WDH actual correction

[ShelbyM]

Downsized tow vehicle from F150 to new Nissan Frontier, trailer is Casita 17 with 430# tongue weight. More rear sag/ front rise than I'd like with the new truck. On another forum someone with a similar rig reported correction of the rear sag of only about 1/2" with the Andersen hitch. I was surprised/ disappointed to read this. He didn't measure the front which is my primary concern. Question is, what numbers are folks seeing with the Andersen or other WDH? Either height measurements or axle weights would be helpful. FWIW, it tows pretty well even though it sits wacky. Thanks!

[Jon MB]

I have the WDH on our Audi Q5 / Casi 17 set so that the front rise difference, unhitched vs hitched with WDH, is not able to be measured (tape measure from ground to a point on the wheel arch.
I'm more concerned about lightening on the front than I am about a bit of droopy-drawer in the back so that's my own 'appropriate' amount of weight to shift forward via the WDH.


It took several hours of adjustment (number of chain links to use and lever angle from horizontal) to get my desired result the first time, but once that has been determined it is set.

[ShelbyM]

Thanks! Good to hear that it corrected the front rise. Do you know the actual distance it brought the front back down? Also, which WDH are you using?

[Jon MB]

I don't know, in reality I don't recall, the amount of front lift the WDH negates. I set up and adjusted the hitch a few years ago. Now I just hook-up using that arrangement.
I'm using a system that is stiffer than ideal, at 10,000 lb trailer, 1,000 tongue weight capacity but... it was cheap to purchase from "horror fright".
A 5,000/500 would have been a better choice, but HF didn't have that rating available and other manufacturers' with that range were much more costly to purchase.

The lift bars of my 10k/1k are adjusted to only lift as much as our trailer and tow truck rig needs, but a 5k/.5k set would have a less abrupt effective loading change with pavement rise and fall, such as entering an uphill driveway with the car on the upslope and the trailer still on the travel lane.

[ShelbyM]

Thanks! I've noticed that the higher weight setups are sometimes better priced than the 500# ones.

[floyd]

Here is a very effective solution.
Half leaf helper springs...
They do improve handling and towing, but somewhat adversely affect ride quality.



https://www.walmart.com/ip/JEGS-6088...5&gclsrc=3p.ds

[ShelbyM]

Thanks!

[redbarron55]

You could try using just a single bar with a hitch that is too heavy.
I don't think you should use a WDH that is rated too high as it will be stiffer than is desirable.
I use a Reese Mini-350 with my Scamp 16 and it is well matched to both the Town and Country and Touareg. I usually do not use it with the T&C because we rarely use it except for short trips and it would have to be readjusted from the settings we use with the Touareg.
The WDH does give a more comfortable ride and steadier pull that without.

[ShelbyM]

Actually, the combo tows pretty well with just the friction anti-sway bar, same as I used with the F150. I'm just having trouble figuring what I need to drop the front back down an inch. I don't want the cost, complexity and weight of a WDH if it will only recover some fraction of what I need.

[Jon MB]

ShelbyM, there are several different responses to your initial post. Which of those suggestions you will want to evaluate will depend on your true desires.


If the issue is appearance, "...even though it sits wacky." then a simple add-on helper spring kit will bring the back up to height. That will do nothing about reducing the front lift "...need to drop the front back down an inch" and will leave you with the increased weight on the rear axle and wheels, and reduced weight on the front, as you presently have. Leaving the helper springs installed when not trailering will affect ride quality.

Using a dual bar WDH as a single bar only as a measure to reduce the max capacity of the WDH to be closer to the need is definitely not my recommendation. The dual bar systems need to be symmetric from the center line of the trailer or else one side of the trailer will be lifted and impart an amount of tip-over to it, and an opposing twist effort on the tow car initiating a tip-over force in the other direction.
Setting up a 10k/1k max dual bar WDH to provide 200 lb. of lift per bar is much safer than setting up just one bar of that dual bar system at 400 lb. lift. Unless you want the suspension 'stagger' that's desired for 'turn left' NASCAR oval track racing.

