Interesting take on vehicle modification

[rruff]

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.

Can you show one instance?

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

Really? I thought it was driving beyond safe parameters. Going too fast, not allowing enough distance, poor maintenance, lack of experience/talent, etc.

Fact is I can pretty easily mod my 1/2 ton to haul 2x its sticker payload, and it will handle and brake better than a stock 1 ton with that load. And they'll both be far better than all the big trucks and RVs on the road. GVWR is not a performance or safety standard of any kind. The manufacturers make up this number to limit their liability and warranty, and that's it.

 

[rruff]

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

Taxes. Yes... we don't pay taxes according to how much weight we are hauling.

 

[jadmt]

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

yes they should. But I am sure people who want other people in their biz would disagree....I was LEO for 30 years and am rule bound and play by the rules, but we need less government intrusion not more..

 

[pith helmet]

From a friend of mine who is a DOT officer: We can stop any vehicle and can stop an overloaded non-commercial vehicle and weigh it on the side of the road against GVWR and ticket it, but we almost never do.

 

[Alloy]

If they are not winter snowflake tires insurance claims are often refused.


Regarding being overweight.... same thing, GVWR are in EVERY Vehicle Manual.

Negligence, poor judgement, is not the same as driving a vehicle which is flagrantly breaking the law and yes, any overweight vehicle stands the chance of not just having an insurance claim refused but in the case of injury or death being liable for compensation. Driving an overweight vehicle is no accident. Injury or death claims.... every insurer is looking for a way out.

Winter tires with the (snow flake) are not mandatory in BC.

"In B.C., appropriate winter tires are defined as those with either the M+S (mud and snow) or mountain/snowflake symbol, in good condition with a minimum tread depth of 3.5 millimetres."

Claims will NOT be denied.

If and I stress IF you are at fault the tires and/or being overweight might affect the settlement but you will still have coverage. No different than a person who doesn't wear a seat belt.

 

[Alloy]

From a friend of mine who is a DOT officer: We can stop any vehicle and can stop an overloaded non-commercial vehicle and weigh it on the side of the road against GVWR and ticket it, but we almost never do.

I use to get stressed about overloaded vehicles but the number of overloaded non-commercial vehicles vs. the number of accidents doesn't warrant the resources. There would be a public outcry if people were getting $1,000 tickets while heading off on their holidays.

 

[WeLikeCamping]

I have the same exact conversations with customers when selling campers. I use Australia as my go-to example of a country who takes payload, GVWR and vehicle modification very seriously. I don't really care about the regulation arguments, either way, the author's main points still stand.

I literally just told customers, last week, that we would not sell them a flatbed/camper because they were going to be triple their Tacoma's payload. We were looking at losing a $70K sale because they did not want to consider a different truck and the husband refused to listen. But hey, what do I know, I just do this for a living. Inevitably, they came around and bought a 3/4 ton with triple the Tacoma's payload. The more knowledge I can bestow upon our customers, the better their experience will be in the long run.

I wish there were more salespeople like you. Unfortunately, my experience is that they will tell you anything that makes you want to buy something. Including a trailer/camper that exceeds your capacity. My first foray into the RV world was a slide-in camper. I was pressured into buying it by the fam- who were tired of camping in tents. I didn't know anything about GVWR and proper loading and whatnot, I just wanted to get the fam off my back. I figured I had a RAM 2500, and "it should be fine". The salesperson at the camper sales assured me that by adding airbags and of course a proper tie-down system, I would be fine. Well, it wasn't fine. Suddenly the truck was driving like an underpowered barge with a giant sail on it. I had two blowouts, one which caused enough damage that I stopped using the camper, eventually selling it and the truck. Having said all that, I did have quite a few years of great experiences. After the second blowout though, I got a bigger truck and started trying to understand weight limits, towing capacity, tires, suspension and whatnot. I now pull a camper that is well within the capacity of my tow vehicle, and I still have experienced issues - especially on windy days.

I've been shopping for a fifth-wheel for a couple of years now (it takes the wife a bit to make up her mind), and I ALWAYS look at the capacity plate first. No sense in touring a camper I cannot pull safely. I see people all the time that are pulling trailers that have to be at or above the ratings for their tow vehicle, and I avoid even being near them on the road, as IMHO, when you are pushing the limits, it's only a matter of time before the excrement hits the fan - and more likely than not it's gonna be bad when you are dealing with these kinds of physics problems.

