WDH

montie · Guru

RE: WDH

Brenda and Alan · Guru

yobarr wrote:

For heaven's sake Alan, when people discuss weights they generally are referring to the weight applied through the wheels of a vehicle to the ground, not "mass" or "force" or any other term that you may choose to use to make yourself appear to be knowledgeable. You're not.
When we are discussing WDHs there is NO disputing or denying that the total weight applied to the ground through the wheels of the car is reduced when a WDH is tensioned, and at the same time the total weight applied to the ground through the wheels of the van is increased. Nobody is interested in "mass" or "force" or whatever. They're just caravanners trying to understand their weights.
This all is simple stuff but in an effort to appear to be knowledgeable you persist with your rubbish-talk that causes only confusion for those among us who simply are trying to learn.

Yobarr

Now I know you are joking. An under standing of what the terms mass and and weight (force by the way) are essential to this discussion. Your not in a position to lecture me on either. The effect of tensioning a WDH is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your belief that the car itself weighs less and the van more than their mass would allow the to under the influence of gravity.

Again I'll tell you that a weigh bridge tells you what force (weight) a given mass exerts downwards under the influence of gravity. And that weight is dependent on two things only gravity and mass so the weight of the car can't change.

The weight the wheels imparts to the ground is made up of that from the car plus any weight imposed by the van.

This is not rocket science, but simple mathematics.

Alan

ps You have never explained HOW a WDH works only stated the results at the various axles.

-- Edited by Brenda and Alan on Thursday 8th of February 2024 10:00:47 AM

yobarr · Guru

Brenda and Alan wrote:
yobarr wrote:

For heaven's sake Alan, when people discuss weights they generally are referring to the weight applied through the wheels of a vehicle to the ground, not "mass" or "force" or any other term that you may choose to use to make yourself appear to be knowledgeable. You're not.
When we are discussing WDHs there is NO disputing or denying that the total weight applied to the ground through the wheels of the car is reduced when a WDH is tensioned, and at the same time the total weight applied to the ground through the wheels of the van is increased. Nobody is interested in "mass" or "force" or whatever. They're just caravanners trying to understand their weights.
This all is simple stuff but in an effort to appear to be knowledgeable you persist with your rubbish-talk that causes only confusion for those among us who simply are trying to learn.
Yobarr
Now I know you are joking. An under standing of what the terms mass and and weight (force by the way) are essential to this discussion. Your not in a position to lecture me on either. The effect of tensioning a WDH is not in dispute. What is in dispute is your belief that the car itself weighs less and the van more than their mass would allow the to under the influence of gravity.
Again I'll tell you that a weigh bridge tells you what force (weight) a given mass exerts downwards under the influence of gravity. And that weight is dependent on two things only gravity and mass so the weight of the car can't change.
The weight the wheels imparts to the ground is made up of that from the car plus any weight imposed by the van.
This is not rocket science, but simple mathematics.
Alan
ps You have never explained HOW a WDH works only stated the results at the various axles.

-- Edited by Brenda and Alan on Thursday 8th of February 2024 10:00:47 AM

Gundog · Guru

I have observed the contest of positions and endless repartition of opinion that is boring.

Alan, you are trying to cement your position with technicalities that is far beyond the interest of the majority.

Yobarr you fuel that fire with your senseless posting irrelevant pictures that provide no actual help on the subject matter, alas you also fail to provide an supporting evidence to the position the towball weight never changes.

Sure we have various companies/people who state that ball weight never changes, these people also ont provide any evidence to support their statement.

The biggest failing on this and other similar threads, is it is never discussed how or why the use of a WDH is a consideration to be used. Statements like using one is making a vehicle do what it wasn't designed to do (or words to that effect).

The other issue that is overlooked what is the process to prepare and setup you caravan and tow vehicle to enable you to visit a weighbridge.

yobarr · Guru

Gundog wrote:
I have observed the contest of positions and endless repartition of opinion that is boring.
Alan, you are trying to cement your position with technicalities that is far beyond the interest of the majority.
Yobarr you fuel that fire with your senseless posting irrelevant pictures that provide no actual help on the subject matter, alas you also fail to provide an supporting evidence to the position the towball weight never changes.
Sure we have various companies/people who state that ball weight never changes, these people also ont provide any evidence to support their statement.
The biggest failing on this and other similar threads, is it is never discussed how or why the use of a WDH is a consideration to be used. Statements like using one is making a vehicle do what it wasn't designed to do (or words to that effect).
The other issue that is overlooked what is the process to prepare and setup you caravan and tow vehicle to enable you to visit a weighbridge.

