The bigger the truck, the greater the (misplaced?) concern about payload?

[nickw]

What testing standards are referring to?

As defined by NHTSA or other governing bodies...I'm no expert but you can do the research:

Home | NHTSA

Get resources and info about staying safe on America’s roads. And, find out if there’s a recall on your car or how to report a vehicle safety problem.

www.nhtsa.gov

 

[rruff]

You need to do the research, because you won't find any testing standards governing handling... only crashing into solid objects.

The "problem" gets solved by making sure stock consumer vehicles can't be flipped under "normal" circumstances. Then we load a camper on one, and they can be flipped very easily. The vehicle needs to be idiot proof from the manufacturer, else they'll be sued.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

I don't think I've ever heard of a case that gets to trial where a OEM has to backup safety decisions. Some vehicles have poor side impact ratings, I'm sure that some people have died as the result of that, but I haven't ever heard of a vehicle manufacture being brought to trial for it.

If you have any info that says otherwise I'd be interested in reading it.

Ford faces class-action over roof strength on Super Duty trucks

But the Blue Oval says it’s being unfairly prosecuted and plans to fight the allegations its roofs were underengineered

driving.ca

You need to do the research, because you won't find any testing standards governing handling... only crashing into solid objects.

Moose test - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

So, perhaps this is splitting hairs, as technically this test doesn‘t ”govern” anything as it’s not a required practice, but it is a common practice for some automakers. Couldn’t find anything in the US about this though. But the moose test is an ISO-regulated test, so there are handling standards out there.

 

[wicked1]

I think my overweight taco would flip on the 'mouse' test.....

-edit, actually after reading some of the heated discussion in this thread maybe I shouldn't joke... I have successfully performed emergency swerve maneuvers.. around a vehicle, though, not a moose.

 

[nickw]

You need to do the research, because you won't find any testing standards governing handling... only crashing into solid objects.

The "problem" gets solved by making sure stock consumer vehicles can't be flipped under "normal" circumstances. Then we load a camper on one, and they can be flipped very easily. The vehicle needs to be idiot proof from the manufacturer, else they'll be sued.

No testing standards? I beg to differ....there are many SAE standards that car manuf use.....if this went to court they'd show the SAE standard (copied below) they used, backed by design and engineering data.....

J135_201304: Service Brake System Performance Requirements - Passenger Car-Trailer Combinations - SAE International

This SAE Recommended Practice presents service brake performance requirements for brake systems of all combinations of new passenger cars and new trailers (braked or unbraked) intended for roadway use (excluding special-purpose vehicles such as ambulances, hearses, etc.). Acceptable performance

www.sae.org

This SAE Recommended Practice presents service brake performance requirements for brake systems of all combinations of new passenger cars and new trailers (braked or unbraked) intended for roadway use (excluding special-purpose vehicles such as ambulances, hearses, etc.)

DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HITCH LOAD BOUNDARIES FOR TRAILER TOWING

This paper presents an analytically based approach to specifying a maximum allowable hitch load for passenger cars pulling trailers. The change in tow car steady-state directional stability, i.e., understeer, is the basis for the specification. This handling parameter is a function of hitch load, la

www.sae.org

This paper presents an analytically based approach to specifying a maximum allowable hitch load for passenger cars pulling trailers. The change in tow car steady-state directional stability, i.e., understeer, is the basis for the specification. This handling parameter is a function of hitch load, lateral acceleration, tow car to trailer weight ratio, and the amount of load leveling applied by a Class III hitch. Using these variables an allowable hitch load range was defined as that which would insure positive tow car understeer up to and including 0.3 g cornering. Over 50 combination-vehicle configurations (using three tow car sizes and eight trailers) were then tested in order to validate and revise the analytical boundaries. Based on these results a tow car stability criterion derived from maximum hitch load considerations appears a valid format for the trailer user and/or manufacturer.

 

[nickw]

You need to do the research, because you won't find any testing standards governing handling... only crashing into solid objects.

