Watch this.
Ram Heavy Duty Forum
Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Before you "send it."
- Thread starter Brutal_HO
- Start date
joshuaeb09
Well-Known Member
The lawyer is the one to listen to here and its common sense. Be realistic about what your rig can handle, don't be stupid/look stupid, and avoid situations that would point to gross negligence. That's why I did a bit of careful selection with my "compromise" build parts. I wanted to keep rear support for a sane 2500 CTD payload which meant the Thuren rear springs were out and had me picking the Carli R2 springs. Because of how I setup/use my trucks - I knew that the 2500 CTD would be the perfect platform for me since I usually don't tow much more than a "goldilocks" optioned stock halfton could, but I wanted the creature comforts and the diesel. If I was towing heavier or gooseneck/5ver I would've gone 3500 HO without a second thought and a slightly different direction with suspension/wheels/tires. In the future if I need to tow more freuently or just a little bit more weight - I'll regear to account for the tire change, but if we're being honest that's really only for the benefit of the 68RFE. If I need to tow notably more weight, then its time for a 3500 - The right tool for the job.
TL;DR don't be stupid lol
TL;DR don't be stupid lol
Pasta4lnch
Active Member
This is a great video. One of the very few things I seriously regret not getting w my truck is the 410 gears. I know all of this makes total sense...I truly am astonished at how, even slightly, larger tires completely transforms the appearance of a truck - but hey, I got this truck to tow safely...
BlueOx2500
Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2022
- Messages
- 72
- Reaction score
- 23
If this video's intent is to keep people from exceeding their GVWR, I don't think it did a very good job of that. Here's why:
1) CEO guy. He should run for political office if he has not done so already. All the answers were very vague and simply referenced government mandated testing. (More on government testing from interviewee #2 later) The CEO said the GVWR is established by the manufacturer in regard to "what they feel comfortable with." He said it's a complex issue overall and couldn't really answer the question as to whether or not you could exceed or fix your GVWR by doing things like adding air-bags. He did supply something a little more concrete, like reducing your "axle ratings" (not GVWR) by the same % and the % increase of the weight gained by your modifications. Note that he said axle rating, and not GVWR. Super vague overall when you simply state that it's all things combined and can't point to any specific examples, it's because you don't have any to cite. This was the chance to shine and nothing of substance was provided.
2) The 2nd interviewee Sam did have an example, albeit a poor one. He had an example about a Ford Mustang. He said the gas tank had to be decreased by 1/2 gallon because the tolerances were so tight in testing. But why? It wasn't for safety, it was for meeting EPA mandated emissions and fuel economy standard for a particular class. It simply had to do with a government certification that had nothing to do with the vehicle being unsafe because it was heavier. That's about a poor of an example for the intent of the video as one could imagine. Examples of winches hurting people in a crash is important, but that's not related to the weight of the vehicle as much as it as where it's located and how it's shaped/made.
3) The Lawyer. Probably the best interviewee, but again, didn't really drive home you're in big trouble if you exceed your GVWR on the sticker. He did say that exceeding GVWR can lead to gross negligence if you knowingly do so in a gross manner. Like dragging your rear end and steers hovering off the ground (my words). But, he also said it's "rare and fuzzy" and it would take a good lawyer that knew a lot about this kind of stuff to even have a chance. Instead, he focused on being "reasonable" and to not overthink liability and risk. "Be reasonable and go on with your life." Don't do things that are "obviously bad."
The GVWR on a 3/4 ton truck (10k) is done for a government classification purpose. If nobody can answer why you can't add axle ratings together to get the GVWR, and yet the GCWR is way north of what the payload of the truck would support if remaining below the 10k GVWR, then there is no other reasonable explanation. GCWR is about stopping and controlling the vehicle, is it not? At some point things break (axle and tire ratings are important) and that's probably why CEO said "axle ratings" and why Sam couldn't come up with a better example and the Lawyer said to be reasonable. Also, why is Canada's 3/4 ton GVWR 9900lbs for the exact same truck that's sold in the US? Because 4500kg = 9900lbs and Canada decided that would be their registraton cutoff.
I'm not advocating being grossly negligent. Be safe out there fellow drivers.
1) CEO guy. He should run for political office if he has not done so already. All the answers were very vague and simply referenced government mandated testing. (More on government testing from interviewee #2 later) The CEO said the GVWR is established by the manufacturer in regard to "what they feel comfortable with." He said it's a complex issue overall and couldn't really answer the question as to whether or not you could exceed or fix your GVWR by doing things like adding air-bags. He did supply something a little more concrete, like reducing your "axle ratings" (not GVWR) by the same % and the % increase of the weight gained by your modifications. Note that he said axle rating, and not GVWR. Super vague overall when you simply state that it's all things combined and can't point to any specific examples, it's because you don't have any to cite. This was the chance to shine and nothing of substance was provided.
2) The 2nd interviewee Sam did have an example, albeit a poor one. He had an example about a Ford Mustang. He said the gas tank had to be decreased by 1/2 gallon because the tolerances were so tight in testing. But why? It wasn't for safety, it was for meeting EPA mandated emissions and fuel economy standard for a particular class. It simply had to do with a government certification that had nothing to do with the vehicle being unsafe because it was heavier. That's about a poor of an example for the intent of the video as one could imagine. Examples of winches hurting people in a crash is important, but that's not related to the weight of the vehicle as much as it as where it's located and how it's shaped/made.
3) The Lawyer. Probably the best interviewee, but again, didn't really drive home you're in big trouble if you exceed your GVWR on the sticker. He did say that exceeding GVWR can lead to gross negligence if you knowingly do so in a gross manner. Like dragging your rear end and steers hovering off the ground (my words). But, he also said it's "rare and fuzzy" and it would take a good lawyer that knew a lot about this kind of stuff to even have a chance. Instead, he focused on being "reasonable" and to not overthink liability and risk. "Be reasonable and go on with your life." Don't do things that are "obviously bad."
The GVWR on a 3/4 ton truck (10k) is done for a government classification purpose. If nobody can answer why you can't add axle ratings together to get the GVWR, and yet the GCWR is way north of what the payload of the truck would support if remaining below the 10k GVWR, then there is no other reasonable explanation. GCWR is about stopping and controlling the vehicle, is it not? At some point things break (axle and tire ratings are important) and that's probably why CEO said "axle ratings" and why Sam couldn't come up with a better example and the Lawyer said to be reasonable. Also, why is Canada's 3/4 ton GVWR 9900lbs for the exact same truck that's sold in the US? Because 4500kg = 9900lbs and Canada decided that would be their registraton cutoff.
I'm not advocating being grossly negligent. Be safe out there fellow drivers.