Inventor

Cut and paste the following link into your browser to see first hand just how easy it is to couple and uncouple a Hitch-Ezy 5 tonne coupling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpOCn3s3o7M

I just realised that I have misspelt Mark Allen's surname. Sorry Mark.

Respected motoring journalist Mark Allan reviewed the McHitch in the October 2010 issue of 4WD Overlander magazine. Mark has recently evaluated Hitch-Ezy and his report will be published in the June issue of Caravan + RV. Mark is also reporting on HItch-Ezy in the July issue of 4WD Overlander. I have encouraged Mark to write an article that covers the relative merits of all available hitches and I believe this is a project he was already working on. In response to Neville and Kay I would say it is probably unwise from a safety and insurance standpoint to tow something that exceeds the load limit recommended by the vehicle and/or tow bar manufacturer. However I am not a lawyer and quite clearly a number of people are doing just that in the knowledge/belief that the manufacturer's recommendation will have a safety margin built into it. There are also State regulations to consider like the weight of the van relative to the weight of the vehicle, braking requirements, safety chain weight etc, etc. Some consumers like the added peace of mind that comes from using a product that substantially exceeds the requirements of the job at hand. Hitch-Ezy provides safe towing above the 3,500kg limit for those customers who do have vehicles and tow-bars that are rated to a higher capacity. Hitch-Ezy currently offers one coupling that is rated for towing 5 tonnes behind a 4.5 tonne vehicle. The choice of tow-pillar shank diameter is yours (see discussion above). The sophisticated machining involved in producing Hitch-Ezy's components meant there was minimal cost saving from manufacturing a lighter weight version for lighter vans. We therefore chose to cover all likely van sizes with the one quality product.

Hi Havago I don't think I misinterpreted you. My Last post hopefully indicated that I understood that you had not modifiedthe point where you mounted your McHitch on your level ride receiver away from the existing tow-ball hole in the receiver. When I said "The offset is like that which occurs with McHitch but is not as big" I was referring to the distance between the axis of McHitch's sleeve and the vertical axis in McHitch's universal joint. I'm sorry if that was not clear. Your use of the term "rationalisation" in respect of my pointing out the favorable geometry of our tow-pillar design and how the rules of physics apply to that geometry is not in my view fair comment. The theoretical evaluation of the strength of a 7/8" shank placed in this situation is borne out by independent physical testing in a registered testing laboratory. I also pointed out that if you remained unhappy with all of that then you could order our coupling with a tow-pillar that had a 1 1/4" shank. The cost of machining our two pillar options is identical. We believe the additional strength of our 1 1/4" shank option is redundant but if it makes the customer happier or they already have a tow-bar with a 1 1/4" hole then we have the option that satisfies their need. The relative strength of our 1 1/4" shank tow-pillar versus McHitch's 1 1/4" shank tow pillar has not been formally tested. I do not have the precise dimensions of the diameter of the base of the McHitch pillar available to me however I believe it is substantially less than the 75mm base diameter of our pillar. If this is confirmed then our pillar enjoys more favorable geometry in terms of not generating stress on the shank. McHitch cantilevers the horizontal axis of articulation away from the tow-pillar and this adds a constant stress to the pillar's shank that is not present with our design. I'm sure McHitch uses a high quality steel in its pillar as do we. Our steel is 4140 and the case hardening is restricted to the articulation surfaces. There is absolutely no basis for concluding that our 1 1/4" shank tow-pillar is inferior to McHitch's 1 1/4" offering. Greg I am happy that you are delighted with your McHitch and it obviously satisfies your requirements. There is a multiplicity other couplings with varying price cut off points and various features. All couplings have owners who swear by the superiority of their choice; that's human nature. You have not inilitially appreciated the fundamental difference between our coupling and a Hyland hitch. You are reluctant to accept that prior information I have posted is factually correct or alternatively to point out to me why I am incorrect in my assertions about the safety and performance of our coupling. We are confident that our coupling will establish its reputation as more and more users enjoy its benefits. I do not see you playing a role in that process by being given a coupling gratis. You are most welcome to purchase one of our couplings.