The "problem" gets solved by making sure stock consumer vehicles can't be flipped under "normal" circumstances. Then we load a camper on one, and they can be flipped very easily. The vehicle needs to be idiot proof from the manufacturer, else they'll be sued.

As a FYI, Ford does have slide in camper specs:

 

[UglyViking]

Ford faces class-action over roof strength on Super Duty trucks

But the Blue Oval says it’s being unfairly prosecuted and plans to fight the allegations its roofs were underengineered

driving.ca

Two things on that. #1, just because a lawfirm filed a lawsuit doesn't mean Ford will be found liable for anything.

#2, the legal firm filing the lawsuit is Hagens Berman, which is a class action law-firm (aka ambulance chaser) who is only looking for a settlement and payout. Their MO is to get a large class action going, and subsequently settle for a major payout. Ford, if they pay, won't have to admit fault, owners of the trucks will get next to nothing, and the lawyers get a massive payday.

No testing standards? I beg to differ....there are many SAE standards that car manuf use.....if this went to court they'd show the SAE standard (copied below) they used, backed by design and engineering data.....

J135_201304: Service Brake System Performance Requirements - Passenger Car-Trailer Combinations - SAE International

This SAE Recommended Practice presents service brake performance requirements for brake systems of all combinations of new passenger cars and new trailers (braked or unbraked) intended for roadway use (excluding special-purpose vehicles such as ambulances, hearses, etc.). Acceptable performance

www.sae.org

This SAE Recommended Practice presents service brake performance requirements for brake systems of all combinations of new passenger cars and new trailers (braked or unbraked) intended for roadway use (excluding special-purpose vehicles such as ambulances, hearses, etc.)

DEVELOPMENT OF MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE HITCH LOAD BOUNDARIES FOR TRAILER TOWING

This paper presents an analytically based approach to specifying a maximum allowable hitch load for passenger cars pulling trailers. The change in tow car steady-state directional stability, i.e., understeer, is the basis for the specification. This handling parameter is a function of hitch load, la

www.sae.org

This paper presents an analytically based approach to specifying a maximum allowable hitch load for passenger cars pulling trailers. The change in tow car steady-state directional stability, i.e., understeer, is the basis for the specification. This handling parameter is a function of hitch load, lateral acceleration, tow car to trailer weight ratio, and the amount of load leveling applied by a Class III hitch. Using these variables an allowable hitch load range was defined as that which would insure positive tow car understeer up to and including 0.3 g cornering. Over 50 combination-vehicle configurations (using three tow car sizes and eight trailers) were then tested in order to validate and revise the analytical boundaries. Based on these results a tow car stability criterion derived from maximum hitch load considerations appears a valid format for the trailer user and/or manufacturer.

Braking requirements sure, that isn't a maneuver test though. I can't read either of those SAE files as I'm not going to pay $50 to attempt to convince someone who doesn't want to be convinced that maybe, just maybe, they are putting too much faith into a sticker on the door.

Can anyone point to US federal law that states going above manufacture GVWR is completely illegal? I know you can't tow more than 26k GCWR without a CDL, I also know that farmers are completely free to do as they please so long as they stay like 150 miles from their farm. I know that insurance can drop you for being grossly exceeding GVWR (or doing anything they dislike), but they must first cover any accident you were in (yes, insurance does cover negligence).

I think I've been on this ride long enough and am about ready to hop off it.

 

[rruff]

No testing standards? I beg to differ....there are many SAE standards that car manuf use.....if this went to court they'd show the SAE standard (copied below) they used, backed by design and engineering data....

The issue we were discussing was handling of trucks. You are citing car and trailer specs. I'm kinda glad they have specs for trailers since they are inherently much more likely to be dangerous vs a truck on its own.

