Tacoma that's 1600 lbs over GVWR... recertifying and wheeling

[rruff]

You think it never happens? It's just logic and a matter cause - effect, getting into an accident with no fault of your own is different that getting into an accident because you couldn't brake quick enough since your truck was overloaded.

As mentioned, heavy vehicles require longer stopping distances. A large truck or RV will take longer to stop than this guy's Tacoma. Same for handling and maneuverability. Or tip-over, or how much it's effected by wind. Sure, this Tacoma is going to score poorly on these measures compared to a stock Tacoma... but our law has deemed that much larger vehicles that will score much worse, are "safe enough" to be legally piloted by untrained persons with nothing more than a normal driver's license. And those drivers can be 80+ years old, with poor reflexes and eyesight!

It's a matter of driving within the limitations of the vehicle. In other words, causing a crash is user error. And overloaded Tacoma's are not remotely the most dangerous vehicles on the highway.

 

[nickw]

As mentioned, heavy vehicles require longer stopping distances. A large truck or RV will take longer to stop than this guy's Tacoma. Same for handling and maneuverability. Or tip-over, or how much it's effected by wind. Sure, this Tacoma is going to score poorly on these measures compared to a stock Tacoma... but our law has deemed that much larger vehicles that will score much worse, are "safe enough" to be legally piloted by untrained persons with nothing more than a normal driver's license. And those drivers can be 80+ years old, with poor reflexes and eyesight!

It's a matter of driving within the limitations of the vehicle. In other words, causing a crash is user error. And overloaded Tacoma's are not remotely the most dangerous vehicles on the highway.

I'd say let a jury decide if all that is true - better Call Saul?

I disagree, a full size 1T pickup with the same load will stop quicker than this guys Tacoma, especially true on any sort of grade.

What is GVWR? | Wilshire Law Firm

Learn more about Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, abbreviated GVWR, how it works for semi-trucks and other vehicles, and why exceeded limits matter.

wilshirelawfirm.com

"When truck crashes occur and GVWR has been exceeded, truck drivers and manufacturers could be liable in a truck accident injury lawsuit. "

You can justify it however you want, we can agree or disagree but you'd have to convince the court you were in the right.

 

[tacollie]

I disagree, a full size 1T pickup with the same load will stop quicker than this guys Tacoma, especially true on any sort of grade.

More importantly the brakes won't fade on a long grade.

 

[IdaSHO]

When truck crashes occur and GVWR has been exceeded, truck drivers and manufacturers could be liable in a truck accident injury lawsuit. "

You can justify it however you want, we can agree or disagree but you'd have to convince the court you were in the right.

Oh the LEGAL part of it again.

How about you post up an example of such a case?

Until then you are just jaw jacking.

 

[Alloy]

I'd say let a jury decide if all that is true - better Call Saul?

I disagree, a full size 1T pickup with the same load will stop quicker than this guys Tacoma, especially true on any sort of grade.

What is GVWR? | Wilshire Law Firm

Learn more about Gross Vehicle Weight Rating, abbreviated GVWR, how it works for semi-trucks and other vehicles, and why exceeded limits matter.

wilshirelawfirm.com

"When truck crashes occur and GVWR has been exceeded, truck drivers and manufacturers could be liable in a truck accident injury lawsuit. "

You can justify it however you want, we can agree or disagree but you'd have to convince the court you were in the right.

Yes but......the accident (when there is one) investigation will default to the common causes speed/driver error. If by chance they look into GVW the mangled piece need to be loaded onto a truck and driven over a scale. It has to be a horrific accident for that to happen.

If an overloaded vehicle is driven safely there could be an accident but what are the chances of having a horrific accident?

 

[kmacafee]

Since they even have to pay when you are driving drunk, I kinda doubt that is so. They are required to pay for any crash that isn't intentional. They'd all have a dui disclaimer if they could.

Why Insurance Companies Must Pay for Drunk Driving Accidents​

When you get into an accident, the at-fault party’s insurance should pay for it. However, many people falsely believe that insurance companies will not pay out for drunk driving accidents because they think these accidents are intentional.

While driving drunk may be intentional, drunk drivers do not intend to get into a car crash. Due to the lack of intent, insurance companies should payout when a drunk driving accident occurs.

Thats really an apples to oranges comparison. A drunk driver doesn't intend to get in a wreck but modifying your vehicle and affecting GVRW can certainly be deemed intentional given all the public info about it. This thread would be "discoverable" in a lawsuit. The bigger concern should be liability -- car insurance will cover up to their max, typically several hundred grand and then they're done.. I'd be buying a lot of umbrella liable coverage if I was going to do something like this.

