Trailer Life helps perpetuate the 1/2 ton towable myth

For warranty purposes. And guidelines. :)

I routinely go over my GVWR & GCWR, but try to stay under my GAWR. Stiffening the springs and improving the tires resulted in a very stable towing platform. The engine is the weak spot in my case.

If no one believes in the numbers, why are they there?

the main problem is that people use those numbers when those numbers are fictional at best as far as I can tell. There are people who live and die by them though. That's where the real problem is. I say before you tell someone their truck can/can not tow a load you need to do an independent study and show them on paper what the truck is actually capable of. The numbers you recycle are nothing more than marketing hype and you have no real way to prove otherwise.
I happen to be on the side that says not to tow any respectable load with half tons but not really because of the ratings......more so because of the torque differences between gas and diesel. I think if you ask everyone that tows a heavier type load why they chose a half ton the vast majority would say because it was cheaper than a 3/4 ton......that's not the right motivation either.

Mootpoint wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:

Mootpoint wrote:
I don't know any safe drivers with experience, professional or recreational, that will deliberately tow an overweight unit. Some will argue that it is done all the time with no problems. Those drivers are not safe. Just luckier than others.

Over weight by who's definition.

By the engineers who designed and tested everything from concept to completion. You know the type, bends it or beats on it until it breaks and then calculates a safe limit to operate under.
Don't say they don't know what there doing because they are involved in everything you come in contact with everyday and you can't fault everything.

So you are stating that you KNOW the engineers are the ones who set the capacities we see. There was no input with marketing, warranty, legal, etc.

Mootpoint wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:

Mootpoint wrote:
I don't know any safe drivers with experience, professional or recreational, that will deliberately tow an overweight unit. Some will argue that it is done all the time with no problems. Those drivers are not safe. Just luckier than others.

Over weight by who's definition.

By the engineers who designed and tested everything from concept to completion. You know the type, bends it or beats on it until it breaks and then calculates a safe limit to operate under.
Don't say they don't know what there doing because they are involved in everything you come in contact with everyday and you can't fault everything.

Why would I say they don't know what their doing ?? You putting words in my mouth also.
IMO like others have said too many folks get hung up on a number and how its used .... GVWR in particular.
Todays trucks have some high GVWRs such as a 13400 GVWR 3500 SRW Ram with 7000 RAWR. Some owners have reported going over the trucks 7000 RAWR when using that big 13400 GVWR to figure a payload.

Even some F150 owners with the 7700 GVWR and 4050 RAWR have reported over loading there trucks RAWR by using GVWR to figure payloads carried by the rear axle.

Also as has been mentioned before Ford gives us a F350 SRW 11200 GVWR 7000 RAWR 4x4 6.7 diesel crew cab 174.2 wb with a 3560 lb payload.
And the exact same specs F350 SRW with a 10000 lb GVWR with a 2360 lb payload. There's your folly of just engineering numbers.
More to do with marketing and engineering.

JIMNLIN wrote:

Mootpoint wrote:
I don't know any safe drivers with experience, professional or recreational, that will deliberately tow an overweight unit. Some will argue that it is done all the time with no problems. Those drivers are not safe. Just luckier than others.

Over weight by who's definition.

By the engineers who designed and tested everything from concept to completion. You know the type, bends it or beats on it until it breaks and then calculates a safe limit to operate under.
Don't say they don't know what there doing because they are involved in everything you come in contact with everyday and you can't fault everything.

There's engineers and then there's common sense. IMO too much built in CYA with engineered ratings. It's one thing to say that it takes so much PSI to bend a piece of steel x amount of inches as opposed to lets add x amount of safety factor to cover their a$$. I was in the construction industry for 30 years and can't count how many times some engineered aspect failed. Punch all the number you want but in the end you have to have common sense to make them work. JMHO.

Dupe.

TXiceman wrote:
I am tired of the people that want to tell everyone that it is OK to go over the manufacturers rating and they will do fine. I have no additional comment where folks like to spread false information. I like seeing that I spent 5 years getting an engineering degree and over 40 years as an engineer and these years were totally wasted according to the "self-proclaimed experts."

Good luck on the road.

Ken

You must be a software engineer. Because anyone with a mechanical background would understand how arbitrary automotive capacity ratings are, universally. It is one of the reasons for the push toward SAE ratings, but that won't be any real solution either.

I can understand when those with limited real world experience look solely at the ratings and fear ever exceeding those. In the absence of experience, it is the prudent thing to do. With experience you learn just how silly the manufacturers numbers can be.

I tend to take axle ratings as gospel, and give GVWR and GCVWR with a wink. But even axle ratings can be silly. For example, your 3/4 ton is likely to have a RAWR of 6,000 or 6,100 pounds. But in the Ford at least, it is common knowledge that it is exactly the same axle as an F350, with over 1,000 pounds higher rating. The difference? Wheels and tires, and maybe not even that if you have an upgraded package. One example of silly ratings, which I have no problem exceeding, because of real world experience. Just change wheels and or tires.

Another example, is the 350/3500 that can be purchased with a 10k pound GVWR. It is exactly the same 1 ton truck, but the rating is manipulated for registration or insurance savings reasons. Are you afraid to exceed that artificial rating? I'm not.

Then there is the whole issue of duty cycle. You can be sure there is one, but the manufacturers don't tell us what it is. We wouldn't know what to do with the info anyway, so they don't tell us. I tend to believe that the duty cycle factor is lower on the typical half ton than it is on the typical 3/4 or 1 ton. Simply because the target market is different for the lighter duty truck than the medium duty. Therefore I would much rather see an "overloaded" medium duty truck than a light duty. But that is all just opinion, because we don't have the calculations to review.

Lastly, we have all seen new model trucks suddenly rated higher than the previous model year, with absolutely no change made to the truck. This is usually because of competitive brand changes. So what happened to last years calculations that suddenly made them wrong?

It is funny to me to read comments on this topic, with all the hand-wringing and lambasting. Some seem to put a lot of faith in a finite rating numbers. You know, if you're 100 pounds under a rating you're okay, but if you're 100 pounds over you must be putting all our lives in danger if we happen to be on the same highway as this violator. It all flies in the face of common sense, which is sorely missing in many cases.

lazydays wrote:

JIMNLIN wrote:

Mootpoint wrote:
I don't know any safe drivers with experience, professional or recreational, that will deliberately tow an overweight unit. Some will argue that it is done all the time with no problems. Those drivers are not safe. Just luckier than others.

Over weight by who's definition.

Just call me Mr. Lucky.

Oh, shoot! I wanted that handle!