DO35 V1 opinion

[ginga]

Just a heads-up for anyone considering what type of coupling to use on their camper etc.

I have a DO35 V1 which came with my new Crossover in April this year, the same month (?) that V2 of this coupling was released.

On a recent extended trip which included some pretty average roads I somehow managed to ‘lose’ the 2 grease nipples on the side of the DO35.
Additionally, I have know others who have also experienced a build up of dust in the slot under the closed latch cover which wouldn't let the latch open far enough to release the pin. This meant that the latch mechanism had to be dismantle (by removing the hex screws) and cleaned out before it could be released!

I consider these to be a design faults which Hitchmaster have recognized in V2 of this coupling.

I asked them to replace / trade-in my coupling. They only offered a 30% reduction in the price of the V2 which I think is very poor.

The above is so others can form their own opinions on this hitch.

[D4D]

I asked them to replace / trade-in my coupling. They only offered a 30% reduction in the price of the V2 which I think is very poor.

I am in the same position and wasn't offered the 30% discount.

I have also lost the little spanner that comes with the hitch. I asked if I could get a replacement and they said sure $9 +GST +postage. Not a good experience.

[BigJules]

30% is a pretty good discount I reckon. I had a DO35 which performed without issue.

Do you think they should have given you the new model as an exchange? High margin, high turnover consumer electrical products are the only ones I can think of where if you return a faulty one you might get a new model. And every new model should be addressing any real or perceived weakness in the previous model. That doesn't mean the previous model wasn't good. The V2 does look terrific but I'd still be happy with a V1.

[ginga]

I believe that V1 of this coupling has major design faults which were recognised in the V2 upgrade.

And, that my Crossover should have been outfitted with the new model which was released in the month my new Crossover was delivered.

The faults in V1 of the coupling are serious design faults (in my opinion) & V1 of the coupling should have been withdrawn when the new coupling was released - I shouldn't have been able to buy the old superseded coupling.

The fact that they offered a discount implicitly acknowledges that they are in the wrong 100%, not 30% wrong!

But that's just my opinion!

[JCOJ]

If you think that your camper should have come with the V2 then speak to Vista, not Hitchmaster.

I had a V1, and I just occasionally gave it a squirt with water and a spraying with Inox and it served me very well - and believe me when I say it copped a fair bit of dust and mud. Like everything - give it a bit of maintenance and it will last, don't and it won't.

I don't consider your problems design faults, but rather lack of maintenance, and the V2 is what I would call a progression of the V1, not manufactured due to design faults. 

Finally, them offering you 30% on a V2 is a show of goodwill, not admitting design faults.

I have also lost the little spanner that comes with the hitch. I asked if I could get a replacement and they said sure $9 +GST +postage. Not a good experience.

What?? You lost it and you want them to pay for it??

[Isuzumu]

If you think that your camper should have come with the V2 then speak to Vista, not Hitchmaster.

I had a V1, and I just occasionally gave it a squirt with water and a spraying with Inox and it served me very well - and believe me when I say it copped a fair bit of dust and mud. Like everything - give it a bit of maintenance and it will last, don't and it won't.

I don't consider your problems design faults, but rather lack of maintenance, and the V2 is what I would call a progression of the V1, not manufactured due to design faults.

I am with JK I think ours has done around 15K and some rough and dust tracks. As far as the grease nipples go why did you not check they w.ere tight when you greased them 

Finally, them offering you 30% on a V2 is a show of goodwill, not admitting design faults.

[Cruisemaster]

Hi Graeme

We have a principle at VC that one happy customer tells 4 others and one unhappy customer tells 100. This is why we try to exceed the expectations of our Customers and I hope and believe that this works most of the time. In this case we have obviously failed. Well I guess you can’t win them all.

Your comments about stones damaging the grease nipples is not one we have experienced although I agree it could be possible. We have found that more often the grease nipples are damaged when jacknifing the trailer. This is the prime reason for removing them in the new design.

We do not believe that there are any design issues with the DO35 mark 1. Many thousands have been sold and blue chip Companies such as Track Trailer and Bushtracker would not fit them as standard if this weren’t the case. If you do a search on the web or this forum you will find many excellent comments about the product.