"Most serious automobile accidents involve vehicle rollovers. The National Highway Transportation Safety Association (NHTSA) has recognized that sport utility vehicles are particularly prone to rollovers; the fatality rate per million vehicles is between two and three times greater for sport utility vehicles (SUV), particularly Ford Bronco II’s, Geo Trackers and Suzuki Sidekick. Almost 36,000 occupants of light duty vehicles died in the calendar years 1991 through 1994 in rollover crashes; twice the rate for all vehicle types combined. In 1995, the single-vehicle rollover death rate in SUVs (146 deaths per million registered vehicles) was more than eight times the rate in the largest cars. Amazingly, the particular design defects that cause all of this death and injury could be designed out of the vehicles. HD&H has been handling this type of case since the 1980s. At present we are focusing on numerous cases involving Ford Explorers, Toyota 4-Runners, Ford Bronco II’s, Suzuki Sidekicks and Geo Trackers. "

Their "defect" is high ground clearance. You can design that out easily enough...

There is no standard... we just have lawyers filing lawsuits.

If there was some safety standard that vehicles were required to meet, shouldn't it be universal? Say... stopping distance... and some version of the moose test (avoiding an obstacle). And the vehicles should be loaded to their GVWR when the test is conducted. Does that sound fair to you?

 

[RAM5500 CAMPERTHING]

So many "experienced" people here just don't get it. Your personal stories of overloaded vehicles during normal driving conditions have absolutely zero value. Virtually every possible configuration of any vehicle feels fine in normal conditions.

The great danger you are missing here is how would your overloaded vehicle handle and react in an emergency situation? I am not talking about a drive when you are in control of the vehicle - I am talking about a portion of a drive when you are standing on the brakes and prying at the steering wheel with both hands barely able to control your vehicle. The GVWR, payload rating, suspension, braking, steering, etc. have all been painstakingly designed and rigorously tested to operate within a defined and acceptable profile.

For those of you who are uneducated and/or irresponsible and drive overloaded vehicles, I challenge you to overload your rig and begin rolling down Wolf Creek Pass at night, with poor visibility, and tell us how well your rig handles when you swerve into oncoming traffic to avoid an animal crossing the road and then attempt to swerve back into your lane since you are now about to crash head-on into an 80,000 pound 18-wheeler. Share your amazing ability to control a vehicle which is operating well outside of it's operating envelope.

I would expect this sort of irresponsible and uneducated discussion from teenagers or guys in their 20s with a devil-may-care attitude. But from this group, seriously? Arguing that exceeding load limits is nothing to worry about since, "I did this blah, blah, blah..."

I dont agree with you on much else you post, but I agree with every word of this sir!

I find the amount of time and effort people are putting into trying to defend why being overweight is ok and no big deal, both disturbing and comical.

A positive sign that folks are at least somewhat starting to "get it" is that majority of the trucks in the classified ads mention something along the lines of "going bigger, or moving up" so thats a plus, i guess.

 

[ChasingOurTrunks]

Two things on that. #1, just because a lawfirm filed a lawsuit doesn't mean Ford will be found liable for anything.

#2, the legal firm filing the lawsuit is Hagens Berman, which is a class action law-firm (aka ambulance chaser) who is only looking for a settlement and payout. Their MO is to get a large class action going, and subsequently settle for a major payout. Ford, if they pay, won't have to admit fault, owners of the trucks will get next to nothing, and the lawyers get a massive payday.

Fair enough; I didn't know that about the litigant firm, but there are other examples too though of manufacturers being held to account via legal processes. The Pinto is a good example, the firestone tires debacle being another. Chrysler had an issue with seatbelts some time ago that would come undone in a high speed impact or rollover, as well as a lawsuit related to the Pacifica lighting on fire.

I don't know how many of these have fully gone to trial as it's often in the best interests of auto manufacturers to settle these suits, but I would argue that a settlement because of a pending or ongoing court process is substantively the same as defending oneself in court, the only difference is how much time in front of a judge did they get before starting to write cheques. And of course, there is a whole other swath of auto manufacturers attempting to avoid having to defend themselves in court with the pre-emptive safety recalls like Toyota's floor mat situation or the Takata airbag issue.

My point is, auto makers regularly have to defend themselves on safety decisions, often because of legal processes.

But it's a minor detail on the overall conversation. What was this thread about again? Oh right, big trucks being too heavy.