Insurance companies will do anything to avoid paying a claim and if the accident creates a loss big enough, they will almost certainly hire an investigator who specializes in accident reconstruction. They are considered expert witnesses and the courts and juries typically consider them reliable.

 

[nickw]

Yes but......the accident (when there is one) investigation will default to the common causes speed/driver error. If by chance they look into GVW the mangled piece need to be loaded onto a truck and driven over a scale. It has to be a horrific accident for that to happen.

If an overloaded vehicle is driven safely there could be an accident but what are the chances of having a horrific accident?

Truck doesn't need to be mangled but sure, chances are low, just like flying in an airplane and we obviously use sound judgement and many defined safety precautions flying airplanes.

None of us are lawyers, I know enough to be dangerous (literally), but that doesn't make me an expert. All of us can google these things and find counter-examples also. But point stands, there is liability risk overloading rigs.

A story I've heard for years, not 1st hand, is a fella who used his pickup to pull a huge parade float, over his trucks capacity....going downhill, lost his brakes and at least one person was killed in the crowd, no mangled truck, slow speed. He got sued. If it's true or not, who knows, but illustrates the point and is certainly an example of "what if". Out in the middle of Baja is different than on a an interstate.

 

[nickw]

I think we can all agree there's a lot of "what if"s out there.

Furthermore, I for one don't be surprised if a person could be sued for a lot of different things.

I've had people close to me kill as a driver and separately, killed by a driver. I've know other people killed or injured - sometimes life changing - by drivers. And have known of, not directly but through my circle, of many others

Sadly, I imagine many on here can say the same.

In most all those cases I've had a connection to, the penalty to driver was pretty light, regardless of circumstance.

It's also been my life experience that, generally, bad guys win. So I'm thinking if driving overloaded is bad, it may follow that the driver isn't likely to experience much of a penalty because of it. Not to say my luck wouldn't be different ...

Myself, I'd research the pertinent statutes, regulations and penalties for my jurisdiction. Seems to me that would be a really good place to start. And I'd pay close attention to Commercial and Non Commercial (including how Commercial is defined under said legislation).

Case law is another thing. But hard to get info on without exposure to the legal industry, something I have zero interest in.

So I'd follow the regs at a minimum. And drive like I don't want an accident.

What other people do, I can't help. But I can sometimes avoid them

Sometimes avoid them but as you say, we've all known people effected by others decisions.

 

[rruff]

I disagree, a full size 1T pickup with the same load will stop quicker than this guys Tacoma, especially true on any sort of grade.

It isn't a matter of opinion. I already went through this in another thread awhile back. As I recall an unladen Tacoma took 180 ft to stop, while an unladen Tremor took 222 ft... both C&D test data. It isn't only about weight, tires also come into play... but if you look at the measurements there is a very clear trend of heavy pickups taking longer to stop than light ones. If you put the same load this Tacoma is carrying on the Tremor, it would still lose. The Tremor has bigger and stronger brakes of course, but traction is usually the limiting factor.

Thats really an apples to oranges comparison. A drunk driver doesn't intend to get in a wreck but modifying your vehicle and affecting GVRW can certainly be deemed intentional given all the public info about it.

A person driving a truck that is over GVWR is intending to get in a wreck?!

I may not know much about law, but I know something about physics, and the liability and warranty number (GVWR) that manufacturers put out, isn't a "safety limit" by any stretch of the imagination. Stopping, handling, maneuverability, etc... are far worse on larger vehicles. I truly would like to know if the people who keep saying it is a safety issue, are under the delusion that the big trucks and RVs on the road are safer to other drivers than this guy's Tacoma?

What determines if a vehicle in good working order is safe enough? The driver.

Speaking of big trucks... I was on the I70 at night driving towards Indy a few months back, and it scared the crap out of me. I was surrounded by semis in a hurry... plus there was road construction every few miles, which meant changes onto bumpy asphalt, barricades, and other things that required close attention. And it was windy... which meant the trucks were bobbing and weaving a bit. If I left a gap someone would slot in... bumper to bumper. I just hoped nobody sneezed, because I would have been squashed in an instant.

 

[nickw]

It isn't a matter of opinion. I already went through this in another thread awhile back. As I recall an unladen Tacoma took 180 ft to stop, while an unladen Tremor took 222 ft... both C&D test data. It isn't only about weight, tires also come into play... but if you look at the measurements there is a very clear trend of heavy pickups taking longer to stop than light ones. If you put the same load this Tacoma is carrying on the Tremor, it would still lose. The Tremor has bigger and stronger brakes of course, but traction is usually the limiting factor.