Although your highlighted quote is not quite correct, it is indeed FACT.

A WDH, whether mandated or otherwise, is used ONLY by people who are trying to make a car do things for which it never was designed.

Sad,inconvenient,indesputable truth.

IF the vehicle was suitable for the claimed towing capacity it would not need any post-factory additions.

And messing around with tape measures is virtually pre-historic. Sorry.

P.S If you consider our "contest of positions" (your words) boring you could always do the smart thing and ignore those posts?

Bobdown · Guru

yobarr wrote:
Gundog wrote:
I have observed the contest of positions and endless repartition of opinion that is boring.
Alan, you are trying to cement your position with technicalities that is far beyond the interest of the majority.
Yobarr you fuel that fire with your senseless posting irrelevant pictures that provide no actual help on the subject matter, alas you also fail to provide an supporting evidence to the position the towball weight never changes.
Sure we have various companies/people who state that ball weight never changes, these people also ont provide any evidence to support their statement.
The biggest failing on this and other similar threads, is it is never discussed how or why the use of a WDH is a consideration to be used. Statements like using one is making a vehicle do what it wasn't designed to do (or words to that effect).
The other issue that is overlooked what is the process to prepare and setup you caravan and tow vehicle to enable you to visit a weighbridge.
Although your highlighted quote is not quite correct, it is indeed FACT.
A WDH, whether mandated or otherwise, is used ONLY by people who are trying to make a car do things for which it never was designed.
Sad,inconvenient,indesputable truth.
IF the vehicle was suitable for the claimed towing capacity it would not need any post-factory additions.
And messing around with tape measures is virtually pre-historic. Sorry.
P.S If you consider our "contest of positions" (your words) boring you could always do the smart thing and ignore those posts?

Didn't you upgrade your ute to carry more weight than it was designed to do Yobarr?

Are We Lost · Guru

Well said Gundog.

How supposedly mature members can go on and on about a meaningless and trivial issue is ridiculous. What difference does it make? I gave up trying to get Yobarr to explain the physics behind what he says before this thread. It's pretty obvious he is incapable of doing that. But still he trolls time after time by casting the bait with the same words (in capitals last time, no least), "A WDH DOES NOT CHANGE TOWBALL WEIGHT. Never has. Never will." Yet he can't explain it and won't be drawn into the technical side of it. That is trolling. Give it up and stop acting like a 10 year old.

Alan deserves a serve as well for continuing in the pointless argument, and trolling with baits the same way as Yobarr. Surely you can see that Yobarr will never change and will never give an explanation. So isn't it time to show a little maturity and move on as well?

It's like two 10 year olds "Did not", "Did too". Did not", "Did too" ..... endlessly until one shows a bit more maturity and drops it.

Watsea did a great job with documenting his calculations, but there seems to be little interest from forum members to discuss to that level of detail. Without such discussion, the argument can never be resolved.

It was way back umpteem posts ago that I posted a simple image of what a WDH does. Surely that is all that matters and we can grow up and move on from these endless and pointless arguments.

Here it is again. Does anyone disagree?

Ute and van with WDH.jpg

montie · Guru

Copied from the Hayman Reece website:

"When using a Weight Distribution System, the ball weight remains the same, however, the load is evenly distributed across all of the axles. This restores the tow vehicle to its correct operating balance, carrying the caravan rather than dragging the load."

I think the Hayman Reece engineers know what they are talking about, I don't need Newton, Archimedes, Einstein or any other forum expert to tell me otherwise.

Too much hot air from posters on this basic and elementary subject......time to move on.

-- Edited by montie on Friday 9th of February 2024 08:54:35 AM

watsea · Guru

Hi Are We Lost,

I agree lets move on. Too much guff from some people about what they think they know and their entrenched ideas.

-- Edited by watsea on Thursday 8th of February 2024 11:03:47 PM

yobarr · Guru

Bobdown wrote:

Didn't you upgrade your ute to carry more weight than it was designed to do Yobarr?

Gee Bob, you took longer than I anticipated to again throw this Red Herring in to the debate.

Again I will explain, and hopefully you will absorb, that all I did was combine the two Factory Ratings for my diffs, front being 1480kg and rear being 2300kg, giving GVM of 3780kg. Simple stuff, and too smart to not realise that I didn't need a WDH.

