The editors at Truck Trend are journalists, not engineers.
With Truck Trends statement:
"The problem is that it ignores the commonly understood (yet unspoken) practice of understating the maximum payload number. Pickup experts know that truck buyers will use the "maximum" number only as a starting point and most likely add more (if not a few full-size passengers as well)."
Truck Trend magazine is creating a dangerous situation. The engineers who designed these trucks used margins, which is the proper engineering term for what Truck Trend calls "understating". These weight ratings are not a "starting point", they are the maximum weights, period. These margins are not to be used to overload, they are safety margins which are carefully calculated by qualified stress engineers to allow for manufacturing defects, tolerances and crash loads.
Now, in the following paragraph Truck Trend talks about the Honda struggling under it's rated capacity while the Dodge takes it in stride. Keep in mind that the weight ratings are solely calculated on the strength of the materials (frames, axles, wheels, tires). just because the engine struggles, and the coil springs compress solid doesn't mean the above mentioned elements are over stressed. I am not saying the Ridgeline is a good truck to carry it's 1510 lb. load, but I am taking exception to Truck Trend inviting people to overload their trucks beyond the manufacturers stated load capacity. They are inviting a class action lawsuit.
Now, before you flame me, I agree with all the experts here on the Rv.net forums who improve their trucks by switching to higher capacity tires such as 19.5's and all of the other modifications that are needed to make their trucks safe to carry higher payloads. There are many experts on here, that is why people come here for advice. The journalists at Truck Trend would do well to learn from you.
BTW, I am an engineer, I deal with strength of materials, stress calculations, and load paths as part of my everyday job. I posted this so people would not follow the bad advice of the Truck Trend magazine journalists, who are obviously NOT engineers.
* This post was
edited 05/12/08 03:39pm by David_in_TX *
To be fair to Honda, they only said "...the Ridgeline at its 1510-pound limit, the rear coil springs were almost fully compressed". As we all know here on the forum, even american full size trucks with leaf springs need rear suspension modifications to support their fully rated payloads. The experts here on Rv.net use airbags, helper springs, etc. to fix this. It is the marketing department that forces the use of soft springs. Most of todays pickup buyers demand a soft ride, which is contrary to high payload weight. To obtain a soft ride unloaded and also support the payload, the springs must be adjustable. I wish the manufacturers would equip these trucks with factory installed adjustable airbags so there would be no question that the trucks could carry what they say.
Flashman wrote: Looks like Honda is "marketing" their way to specifications!
I've never found a pickup truck yet that needed any help to carry it's rated load. No airbags, no extra springs, nothing. It's when you get a couple of thousand pounds over rated payload that you need to bandaid stuff on to help out the stock suspension. Proof - take note that the two actual pickup trucks in this test stopped essentially just as well at GVWR as they did unloaded, while the rest of them - not pickup trucks in my opinion, but SUV's - did nothing like as well at that test.
Brian
2003 Dodge Ram 2500 Quad Cab, Hemi, 5 speed manual, 3.73 gears, Tow Beast hitch with 24" extension.
28 ft race car hauler, Lola T440 Formula Ford, NTM MK4 Sports Racer
2004 Travel Hawk 8' Truck Camper - Roll at 16K combined weight
Offline