A person driving a truck that is over GVWR is intending to get in a wreck?!

I may not know much about law, but I know something about physics, and the liability and warranty number (GVWR) that manufacturers put out, isn't a "safety limit" by any stretch of the imagination. Stopping, handling, maneuverability, etc... are far worse on larger vehicles. I truly would like to know if the people who keep saying it is a safety issue, are under the delusion that the big trucks and RVs on the road are safer to other drivers than this guy's Tacoma?

What determines if a vehicle in good working order is safe enough? The driver.

Speaking of big trucks... I was on the I70 at night driving towards Indy a few months back, and it scared the crap out of me. I was surrounded by semis in a hurry... plus there was road construction every few miles, which meant changes onto bumpy asphalt, barricades, and other things that required close attention. And it was windy... which meant the trucks were bobbing and weaving a bit. If I left a gap someone would slot in... bumper to bumper. I just hoped nobody sneezed, because I would have been squashed in an instant.

If it's traction based, why wouldn't a heavier rig with larger tires stop a load quicker? There is an intersecting point where coefficient of friction, braking force and vehicle momentum cross paths I suppose, but it's not obvious to me where that is then. But I do know, any sort of large hill the bigger rig is going to handle slowing weight down much better. Panic braking unloaded (per C&D) vs coming off a large hill with a load are not at all related.

Randomly found the other thread where you said:

Suspension for an overweight Tacoma (2nd gen)?

I'm looking at getting a 2nd generation Tacoma with a Four Wheel Camper slide-in (~1,350 lbs. dry) and ARB steel bumper with a winch. I know that similar rigs are notoriously overweight, but seem to manage okay nonetheless. This one already has an added leaf spring (or maybe a whole replacement...

forum.expeditionportal.com

"For instance... C&D does braking tests in their reviews, Tacoma TRD Pro 70-0 in 180ft. F250 Tremor diesel takes 229ft. If the Tacoma was loaded to the same weight as the Tremor and given the same tires, I suspect it would do about the same"

Not sure why you are pushing back now saying it wouldn't.

 

[rruff]

In the 1st order braking calculation, the friction coefficient is assumed constant and independent of weight... but in reality, the higher the pressure of the tire on the ground, the poorer the coefficient becomes. So yes, a bigger tire run at lower pressure should improve the braking. The other factor is tire compound, though... don't know how those compare.

Not sure what I'm pushing back against. Loaded to the same weight, is not the same as carrying the same load. The Tremor starts off ~2500 lbs heavier than the Tacoma. They'd be about the same in braking at the same weight if traction was the limiting factor... but the brakes will probably become the limiting factor at some point. There is some place in that thread where I went into more detail on that, assuming that the brakes became the limiting factor at GVWR. The Tacoma still stopped faster.

Regarding the issue of "burning up your brakes on a descent"... since that isn't an issue I've ever come close to having, though I live and travel in the mountains a lot, with a load... I think that's entirely driver error. Just put it in a lower gear to use engine braking, and slow down if necessary. And in a single panic stop, you won't be burning your brakes, unless you were driving way too fast to start with.

 

[nickw]

In the 1st order braking calculation, the friction coefficient is assumed constant and independent of weight... but in reality, the higher the pressure of the tire on the ground, the poorer the coefficient becomes. So yes, a bigger tire run at lower pressure should improve the braking. The other factor is tire compound, though... don't know how those compare.

Not sure what I'm pushing back against. Loaded to the same weight, is not the same as carrying the same load. The Tremor starts off ~2500 lbs heavier than the Tacoma. They'd be about the same in braking at the same weight if traction was the limiting factor... but the brakes will probably become the limiting factor at some point. There is some place in that thread where I went into more detail on that, assuming that the brakes became the limiting factor at GVWR. The Tacoma still stopped faster.

Regarding the issue of "burning up your brakes on a descent"... since that isn't an issue I've ever come close to having, though I live and travel in the mountains a lot, with a load... I think that's entirely driver error. Just put it in a lower gear to use engine braking, and slow down if necessary. And in a single panic stop, you won't be burning your brakes, unless you were driving way too fast to start with.

"If you put the same load this Tacoma is carrying on the Tremor, it would still lose"

"If the Tacoma was loaded to the same weight as the Tremor and given the same tires, I suspect it would do about the same"
You don't see the irony in those two statements?