Mind you, I must admit that I did get conned into believing a WDH was a good thing, and mistakenly bought one, but after extensive tests and doing my own research, I realised it was a con-job, and was only ever intended to be used by people who are trying to make a car do things for which that car never was designed.

Removed it and gave it to someone I dislike.

Get a better car or a lighter van. Simple stuff. Cheers

Greg 1 · Guru

The simple drawings of the ute and van followed by monroe's post of the extract from Hayman Reece says it all. People who professionally weigh things like Van's do not use the cheap pogo stick ball weight gauges, they use a calibrated load cell which are very accurate along with wheel pad scales that are also highly accurate down to points of a kilo. Far better than a weigh bridge.

Bobdown · Guru

yobarr wrote:
Bobdown wrote:
Didn't you upgrade your ute to carry more weight than it was designed to do Yobarr?
Gee Bob, you took longer than I anticipated to again throw this Red Herring in to the debate.
Again I will explain, and hopefully you will absorb, that all I did was combine the two Factory Ratings for my diffs, front being 1480kg and rear being 2300kg, giving GVM of 3780kg. Simple stuff, and too smart to not realise that I didn't need a WDH.
Mind you, I must admit that I did get conned into believing a WDH was a good thing, and mistakenly bought one, but after extensive tests and doing my own research, I realised it was a con-job, and was only ever intended to be used by people who are trying to make a car do things for which that car never was designed.
Removed it and gave it to someone I dislike.
Get a better car or a lighter van. Simple stuff. Cheers

I remember somewhere you saying you had a GVM upgrade? Is that not true? I may not be right, but I'm never wrong.......... smile smile smile

yobarr · Guru

Bobdown wrote:
I remember somewhere you saying you had a GVM upgrade? Is that not true? I may not be right, but I'm never wrong..........

You once thought tgat you were wring but you were mistaken! Cheers

Are We Lost · Guru

So if he was not wrong (is that what you meant to say?), what modification did you actually make to the rear suspension?

Here are the words from you in case you need a memory jogger ....

"Carrolls did a full GVM upgrade for me,complete with compliance plate,for literally half the price that Lovells quoted.Cheers"

Yobarr tells of his GVM upgrade

To me that indicates more than just adding the two axle ratings together to get a revised GVM on paper. A few posts down you said that included a 2 inch lift as well. But as with many of your posts it became argumentative and the thread was closed. That was in 2019 and you are still doing the same.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Friday 9th of February 2024 06:05:45 PM

Peter_n_Margaret · Senior Member

Many vehicles are used successfully for towing various things.
Almost none of them have factory fitted tow bars.
So is towing anything "trying to make a car do things for which it never was designed"?
Cheers,
Peter

Are We Lost · Guru

As far as towbars, I believe the difference would be that towing and all the limits are in the brochures and vehicle user guide. So it is quite logical that fitting a towbar would be in the design criteria. The vehicle is designed for it, and comes complete with mounting holes in most cases.

Moving on to WDH, I think the issue is akin to the old saying "the pot calling the kettle black". Looking at Yobarr's words a few posts earlier (relating to WDH) .....

"was only ever intended to be used by people who are trying to make a car do things for which that car never was designed". Yet he can get a 2" inch lift, performance tune and GVM upgrade, yet claim that statement does not apply to him.

Rather hypocritical isn't it?

Gundog · Guru

Yes it easy to throw stones at others but anything he does is ok.

Just for the record my ranger has a ford branded towbar, hence it is rated to tow 3t but it has a rated ball weight of 250kg, all because of the auto gearbox variant is limited to 2.5t towing.

My origional WDH was a genuine Ford branded one, I upgraded it from the trunion style to the round bar type, before we head off on our next journt, I will consider the Fastway e2 wdh.

Long Weekend · Guru

Just to get slightly off track about WDHs I have just watched for about the fifth time over the years the movie 'The Long, Long Trailer.' For those that have never seen the movie it features a 40-feet trailer - what the Americans call a caravan.

40-feet is a couple of coats of paint over 12-metres. It gets towed by a relatively lightweight convertible car (no FWD trucks in those days) and sits dead level with no sagging tail on the car nor drooping nose on the van.

The secret was a dual wheel dolly that was fitted under the coupling. The dolly takes all the weight off the tow ball and thus NO WDH was required! With the dolly wheels the main wheels were further back on the van than what we would think of as normal. Also, it appears that the dolly wheels took the place of the jockey wheel.

