How concerned are you about your trucks payload

[Dennis C]

This still holds true in Colorado. The big jacked up trucks and Range Rovers are the ones most often in the ditch.

[kscherzi]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Seems like we go thru this discussion (or many discussions) like this a lot, with the same folks telling us it's "ok" to not follow recommendations from the manufacturers, right?[emoji38]

Who, in this entire thread, says it's okay to not follow manufacturers recommendations?

I'll answer for you. Nobody.

Instead it's being asserted by a number of folks here, and without evidence, that just because someone is towing such and such a Airstream with a vehicle they personally don't approve of, that individual must be knowingly doing something wrong.

[jlydell]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Seems like we go thru this discussion (or many discussions) like this a lot, with the same folks telling us it's "ok" to not follow recommendations from the manufacturers, right?

It's not okay to disobey speed limits either, but I can tell you I didn't see a single vehicle towing below 55 MPH over 1500 miles of driving in California. That is the maximum speed for any vehicle with a trailer, and speed definitely impacts dangers on the road.

Yet most of the driving population is comfortable driving faster, typically I saw big rigs running at 62 MPH, which I'm guessing is where their governors are set.

Speed is easily measured, commonly enforced, and definitely impacts safety in very similar ways as adding mass. But you don't see debates like payload when it comes to it.

I guess when you get down to it RVers hold manufacturers' requirements in higher regard than they hold highway engineers' requirements.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by hikingcamera

I have no studies to reference when it comes to driving, however, anecdotally, it was a big of a running joke in Colorado, that it was always the big trucks and SUVs that you’d see zoom by in the fast lane on snowy mountain passes, and it was the same cars you’d see in snowy ditches on the side of the road later on.

Very true, especially in the front range where there are lots of people with more money than brains. I drive the Ike Gauntlet frequently and it is one of the scariest drives towing our airstream. The actual drive is really a piece of cake but weather is seldom perfect and the I-70 corridor is full of some crazy drivers that think they are invincible with their 4/all wheel drive vehicles on performance tires that won't stop. Most accidents in this area are typically some kind of a rear end (event?).

[ROBERT CROSS]

Originally Posted by gypsydad

Seems like we go thru this discussion (or many discussions) like this a lot, with the same folks telling us it's "ok" to not follow recommendations from the manufacturers, right?

We be lucky...the mfg said nutt'n about 'payload' on our sticker...

Bob

I guess GVWR is sufficient.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by ROBERT CROSS

We be lucky...the mfg said nutt'n about 'payload' on our sticker...

Bob

I guess GVWR is sufficient.

Absolutely. The benefits of having a vehicle sold prior to the 2007 payload label requirement.

Our 2003 SUV had no tow rating. Not on the door jamb, in the owner's manual, or the tech literature. But the manufacturer sold a Class III hitch receiver for it.

How did we ever survive?

[gypsydad]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

Who, in this entire thread, says it's okay to not follow manufacturers recommendations?

I'll answer for you. Nobody.

Instead it's being asserted by a number of folks here, and without evidence, that just because someone is towing such and such a Airstream with a vehicle they personally don't approve of, that individual must be knowingly doing something wrong.

Are you seriously asserting there is no one here, thus far, who has asserted that someone towing "such and such an Airstream", with a vehicle they don't personally approve of, may be doing something wrong? And that assertion being made "without evidence" is assumed by who?

Seriously, tongue and cheek...many posts on this and similar important topics "here on the Forum" with some folks who have been "towing" for many years, "asserting or inferring", the mfg specs may even be marketing/sales oriented...go figure. (No offense intended!)

[dznf0g]

Originally Posted by jcl

Absolutely. The benefits of having a vehicle sold prior to the 2007 payload label requirement.



Our 2003 SUV had no tow rating. Not on the door jamb, in the owner's manual, or the tech literature. But the manufacturer sold a Class III hitch receiver for it.



How did we ever survive?

There were tow ratings and tw ratings back then. They weren't very apparent, thus the new(er) labeling requirements.

[jcl]

Originally Posted by dznf0g

There were tow ratings and tw ratings back then. They weren't very apparent, thus the new(er) labeling requirements.

Yes, on some vehicles. Not on some others, even though the manufacturer supported towing applications.

[Castaway]

Originally Posted by OrangeCrush

So bigger trucks are more dangerous because they go faster? That's awesome!

No, FASTER trucks are more dangerous and those with bigger trucks have commented on how they feel safe at higher speeds.