Do you want the convenience of a sway control built-in so you have just one combined WDH and sway regulator, or can you manage a separate sway system that can be adjusted independently of the WDH? You already have the friction sway control that would not be used with sliding bar, nor with Anderson horizontal "chain-drive", types of WDH. The vertical chain WDH are compatible with your existing sway control.

[ShelbyM]

Yes, I don't have a WDH yet, so if I get one it will be the appropriate spec. My understanding is that if the front of the truck rises when hitched this indicates weight has been removed from the front axle. Maybe I'm wrong about this? I'm hesitant to use HD springs in the rear, the little truck already rides more stiffly than the F150. I'm not opposed to getting a WDH but I'd like to know it would make a meaningful difference. If it's only going to drop the front a quarter inch it wouldn't be worth the bother. Again, I could be completely wrong about how this all works or maybe I'm overthinking.

[floyd]

My present Ranger(2019) requires no WDH or aftermarket half leafs to tow up to full tow/tongue rating yet it still provides a comfortable ride.
All of my previous Rangers were sprung a little soft in the rear.
These trucks were all equipped immediately with performance shocks and aftermarket helper springs (half leafs).
The result was greatly improved handling and towing.


These trucks, very much like the Frontier, were pretty much conventional old school in suspension design which means ride must be sacrificed to some degree to achieve these improvements.
While these trucks are not sports cars, they are not luxury cars either, so reasonable expectations are in order.


I personally would not consider a WDH for this application...
At least not until I spent the $39 to experience the effectiveness of these half leafs.


Friction Antisway, yes, WDH... NAH!

[ShelbyM]

Floyd- The helper springs are definitely interesting. Do they help the entire range of spring movement or just after the factory springs have been compressed a bit? It's the first two and a half inches rear sag and resulting one inch rise in the front that concerns me. I'm pretty motivated to avoid the WDH.

[floyd]

Originally Posted by ShelbyM

Floyd- The helper springs are definitely interesting. Do they help the entire range of spring movement or just after the factory springs have been compressed a bit? It's the first two and a half inches rear sag and resulting one inch rise in the front that concerns me. I'm pretty motivated to avoid the WDH.

They are not overload springs.
They work as an integral part of the factory spring.
Also they are adjustable in capacity by moving them closer or further from the spring perch.

They go on in just a few minutes without modification to the stock springs and come with very simple instructions.
They work well with any conventional rear leaf springs on a regular live axle, but only on light duty vehicles which have springs which are within the width requirements (narrow enough)


I have used them for about 5 decades on various vehicles without any ill effects often for multiple hundreds of thousands of miles.
They were on the truck pictured below for 18 years and a couple hundred thousand miles as shown. (truck recently sold)


Everybody has their own feelings about such things but these things are cheap, adjustable, easy to install and easy to remove.


One last comment ...
I have not used them on the one piece plastic leafs, (such as Chevy Astrovans) and so, even though they may work, I can't recommend them for such an application.

[ShelbyM]

Thanks again!

[Jon MB]

Yet another option to maintain the current ride, handling, and stance when not towing, yet allow adjusting the rear-only height when towing.
https://www.summitracing.com/search/part-type/shocks-and-struts/make/nissan/model/frontier/product-line/gabriel-hijackers-air-shocks

Again, this does not address"..the front which is my primary concern." Only redistributing the tongue weight by a weight distributing hitch will accomplish that.