Don't make any trucks too heavy, friends, and if you insist on doing so (it's a free country after all), at the very least spend some time making appropriate upgrades to handle the weight as safely as you can. Look to places like Australia who have approval systems for GVM upgrades and see the level of engineering that goes into those builds, and copy as much as you can. And even then - try to stay as light as you can.

Now for a REAL conversation starter - which tires handle heavy, over-GVM loads better, BFGs or Coopers?

(I'll check back in on this thread in a week to see how many more pages of debate that question has added, and then I'll bust out my question about polymer shearing in engine oils when the engine is under an excessive load to get us up over 100 pages)

 

[Todd780]

As a FYI, Ford does have slide in camper specs:

Huh. That seems confusing in my situation.

A supercrew 4x4 w/ a 157" wheelbase F150 and a 3.5 lists maximum cargo weight at 1,721 lbs. And that takes into account a 150lb passenger in each seat?

Well, some trucks seat 5 and some 6. So would that extra body not affect the weight rating?

Also for example, my payload is 1,777lbs for an XLT 302. If someone has a loaded 157" wheelbase Platinum PowerBoost, with a 1,200 lbs payload they may reference that chart and think that can handle 1,721 lbs because that's what Fords chart says....
Or am I totally misunderstanding this chart?

 

[Grasslakeron]

This happens all the time, folks will buy a truck often times derated because of insurance, plate cost or state law then overload them. "Well my F250 camper package is the same as a F350 " argument. Why do you think Ford is now having electric scales on their new trucks? Because when you don't follow their guidelines, they are not liable. I love the conversations that start, " My F250 6.7 can pull my 40 foot toy hauler". Their gear, gas, and pin weight is past their small (due to a diesel) payload, but their argument of my truck can do it rings from the heavens.

 

[jbaucom]

A supercrew 4x4 w/ a 157" wheelbase F150 and a 3.5 lists maximum cargo weight at 1,721 lbs. And that takes into account a 150lb passenger in each seat?

Well, some trucks seat 5 and some 6. So would that extra body not affect the weight rating?

The chart says each available seat, so I'd venture that regular cabs are calculated with 3 seats, super and crew cabs with 6 seats - so 450 lbs of passengers for a regular cab and 900 lbs of passengers for the supercab and crew cab. Since Ford requires the HDPP for any F150 with a truck camper, those numbers (with added weight for passengers) seem to roughly add up to max payload stickers on HDPP trucks - based on memory since I don't have a chart in front of me.

 

[Todd780]

The chart says each available seat, so I'd venture that regular cabs are calculated with 3 seats, super and crew cabs with 6 seats - so 450 lbs of passengers for a regular cab and 900 lbs of passengers for the supercab and crew cab. Since Ford requires the HDPP for any F150 with a truck camper, those numbers (with added weight for passengers) seem to roughly add up to max payload stickers on HDPP trucks - based on memory since I don't have a chart in front of me.

Okay, but an HDPP can be had as a 5 or 6 seater. Yet the number in the chart doesn't change? Like I said. Maybe I'm missing something. It's Friday and my brain may be fried from the week now.....

 

[Grasslakeron]

The chart says each available seat, so I'd venture that regular cabs are calculated with 3 seats, super and crew cabs with 6 seats - so 450 lbs of passengers for a regular cab and 900 lbs of passengers for the supercab and crew cab. Since Ford requires the HDPP for any F150 with a truck camper, those numbers (with added weight for passengers) seem to roughly add up to max payload stickers on HDPP trucks - based on memory since I don't have a chart in front of me.

I had a few conversations with Brian, head of north American f series, over my truck order. We spent time on this. My truck was to have a 4900 lb payload. His literature stated in two areas , 4900 and 4000 for my truck. When the truck showed up my payload was 4741 lbs. The difference between a couple of options added and the first number. Crew, there is a reason Ford stopped producing Brochures in July of this year, it wasn't just to save money. The literature was filled full of misinformation and when pressed on this, Brian got really quiet. I told him to hire me just to check for continuity.