Which raises the question: why are not dolly wheels in general use today? Were they subsequently found to be unsafe? Or not suitable for the generally shorter Australian caravans? Or maybe the cost was many times the price of a WDH - particularly when the mechanical steering was included - so most people took the cheapest option?

Just think never having to consider whether to use a WDH again.

For those who have never seen the movie I loved it when they pull up at the trailer park and the manager/employee hops in the car and drives it to the site and sets up while they register in the office. When they come out the van is all set up - water, electricity, drain so all they have to do is open the door.

How about the manual electric brakes controlled by a long lever - to the cry of "trailer brakes first."

And his first attempt at reversing that took out the side of the house.

Murray

KJB · Guru

Long Weekend wrote:
Just to get slightly off track about WDHs I have just watched for about the fifth time over the years the movie 'The Long, Long Trailer.' For those that have never seen the movie it features a 40-feet trailer - what the Americans call a caravan.

40-feet is a couple of coats of paint over 12-metres. It gets towed by a relatively lightweight convertible car (no FWD trucks in those days) and sits dead level with no sagging tail on the car nor drooping nose on the van.

The secret was a dual wheel dolly that was fitted under the coupling. The dolly takes all the weight off the tow ball and thus NO WDH was required! With the dolly wheels the main wheels were further back on the van than what we would think of as normal. Also, it appears that the dolly wheels took the place of the jockey wheel.

Which raises the question: why are not dolly wheels in general use today? Were they subsequently found to be unsafe? Or not suitable for the generally shorter Australian caravans? Or maybe the cost was many times the price of a WDH - particularly when the mechanical steering was included - so most people took the cheapest option?

Just think never having to consider whether to use a WDH again.

For those who have never seen the movie I loved it when they pull up at the trailer park and the manager/employee hops in the car and drives it to the site and sets up while they register in the office. When they come out the van is all set up - water, electricity, drain so all they have to do is open the door.

How about the manual electric brakes controlled by a long lever - to the cry of "trailer brakes first."

And his first attempt at reversing that took out the side of the house.

Murray

One problem that "dollys" create is lack of weight for traction in the Tow Vehicle. (that is the reason tractors use wheel weights and also in " heavy haulage" using multiple prime movers, each prime mover carries many tonnes of ballast......just to let the drive wheels get traction for pulling)

....and can you image the scene/bedlam of people trying to reverse a "dog" trailer/caravan into a caravan park site ..... it is bad enough with "pig" trailers....without adding another flexible point to the system..!!

Are We Lost · Guru

Long Weekend wrote:
Just to get slightly off track about WDHs I have just watched for about the fifth time over the years the movie 'The Long, Long Trailer.' For those that have never seen the movie it features a 40-feet trailer - what the Americans call a caravan.

40-feet is a couple of coats of paint over 12-metres. It gets towed by a relatively lightweight convertible car (no FWD trucks in those days) and sits dead level with no sagging tail on the car nor drooping nose on the van.

The secret was a dual wheel dolly that was fitted under the coupling. The dolly takes all the weight off the tow ball and thus NO WDH was required! With the dolly wheels the main wheels were further back on the van than what we would think of as normal. Also, it appears that the dolly wheels took the place of the jockey wheel.

Which raises the question: why are not dolly wheels in general use today? Were they subsequently found to be unsafe? Or not suitable for the generally shorter Australian caravans? Or maybe the cost was many times the price of a WDH - particularly when the mechanical steering was included - so most people took the cheapest option?

Just think never having to consider whether to use a WDH again.

For those who have never seen the movie I loved it when they pull up at the trailer park and the manager/employee hops in the car and drives it to the site and sets up while they register in the office. When they come out the van is all set up - water, electricity, drain so all they have to do is open the door.

How about the manual electric brakes controlled by a long lever - to the cry of "trailer brakes first."

And his first attempt at reversing that took out the side of the house.

Murray

An interesting idea Murray and thanks for diverting from the never ending arguments.

Based on your comment about watching the movie a few times I looked it up. For those like me who had never heard of it, it's a 1954 movie starring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz as they honeymoon in a 1953 New Moon trailer. There are a few interesting comments on IMDB in the Trivia section. According to those comments it was 32 feet long (looks more than that to me). It was towed with a Mercury Monterey but that could not pull it up the Sierra Mountains, so that was swapped mid movie for a Lincoln Capri.