This is not to say that any design cannot be improved and we welcome constructive feedback. We work very hard to keep on developing our products. Indeed this happens with motor vehicles each year with their model changes.  However, I have never heard Ford allow anybody to exchange their 2010 model for a 2011 one.

As a Company we won’t be bullied by Customers threatening to take their issues to the forums, we will only do what we feel is right and fair in the circumstances. All I can do is apologise for not exceeding your expectations and as I said before I guess you can’t win them all.

Regards

Chris

[Nomad]

I believe Graeme,

That you are out of line

You have been registered on this forum since 2009 and contributed fack all posts and most of them seem to be about trying to either score a cheap hitch off Cruisemaster or bagging his product........

I reckon your actions are low........

[HEM19X]

I believe that V1 of this coupling has major design faults which were recognised in the V2 upgrade.

And, that my Crossover should have been outfitted with the new model which was released in the month my new Crossover was delivered.

The faults in V1 of the coupling are serious design faults (in my opinion) & V1 of the coupling should have been withdrawn when the new coupling was released - I shouldn't have been able to buy the old superseded coupling.

The fact that they offered a discount implicitly acknowledges that they are in the wrong 100%, not 30% wrong!

But that's just my opinion!

Mate, we have recently had over 9,000 ks over mostly dirt roads [with less than perfect mud flaps] that saw our CT peppered badly, we never had any issues with the DO35 & would think that a build up of dust/dirt in the slot MAY be caused by excessive lubricants.

100% happy with the DO35 so far.

[Kit_e_kat9]

Ginga,

I understand that you are angry and you sound angry with the hitch manufacturer for some reason.   Not trying to take away from what you've said, but I'm having trouble understanding "why".  Simply saying it's a poor design IYHO doesn't mean much unless you are an engineering & design expert.

On a recent extended trip which included some pretty average roads I somehow managed to ‘lose’ the 2 grease nipples on the side of the DO35.

How do "lose" grease nipples?  They don't just fall off ... but hey ... I'm no engineering expert.

Additionally, I have know others who have also experienced a build up of dust in the slot under the closed latch cover which wouldn't let the latch open far enough to release the pin. This meant that the latch mechanism had to be dismantle (by removing the hex screws) and cleaned out before it could be released!

This is part of any maintenance.  Keep things clean for optimal performance.  We often use water and a soft brush to remove any build up (which is mostly cow manure and road grit for us of late) if we feel it's not performing.

I asked them to replace / trade-in my coupling. They only offered a 30% reduction in the price of the V2.

I completely agree with others that this 30% discount is a great effort by CruiseMaster (I'd grab the deal and run if it were me) and I wanted the newer version.  I'd never have thought to ask the for a "trade in" price.
 
I have V1.0 and we've had no problems at all.  Like JKohn, I maintain my hitch to keep it in tip top condition (it's attached to my oh so precious CT) and it really isn't too hard to look after.  IMHO, CruiseMaster are a friendly and professional bunch who honestly care about their fantastic product.  I've asked a few questions of them and never once had reason to complain.  The V1.0 DO35 I chose when placing my CT order (it was an option for us) is exactly what I wanted and has performed over and above my expectations. 

We are very happy with ours.   

Kit_e

[TOPNDR]

Well I'm on my 2nd V1 DO35.  I too lost the grease nipples but that was because when jacknifing to park, they would foul on my StoneStomper bar. This was not the fault of the hitch.

My first DO35 failed in an accident that involved quite severe lateral forces, and resulted in the camper departing from the vehicle tow hitch and stretching the safety chains.  I sent pictures and an explanation to Vehicle Components, who phoned me to further discuss the failure, as well as seeking permission to retrieve the failed hitch.

This allowed them to further develop the DO, and I suspect incorporate some of that learning into Ver 2.  I was impressed by Vehice Components approach and openness such that I quite happily have another Ver 1 on the camper now.

[Captain]

I too have a DO35 V1 coupling and I believe it has designs issues! While the V2 has recitified these issues, where does that leave us existing V1 customers ?

Below is a picture of a failed DO35 V1 coupling on a Quantum. I had email communication with Chris Goddard (MD of VC) on the 3/3/2011 after a previous post here on MySwag that showed the same pic below. At that time, VC were waiting for the coupling to be returned to the factory, but assured me that this was a rare failure. Well not long afterwards, another Quantum had a failed coupling when shunted from behind (pic 3). At this time, approx 200 Quantums have been made and now there have been 2 failures. Both these failures were the result of the "U" section opening up after considerabe force was applied.