I am pleased to see that some good discussion is occurring. I will try to address the comments raised since my last post. Havago thanks for answering my question about you’re considering relocating the position of the tow-pillar on the weight distribution receiver. We have an adaptor that preserves our coupling's full range of articulation when it is combined with a level ride system (obviously torsion bars removed if undertaking man oeuvres involving extreme articulation). Our adapter alters the tow-pillars location relative to the torsion bar pivot points. The offset is like that which occurs with McHitch but is not as big. I am very pleased to hear that the bigger offset is not causing you any problems. DO35 also offers an adaptor for use with a level ride system and employs has an offset akin to ours. I agree that one wants to concentrate on the positives of their product however it is not possible to say that one's own hitch design is easier to connect without implying that alternative hitches can be difficult to connect and/or disconnect. No I have not owned a McHitch. I have observed a nearby caravan manufacturer having great difficulty connecting a McHitch. I subsequently assisted him to make a connection because I understood the significance of the horizontal axis of the coupling not passing through the axis of the tow-pillar. Rick and Lea own and use the McHitch and indicate that the connection problem is real though intermittent. I have explained the mechanism and undoubtedly if your initial alignment is very good you should not experience any problems connecting a McHitch coupling I remain of the opinion that having the horizontal axis of rotation of the coupling pass through the axis of the tow-pillar is an important design feature that improves the ease of coupling. With our coupling you can back into it and watch it roll on. This favourable design feature is not possible with the McHitch concept where priority is given to the totally sealed articulation within the universal joint. Vehicle components DO35 incorporates our preference for this relationship between the pillar and the horizontal axis of rotation. One post indicates the ease of connecting a DO35 versus a Hyland. The McHitch design has achieved the important goal of keeping the articulation free of dust and water that can form a grinding paste. We believe our o-ring sealing of the articulation around the tow-pillar will avoid the contamination problem. O-rings are not new technology. Time will tell if our belief is upheld by many years of trouble free performance. Our coupling comes with a pillar cover and "plug” that respectively o-ring seal-off the tow-pillar and coupling main sleeve when the coupling is disconnected. The static and dynamic testing of our coupling through Melbourne Testing Services was conducted on a tow-pillar with a 7/8" shank. The stresses on our shank are less than those on the shank of a 50mm tow-ball because a) the bottom flange on our tow-pillar has a 75mm diameter versus the 51mm diameter for an ADR compliant tow-ball and our towing forces are applied at 32mm above the tow bar rather than at the equator of a tow-ball which is at 50mm above the tow bar. In summary broader base with less leverage. We have available a tow-pillar with a 1 1/4" shank if you remain anxious that the compliance testing is inadequate or if you have a tow-bar with an existing 1 1/4" tow-ball hole. Havago says "Inventor when I look at the Hyland hitch and your hitch the only difference is the locking mechanism and the 5 tonne capacity. The barrel and head pivot is exactly the same principle". This summation is incorrect. The head of our tow-pillar only performs two functions: a) to guide the main sleeve onto the pillar and to be the obstruction to disengagement when the three ball bearings are in the locked position below the equator of the head. Out tow-pillar head does not transmit draw-bar weight as occurs with the tow-ball in a Hyland. Fore and aft plus sideways towing forces are born entirely on the pillar's shaft. The internal diameter of the main sleeve lying opposite our head's equator is machined to a diameter greater than the diameter of the head. This step in the internal profile of the main sleeve was incorporated to prove to regulators that we were not manufacturing a non ADR compliant tow-ball. Our tow-pillar is not a high rise tow-ball that puts undue stresses on the shank. The diameter of our tow-pillar and its head is 55mm. This was done deliberately to block inappropriate connection of a 50mm ball coupling to our tow-pillar. The groove on the underside of the head is machined to the profile of the 50mm ball bearings that engage it when an attempt is made to disengage the coupling while the balls are in the locked configuration. The tow pillar is case hardened and chromed ball bearings are used. We have applied a pull out force of 18 tonnes with no damage to the ball bearings or their contacts with the pillar, their retaining galleries or the controlling lid. Consider the difference between the hammering of ball bearings inside wheel bearings versus the vertical upward forces transmitted between a draw-bar and a tow-bar while travelling over rough terrain. We are confident that these high quality components will stand up to the rigors of rough treatment.

