Are You Buying All These Half-ton Claims?

With commercial operations such as refineries, power plants and manufacturing plants, they use a different type of rating. Operation speed is always set below what total output could actually be. For instance, if a refinery is rated a 100 barrels/hour output. It would actually have the capability to put out more barrels/hour. The closer you get to your max rating, the greater the probability of failure. They reduce the rating because actually running at max would reduce the amount of time between maintenance, and increase the probability of failures.

I don't think any of us want to see a failure on the road. Both for safety and inconvenience reasons.

monkey44 wrote:

Could you explain how operating under the mfgs specs is barely safe? Or is this just hyperbole? Is that like driving the speed limit is mostly negligent? If you really cared about your family and others on the road you would drive at least 10 under the speed limit.

Yes, I will. (and, I never speed, ever) In my opinion, operating a vehicle at the maximum of its safety specs continuously over long periods of time is not as safe as running a similar vehicle in the middle of its safety specs ...

That safety specs data are collected under the optimal conditions and very controlled ... and we don't drive our vehicles under those set conditions all the time on the road --

I'd bet if you haul the maximum weight trailer your truck is designed to tow, and haul it up the Rockies day after day, and then down the other side, with the brakes slowing the decent long enough, you will get brake heat and a problem stopping that weight in an emergency.

Or, haul it across the desert in the heat of summer --

My point was, and still is, would you rather travel with your family in a truck at the maxed out level of its specs (even if just barely under specs), or would you rather carry your family in a truck in the mid-range of the safety specs.

Which one is safer -- I never said "it is NOT safe", I said if it was at the maxed out level of safety specs, it is LESS safe than a truck that runs consistently in the mid-range of its design potential ...

In an emergency situation, it is much more likely you will exceed the safety specs in a truck operating at that max level than will a truck in the middle of its specs -- under emergency conditions, I personally would like a little more room in the specs to handle that emergency ... Just sayin' ...

And, it seems lots of folks on here want to look at the numbers and squeeze every single extra drop out of those numbers. I believe that is an unsafe position to take when your family safety is at stake ...

When your truck is sitting sideways, and one of your kids breaks an arm, and your head aches from hitting the side rail on your door -- "But I was under specs" is a ridiculous statement to make.

X2

X3

So many consume their OEM's design margins and never understand...because today
many/most do NOT keep their vehicles long enough to suffer the consequences of
their actions...consuming the OEM's designed in margins

Why then do most understand buying used has the risk of getting one from someone
who either consumed most to all of the design margins and/or did not maintain
it well?

Or that many don't consider braking a performance item... :? :S

Just because you are within and well under any OEM ratings DOES NOT make you any more or less safe than those using the ratings to their fullest. Grossly over...now that's entirely different, and not what is being discussed here.

To think you are safer than anyone else just because you're under OEM ratings makes you naïve and a bigger safety risk than others who understand there is much more to towing than weights and ratings.

Those referring to "design margins" need to get a clue how engineers test to entirely different levels than what consumers see as "ratings and specs". The two numbers are drastically different in nearly all scenarios.

monkey44 wrote:

...
My point was, and still is, would you rather travel with your family in a truck at the maxed out level of its specs (even if just barely under specs), or would you rather carry your family in a truck in the mid-range of the safety specs.

Which one is safer --

...

And, it seems lots of folks on here want to look at the numbers and squeeze every single extra drop out of those numbers. I believe that is an unsafe position to take when your family safety is at stake ...

So I am risking the safety of my family by loading my truck up close to it's GVWR of 7500. But not if I load it to 6500# (half the payload).

Do you also travel at half the speed limit?

What nonsense and fear-mongering.

brulaz wrote:

monkey44 wrote:

...
My point was, and still is, would you rather travel with your family in a truck at the maxed out level of its specs (even if just barely under specs), or would you rather carry your family in a truck in the mid-range of the safety specs.

Which one is safer --

...

And, it seems lots of folks on here want to look at the numbers and squeeze every single extra drop out of those numbers. I believe that is an unsafe position to take when your family safety is at stake ...

So I am risking the safety of my family by loading my truck up close to it's GVWR of 7500. But not if I load it to 6500# (half the payload).

Do you also travel at half the speed limit?

What nonsense and fear-mongering.

Well Half of payload, full pay load, or over payload.
Many talk about issues driving on the interstates I have zero issues on the interstates. Where you need to think about the ability of your combination is when traveling at near interstate speeds on roads like below, posted limit of 55 most roll at 60 or a bit better. The most common non blocking speed is 60 mph!

The closer you run to max payload. The sooner you should expect to provide maintenance. And the sooner you could expect to encounter failure.