[Castaway]

Originally Posted by kscherzi

Who, in this entire thread, says it's okay to not follow manufacturers recommendations?

I'll answer for you. Nobody.

Instead it's being asserted by a number of folks here, and without evidence, that just because someone is towing such and such a Airstream with a vehicle they personally don't approve of, that individual must be knowingly doing something wrong.

So far about of a third of those voting have said that they do not worry about over loading, so I take that as they think it is OK to not follow the manufacturers recommendations.

[OrangeCrush]

Originally Posted by Castaway

No, FASTER trucks are more dangerous and those with bigger trucks have commented on how they feel safe at higher speeds.

Wow - not by me or any others I have seen. Care to share a link to validate? As far as I can tell most people driving more capable trucks are doing so for safety and adequate payload, not speed.

[propchef]

Originally Posted by Castaway

So far about of a third of those voting have said that they do not worry about over loading, so I take that as they think it is OK to not follow the manufacturers recommendations.

That’s quite a leap. Maybe those folks have already done their due diligence and are confident in their setup (within outlined limits)? Maybe they have Bro-trucks and small campers?

There’s nothing to suggest these folks are ignoring recommendations.

[field & stream]

Originally Posted by Castaway

So far about of a third of those voting have said that they do not worry about over loading, so I take that as they think it is OK to not follow the manufacturers recommendations.

Major misunderstanding here. Many, maybe the majority, of those voting that they have “no concern” explicitly explained that it is because they have a tow vehicle with more than enough payload.

It is not at all because they don’t worry about the overloading issue. It is the opposite, they have adequate tow vehicles because they respect payload specs and do worry about an overloaded vehicle.

[kscherzi]

Originally Posted by Castaway

So far about of a third of those voting have said that they do not worry about over loading, so I take that as they think it is OK to not follow the manufacturers recommendations.

I would suppose, that probably 100% of people on this forum-topic are responsible and concerned individuals. My guess is those that have checked "don't worry" on the survey have checked their loads several times at a scale in the past and have a solid feel for what material can be carried in the truck, and what cannot.

[Boxite]

Why …is this devolving into personal attacks…. ??

[jcl]

I selected "not worried about payload" but that doesn't mean I don't care about loading, or that you should assume I am overloaded. "Payload" doesn't matter to me. It is meaningless IMO, especially when referring to the payload label. Rated capacity does matter to me; monitoring axle loads as measured on scales. GVWR matters when I am driving a commercial truck. I don't worry about either of them, I just manage them.

[Starlight Mike]

Originally Posted by majorairhead

My payload is 3,111 pounds. No worries at all. Pack 'er in, load 'er up, throw a bit on top, and head out.

And of course you have a 250 as do i and I never worry. One clear fact is that the 250 tows better all around. There is no debate there. Daily driver, slightly different story but that shouldn't be the deciding factor, towing is what is important. I towed with a 1500 for many years and lived to tell about it but i'm a lot happier with the 250.

[camphost1]

Get 2500 or 250 in the long run you will be happy you did. We have been in a 31ft for last 14 years full time on number 3 pickup they all made 200000 miles no trouble.

[Mollysdad]

Originally Posted by Jim J

Link to lawsuit concerning Payload.

https://www.thedrive.com/news/ford-s...bers-false-mpg

Okay, I actually read the article.
Can we agree, in no instance was the lawsuit concerning an accident or failure caused by erroneous payload?
The lawsuit involved the SUPER DUTY line of trucks, the one's people here recommend.
The lawsuit just claimed the numbers were wrong. Ford settled as most companies do because it's cheaper than fighting it in court, they admit no wrongdoing.

States also asserted that Ford's claims around the payload capacity of its Super Duty trucks were deceptive in nature. "In calculating the maximum payload capacity of its vehicles, the investigation found, Ford employed a truck configuration it did not actually intend to sell to individual buyers," Platkin said.
Instead, the figures were quoted for a truck equipped with a miniature center console and lacked a spare wheel, tire and jack, radio, and center console. This let Ford retain its claim of "Best in Class" payload in advertising claims, despite not selling the specified vehicle to the public.

IMO, it's clear that Ford was trying to overstate the payload while still staying in the EPA guidelines.
They knew YOU wanted a big payload sticker and they knew the EPA wanted a vehicle meeting fleet standards.
They did what they had to, fudged the numbers.
Marketing, not engineering.

So removing the spare tire increases payload? Food for thought. "Yeah, my Super Duty Ford is so much more capable without a spare! No more white knuckle trips for me!"