[redbarron55]

Helper springs or air bags will level out the vehicle, but will not balance the weight on the front and back tires. The loss of weight on the front will stay there and the extra will stay on the rear.
The use of a single spring will make almost no difference in the loading on the trailer tires side to side.
The distance from the centerline is just not enough to make a significant difference.
Lets say that we are looking at 450 lbs and the bar on the trailer frame is a foot off the centerline. The bar might be 2 feet ling so the ft lb loading offcenter would be 225 lbs.
If the distance from there to the wheel is 8 feet then the ratio would be 1:4 or adding maybe 60 lbs loading to the tire. Your trailer is most likely more out of balance side to side than that every time you load up.
I don't believe you will never be able to tell the difference in one or two bars (not counting the stiffness of course).
Here is a link to a hitch with a single bar, but it does have a bend in it and the attachment is to a bar across the frame to put it in the center. Note that there is really very little distance to the side from the middle.
https://www.fiberglassrv.com/forums/...tch-28131.html

[floyd]

Originally Posted by redbarron55

Helper springs or air bags will level out the vehicle, but will not balance the weight on the front and back tires. The loss of weight on the front will stay there and the extra will stay on the rear.
The use of a single spring will make almost no difference in the loading on the trailer tires side to side.
The distance from the centerline is just not enough to make a significant difference.
Lets say that we are looking at 450 lbs and the bar on the trailer frame is a foot off the centerline. The bar might be 2 feet ling so the ft lb loading offcenter would be 225 lbs.
If the distance from there to the wheel is 8 feet then the ratio would be 1:4 or adding maybe 60 lbs loading to the tire. Your trailer is most likely more out of balance side to side than that every time you load up.
I don't believe you will never be able to tell the difference in one or two bars (not counting the stiffness of course).
Here is a link to a hitch with a single bar, but it does have a bend in it and the attachment is to a bar across the frame to put it in the center. Note that there is really very little distance to the side from the middle.
https://www.fiberglassrv.com/forums/...tch-28131.html

We disagree, increasing the payload, travel, and ride height of the rear axle will indeed prevent the loss of weight on the front axle and stabilize the handling. it will put the additional load on the rear axle while mitigating any lift at the front.
Of course chassis dynamics are not all that simple... consider the use of chassis sway bars, most people get that all wrong at first as well.


A WDH will indeed shift some of the actual load to the front axle and to the trailer axle as well.
Depending on application, this is not always necessary or even desirable. As in the application described above.
Of course the payload must be within the load capacity of the tires and the axle itself. Certainly no problem in this case.


Then with WDH there is the question of added stress on the trailer frame and the additional load on the tires and axle of the trailer.

The real difference here is whether you should shift the weight away from the rear axle and onto the others or increase the payload of the rear axle instead.
This decision hinges properly on the specific combination considered.

[RBRV]

Roadmaster Active Suspension helped my tundra when I haul my camper with a heavy load in the bed also.

they are tunable for the amount of extra stiffness desired and easy to install.

[Jon MB]

Originally Posted by floyd

We disagree, increasing the payload, travel, and ride height of the rear axle will indeed prevent the loss of weight on the front axle and stabilize the handling.

Pressing down with a force of X tongue weight at a distance Y behind that rear axle will lever up the front by a factor of the distance ratio.
If the tongue is one unit of distance behind the rear axle, and the front axle is two units ahead of the rear axle, then the down force of X behind the axle will result in a reduction of weight on the front axle of 1/2X. That weight taken off the front as absorbed by the rear as yet another added load.

Follow along.
A 300 lb tongue weight at 1 distance behind the rear axle will remove 150 lb off a front axle 2 distance units forward. That 150 lb load no longer on the front is put where? On the rear.
So a 300 lb tongue weight on this tow car adds 450 lb to the rear and also takes 150 lb off the front.
The sum difference isn't a single consideration of the rear only added load, but a combination of addition to the rear while also taking away from the front. This exacerbates the handling changes from the tow car's more familiar unloaded, no-trailer, characteristics to one that is less familiar.


Completely replacing the rear springs with solid 'I' beams with no deflection would maintain the ride height regardless of the payload but will do zero to the the added load on the rear, nor change the loading reduction lift at the front.