Overloaded or wrong truck?

ford truck guy wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
A, B , C or D Topes?

By the damage, I would have to guess DD at minimum

:B :B

ford truck guy wrote:
So..... Topes is Mexican for woman lying down??

I get it now !

:B

goducks10 wrote:
A, B , C or D Topes?

By the damage, I would have to guess DD at minimum

A, B , C or D Topes?

So..... Topes is Mexican for woman lying down??

I get it now !

Not just in parking lots... Have read stories on how these sneak up on a driver in MX on a regular road.
In all fairness the original post did mention Mexico.

Since everybody is guessing here is my guess. Mechanical resonance frequency failure.

My Chebby long bed 4 door had this problem on a road near me. It was a concrete freeway that had the expansion joints just at the wrong point for "my truck."

You could feel the frame flex on the thing when going down this road. Very weird feeling. Didn't happen on any other road I went on. A few years later they re-did the road and it never happened again.

BTW the new forum layout sucks IMHO. The quote box was great before and now it sucks There I said it. :B

valhalla360 wrote:
A monster truck camper with 1000-1500lb 6-8ft behind the axle gets rocking, it can put drastically more bending force on the frame.

It may visually appear that way, but the EC 1165 does NOT put thousands of pounds that far back from the axle.

Google its COG: 61.5", or roughly 5' measured from the front of the bed. That puts it right on, or a hair behind the rear axle.

Let's say it's 6" behind the rear axle: 6000 lbs x 6" = 36,000 in-lbs of moment. Assuming the typical hitch ball is 4' from rear axle, 36k in-lb/48" = 750lbs.

So the bending stress of a EC1165 is the same as 750 lbs of hitch weight. Who'd worry about that on a modern dually?

4x4ord wrote:
Is anyone impacted by FlatBroke's photo? After seeing the photo, the guy who never overloads his truck will probably continue to never overload his truck. On the other hand, a guy like me who knows he can get away with grossly overloading his truck will probably continue to grossly overload his truck. Maybe if we knew the rest of the story we could learn something.

Covered Wagon has it all figured out...it's because the truck doesn't have a "real" frame! lol

Bottom line, some people could break an anvil and others are smart enough to know what they're doing...

covered wagon wrote:
Center of gravity may be too far back, not forward enough but, the failed frame is the hydroformed modern day engineered frame. My first generation dodge had a real frame like that of the big rigs. First thing I noticed going to the newer dodge was the flexing I could feel in the frame while running gravel roads, you could feel a solid difference by comparison. When comparing frame thickness there was a noticeble difference in the thickness of the steel

Yes the camper is too much for that truck. Still can't understand why the front went up rather than down because proper center of gravity location would mean the front failing in the downward position. However, wind and road dynamics may play a roll no pun intended.

This thread would be more effective having been posted in the Truck Campers forum.

Say wut?

You're exactly 180 deg off in your assessment of a "real" (whatever that means, C channel I guess) frame vs a newer frame. Literally.
The newer boxed/hydroformed light duty truck frames are stiffer and stronger. Not sure what you're smokin here.
Camper is "too much" for the truck? You'll have to impart some more specifics with you wisdom here, because, that makes no sense, other than just a simple unfounded opinion.
And idk what would be gained with it being in the TC forum, lol. 6 pages in 2 days is a pretty good turnout...