1st Failed DO35 V1 (vehicle and Quantum hit rock on side of road with sufficent force to break rear 200 series rim, bend the axle and cause this coupling failure when van wheel hit rock - suspension arm of van replaced)




2nd failed DO35 V1 (coupling was similair to pic 1, but this pic shows cause of failure - no significant damage to this ~1 week old Quantum except a chassis twist of 6mm on the high tensile chassis so written off by Insurance company)


On the V1, the only thing retaining the block in the U is the inherent strength of the U. On the V2 version, not only does the U strength retain the block, but a threaded section in the pins within the U join to the block, thus overcoming the original issue.

A secondary issue is that the coupling can rotate 180 and thus be connected upside down. This results in a severe reduction in articulation and the typical result is a bent yoke bolt when the U contacts the tow hitch while cornering. While the coupling does have a sticker labled "TOP" on it, once rotated the sticker cannot be seen and there is no way other measure to prevent its incorrect hitching. Again, this has been overcome in V2.

There are several other improvements in V2, but there is a fine line between what are design improvements and what are design faults present in V1. The problems mentioned by the OP are not necessarily design issues that affect the strength/safety IMHO that could result in a hitch failure, but are areas of potential improvement, which have actually been addressed in V2.

I had several email discussions with Paul White (Sales Manager VC) and Chris Goddard around the 4/11/2012 regarding the upside down issue and ultimately their final response was a ~30% discount on a V2 plus the comment "...In the meantime we are quite happy that the coupling exceeds all legal strength standards..." (I had sent the above photos in 2011 emails along with several more in 2012 emails).

Now I was in a quandary whether to post my comments, but ultimately they are 100% factual and simply present the facts from my perspective and in no way are meant to denigrate VC, simply a portrayal of events and it is up to the reader to make their own mind up, if indeed that is even required! Apart from my previous MySwag post back in March 2011, the communications between VC and myself have not been "in the public eye". However, their comment that they  "...try and exceed the expectations of customers...", well this is another customer side of a story to balance the manufacturer response.

Yes, I believe the V1 coupling does meet all legal strength requirements as VC state, but given two DO35 V1's failed on two Quantums (out of ~200 made), is there sufficent reserve strength for unusual events  I am unaware of any other failures on other brands of vans as I do not have access to this information. I have a Quantum and have access to the Owners Forum where these issues were discussed and is why I am aware of these two hitch failures, plus the "upside down" issue I had with my DO35. Given 2 from 200 failed (1%) this is an extrodinary co-incidence for a hitch on a top end van rated at 2.2T with a 3.5T rated hitch!

I understand that the cost to recall/replace V1 hitches would be astronomical, especially since they meet legal requirements and there is no "need" to. However, the fact that the V2 hitch seems to address the issues previously communicated to VC  in March 2011, it seems they have acknowledged and rectified the issues present. Now given there is a significantly improved version available based on issues with V1, is this simply progress or does it warrant a replacement? Is a ~30% discount fair (likely close to wholesale price) or should a bigger discount be given? (I had a 10 year old Dyson vacuum cleaner replaced at 75% discount due to design faults of original - perhaps a benchmark of good customer service?)

My concern, as stated back in March 2011 to VC, is "...I have a ~$80K investment hanging off the back of it and I need the confidence it can handle my setup travelling at ~80km/hr on corrugated gravel roads and easily survive a hidden pothole or washout..." I still have this question today.

But... I also really like the other design features of this hitch, have used other brands before and do not want to go to another brand of hitch as, apart from the stated issues, the hitch is well made and fantastic to use. The V2 model simply fixes the V1 issues and makes it arguably the best hitch on the market. Anyway, at least MySwag members have another customer point of view.

Cheers

Captain
(Mark Peacock)
 
Note - MODS, if this is felt to be unfair against VC, then delete this post.

[ginga]

To put all this in perspective

I posted what I still consider to be legitimate comments about my experiences with a new coupling that was superseded the same month that I bought mine!

Readers of those comments are capable of forming their own opinions, the reason I posted what I did.

Some of the 'informed' replies have been elucidating!