If you run at 100% payload does not mean you are unsafe. It means that you should expect failure sooner than someone running at 50% payload.

If you're over payload the above doesn't apply. Over payload and the manufacturers declare that you are unsafe.

If you want to take their advice then you should always run no more than 100% payload. This also means you are on the edge of maintenance schedules and should always use premium oils etc.

At least that is my interpretation.

Russ

x2

The area in which I live you can not get out of without encountering at least a 7% grade.

Where I camp in the Sierra's the road pic you posted are like a freeway compared to the roads I travel. A great many hairpin turns and at the center of that hairpin it is well over 7% grade. That's why I don't want a c clip axle. Imagine the torque and weight stress on a axle in the middle of a hairpin. Both going up or going down the road. And if there is a breakage, there is no where to go but straight down.

The roads that I travel most likely are worse than most of the test procedures by the manufacturers. But I'm speaking of public paved roads.

Throw in potholes bigger than just about any pot in your kitchen. I plan on staying below manufacturers stated limits.

monkey44 wrote:




My point was, and still is, would you rather travel with your family in a truck at the maxed out level of its specs (even if just barely under specs), or would you rather carry your family in a truck in the mid-range of the safety specs.

Which one is safer -- I never said "it is NOT safe", I said if it was at the maxed out level of safety specs, it is LESS safe than a truck that runs consistently in the mid-range of its design potential ...

In an emergency situation, it is much more likely you will exceed the safety specs in a truck operating at that max level than will a truck in the middle of its specs -- under emergency conditions, I personally would like a little more room in the specs to handle that emergency ... Just sayin' ...

And, it seems lots of folks on here want to look at the numbers and squeeze every single extra drop out of those numbers. I believe that is an unsafe position to take when your family safety is at stake ...

When your truck is sitting sideways, and one of your kids breaks an arm, and your head aches from hitting the side rail on your door -- "But I was under specs" is a ridiculous statement to make.

X4
I've read on this forum numerous times about how people are weighing their rigs, loaded, unloaded, etc. just to make sure they fall within their mfr's specs. They come up a few hundred pounds less than the rating and all is good in their opinion. Here's the simple fact (and this will certainly be criticized): if you're so close to the weight limits, either payload or towing, that you have to be so concerned about your weight, then you're already messing up. Get a more capable TV or a more suitable TT. Period. There's no reason people should have to worry about their weights all the time. If that describes some of you, then do something different. I enjoy the peace and comfort of loading my TT and TV however I desire without worrying about the weight situation.

RinconVTR wrote:

To think you are safer than anyone else just because you're under OEM ratings makes you naïve and a bigger safety risk than others who understand there is much more to towing than weights and ratings.

I would argue that this is a very foolish statement. Sounds like the common ideology of the gun control group. How is someone choosing to use a larger, more capable TV a bigger safety risk?

brulaz wrote:

So I am risking the safety of my family by loading my truck up close to it's GVWR of 7500. But not if I load it to 6500# (half the payload).

Do you also travel at half the speed limit?

What nonsense and fear-mongering.

No, I think the nonsense is that people are burying their head in the sand just because someone suggests that, perhaps, a better choice could be made than a smaller TV.

I'm in the construction business and do A LOT of driving and hauling. The funny thing is (well, maybe not so funny) is that the only group of people that have consigned themselves to hauling heavy loads with smaller (ie half ton) trucks are the RV'ers. Hot shot drivers...NO. Car haulers...NO. Work trucks with cargo trailers...NO. Cattle/Livestock haulers...NO. Farmers...NO. Service trucks...NO. Small equipment haulers...NO. No other group of people consistently use small trucks for their hauling. Heck, in my area, people don't even haul large boats with 1/2 tons. So what makes RV'ers exclusive?? Are TT's somehow less difficult to tow?? Are they somehow less impactful to the wear and tear of the TV?? This is a great hypocrisy in the world of towing that I don't think people on this forum are prepared to face. MFR's weight ratings and specs are ALL theoretical, based upon a very well-defined set of conditions. How about we toss the theoretical values aside and consider constant real-world proven data.

An interesting observation as I conclude this rant...nearly all the "1/2 ton defenders" on this thread and throughout the forum have a 1/2 ton truck in their sig line. Notably, of course, the same can be mostly said about the 3/4 and 1 ton truck guys too ;)

Copy the following and search for the location on google earth'

37°17'33.91" N 118°58'45.77" W

Keep in mind this is a paved county road to Florence Lake. Except for the occasions that it crosses directly on the granite mountain.. The asphalt doesn't stick very well to the granite. haha

This link may work

Yes the link did work. It is the Kaiser Pass road to Florence Lake