Not trying to call up what was or wasn't said or nit pick, but I think the long and short of it is, it's complicated (larger truck, more weight, bigger tires, bigger footprint, larger brakes, etc etc) but generally speaking, bigger trucks handle bigger loads better, braking included which is why their brakes are bigger in the first place.

Nobody drew the line at "panic" stop, general braking is the issue which includes hills. Lets say it was user error - guess what, join the crowd, we all make mistakes and wouldn't of happened or happened as fast in a bigger truck. The error I made was getting up into some steep dirt and gravel roads in N Idaho with a trailer that was more than the truck could handle even though I was at 50-60% of capacity and no ability to turn around.

Since we are all prone to errors, especially in the backcountry with unknown terrain, having the added factor of safety is nothing but good.

 

[rruff]

...but generally speaking, bigger trucks handle bigger loads better, braking included which is why their brakes are bigger in the first place.

Actually... they stop less well, generally... because of the weight and contact pressure. The brakes are bigger just because they need them in order to be traction limited... which I'd assume is the low bar most manufacturers try to achieve.

You can also look at the difference in handling and maneuverability, and the lighter truck will win there as well... especially if you make the common and smart upgrades to tires and suspension for carrying a load.

Where public safety is concerned, the only viable argument against the Tacoma is that it might be more likely to fall apart on the highway and cause an accident. We can speculate on how often that happens, but I'd bet it's rare enough to be a non-issue. What may or may not happen in the back country, or how reliable the truck is, is not the concern of anyone but the owner.

In summary... there is no viable public safety issue that can be sensibly pinned to GVWR.

"If you put the same load this Tacoma is carrying on the Tremor, it would still lose"

"If the Tacoma was loaded to the same weight as the Tremor and given the same tires, I suspect it would do about the same"
You don't see the irony in those two statements?

The 1st is say a 2600 lb load added to each, like the Tacoma in this thread.

The 2nd one is comparing both trucks loaded to the same total weight, which would mean the Tacoma has ~2500 lb greater load added than the Tremor. Like I said, that would only be true if the Tacoma was still traction limited, but it's likely that this isn't true >GVWR.

Nobody drew the line at "panic" stop, general braking is the issue which includes hills. Lets say it was user error - guess what, join the crowd, we all make mistakes and wouldn't of happened or happened as fast in a bigger truck.

If the Tremor wins the "dragging brakes on a descent" contest, it won't be by a lot.

Also being 2500 lbs heavier makes the Tremor an inherently bigger hazard to others, but safer for its occupants.

 

[Alloy]

It isn't a matter of opinion. I already went through this in another thread awhile back. As I recall an unladen Tacoma took 180 ft to stop, while an unladen Tremor took 222 ft... both C&D test data. It isn't only about weight, tires also come into play... but if you look at the measurements there is a very clear trend of heavy pickups taking longer to stop than light ones. If you put the same load this Tacoma is carrying on the Tremor, it would still lose. The Tremor has bigger and stronger brakes of course, but traction is usually the limiting factor.


A person driving a truck that is over GVWR is intending to get in a wreck?!

I may not know much about law, but I know something about physics, and the liability and warranty number (GVWR) that manufacturers put out, isn't a "safety limit" by any stretch of the imagination. Stopping, handling, maneuverability, etc... are far worse on larger vehicles. I truly would like to know if the people who keep saying it is a safety issue, are under the delusion that the big trucks and RVs on the road are safer to other drivers than this guy's Tacoma?

What determines if a vehicle in good working order is safe enough? The driver.

Speaking of big trucks... I was on the I70 at night driving towards Indy a few months back, and it scared the crap out of me. I was surrounded by semis in a hurry... plus there was road construction every few miles, which meant changes onto bumpy asphalt, barricades, and other things that required close attention. And it was windy... which meant the trucks were bobbing and weaving a bit. If I left a gap someone would slot in... bumper to bumper. I just hoped nobody sneezed, because I would have been squashed in an instant.

GVWR is the safety limit for a vehicle. It's a limit gov. & mfg. determine based on the worst drivers. The accident/fatality stats would be back to rates seen 4 decades ago if the GVWR factor for every (not one Tacoma) vehicle was reduced to the extent the Tacoma is.

 

[rruff]

GVWR is the safety limit for a vehicle. It's a limit gov. & mfg. determine based on the worst drivers.

Nope. Saying it don't make it so.

It's the manufacturer's liability and warranty limit based on the stock vehicle. The government has nothing to do with it. The government gets involved when it comes to levying taxes for commercial road users. Most of these will register their vehicle at its GVWR and be taxed accordingly. If they get weighed and are over, they'll be in trouble... for tax evasion.