IMDB - The Long Long Trailer

I found the movie online, downloaded it and skimmed it looking for the dolly you mention. I found these two partial views of it.

Dolly 2.jpg

It appears to be an aftermarket addon that converts a 'trailer' to a dog trailer. Four wheels suggest it was designed for weight, although wheels with such a small diameter would really take a pounding on bumps. It does not look like it has any suspension.

Maybe it was a movie prop? Apparently not a successful idea otherwise you would see them around. But adding another axle would no doubt imply all sorts of regulatory control.

For those interested, the movie seems to have a bit of a following, resulting the the New Moon being well known and sought after. There are a few videos on these vans (er trailers) on Youtube, and they just show them sitting on jockey wheels.

Walkthrough of a restored 1953 New Moon

Promotional video for a New Moon - obviously produced recently

I think the movie and van makes an interesting story. Why don't you make a separate post where it is more appropriate and will be seen by others.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 10th of February 2024 12:45:51 PM

KJB · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
Long Weekend wrote:
Just to get slightly off track about WDHs I have just watched for about the fifth time over the years the movie 'The Long, Long Trailer.' For those that have never seen the movie it features a 40-feet trailer - what the Americans call a caravan.

40-feet is a couple of coats of paint over 12-metres. It gets towed by a relatively lightweight convertible car (no FWD trucks in those days) and sits dead level with no sagging tail on the car nor drooping nose on the van.

The secret was a dual wheel dolly that was fitted under the coupling. The dolly takes all the weight off the tow ball and thus NO WDH was required! With the dolly wheels the main wheels were further back on the van than what we would think of as normal. Also, it appears that the dolly wheels took the place of the jockey wheel.

Which raises the question: why are not dolly wheels in general use today? Were they subsequently found to be unsafe? Or not suitable for the generally shorter Australian caravans? Or maybe the cost was many times the price of a WDH - particularly when the mechanical steering was included - so most people took the cheapest option?

Just think never having to consider whether to use a WDH again.

For those who have never seen the movie I loved it when they pull up at the trailer park and the manager/employee hops in the car and drives it to the site and sets up while they register in the office. When they come out the van is all set up - water, electricity, drain so all they have to do is open the door.

How about the manual electric brakes controlled by a long lever - to the cry of "trailer brakes first."

And his first attempt at reversing that took out the side of the house.

Murray
An interesting idea Murray and thanks for diverting from the never ending arguments.

Based on your comment about watching the movie a few times I looked it up. For those like me who had never heard of it, it's a 1954 movie starring Lucille Ball and Desi Arnaz as they honeymoon in a 1953 New Moon trailer. There are a few interesting comments on IMDB in the Trivia section. According to those comments it was 32 feet long (looks more than that to me). It was towed with a Mercury Monterey but that could not pull it up the Sierra Mountains, so that was swapped mid movie for a Lincoln Capri.
IMDB - The Long Long Trailer
I found the movie online, downloaded it and skimmed it looking for the dolly you mention. I found these two partial views of it.

It appears to be an aftermarket addon that converts a 'trailer' to a dog trailer. Four wheels suggest it was designed for weight, although wheels with such a small diameter would really take a pounding on bumps. It does not look like it has any suspension.
Maybe it was a movie prop? Apparently not a successful idea otherwise you would see them around. But adding another axle would no doubt imply all sorts of regulatory control.
For those interested, the movie seems to have a bit of a following, resulting the the New Moon being well known and sought after. There are a few videos on these vans (er trailers) on Youtube, and they just show them sitting on jockey wheels.
Walkthrough of a restored 1953 New Moon
Promotional video for a New Moon - obviously produced recently
I think the movie and van makes an interesting story. Why don't you make a separate post where it is more appropriate and will be seen by others.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Saturday 10th of February 2024 12:45:51 PM

These used to be seen in Australia in the 1950's/60's (Hutchison Dolly) .......carried some of the weight of the caravan and put the rest on the Tow ball.

The idea seemed to die out in late '60's.

I think cars began to be manufactured more capable of carrying greater loads than in the '50's.

I would not be happy Towing a caravan at 90Kph using one of these......

Long Weekend · Guru

Thanks KJB.

It seems the van may have been specially made for the movie - the hitch mechanic said it was 'forty feet of freight train' when he was taking Desi for his first drive. (I set the subtitles on the DVD.)

About the middle of last year a similar dolly wheel set appeared for sale on eBay. I didn't take notice of the make, price or where it came from imported? at the time.

