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

[nickw]

The problem with payload and towing numbers is that people take them as an “end all, be all”, partly because the manufacturers present them that way to get sales.

If your payload is 2,500 lbs, you can do 1,000 miles of pothole/washboard roads in Baja loaded to 2,499 lbs with zero problems, but if you are at 2,501 lbs running 55 mph down a smooth paved 2 lane road the frame is going to break in half…

It‘s more like “how heavy of a backpack can you carry?” From here to the end of the driveway? A mile? 8 miles through rocky terrain at 10,000 ft? There are no ”absolutes”.

My 2003 Silverado 2500HD has a payload capacity of 3800 lbs.
A 2020 F250 CCSB has a payload capacity of 1800 lbs.
I’d be willing to wager the newer truck will handle the same weight better, even if it was overloaded by 100%.

Like everything in life there are extremes and nothing is absolute and manuf ratings use design principles like "factor of safety", which is not an absolute end all be all, it has assumptions built into it. Manuf rate trucks based on typical duty cycles and use cases, they are not designed for pre-running baja with a 25,000 lb goosneck trailer even though a 1 T truck is rated to tow it, technically....so you can be under capacity and still destroy your rig.

But it's an upper limit for use in most cases and the line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[rruff]

So your list proves the point....now does overloading increase risk by .01% or 5% or 25%, who knows....but if that list is accurate you are increasing your risk by a number higher than 0%....

What you really mean is that having a large heavy vehicle period is risky. Weight and and a higher CG always make a vehicle handle worse. Since you can easily make a 1/2 ton handle better with a load than a stock 1 ton, it isn't an "overloaded" issue. The rest comes down to judgement and being able to control your vehicle.

 

[nickw]

That's not true at all... there is no "defined and acceptable profile". Stock heavy trucks handle like pigs and ride atrociously over bumps. You can absolutely improve on that greatly with tire and suspension upgrades. Making a 1/2 ton handle better hauling a 3,000 lb load than a stock 1 ton is not tricky.

And just to go into the silly, but socially acceptable zone... what do you think of 80 year old guys getting behind the wheel of a 40ft Class A, with no experience in anything bigger than a Camry? That rig due to its shear size is going to handle and brake worse than all but the most egregiously overloaded pickup. Same for all those semis and big trucks on the freeway. They generally have much better drivers, but most of them don't seem too concerned about following distance. What do they do in emergencies?

Big brakes are nice if you are dragging them for long periods; but I never need to do that since I use engine braking. In emergency stops on any surface, you need enough brake to skid the tires (engage ABS), and past that it doesn't matter.

Reliability and parts longevity are the bigger questions. Not safety... unless you are stupid.

BTW, I've been in several emergency driving situations. First order of business is always slam on the brakes and go straight. If you are going to swerve, do it at the last microsecond, and make damn sure you do it within the limitations of your vehicle. Modern vehicles are made to slam into things head on... do somersaults down the road (and maybe over the cliff), not so much.

Your "stupid" is somebody else's "safe" just like your "safe" is somebody else's "stupid"....it goes both ways.

F-it, throw it all out, all ratings....run what ya brung, go by feel and "intuition".....after all, some guys can can look at something and understand it's mechanics better than the engineers who design these things for a living, right?

Should an 80 yo behind a Class A rig be allowed to drive? Should a 18 yo with no fear and quick reflexes be allowed to drive an overloaded rig before you because he can handle it better?

 

[nickw]

What you really mean is that having a large heavy vehicle period is risky. Weight and and a higher CG always make a vehicle handle worse. Since you can easily make a 1/2 ton handle better with a load than a stock 1 ton, it isn't an "overloaded" issue. The rest comes down to judgement and being able to control your vehicle.

What if I am not as comfortable with your judgement as you are but still gotta drive on the same roads? I'd like to have your age, athletic ability, reflex test, eye test, health profile, etc I'll make that distinction.