Yes, you can push the limits, but is your life or that of a loved one worth it?

 

[utherjorge]

Can you show one instance?

I gave an example within the quote that you edited out showing the level of inspection I have personally seen that would have absolutely addressed this.

Really? I thought it was driving beyond safe parameters. Going too fast, not allowing enough distance, poor maintenance, lack of experience/talent, etc.

It's exactly the same thing whether you can comprehend it or like it.

Fact is I can pretty easily mod my 1/2 ton to haul 2x its sticker payload, and it will handle and brake better than a stock 1 ton with that load. And they'll both be far better than all the big trucks and RVs on the road. GVWR is not a performance or safety standard of any kind. The manufacturers make up this number to limit their liability and warranty, and that's it.

There is not one shred of truth in anything in what you said. No matter how much you want to try to make GVWR a conspiracy, it's not.

But of course, you need some information. Let's dial up the wayback machine to the time of the Ford Explorer/Exploder-Firestone saga. The tires, tying to the GVWR, absolutely contributed to the problems. I hope you'll take some time to read, you know, proof.

Explorer Tires Had to Carry A Heavy Load (Published 2000)

Firestone tires used on Ford Motor Co's Explorer have fairly low weight-carrying capacity for a vehicle that size, particularly at low inflation pressure recommended by Ford; officials at Bridgestone/Firestone have been saying since recall that 15-inch tires are losing their treads at high...

www.nytimes.com

Ford targets overloading

The Ford Motor Co. will warn buyers of its sport-utility vehicles and pickup trucks about limits on how much weight they can carry safely in their vehicles.

www.deseret.com

Hundreds of articles on this entire saga alone.

 

[RoyJ]

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.

Cooling systems have to be designed for max combined weight (max towing). A 5.7 can tow 10k lbs+

Even if you put 6000 lbs in the bed of a Ram 2500, the cooling system would barely feel it.

 

[dstefan]

I keep thinking this discussion is missing some differences between Oz and the US. Australia is about 80% the geographic size of the US, a huge proportion of which is pretty remote and needs "Utes" and offroad vehicles to access. the US has nearly 13 times the population of Australia, and while we have plenty of open space, it doesn't seem as large a proportion of the land mass nor as necessary to have a 4x4 (yes, I live in the West and have been all over offroad and on). Cant find any info on-line about the relative proportion of off-road vehicles in each country, but Australia had 20 million registered vehicles in 2021 (Worlddata website), and the US had 275 million (Statistica). Seems like a good bet that Australia has a higher proportion of off-road vehicles, including commercial ones to serve the hard to reach outlying areas, despite the recent boom in overlanding here.

Seems likely the Aussie insurance companies and government in some combination have had to pay more attention to off-road use and vehicle safety simply by virtue of frequency of use. In the US, most insurers don't know diddly about your 4x4, except it costs more to repair, for which they're happy to charge us. From recent experience in trying to insure my completely within the GVWR camper they never ask about weight, including when I was investigating a flatbed FWC on a 2012 Powerwagon -- almost certainly over the payload, though well set up.

You have to wonder how the burgeoning off-road market, which seems to be breaking out of a niche hobby into much more mainstream use here in the US, and the rapid adoption of heavier mods, campers, etc will affect US regulations and insurance strategy. Insurers are data and lawyer driven. I know because I used to do consulting with a lot of big insurance companies. We had lawyers in every meeting practically. I have to wonder if an increase in claims overtime and especially a few high profile mow-downs and mangling of unsuspecting pedestrians, or serious off-road head-ons of heavily modded and armored rigs nailing a compact SUV with the attendant high lifetime care costs of a a few quadriplegics will get their attention and eventually their lobbying dollars.

Typically most things fly under the radar in this country until a some level of excess is reached prompting an attempt to control things. Australia might be an early adopter? Not saying anything should or could change here, but who knows where this goes. Something has really changed offroad in the past 5 years or so it seems to me.

