 10 years old so may not apply to current conditions…

I don't think the difference in the characteristics of a stamped channel iron vs I-beam chassis have changed - it's pretty fundamental.

I'm not saying the channel iron construction is unsafe or inadequate - just that is is less rigid/strong than I-beam. Short of hiring an engineer to do a stress analysis of that specific chassis & hitch configuration, I can't say whether the NGX frame is "good enough" for the OP's planned use.

A better question might be whether he needs WD at all. I don't buy the dealer's advice about the proportion of the weights. Tongue weight is the key factor in towed trailer handling. The right trailer balance will eliminate the tendency to sway and also eliminate any sagging by the tow vehicle.

 

[Wmlunt-WO]

The shape of a structural member is only one of many characteristics, including size, thickness, etc. I don’t believe they can stamp iron, the grain structure is very coarse which makes it a poor choice, for better strength to weight ratios I see them using steel sections, be it c-channel, I-beams or welded rectangular tubing.
The rear of a unibody SUV is likely weak as it was likely never designed for towing.
They like BAL trailer frames would likely all take the stance of not supporting a WDH or other anti-sway devices. Much safer for companies to take the least liability answer.
Agreed the OP likely doesn’t need a WDH, don’t know if his Jeep Cherokee came with a factory tow package… more to it like heavy duty radiator, alternator, brakes, etc.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

The shape of a structural member is only one of many characteristics, including size, thickness, etc. I don’t believe they can stamp iron, the grain structure is very coarse which makes it a poor choice, for better strength to weight ratios I see them using steel sections, be it c-channel, I-beams or welded rectangular tubing.

Yes, it is steel. As are the I-beams or similar rails. I wasn't trying to be technically precise about the iron alloy in use

They like BAL trailer frames would likely all take the stance of not supporting a WDH or other anti-sway devices. Much safer for companies to take the least liability answer.

Yeap, lawyers trumping engineering but it's a necessity these days. Adding a restrictive caveat can save $millions in a liability lawsuit.

 

[Wmlunt-WO]

Sadly, we have more lawyers than common sense in America.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

I probably sound like a grumpy old man (I'm pushing 82) but I believe the generations younger than mine have been taught that whatever went wrong is not in any way their fault or responsibility. And lawyers have learned to cater to this view and, with help from juries of the same attitude, to find deep pockets to help compensate. Thus we find ourselves flooded with caveats like "Don't try this at home" and pages of fine print in contracts or disclosures absolving the maker and seller of things most of us never dreamed of. Even here, we regularly see complaints about being scammed in some way or another and knee-jerk reactions to get a lawyer and sue somebody. ANYBODY!

Somewhere along the line we lost the notion of caveat emptor and self-reliance. Granted, modern business hasn't done much to counter the bad attitudes many customers seem to have, but that's just the other side of the same coin.