Interesting take on vehicle modification

[billiebob]

yet it indicates M+S or the snowflake...pretty much any AT tire I have ever seen has had M+S on the sidewall. many do not have the snowflake however.

yes, but summer tires, non M&S, tires without the Mountain Peaks theme are "illegal" Agreed pretty much any AT tire gets a pass. You'd be amazed how many cars are in the ditch with summer tires.... hence they are in the ditch lol.

ps, it is M&S OR snowflake.

 

[jadmt]

see this is reason to put you on ignore, what you say is simply not true

really?

 

[billiebob]

GVWR isn't even a law, though... so what you are suggesting doesn't ever happen in the US. It's a number that the manufacturer dreams up to limit *their* liability. It also isn't negligent or unsafe to drive a vehicle that is over GVWR. You can be cited for an unsafe load but that isn't determined by GVWR.

wow... the internet is such an encyclopedia of ignorance

 

[rruff]

wow... the internet is such an encyclopedia of ignorance

You are more than welcome to provide some evidence to support your case.

 

[billiebob]

I think in the US, the insurance company almost always pays out but... then they have to option to recover the money from the insured if there was a violation of the law or gross negligence etc. It's that way to make sure that the 3rd party is taken care of.

yes, third party is always taken care of in both the USA and Canada, third party liability is covered unless the loss is big enough to warrant a legal battle. On the multi million dollar claim involving life threatening disability...... every insurance company is looking for an out..... even for the third party. I have personal experience with this as the insurance company battled in court for years hoping the third party would die. Eventually the judge held the lawyer in jail in contempt. Eventually they presented the cheque in court.

 

[billiebob]

Time to quit this thread, you want to modify a vehicle, read your jurisdictions regukations. You don;t like those regulations, run for office and change them. Anything less is anarchy.

 

[pith helmet]

 

[RoyJ]

I would support GVW enforcement, IF, our GVWRs made sense. Many are marketing driven.

Best example: how does a Ram 2500 with 6.4 Hemi have a higher GVW than the 5.7? Same frame, same axles, same brakes, etc. Engine does not determine GVW (it does determine GCWR). Name a single safety issue carrying the same payload on a 5.7 truck, as a 6.4 truck.

In the commercial world, your GVW is *always* the sum of your legal axle limits. Those limits in turn, are determine by: tire width and load rating, bridge laws, and axle OEM specs. No, not what Peterbilt says, but what Meritor axle corporation says. Those limits are always higher than legal limit (34k lbs for regular tandem), so you simply go by default legal limit.

Treat me like that in the light truck world, and I will follow GVW to the letter.

 

[XJLI]

I would support GVW enforcement, IF, our GVWRs made sense. Many are marketing driven.

Best example: how does a Ram 2500 with 6.4 Hemi have a higher GVW than the 5.7? Same frame, same axles, same brakes, etc. Engine does not determine GVW (it does determine GCWR). Name a single safety issue carrying the same payload on a 5.7 truck, as a 6.4 truck.

In the commercial world, your GVW is *always* the sum of your legal axle limits. Those limits in turn, are determine by: tire width and load rating, bridge laws, and axle OEM specs. No, not what Peterbilt says, but what Meritor axle corporation says. Those limits are always higher than legal limit (34k lbs for regular tandem), so you simply go by default legal limit.

Treat me like that in the light truck world, and I will follow GVW to the letter.

You're not wrong, but the reason IIRC was cooling. That's because the average Ram truck buyer isn't a commercial driver and isn't going to take it easy when fully loaded up a grade because he's loaded, he's going to hammer down to maintain the speed limit. Dodge probably didn't want to deal with blown up 5.7s.

 

[Timathy]

Wow, that's a great one! But, as someone said above, using aftermarket driving lights isn't the best choice. If you want them to work correctly, you'll have to wire them up to the high beam stalk, as said in the article. But, if you do so, the dealership will refuse to rewire them, as you have broken the U.S regulations regarding the lumens limit. The thing that I always liked to change in my car was the horn. I bought a new Toyota Tundra, and I just ordered a horn from https://hornblasters.com. I hope it will fit my car. It sounds like a damn train!

 

[utherjorge]

What "problem" are all these rules designed to solve?

Have there been a rash of on-road accidents caused by overloaded or improperly equipped vehicles? Is this something that the various state highway departments even track?

I don't know where you live, but there are problems where I live all the time with budget brodozers eating it, whether off-road (where admittedly few go) or on road. And since I haven't read all the posts here before this reply I'm typing, the added fun of very few wreckers being able to adequately handle overly-lifted stuff is an added bonus.

I'm thinking the article and this conversation aren't really talking about the same thing.

 

[utherjorge]

100% false. Insurance is literally to CYA when you're negligent. To say that your insurance would be invalidated due to exceeding GVWR is absolutely false, at least when it comes to non-commercial insurance.

This is completely wrong. Whether it's because no one weighs rigs after an accident or whatever, it's completely wrong that you cannot get rung up, and big time, for an overloaded rig. Period. Doesn't mean it's common. It's not low-hanging fruit so it often gets ignored.

My favorite adjacent example was a guy on the zombie squad forum AGES ago who did an exhausting break down of his "Bug out" rig (which is essentially what this site builds, really) and all his cool builds...and within a week or so, it was stolen. The overarching lesson was everything we post is really cute and nice...but it's also evidence of potential libility. It just is.

And a personal anecdote. I was in a horrible car accident in 2003. Lost a daughter. Head on between my car (year or so old Honda Civic sedan) and a guy going too fast in an ice storm (5+ year old Oldsmobile). They absolutely fine-toothed combed both cars in my accident because the other driver claimed I was at fault, which I was not. Other than some corrosion and being super overdue for an oil change, both cars were determined to NOT be the reason for the accident. And this was in 2003, in rural New York, though admittedly said investigation was done by Troopers.

 

[utherjorge]

Dashcams are becoming very important as well, can't count the number of times a dashcam has saved someone's bacon because the driver at fault lied about what happened and without the dashcam footage the damage may be plausible based on the other party's lies.

I kinda disagree with a lot of this all, but this point is pure gold. It's getting to be where the new legal field will be trying to disprove that which you can actually SEE on video, but dashcams are a must.

 

[utherjorge]

GVWR not is part of that though, because it isn't a law, and being over it is not negligent. Being unable to control your vehicle and causing an accident *is* negligent.

which is often caused by being overloaded, so....

 

[Mickey Bitsko]

Why are there commercial weigh stations? Anyone..?
Should the public be exempt?