[LJs GU]

1st Failed DO35 V1 (vehicle and Quantum hit rock on side of road with sufficent force to break rear 200 series rim, bend the axle and cause this coupling failure when van wheel hit rock - suspension arm of van replaced)

Wow, that's some serious 'forces' involved in those failures.

But can they be expected to design and manufacture their product to overcome these extreme circumstances.

I would have thought they design their products to handle the extremes of towing through the rough stuff and having a product that's easy to hitch and un-hitch, not to handle collisions and hitting rocks at speed.

Don't get me wrong, I would want my coupling (and CT suspension, chassis etc) to come off un-harmed but there's expectations and then there's reality in my opinion.

LJ

[JCOJ]

Wow, that's some serious 'forces' involved in those failures.

But can they be expected to design and manufacture their product to overcome these extreme circumstances.

I would have thought they design their products to handle the extremes of towing through the rough stuff and having a product that's easy to hitch and un-hitch, not to handle collisions and hitting rocks at speed.

Don't get me wrong, I would want my coupling (and CT suspension, chassis etc) to come off un-harmed but there's expectations and then there's reality in my opinion.

LJ

X2. 

If you say the hitch 'FAILED' due to the forces imposed on it in an accident, then I could say your competence as driver is a 'FAIL' for being involved in an accident in the first place, regardless of who is at fault.  A fair comparison - no, but I can't possibly see how you could say a hitch 'failed' under such circumstances.

Oh wait - the 200 Series 'FAILED' too because the rim busted, and both the Quantums 'FAILED' because the axle bent on one, and chassis twisted on the second one - did you contact Toyota and AORC and let them know of their failures???

Furthermore, how can you say there was 'no significant damage' to the Quantum when the insurance company wrote it off??

[Mallory Black]

I've got a DO35 V1 and let me say first up that my CT is a 750kg max GVM  so I really doubt I would have a problem with it under normal use.
My factory Toyota Prado 90 bar gives plenty of clearance for the grease nipples.

My question is - what other hitches including ball hitches have also failed under similar circumstances. Is there some accident date we can access?

If we study the design of a Hayman Reece style hitch on a 4WD they are a really solid piece of work and as such there is absolutely no give or "Flex" in the bar or tongue to absorb serious & sudden loadings like we've seen in these accidents. So the obvious weak point has to be the articulated part of a hitch.

Back in the day, if your CT was 1 tonne plus it was regarded as overkill, and most componentry was more than up to the job.
Nowadays there's off road CT's touching 2 tonnes, we have more of these rigs on the road in the last few years then ever before so we can guarantee ourselves that we will also see more incidents involving heavier weight CT's

I just want to see some perspective in here. I can acknowledge the concerns from members but lets not forget that VC is a supporter of MySwag and a local business that is successfully taking their product round the world.

[08 Ranger]

it seems a bit way ward to complain about the hitch given the circumstances.
When you look at the carnage perhaps the hitch has done a terrific job by
holding on long enough not to kill or maim some-one.
Under these conditions I would think the hitch has performed up to
and possibly beyond ordinary circumstances.(and Yes I do have one)
Norm

[Captain]

Just to add some detail about the two accidents;

The first one occured at around ~40 km/hr when a rock on the side of the road was driven over. Yes, it was a sizeable rock that significantly damaged the 200 rear wheel/axle but the only real damage to the van was a bent stub axle, speed had been washed off by the time the van wheel hit the rock. But this was sufficient force to pop open the coupling.

The second accident involved a stationary van at road works being hit from behind by a ute. While the van was written off due to the 6mm chassis twist (not considered straightenable in a high tensile chassis), the van was otherwise undamaged. The tow vehicle had no damage and apparently the tug/van would have been able to drive away from the accident if not for the broken coupling - the chassis twist was not apparent to the naked eye.

These are simply the facts of both accidents. Whether the coupling acted as a "fuse" and prevented further damage is one scenario. The fact is they meet the legally required standards. Another fact is that the new version has had its strength increased, along with other improvements.

As I said before, the overall DO35 design makes for one of the best types of hitches around IMHO, the updated design still uses the same basic principles, just improved after longterm use. This is simply good manufacturing continuous quality improvement.

But does the V2 addresses issues beyond incremental improvements? It rectifies the upside down connection issue (results in damage to yoke) and has increased its strength (yet it met the the legal standard before!). These improvements directly affect the reliability/performance capability and arguably go behind simple operability improvments. There is no definitive answer to this question, on can argue a logical case for either side.

