Maxing out your truck’s payload

[ramblinChet]

Again with the self proclaimed accolades....some of the most educated people I know are the biggest knuckleheads. The smartest guy I knew as a kid, zero college, top notch welder, I used to go down to his shop and look at the Salt Flat cars he'd build from scratch. He did everything, engines, compound transmissions pieced together from scratch, rear end housing, did it all no computers, no formal engineering training.

What you describe is an anomaly - I too have one close friend who dropped out of university yet he has fifty-plus patents all related to very complex miniaturized electro-mechanical devices that operate under high pressure in austere environments. But the remainder of all my amazingly talented friends are graduates with degrees in engineering, mathematics, astrophysics, etc.. The people who discredit formalized education are normally those who have not set aside the time and effort to achieve that goal in life.

And the true benefit of undergraduate education centered around science, technology, engineering, or math, is that it introduces you to others who themselves have not only put in the additional time and energy, but continue to do so. If you have five engineers as your closest friends, you will most likely become the sixth. Conversely, if you are good but hang around five drug-addicts, you most likely will become the sixth.

I digress....hey, if you get airplanes you get factor of safety better than most I am surprised you are pushing back. You think flight mechanics / pilots are pushing MTBO, HP ratings in engines, payload capacities, airframe hours, fuel capacity?

Actually, you are incorrect - aircraft and spacecraft design routinely utilize one of the lowest factors of safety. Remember, additional safety includes unnecessary weight. I completed all of the coursework for an MS in Aeronautics from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, was a Naval Aviator, and also worked at NASA Langley Research Center - I am familiar with aircraft and spacecraft design.

But as you can imagine, this very slim safety margin coupled with a dangerous vehicle results in significantly more engineering, testing, manufacturing, training, maintenance, inspection, etc. costs. For automotive applications, the factor of safety is usually around double when compared to aircraft or spacecraft.

I read Tom Sheppard's book, "Quite for a Tuesday", he looks at expedition driving like flying a plane, never overloaded, fuel reserves, streamlined setup, less is more.

This is a brilliant strategy which I support 100%. Too many folks stumble into this sort of adventure with zero mental effort aside from, "wow, everyone is using that and man, that looks cool!" I don't have any sympathy when it comes to a grown man making yet another poor decision. Setting up an adventure rig is not rocket science but the common results are: over GVWR, limited fuel, and carrying junk that will never be used.

I am sure this guy has add-a-leafs or air bags so he is just fine...



Here is my one-ton AEV Prospector on OEM springs for comparison. Fully loaded I still have 2,000 pounds of payload remaining:

 

[nickw]

I am not smart enough to understand what the racer has to do with this discussion, maybe you are a self proclaimed expert because you used to watch him idk. I don't know who Tom Shepard is either I have made it through all these years without his guidance. I am impressed though that you know who they are.
I weigh my decisions different for a vehicle that runs on land driven by me different than I do a vehicle that flies piloted and owned by someone else and governed by regulations that do not always make a lot of sense. This has worked fine with me for decades.
I bowed out of this thread after bickering with a guy who was cautioning that the OP's frame was going to crack in 2, sadly he deleted his posts, and making fun of the guy who said the OP's tires were going to explode without knowing what tires were on someone elses used truck. Oh and the guy who said his axle would explode without knowing what kind of axle the OP had. Then there was the guy who cautioned about the warranty on a 10 year old truck.
Now the inane level has risen above all of that with all of the nonsense about bigger and heavier duty is better without any reasonable consideration given to price, size, agility, weight, or how the vehicle is going to be used and for how long.

Im don't consider myself an expert but Ive been around enough to see BS when its being spewed and multiplied.

Illustrating the point that you working on airplanes doesn't make you an expert as you seem to think.

You sound like a drama queen to be honest, I don't think people are suggesting "explosions", there is gray area between 'within limits' and 'catastrophic failure', some of us are just pointing out that it's a very dark shade of gray being several thousands pounds over payload capacity.

 

[nickw]

What you describe is an anomaly - I too have one close friend who dropped out of university yet he has fifty-plus patents all related to very complex miniaturized electro-mechanical devices that operate under high pressure in austere environments. But the remainder of all my amazingly talented friends are graduates with degrees in engineering, mathematics, astrophysics, etc.. The people who discredit formalized education are normally those who have not set aside the time and effort to achieve that goal in life.

And the true benefit of undergraduate education centered around science, technology, engineering, or math, is that it introduces you to others who themselves have not only put in the additional time and energy, but continue to do so. If you have five engineers as your closest friends, you will most likely become the sixth. Conversely, if you are good but hang around five drug-addicts, you most likely will become the sixth.



Actually, you are incorrect - aircraft and spacecraft design routinely utilize one of the lowest factors of safety. Remember, additional safety includes unnecessary weight. I completed all of the coursework for an MS in Aeronautics from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, was a Naval Aviator, and also worked at NASA Langley Research Center - I am familiar with aircraft and spacecraft design.