But like you I wouldn't like to tow such a set up at 90km/h (plus!) just think of the revs those small wheels would be turning at those speed. As well the doubtful speed and load ratings of those small tyres.

Of interest is that the turning angles in the photo appear to be limited by chains but that would seem to induce scrubbing of the tyres making the matter worse.

Lastly, and nothing to do with towing, apparently the sunken lounge in the movie was not featured in any standard vans. It was simply a movie gimmick.

Well, apparently the dolly is not the answer to the question of to fit or not fit, a WHD.

Murray

Brenda and Alan · Guru

I am not trolling as some think, I am simply trying to show that the thinking around a WDH is in most part wrong. Look at watseas' and rons 'posts on their calculations on how a WDH works. You will see that both indicate an upwards force at the towbar which acts in opposition to the towball download thereby reducing it. This accords with what my stance on this based on very basic physics shows.

I'll say again that Haymen Reece is wrong in their claim. This is simply proved by simple physics again. If other posters can't see this then I suggest some research is needed.

Are we losts' post showing the weights of car and van under the three conditions says it all if you remember the the tug weighs 2800 Kg wt in all three (because its mass is 2800 Kg), I'll leave the subtraction to those interested.

Alan

montie · Guru

Brenda and Alan wrote:
I'll say again that Haymen Reece is wrong in their claim.
Alan

So the engineers who designed and manufactured the hitch are wrong!

The reality is it is useless information anyway and cant be measured.

Unfortunately, Alan, it is people like you who confuses the genuine buyer or prospective buyer who is looking for practical information before spending his hard earned on a caravan or motorhome. Forums such as this one are meant to be informative and helpful with genuine practical information, which is the reason I have contributed to this and other forums.

Surely there must be an engineering nerds forum out there where people like you can spruik your gobbledegook.

I suggest you take your argument up with Hayman Reece, I'm sure their engineers will have plenty of time to debate Newton's Law with you! biggrin

yobarr · Guru

montie wrote:
Brenda and Alan wrote:
I'll say again that Haymen Reece is wrong in their claim.
Alan
So the engineers who designed and manufactured the hitch are wrong!
The reality is it is useless information anyway and cant be measured.
Unfortunately, Alan, it is people like you who confuse the genuine buyer or prospective buyer who is looking for practical information before spending his hard earned on a caravan or motorhome. Forums such as this one are meant to be informative and helpful with genuine practical information, which is the reason I have contributed to this and other forums.
Surely there must be an engineering nerds forum out there where people like you can spruik your gobbledegook
I suggest you take your arguement up with Hayman Reece, I'm sure their engineers will have plenty of time to debate Newton's Law with you!

Great post Montie. Severat times I have suggested to Alan that he should approach Hayman Reece to explain to them that, for 50 years, they've been misleading buyers of WDHs. Imagine the money he could make!

But no, he prefers to "confuse the genuine buyer" by continuing to dispute the facts.

Ignorance is Bliss, and Alan is entitled to an opinion, but I do despair that the rubbish that he persists in posting may negatively influence newbies, and general members who simply want to learn about weights, to their detriment.

A WDH DOES NOT change towball weight. Never has. Never will.

-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 11th of February 2024 02:24:22 PM

BasilB · Veteran Member

a WDH changes TBW, as has been demonstrated.

cheers

yobarr · Guru

BasilB wrote:
a WDH changes TBW, as has been demonstrated.

cheers

Yeah, right. You may wish to join forces with Alan to approach Hayman Reece to inform them that after 50 years designing, manufacturing and marketing WDH systems they still don't know what they're talking about.

You could become instant millionaires as a reward for your wisdom.

Or you could just continue enjoying your time in LaLa Land. Cheers.

-- Edited by yobarr on Sunday 11th of February 2024 05:22:32 PM

montie · Guru

BasilB wrote:
a WDH changes TBW, as has been demonstrated.

cheers

Perhaps you too should contact Hayman Reece and point out to their engineers the error of their ways. Better still, perhaps you can measure the ball weight of the hitched van with WDH and post the result. biggrin

In the meantime as an RV dealer I will accept their assertions as per their website that a WDH does what they claim it does. It's not as if A WDH was a new concept, it's been around and used successfully for many years.

BasilB · Veteran Member

"hayman reese engineers" they bleated.

cheers

-- Edited by BasilB on Sunday 11th of February 2024 05:33:29 PM

Plain Truth · Guru

waste of time.JPG