 

[rruff]

But it's an upper limit for use in most cases and the line has to be drawn somewhere

The GVWR "line" is the manufacturer liability and warranty limit. That's it. It isn't a safety limit at all. And if the manufacturer can show that you modded your vehicle in any way relative to bone stock (like a lift or bigger tires) that would be detrimental to whatever you are trying to collect on under warranty, or sue them for, then you are screwed.

It's kinda comical that so many think this is a safety limit, yet there is nothing said about the CG of the load you are hauling, just the weight.

 

[nickw]

The GVWR "line" is the manufacturer liability and warranty limit. That's it. It isn't a safety limit at all. And if the manufacturer can show that you modded your vehicle in any way relative to bone stock (like a lift or bigger tires) that would be detrimental to whatever you are trying to collect on under warranty, or sue them for, then you are screwed.

It's kinda comical that so many think this is a safety limit, yet there is nothing said about the CG of the load you are hauling, just the weight.

Liability is intertwined with safety...if somebody gets hurt you better well believe the vehicle manuf. can back up their testing and engineering calcs to support their design decisions...

 

[Alloy]

Liability is intertwined with safety...if somebody gets hurt you better well believe the vehicle manuf. can back up their testing and engineering calcs to support their design decisions...

It's cheaper for insurance companies to pay/settle the claim so you'd never get to see the testing or engineering info.

 

[Alloy]

The GVWR "line" is the manufacturer liability and warranty limit. That's it. It isn't a safety limit at all. And if the manufacturer can show that you modded your vehicle in any way relative to bone stock (like a lift or bigger tires) that would be detrimental to whatever you are trying to collect on under warranty, or sue them for, then you are screwed.

It's kinda comical that so many think this is a safety limit, yet there is nothing said about the CG of the load you are hauling, just the weight.

An example is the F550 with a factory GVWR at 19.5k then Earthroamer lifts it AND increases the GVWR to 21k.

As fewer and fewer people understand the mechanics the (safety) numbers mean more and more.

 

[UglyViking]

Liability is intertwined with safety...if somebody gets hurt you better well believe the vehicle manuf. can back up their testing and engineering calcs to support their design decisions...

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.

 

[rubonik]

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's Pinto debacle comes to mind

 

[nickw]

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.

It's cheaper for insurance companies to pay/settle the claim so you'd never get to see the testing or engineering info.

Probably not get to see it but it's there.

Ford's Pinto debacle comes to mind

+1

Geo Tracker is another

 

[jbaucom]

Being concerned with available payload, towing, GVW, GAWR, etc is never misplaced. What's so hard about buying the right truck for the task in the first place? It's not like automakers don't build them every day. Unless you're brand loyal to an automaker who doesn't provide that option. Regardless of what anyone wants to tell themselves, the vast majority of mods that I see on here reduce available payload and make a vehicle less safe overall. We pick our compromises to meet our needs. It's rarely a challenge to roll straight down the road at the speed limit on a sunny day.

 

[rruff]

Geo Tracker is another

I think Jeep was sued for the same reason...? It's a short, high CG vehicle which means that if you drive like an idiot you can flip it. A bunch of lawyers see $$$ and get together and sue the manufacturer. Absolute BS.

An example is the F550 with a factory GVWR at 19.5k then Earthroamer lifts it AND increases the GVWR to 21k.

I'm guessing they had to increase it, because that is how much their rig weighs? If they warranty the whole thing, they can make GVWR whatever they like.

 

[nickw]

I think Jeep was sued for the same reason...? It's a short, high CG vehicle which means that if you drive like an idiot you can flip it. A bunch of lawyers see $$$ and get together and sue the manufacturer. Absolute BS.

Like I said, their testing protocol and engineering decisions will defend them if they went about it properly....aka, they met federal/state/national testing standards and engineering decisions were based on sound practice.

 

[rruff]

....they met federal/state/national testing standards ...

What testing standards are referring to?