But as you can imagine, this very slim safety margin coupled with a dangerous vehicle results in significantly more engineering, testing, manufacturing, training, maintenance, inspection, etc. costs. For automotive applications, the factor of safety is usually around double when compared to aircraft or spacecraft.



This is a brilliant strategy which I support 100%. Too many folks stumble into this sort of adventure with zero mental effort aside from, "wow, everyone is using that and man, that looks cool!" I don't have any sympathy when it comes to a grown man making yet another poor decision. Setting up an adventure rig is not rocket science but the common results are: over GVWR, limited fuel, and carrying junk that will never be used.

I am sure this guy has add-a-leafs or air bags so he is just fine...

View attachment 795587

Here is my one-ton AEV Prospector on OEM springs for comparison. Fully loaded I still have 2,000 pounds of payload remaining:

View attachment 795588

Fair enough - I was using factors of safety in aviation incorrectly, I was insinuating a very conservative / prescribed process that one does NOT exceed more than a strict engineering sense of 1.5 or the more common 2.0....2.0 is common the general engineering also.

Completely wholeheartedly disagree with the college comment and honestly think it's a big issue that somewhat degrades vocational & trade programs. We see that thought process a lot at work and there is an ever-growing push to try and change it. I am in the construction industry, Construction Engineering degree, and starting in the late 90's there started to be a big shift away from vocational programs in high schools and you can likely see for yourself the drawbacks. It's a cultural issue over the last 30 year, trades are not seen as a noble profession as they once were. I work in the high tech sector for a publicly traded company with many engineers and honestly, they are not the ones I hang out with. I'm off riding dirtbikes, MTBing an talking shop with electricians, plumbers, mechanics.....much more in common and much more interesting conversations. So it really depends how you define success, but going into the trades now with zero college debt and a six figure salary in 5 years pencils out a lot better than the majority of college degrees + debt and will for the foreseeable future.

My dad taught Autobody at the high school and community college level for 30+ years and the level of skill and artistic ability to do it right is second to none.

There is a lot of socio economic factors that lend themselves to college bound kids becoming successful, especially ones that go to prestigious colleges or have the luxury of obtaining advanced degrees.

 

[Todd n Natalie]

CampStewart : I think most of the self proclaimed "Experts" around here over buy and over bolt on because it makes them feel good about compensating for their own lack of skills and self reliance.

didn't say all, there is some great tech on this site, but much of it gets buried just like the original intent of this thread. I am sorry if you are offended by my post and it made you sad.

I drive a stock 1/2 ton so don't even fall into the category you described.
So you didn't offend me at all or make me sad in the slightest. Just making an observation.

 

[rruff]

I was insinuating a very conservative / prescribed process that one does NOT exceed more than a strict engineering sense of 1.5 or the more common 2.0....2.0 is common the general engineering also.

The "factor of safety" depends heavily on how well you understand the loads the part will experience, the variance in part quality, etc.

I'm pretty certain that most of what goes into truck structural design, is determined by warranty replacements and recalls... rather than modelling, analysis, testing, etc. In other words, how often does it break? You scale parts from past experience. We all know that some people are going to stress the poop out of vehicle offroad, while others never will... there is a broad range. If something like an axle is below the level of reliability that the bean counters, lawyers, and marketeers like to see, then it might be redesigned... or more likely slap in a beefier one from the next model up.

For instance that Ram 3500 that broke a frame. It's over payload, CG is too far back, and the guy was driving on trails in Baja... but plenty of people are doing something similar every day. Even if the guy was extra stupid and this is an isolated incident, I bet some guys at Ram are getting chewed out over it, and they are looking into how to make the frame stronger so it doesn't happen again. Using fully boxed frames on this level truck is a fairly new thing, so I wouldn't be surprised if the failure is related to that.

 

[IdaSHO]

No more questions besides the ones I asked and you didn't answer. But I digress, you are a man who has convinced himself of something, don't let me stand in the way of that.

So maybe I'm missing something, or you are completely illiterate...

But I answered the ONLY question you asked.

Yep, just one question in there.

You can say it all you want doesn't make it true.

Prove it - outside of tires, how would you know what those things are "rated" for but more importantly what loads they encounter on a daily basis?

Driving down a flat highway is one thing, encountering real world conditions is different like emergency stops, panic maneuvers, accelerating at max power to get across an intersection, hitting expansion joints on the highway, hitting a pothole, construction zones, etc. etc. etc.

My N=1 - a buddy had a 1T Chev w/Duramax and had it 90% maxed out camper weight and would tow at the same time, close to max, nothing but problems, wheel bearings, wheels coming loose, rear axle issues....he realized that and bought a Ram 5500, no problems since and is way under all capacities.

 

[IdaSHO]

The "factor of safety" depends heavily on how well you understand the loads the part will experience, the variance in part quality, etc.