Certainly, the commercialization of overlanding is contributing to the bloated nature of a lot of rigs. I've been a serious amateur photographer for as long as I've been offroad. The photo-world has a term for it; GAS -- Gear Acquistion Syndrome. Symptoms are too many lenses, cameras, and gizmos that aren't really necessary, a camera bag or several that are too heavy to lift, and a nearly empty bank account. Sound familar?

 

[RoyJ]

From recent experience in trying to insure my completely within the GVWR camper they never ask about weight, including when I was investigating a flatbed FWC on a 2012 Powerwagon -- almost certainly over the payload, though well set up.

This is a good example - as a result of the commercialized off road industry in Australia, they're given the option to up-rate GVM (GVW) through engineering certification.

If we had such a system, as a license mechanical engineer myself, I'd have no issues up-rating the GVW of a modified Powerwagon to a standard 6.4L 2500 (10k lbs). Same frame, same 11.5 AAM axle, same brakes. Only difference is softer spring and damping rate.

May not be much hassle to up-rate to a 3500 SRW either (11,500 lbs): in addition, I'd have to prove the more concentrated loading of a coil spring (over the 3500's leaf) doesn't cause excessive bending moment on the rear frame section. Tire, spring rate, and damping rate simply has to match or exceed OEM 3500's setup, easy with aftermarket parts.

 

[Umbrarian]

https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-gear/cars-trucks/build-overland-vehicle-like-australian/

But how would Australians build their vehicles if they were NOT subject to so many regulations?

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Thanks a lot. Because of you I'm going to have this stuck in my head all day now.....

Great tune. Written by Bruce Springsteen and "given" to Manfred Mann

 

[ThundahBeagle]

There is one bit of nonsense (so far) in that article, something I've heard multiple people repeat with no data to back it up. Mostly comes from the RV/travel trailer groups that are trying to be scary weight police.



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. I don't claim to know anything about commercial insurance, but that doesn't apply here anyway. Still, if nobody were negligent then probably 95% of accidents wouldn't happen, the other 5% would be due to mechanical failure or something similar.

Run a stop sign? Negligent and insurance pays out.
Crash while speeding? Negligent and insurance pays out.
Rear-end while texting? Negligent and insurance pays out.

Other than that little bit of misinformation, I generally agree with what they are suggesting.

I'm gonna have to politely disagree with you here, Drax. And this is coming from a guy who is a skeptic:
Yes insurance is there to CYA. It's also there to cover you if the other person isnt insured.

Yes, if there is a crash and the other person says your lights blinded them, if the crash is serious enough, the investigators will check your lights. If your lights are beyond a certain lumens, if they are mis-aimed, if they even have a blue hue (color of police lights in this state), more or all of the responsibility for that accident will be shifted onto you. Your insurance goes up and that's for 6 years.

Yes, if your tires stick out beyond the fender flare by more than 2 inches, and kick up a rock into a car windshield, causing that driver to panic and swerve, causing a tractor trailer to jackknife or flip...IF someone an prove that (GoPro maybe), then responsibility shifts to you. Seafood laden tractor trailers can be carrying half a million bucks worth of catch...

In every accident, the other driver's insurance company is the enemy. They are going to try to pin liability on anyone else. By all means, make yourself an easy target, if you like.

Yes, in my state at least, if you have a snowplow on the front of your truck, but you did not add the appropriate liability insurance for it, good luck in court even if someone else crosses the yellow and hits you head on. They caused the accident, but your extra unregulated and uninsured equipment caused more damage than due, or maybe caused an injury or fatality that wouldnt have happened if the plow wasnt there. If it's all registered and insured, at least then you have the right to drive with it and then it may not be a negligence or wrongful death criminal charge on top of the civil suit that is definitely forthcoming.

If that goes for a snowplow (and I KNOW it does) then I have no doubt it could be used against you if you have a steel bumper that's not set up properly and air-bag compliant.

West lives in Montana, as does my nephew. I've visited there -driving the whole way. Some very beautiful but savage land. Few places in the USA compare. Maybe Alaska and Colorado, couple more? I hate over regulation, but seems to me what he is saying here makes a certain amount of sense.

 

[ThundahBeagle]

Well, time to throw my hat into this ring.

For starters I am in Canada. BC to be exact. Land of the over-lifted, 35 to 37 inch tires sticking 2"- 4" outside the fenders on city trucks. This wonderful province has some of the most beautiful back country in the world. It also has a ton of regulations on the books that rarely get enforced. I live on Vancouver Island which has tourism as the third largest sector for the economy which equals tourists all year round but especially during the warmer months.