However, as VC have stated before, they seek to exceed the expectation of customers and these incidents unfortunately cast doubt on the V1 hitch reputation. So, what can be done for a win-win scenario for both existing customers and VC?

My previous experience when a 10 year old Dyson vacuum cleaner was replaced at a 75% discount for a new one due to design faults in the original (DC23 Motor Head for those interested). This longterm support to its exisiting customers has meant that I will only ever buy a Dyson vacuum cleaner again, why would I not when you know the company will stand behind its products no matter what.

Imagine the customer loyalty if VC was to offer existing V1 customers a V2 at 75% discount upon return of their V1 hitch? An enhancement to company reputation that would expand quickly by word of mouth.  While this price is probably at or even below incremental unit production cost, the old V1 units could be refurbished (suitably marked as refurbished and BOTTOM stamped on the coupling!) and on-sold alongside the V2. If VC truly believe the V1 has no inherent safety issues, there should be no problem selling a refurbished V1 alongside of the V2.

Anyway, a potential win-win for all and as I said before, my original post was to present facts around the DO35 V1 hitch from the other side, it was certainly not to denigrate VC but also was not sugar coating the incidents either.

Cheers

Captain

[D4D]

Imagine the customer loyalty if VC was to offer existing V1 customers a V2 at 75% discount upon return of their V1 hitch? An enhancement to company reputation that would expand quickly by word of mouth.  While this price is probably at or even below incremental unit production cost, the old V1 units could be refurbished (suitably marked as refurbished and BOTTOM stamped on the coupling!) and on-sold alongside the V2. If VC truly believe the V1 has no inherent safety issues, there should be no problem selling a refurbished V1 alongside of the V2.

Agreed, it is easier to keep a customer than to find a new one. I guess all the wholesale orders from camper manufacturers keep them busy...

From my experience, they changed the V1 head to have the padlock hole at the same time I bought mine however I received the old version. When I asked about swapping to the new version I was told no. I guess I was not surprised when I recently asked for a replacement spanner and was told that'll be $9 thanks. It probably cost a couple of bucks to make but worth a lot more for brand loyalty.

[TOPNDR]

Just to correct the record, as the driver of the first failure, we were forced off the road into a spoon drain, as we went around a right hand bend. Grazing the embankment, all would have been dandy, except for the boulder embedded in the embankment, that cracked but did not move. 

Contact between the left rear wheel of the Cruiser & boulder shattered the rim, bent the diff housing, and stretched many of the suspension components. The boulder was next struck by the left wheel of the camper, bending the stub axle.

We didn't drive "over" the boulder as such.

As Vehicle Components explained it to me, the lateral force on the hitch at the first impact, flared the U of the hitch one way. Moments later the camper hit the boulder and applied an opposite lateral load, flaring the other side of the U. Thus the trailer parted company with the tug.   :'(

[BigJules]

I don't think there was any real suggestion that you were at fault, rather that the accident caused damage to a bunch of things, not just the DO35 hitch, and from this one can deduce that there was considerable force involved.

[TOPNDR]

I don't think there was any real suggestion that you were at fault, rather that the accident caused damage to a bunch of things, not just the DO35 hitch, and from this one can deduce that there was considerable force involved.

I wasn't taking it as an "at fault" type of issue.  Captain's previous post said, "when a rock on the side of the road was driven over",  and I figured that had a different connotation to what actually happened.

[cheif carlos]

I swear by the DO35 hitch but I think the rest of the camper is built very average!

Must check the setup on the CM independant suspension - works a treat but need to check if it was set up correctly!

[Kit_e_kat9]

How do "lose" grease nipples?  They don't just fall off ... but hey ... I'm no engineering expert.

Pointedly checked this out over the weekend for a sheila's perspective.  They are actually a screw in nipple.  This has now been added to the "maintenance" list for us.

Still happy with ours.   

Kit_e

P.S.  Love to see some statistics on ALL hitches for a comparison now ... with graffic photos (like above) for good measure.  I think 1% is AWESOME when you see carnage like that.

[Finners]

My v1 jammed close with dust, had to hammer it open. Also broke the spanner tool in normal use.

Changed to a McHitch Uniglide. Happy camper now.