A rather large part of these ratings is dependent upon usage

Take a typical load E tire for instance. Its ratings are based upon a few things...

Inflation, load, and speed. All are factors that will determine how much heat the tire will generate.
Since this is a tire, I assume 100% duty cycle. As in, the tire will perform essentially forever without failure when operating within said limits (load/PSI/speed)

Decrease inflation with all other things constant. Tire failure
Increase the load with all other things constant. Tire failure
Increase the speed with all other things constant. Tire failure.

Eventually......

But when constants change, the results change.

How about increase the load but reduce speed?
Or the one most here SHOULD be familiar with.... Decrease inflation and reduce speed....
Or even... decrease load and decrease PSI?

Its all related. And can be applied to essentially any part of a machine or machine as a whole.

 

[nickw]

So maybe I'm missing something, or you are completely illiterate...

But I answered the ONLY question you asked.

Yep, just one question in there.

You didn't answer the main question:

".....outside of tires, how would you know what those things are "rated" for but more importantly what loads they encounter on a daily basis?"

Care to give it a shot or you just going to dodge the question?

Throwing around insults speaks volumes to be honest.

 

[nickw]

A rather large part of these ratings is dependent upon usage

Take a typical load E tire for instance. Its ratings are based upon a few things...

Inflation, load, and speed. All are factors that will determine how much heat the tire will generate.
Since this is a tire, I assume 100% duty cycle. As in, the tire will perform essentially forever without failure when operating within said limits (load/PSI/speed)

Decrease inflation with all other things constant. Tire failure
Increase the load with all other things constant. Tire failure
Increase the speed with all other things constant. Tire failure.

Eventually......

But when constants change, the results change.

How about increase the load but reduce speed?
Or the one most here SHOULD be familiar with.... Decrease inflation and reduce speed....
Or even... decrease load and decrease PSI?

Its all related. And can be applied to essentially any part of a machine or machine as a whole.

Tires lasting 'forever'? Bigger loads = lower miles and if you go offroad often you'll get even less.

 

[IdaSHO]

You didn't answer the main question:

".....outside of tires, how would you know what those things are "rated" for but more importantly what loads they encounter on a daily basis?"

Care to give it a shot or you just going to dodge the question?

Already answered. Maybe you forgot. Each and every component/item in that list is the same as those used in trucks with higher GVWR. And even when pushing those GVWRs, you must still factor in some margins.

In the backcountry now. Ill update with specifics when I have a proper signal. 😉

 

[nickw]

Already answered. Maybe you forgot. Each and every component/item in that list is the same as those used in trucks with higher GVWR. And even when pushing those GVWRs, you must still factor in some margins.

In the backcountry now. Ill update with specifics when I have a proper signal. 😉

Cant wait....

 

[IdaSHO]

Cant wait....

Hey, anything we can do to help remedy your ignorance

Here we go for starters.

snip #1
2011 model year
The F250 and F350 regardless of options utilizes the same trans, the select-shift 6-speed, along with the same gearing.

Snip#2
Same year, showing difference GVWRs, with SRW F250 and F350 highlighted.
Next shown shown is front axle rating (Dana Super60) that shows the rating for a 4wd is the same for F250, 350, and 450
Also shown is rear axle rating (Sterling 10.50), but shows a magical upgrade in GVWR between F250 and F350, even though its the same axle.
Finally, front and rear brake rotor sizes, identical between F250 and F350

And do notice the under/over 10k gvwr note

Parts snips...

Front rotors, showing same for F250,350,450, and 550
Front calipers, same for F250/350
Front wheelbearing/hubs, same for F250/350

More Parts snips...

Rear rotors, same for F250,350,450,550
How about an upper ball joint? Same for F250/350/450/550
Front shocks, same for F250/350
Front stub shaft.... Same for F250/350/450/550

 

[ramblinChet]

Hey, anything we can do to help remedy your ignorance

Dude, after reading your post detailing your recent suspension "upgrades" and reviewing your pictures - I wouldn't let you change my air filter. Seriously, your trucks suspension is questionable, at best, and you claim you are a person who can increase GVWR?!?

Interesting lift block in the rear - I can assure you that will not last.



And your rear air bags and mounts - who installed them?

 

[IdaSHO]

Uh, nobody has claimed to increase GVWR. Only take the ratings with a grain of salt, and understand the actual limits.

As for the upgrades, those blocks have already seen 20k miles. 3/16 box tubing with welded struts within them. They are as they went in, and are in no way failing.

The bags are installed as per MFG, and while the hardware is terrible, they have near 50k miles on them without problem.

Thanks for the concerns btw. 😆

 

[IdaSHO]

Interesting lift block in the rear - I can assure you that will not last.

And here it is 20k later.

"I can assure you that it will last"

See, I can do that too. And considering the ages and likely mileage of each of our trucks, Id say my claim holds more water.
Anybody can buy a brand new truck, bolt on a bunch of fancy parts and go on an adventure.