Not very relevant to the discussion since you can easily mod an overloaded 1/2 ton truck to handle better than any stock 1 ton with the same load. Being "overloaded" isn't the problem. Thinking that your 1/2 ton will be just fine in stock form is the issue.
Pickups will suck in a slalom test regardless, and will do even worse with a camper in the bed. You have to know the limitations of your vehicle and drive accordingly.
Fully agree with your conclusion there Rruf -- but I think this is kinda my point. Do you trust your neighbour to know the limitations of their vehicle? To
@Todd n Natalie's story of unscrupulous sales people, do we trust sales people to truly sell you the "upgrades' necessary to make a 1/2 ton haul a load? The same sales tactic touting "floating floor" campers probably also tells people that adding aluminum pucks under your springs to get a 2" lift will help you carry more "because there's more room for the springs to bounce" (I've heard that claimed in another thread about payloads).
I think the Moose Test video is relevant - these are vehicles that are allegedly being tested within their designed operating parameters. If a person buys a half ton truck and tosses too much weight in there, they are way worse off than if that same person person in the same situation (with the same gear) buys a 1-ton truck that is made to carry the loads properly. Granted, this "way worse off" can be narrowed with upgrades, but that introduces another problem.
There are tens of thousands of more-or-less identical 1 ton trucks that give us a really good statistical view of how they perform. These are designed by engineers, crash tested, run through countless QA processes, etc. and they meet a certain standard. This isn't just a legal standard but also a liability standard -- automotive recalls are no joke for a car company's bottom line, and they don't like doing them often, and so they have a strong interest in making sure the vehicles they sell are safe when used within design parameters, because that's the main reason for needing to recall -- a vehicle being used "normally" not acting safely. They have been taught this lesson several times, expensively -- tire recall, fuel tank placement, frame corrosion, airbags, floor mats, roll overs ($250 mill on that Mercedes A-Class from the vid, for example) etc.. These are all examples of where the engineers have gotten it wrong and collectively it's caused untold number of deaths and who knows how much money.
And these are the people who know what they're doing. They still mess it up and produce unsafe vehicles occasionally even with countless systems and processes specifically intended to catch their errors.
A hobbyist's upgraded 1/2 ton will never have the same level of rigour so there will always be an increased element of risk. I'm not saying a capable person can't uprate a trucks' ability to carry stuff safely - as I said earlier, they do it all the time in Australia for instance, and at the end of the day we're talking about human-engineered machines which means humans can re-engineer them to be a daft punk song (harder/better/faster/stronger) -- but as I mentioned before, looking at what the Aussies do to those vehicles and the engineering and fabrication involved, I don't see anyone in North America modifying trucks to that degree on a regular basis, and simply tossing an upgraded suspension into the rig isn't enough -- if it was, I would bet the Aussies would just do that. I will absolutely admit that the Aussies might be engaging in a bit of overkill, but the folks who do this have engineering degrees and likely done a bunch of math informed by real-world failure data of various components, materials, and designs. I, on the other hand, have Google and need to take my shoes off to count higher than 10, so I'm going to defer to the engineers.
Just from this thread, we know there are a lot of things to consider when "upgrading" a trucks carrying capacity:
- Tire rating
- Tire Size
- Rim Size
- Caliper power
- Caliper design
- Pad surface area
- Pad composition
- Brake cooling
- Brake System design (Hydraulic vs vacuum)
- Contact patch of the tire
- axle rating
- Payload rating
- Curb Weight
- Weight Distribution
- Sway bars
- springs
- shocks
- chassis strength
- gusseting requirements for axles and chassis
- height of load/Center of Gravity
- Timmy's dog
- The moose
I'm sure that's not an exhaustive list, but all of these things intersect and interact in unpredictable ways in a crisis situation. Maybe the brakes are fine for the load, but the weight is too high causing a rollover. Maybe the springs and shocks are perfectly dialled, but the sway bars are too tiny. Maybe the axles are rated for the weight, but the chassis isn't gusseted properly and twists in high speed maneuvers. Maybe the truck handles just fine but under heavy braking, that weight shift we were talking about blows up one of the front tires at the worst possible time (like the Jeep in the video). It's not totally random -- it's very predictable in many ways -- but in order to predict, we need sample sizes and testing. The only ones doing that are the Australian GVM up fitters and the original manufacturers near as I can tell. Hobbyists don't tend to modify a half-dozen trucks and crash 5 of them to know the 6th one will work well, after all. Can a hobbyist overland increase payload safely? Yes. A hobbyist Boy Scout once built a working nuclear reactor in his garage. That, however, is very much an atypical situation, and for most people, the right answer is "buy a vehicle spec'd to what you need rather than modifying what you've already got".
Back to my original conclusion: Heavy weight = buy bigger truck.
Better conclusion, and I think where you and I totally agree (the rest is just for the fun of the jaw-wag!): Any weight = know the limitations of your rig.