maybe you but not me

[bigred715]

I have a hard time believing that is a real picture. If it is, he should have his drivers liscense revoked. This is totally unsafe and should have been stopped before he got very far. Those back tires won't last too long and has to steer terribly bad. It will be a miracle if he makes it to his destination without a serious accident.

[77cruiser]

Aw it's OK it has a Ego Boast in it.

[firestation12]

Originally Posted by jsb5717

You also have to wonder how that thing steers. What's that little phrase Forrest Gump says? "S----- is as s----- does". That should be a reckless endangerment charge.

Left front tire doesn’t look like there is much contact withe pavement surface. Yikes!

[Theunz]

Looking at that bottle jack supporting the rear of the camper makes me suspect that he has already realized that it was a dumb thing to do.

[R.S.O'Donnell]

My suspicion is they're just trying to get it home. I would have rented a trailer. No way I'd try this. That being said we're in the process of getting a Lance 1172. Talking to our local dealer he said: "I have to ask, do you have a dually?"
He told us they routinely have to tell people they don't have enough truck for the camper they are looking at.

Here is an unfortunate truck camper incident:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6v1-z0IQKNs

[brycesteiner]

Originally Posted by bshgto

This guy is the next candidate for failure. Nope won`t follow him either.

I see what you are saying. Imminent failure. What are they thinking putting on of these on a short bed?
Doesn't the manufacture of the RV bear something on this? It appears to be designed for this size of truck and bed.

[mlh]

I don’t see how the RV manufacturer has any responsibility. I could put that camper on my F150 and when the truck failed say the manufacturer was responsible. I know that wouldn’t fly here in western Va and I don’t think even in more liberal places.
Lynwood

[bshgto]

Originally Posted by BB_TX

The front part of the frame has some structural support from the cab. The rear part of the frame has some structural support from the bed. But those few inches between the cab and bed have no extra support. That tall heavy camper is going to tend to rock back and forth front to rear at every start, stop, and every bounce down the highway. And that center part of the frame is going to be the primary bending point. Given enough time and miles flexing, the metal fatigue will eventually weaken that area, no matter the brand.

Here`s something on the subject After doing some research on this it seems it`s more of a rusted frame issue that starts the problem. But this is just one man's opinion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ci9jADPmVj0&t=503s

[brycesteiner]

Originally Posted by mlh

I don’t see how the RV manufacturer has any responsibility. I could put that camper on my F150 and when the truck failed say the manufacturer was responsible. I know that wouldn’t fly here in western Va and I don’t think even in more liberal places.
Lynwood

I'm not a person who alleviates personal responsibility at all. I also think there are times that companies or government agencies should be held criminally liable, rather than just civilly, if their design flaws cause personal harm.

In this case I believe the companies could be held responsible, and here is why: They are designing these bed RVs to add much more weight behind the rear axle. The weight ratio that far behind the fulcrum is a problem and it's showing. The trucks are designed for weight to be in the bed where both axles and frame are bearing the load. Every one of those pictures are showing a big portion of the weight about 4' behind the rear of the bed, which is an even bigger problem for short beds.

IMO that is a big design flaw, and should cause the responsibility to be shared with the driver, as the intended design is part of the flaw.

[BB_TX]

The front most part of that camper is much farther in front of the rear axle than the rear most part is behind the rear axle. So there is no way to know whether that total weight is centered over, in front of, or behind the axle. My guess would be that the center of that weight is over or just in front of the axle. Only the manufacturer would know. And you would hope the design engineers planned that distribution when they designed the construction and internal layout.

The above video hypothesis is exactly as I suggested. The very large weight of the tall camper would rock front to rear during normal driving causing the frame to constantly flex in the center area, eventually leading to metal fatigue and failure. Especially with a camper exceeding the rated max load of the truck.

[AZ Traveler]

Without more information on actual weights we are guessing. While this thread has highlighted a couple of cases this does not appear to be very common.

[77cruiser]

Only 2 brands?

[bshgto]

Originally Posted by brycesteiner

I'm not a person who alleviates personal responsibility at all. I also think there are times that companies or government agencies should be held criminally liable, rather than just civilly, if their design flaws cause personal harm.

In this case I believe the companies could be held responsible, and here is why: They are designing these bed RVs to add much more weight behind the rear axle. The weight ratio that far behind the fulcrum is a problem and it's showing. The trucks are designed for weight to be in the bed where both axles and frame are bearing the load. Every one of those pictures are showing a big portion of the weight about 4' behind the rear of the bed, which is an even bigger problem for short beds.

IMO that is a big design flaw, and should cause the responsibility to be shared with the driver, as the intended design is part of the flaw.

So they designed a truck bed that allowed a customer to over load the truck by putting something to heavy into it that over hung the bed and tail gate. and should be held liable.
Case in point....Local news guy showed up at a skydiving exhibition. The news guy want to film the divers in action. The pilot of a small plane agreed to take him up with all his camera gear and a battery pack that he had strapped to his back. They had to take the passenger seat out because of all the gear. He sat on the floor facing reward so he could film the divers out the open door. Most if not all small planes have 2 steering wheels on left and one right.
NTSB surmised that some time during the flight the straps that held the large battery pack to the camera mans back became in tangle with the right steering wheel and he lost control of the plane and nosed dived into the ground. Both dead. The camera mans wife sued Cessna and the pilots estate, pilot didn`t have any money so Cessna took the brunt of the suit. They claimed that Cessna designed a plane that allowed them to do this and put them in danger and should have known this could happen. They won the case. Cessna shelled out tons of money because of this. 40 years ago this happen the pilot was my friend, and still today companies have to pay for peoples stupidity by some peoples logic. NTSB did not agree with the courts findings. Most men are accountable for their actions some aren`t.