How concerned are you about your trucks payload

[jcl]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

My take on this is the legal (mostly leaning toward commercial) vs the reliability and durability issue. It does seem DOT does lean heavily on axle loading as their mantra. The OEMs lean more to the reliability/durability testing/validation for a long life and customer satisfaction over the ownership period.
I, personally believe in the manufacturer methodology (surprise, surprise), because that customer interface is where I lived for 35 years.

If I understand your comment, and assuming that the axle/suspension/frame reliability durability is covered by the GAWRs, it is the powertrain/braking reliability and durability that you refer to. I would add duty cycle into the discussion. The manufacturer's ratings are with a nominated duty cycle, one that they used for their validation testing, and one which may or may not match the end user's.

[dznf0g]

Yes, duty cycle is integral.

[Starlight Mike]

Originally Posted by GettinAway

Maybe this is why people aren’t having any issues towing with 1/2 ton trucks. My favorite line is the one where someone has been towing for years without any problems, then they read about payload and door stickers. They are shocked and immediately run out and buy a bigger truck.

Ignorance is bliss until it’s not.

[GettinAway]

Originally Posted by Starlight Mike

Ignorance is bliss until it’s not.

Yes, and I guess I don’t love my family..

Or maybe it works. And has for millions of miles for thousands of trucks and trailers… I keep saying, common sense has to have some place in this discussion.

[DewTheDew]

Originally Posted by jcl

T
So, this brings us back to axle weight limits. A question has been posed many times in these discussions, essentially asking why someone would choose to follow one rating (eg axle weight ratings) and not others (like the tow rating, or the payload rating). Because the former is a legal limit, which may not be enforceable for private vehicles vs commercial carriers, but which is nonetheless legally defined.

This is a bit disingenuous. The "other" that has been raised continually is neither tow rating or payload (per se), but GVWR.

And again, there are many factors that people might take into account if they want to pull a trailer in excess of various specs. And that may include their experience in pulling trailers, the type of trailer, the duty cycle and so on. But again, there is no actual factual basis for claiming that the GAWR is more "real" than the GVWR. It is your opinion and that is fine, but it is a mistake to claim it as a fact rather than an opinion.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by FMSports

Now I hook the trailer, that hitch weight is part of the trailer's GVWR, not the truck. The weight of the hitch is shouldered by (mostly) the rear axle, therefore I need to be mindful of that load. GVWR is then absorbed by GCWR.

FMSports - Problem is this part of your assumption from post #388 is fundamentally wrong. The trailer tongue weight is considered tow vehicle payload which is derived from it's GVWR. The below quote is highlighted in bold red in the Ford Super Duty towing guide and I am pretty sure GM and RAM have similar statements in their towing guides.

"Make sure vehicle payload (reduce by option weight) will accommodate trailer tongue (trailer king pin for 5th-wheel towing) load weight and weight of passengers and cargo added to towing vehicle."

[jcl]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

FMSports - Problem is this part of your assumption from post #388 is fundamentally wrong. The trailer tongue weight is considered tow vehicle payload which is derived from it's GVWR. The below quote is highlighted in bold red in the Ford Super Duty towing guide and I am pretty sure GM and RAM have similar statements in their towing guides.

"Make sure vehicle payload (reduce by option weight) will accommodate trailer tongue (trailer king pin for 5th-wheel towing) load weight and weight of passengers and cargo added to towing vehicle."

In terms of adding the GVWR of the trailer and tow vehicle to get a combined GCWR, the tongue weight is part of the the trailer GVWR. We don’t get to exceed the trailer GVWR by discounting tongue weight. Obviously the tongue weight is not part of the trailer axle load, but it is part of the trailer GVWR. Perhaps the confusion is over GVW vs GVWR. The tongue weight is part of the truck GVW, not GVWR.

The next step is to consider axle loads, and FMSports did note that the hitch load is mostly carried by the rear axle.

[FMSports]

I've attached a diagram showing evaluation of a WDH towing setup, using my weights as the example.

The question is where does that OCD & payload-shaming matter in these numbers and analysis?

The most important #'s are your total weight, distribution, hitch and axle loads.

In terms of loading down the truck/SUV frame and sheet metal, yes payload is a consideration. Applying some intelligence to the situation, you can see that setup is more important than freaking about payload alone. And there is ample margin built into the axles, if you are at GVWR of the truck.