Quote:
Originally Posted by BB_TX
I have no dog in this fight. But how about keeping to the OP’s request. He has said he has no interest in the Andersen.
Andersen vs conventional should be a discussion of its own for those interested. And comparing failure rate of an Andersen to a conventional hitch is ludicrous. The Andersen is relatively new and probably outnumbered by 100 to 1 by conventional hitches. So for one Anderson failure you would have to name 100 conventional failures. One for one means nothing.
|
But keep in mind there are others reading this looking for information. He doesn't get to make statements that are opinions and present them as a fact. Next, failure rates are a direct comparison, no matter how many of each there are. They are represented as a ratio, like "X per 100,000.". That quantifies a comparison of failures. As soon as someone, anyone, shows a higher failure rate for Andersen, I'm getting rid of mine. Until that happens it's entirely anecdotal evidence and opinion and that means statistically worthless. Sort of like "My grandpa smoked a pack a day and lived until he was 103." Meaningless, worthless information. I'm a statistician. I am swayed by comparative data and facts. Unfortunately, other people here trying to get valid information to help in their own search might be swayed by unfounded opinions. I wouldn't even bother trying to change the OP's alread-made-uo mind. That would be wasted effort. I'm trying to help inform the others reading this.