Rich and Lea are correct in saying that McHitch can be a mongrel to put on if the initial alignment is less than near perfect. My earlier post attempted to explain the genesis of the difficulty. With McHitch downward directed engaging forces that arise as the jockey wheel is lowered are not acting directly on the sleeve that is trying to engage the SS pillar. There is an intervening articulation at the universal joint and rotation occurs around the universal's horizontal axis in a manner that aggravates alignment and locks you out from engagement. The foregoing phenomena do not arise if the line of horizontal articulation passes through the centre line of the sleeve that engages the towing pillar. Hitch-Ezy has the correct geometry of the horizontal axis of rotation passing through the vertical axis of the sleeve. With Hitch-Ezy you can back the head of the tow-pillar into the open forward-facing mouth of the coupling's sleeve and it will roll on ready for descent and full engagement. Subsequent downward forces from a lowered jockey wheel then act to self align the sleeve to the pillar rather than fighting against achieving this required alignment. Rick and Lea toggling actions are the cause of your difficulties with attaching your McHitch coupling to its pillar if "initial alignment is less than near perfect". I will be fascinated to hear about the nature of the "slight modification" that McHitch intends to implement to fix a serious problem that you say they admit is real. There are car jacks that rely on the principle of toggling to support the weight of a vehicle so do not be surprised at your difficulties once toggling has started to occur. Current best fix is to raise the McHitch, improve your alignment and try again. No doubt a well set up backing camera and/or assistant directing your backing will help. As you know heavy vans, especially dual axle, are very hard to manhandle. Manually moving a van can be near impossible in sand or uneven terrain.

Inventor declares that he is the joint inventor of Hitch-Ezy. The wording of my opening post indicated a desire to have consumer feedback on various couplings and stimulate debate about the merits of all options. The name "Inventor" was chosen to indicate my background and I felt it was self evident that I had invented one of the listed options. Opening such a debate was intended to create greater awareness of our new coupling but it also carried the potential downside of promoting one of the other listed options. Thus far the posts have demonstrated great satisfaction with the relatively recently developed McHitch coupling. Never the less I would encourage members to look at the merits of all options. Awareness and a discussion and of the advantages and disadvantages of all available options is in my opinion a healthy exercise. Knowledge never hurt anyone. As an inventor you want to be aware of practical problems a variety of users may have experienced with any of the various couplings. Havago in a post on April 3 2010 said "If you look at the reciever hitch you will see now with this coupling it hooks on at the pin as all coupling but the pivot is back at the universal so when the WDS bars are fitted the bars are actually fighting the uni because they are pivoting approximately 6 inches forward of the trailer pivot. I am going to move the tow pin forward on the reciever hitch so as to align the uni pivot and the WDS bar pivot." I'm interested in the outcome of that thought. Is it on a thread I have not read? Chris and Lynn wrote on 29/10/10 "On the subject of hitches and WDH, we have experienced the WDH thingies on the drawbar sliding back and forward on tight turns." This problem accentuates the further you move the pivoting point of the "A" frame draw bar from the pivoting points of the torsion bars. Plot the arcs of the ends of the torsion bars against the arcs of the attachments to the chains to the "A" frame and you will see why there are undue stresses in the chains on tight turning that cause the chain anchor points to move with such a configuration. Havago's statement " I have looked at the Hitch Ezy coupling closely, it appears to be a copy whilst modified/upgraded version of the Hyland hitch exactly same principle" is not accurate. Hitch-Ezy utilises a patented locking on method that is totally different from anything previously disclosed. The mechanism is easier to operate and the sleeve neither jams going on or coming off. The only commonality with Hyland is the utilisation of a similarly sized yoke. McHitch also incorporates two yokes but that hardly makes it a copy of a Hyland. HItch-Ezy tows on a tow-pillar not a tow-ball and therefore does not have slop and associated noise or the need for adjusting screws to remove said slop. Does Havago believe that the durability of our o-ring sealed, case hardened, large diameter tow-pillar will be inferior to the durability of the vertical axis of rotation present in a McHitch coupling? If the answer is yes then please include an explanation of how you arrived at that conclusion. Hopefully the moderator will be happy for this thread to continue. I would obviously like the opportunity to explain the merits of my invention and to dispell any misconceptions about how our coupling works.

The following links on the Campertrailer site suggest there is a new kid on the block to compete with McHitch's rating for heavier vans: http://www.campertrailers.org/hitch-ezy.htm http://www.campertrailers.org/couplings.htm Hitch-Ezy seems to be worth serious consideration. I have heard that McHitch does not engage smoothly if initial alignment is a bit off target. Apparently the down forces on the coupling's engaging sleeve, as you lower the jockey wheel, are not directly applied to the sleeve as there is an intervening articulation. As a consequence the engaging sleeve wants to tilt about the universal's horizontal axis if there is any initial resistance from slight misalignment. The tilting in turn impedes continued engagement and the angle of tilt increases with further lowering of the jockey wheel. Also lots of steps involved and parts to be lost or pilfered.

Available off-road couplings I am aware of are: (listed alphabetically) Alko, AT35, Hitch-Ezy, Hitchmaster DO35, Hyland, McHitch, Orac, OzHitch, Pintle hook, Treg, Trigg and possibly others I have not identified. Inventor welcomes comments on relative merits of these possibilities.