I have had the pleasure of witnessing and being first on scene for a number of bad accidents as a result because here on the island we have winding roads with off camber tight corners at the bottom of hills, narrow mountain roads, you name it. Overloaded SUVs, people using too small of automobile to tow too big of trailer (overloaded as well) is a common sight out this way. Overloaded 30+ year old vans and SUVs that are not maintained but part of the "van-life"/tourist scene are a common sight - so are these automobiles rolled in ditches with gear spread out a kilometer down the road after said crash. 95% of these crashes are avoidable - but does local law enforcement stop and ticket said people? Almost never - when they do people complain about it and it's impact on the tourism sector. People and yeah mostly the under 35 year old crowd buy an older truck/car to go and live the lifestyle and happily spend money on camera/video gear, cool clothes, cool e-bikes - meanwhile the factory suspension (that hasn't been repaired or updated since 1989) can't take all the weight, the brakes are faded and done and they don't have much actual real world experience driving said rigs. Makes for a beautiful cocktail of ******** going sideways fast.

The city-trucks as stated previously almost never see a backroad. My roomie's boyfriend is a prime example. Brand new F-150 Sport 4x4, sitting on 35" KO2's - it gets used to goto Costco and commute to his job where it parks beside 30 other city-trucks. Hey if he wants to spend $600.00 plus a month on gas to look "cool" to his fellow co-workers that is his choice. But it is damn funny watching him pull a "snow day" with brand new KO2's because the roads are covered in snow and are slippery and every-time I bring up the topic of real winter tires he points out how his KO2's are 3 peak rated. ( sigh )

I have had to replace four windshields in ten years because the guy in front had tires sticking way outside the fenders with no mudflaps or flares. Again, who do I blame?

I have to agree with most of the article. But then the way I build up my rigs has always been inline with Aussies. I personally don't like my wheels sticking out. I try and always keep my weight down. I don't like RTT because I don't want that much weight on my roof. I doubt I will ever own anything bigger than a set of 33" tires (on my SUV/mid-sized). I also have never cared what others think of my rigs. I like the quirkier ones (LOVE my Isuzu Troopers for example). I almost always over-engineer my builds and am happy to pay a professional to do the work I don't have the skills for. As we all know, proper maintenance should also be mod number 1.

I grew up during the 70's watching folks in Land Rovers/Land Cruisers in documentaries go to all these cool places and that has stuck with me my whole life. Thank the Gods we have smartened up since then though. I grew up in a time with tall and narrow ground grabber tires were the norm for the back country. It was an era where "lifted" meant two more inches of ground clearance. So yeah maybe I am now "that old guy", but as the bumper sticker says "remember, you have to drive it back home" has truly become my back-country motto.

Maybe with people starting to use dash-cams we will see people getting ticketed for their tires throwing rocks at the cars behind them. Maybe insurance companies will finally start denying claims because people are overloaded. Maybe we will get to the spot where when search and rescue has to be deployed because dumb people did dumb things they get a bill from SAR (it does happen in a number of places). I figure it will be insurance companies that will start hitting people for being over-lifted and with heavy steel off road bumpers when said trucks are involved in hitting pedestrians.

I am all for freedom of expression and the freedom to build your rig the way you want - until that is, your freedom puts my life/safety at risk.

Lots of folks build up damn cool off-road rigs around here - and they trailer them to the back roads for a reason.

Cheers for now folks.
Scott

In the White Mountains of NH, people are already being billed for SAR if they have shown total neglect in preparation.

In Massachusetts, a lot of these Aussie type regulations are being followed. The plan thus far has been to tighten annual vehicle inspection regulations, but after that, to only ding you harder if theres been a serious accident and you have been found at fault and your vehicle is out of spec. That way, the person who trades an "inspection" set of tires onto the Jeep for the inspection, and then swaps them out for the 37 inch Method wheels with tires sticking out 4 inches... nothing really happens to them UNLESS there is an issue.

I suppose that serves to lessen the "Police State" feel of the regulations, as you are on notice at the time of inspection, but left to your own device on a daily basis. But in for a world of hurt if you cause a problem.