GVM & Insurance
Submitted: Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:04
ThreadID:
53652
Views:
2503
Replies:
5
FollowUps:
15
This Thread has been Archived
Member - Oldbaz. NSW.
A few posts recently on this issue. Some in relation to the woeful carrying capacity of the new LC 200, others re Patrols.
Should we take this seriously ? Read on...
Brother in Law rolls his Grande Vitara X7 & van, no injuries, calls
Insurer & rep arrives promptly, all good. Rep only permits removal of gear for O/nite stop. When questioned says that recent studies
have revealed that many 4wd &/or vans are over legal weight limits
& policy is now to weigh all such claims as first priority. Very nervous couple accompany wrecks to weighbridge & are relieved
to find they meet limits...not by much. Insurer writes both off
& settles claim.
What do you do ?. Be bloody careful I'd say. If you dont know
your situation.. find out. Get to a weighbridge when fully loaded
for that trip &
check the legal limits of your rig. Given that a late model 4wd & van can easily exceed $100k in value, will you risk it?.
This has all come about due to our insatiable lust for more & more toys in our 4bys & vans. Manufacturers dont make em heavier by choice, they respond to public demand. So we now have vehicles
that are illegal as soon as you load a few mates & a couple of slabs.
Where is it all going...(sigh)....oldbaz.
Reply By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:14
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:14
G'day mate,
This is the biggest issue weighing on my mind these days!!! I already know I am over weight and I'm tossing up between either adding another axle to the rig or junking the steel tray and box (which work really
well) on the back and getting an aluminium box made up......not sure how much weight that will save.
Other options are getting rid of the steel bullbar and winch and fitting one of those smart bars (plastic) or an aluminium jobbie.....
I guess my 35" tyres also contribute to the situation a bit.
Cheers
Roachie
AnswerID:
282447
Follow Up By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:28
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:28
Its a real problem Roachie. Many dont know that whatever tray
or body work you fit to a cab chassis forms part of your rated
carrying capacity or load. I guess consideration of things like
Bullbars & other weighty things can help. I never cease to be amazed that people will carry up to 200 L of water around.
Unless this thing is taken seriously there will be some tears...oldbaz.
FollowupID:
546961
Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:23
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 12:23
Alloy bars or the plastic things just don't work.
In the event of a collision the alloy just folds and the plastic flexes so far back as to cause damage to the vehicle.
Nothing beats steel for this application.
FollowupID:
546995
Reply By: Willem - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:31
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 10:31
I have actually managed to reduce the weight in the truck and now weigh in at 200kilos inder GVM. All gear is in trailer which is over the legal unbraked limit though when all the fuel is on board. Once have the fuel load is gone it comes in under the limit.
Insurance companies don't worry me, as I do not have comprehensive insurance.....lol
Cheers
AnswerID:
282457
Follow Up By: Member - Olcoolone (S.A) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 13:19
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 13:19
Willem I take it you have third party insurance only, it still doesn't matter..if you have an accident with another vehicle and you are the cause they pay out but if over weight they may refuse to pay the other party where by the only option is for the third party or their insurer is to take legal action against you directly to recover costs.
Regards Richard
FollowupID:
547004
Follow Up By: Willem - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 14:09
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 14:09
Richard
I am overweight but the truck isn't......hahahahahahahahaha
Regards
FollowupID:
547010
Reply By: Gone Bush (WA) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 11:36
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 11:36
Oldbaz, It is inaccurate for you to single out the LC200 as having a "woeful carrying capacity".
The vast majority of family 4wd wagons ALL have very similar capacities.
If you target one model, you must target all models. This has been done to death on this
Forum and others as if it's fair game to stick it to the new boy on
the block.
As I said in another post on this subject, these pathetic generalisations reflect very poorly on the Poster.
AnswerID:
282478
Follow Up By: Member - Olcoolone (S.A) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 13:31
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 13:31
I read Oldbaz's post as a non vehicle specific post and he used the LC200 as an example only because in the 4wd mags and on the net there has been a fair bit of discusion about this subject.
The LC200 is a good example... fantastic 4wd built by one of the most respected vehicle manufactures in the world.
Put 5 adults and some safety gear, a fridge and clothing plus a bull bar and it goes over weight.
This is poor design on the engineers part as what is a 4wd going to get used for......droping the kids of to school and some shopping!
Regards Richard
FollowupID:
547005
Follow Up By: Member - Roachie (SA) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:09
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:09
The question that still sits there begging is: who decides what the GVM of any particular vehicle is in the first place? If Nissan, Toyota and all other 4x4 manufacturers got a bit more fair-dinkum about what people expect to use their vehicles for, then maybe they would rate them at a higher GVM than they currently do.
If, for example, Nissan said it's Patrol had a GVM of, say, 3800kg (instead of 3040kg), who is gunna query that? I doubt the RTA people do any independant tests on new models as to what THEY think a fair GVM is for that vehicle. I'm also fairly certain that the insurance companies aren't going to ever write to a manufacturer along the lines of "we don't think your Patrol should be rated at 3800kg because of..........."
So, we (the end users, via our state associations etc), maybe should be lobbying the manufactuers in an attempt to have THEM up-rate their own product at the time of manufacture. How do they pick an arbitrary GVM figure of 3040kg in the first place????
Cheers
Roachie
FollowupID:
547029
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:18
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:18
Richard, my point applies to your Follow Up as
well.
Why single out the LC200?
Your comments apply to virtually ALL family 4WD wagons.
If yours and Oldbaz's posts were not specific, why mention the LC200?
FollowupID:
547031
Follow Up By: Member - Olcoolone (S.A) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:32
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 16:32
Who really cares is he used a Pajera, Patrol or Landcruiser the truth is they all suffer from the same thing.
Why don't you like him mentioning the LC200, he also mentioned the Patrol aswell......you weren't the one who disigned the LC200 and put this stupid GVM on it were you?
I can not see why you are so concerned.
Carm down and take a deep deep breath it's only a post that tells the truth.
Regards Richard
FollowupID:
547033
Follow Up By: Eric Experience - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 17:44
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 17:44
Roachie.
The GVM is not an arbitrary number. The manufacture would love to trump the opposition by increasing it. The number is determined by the weakest link in the chain, tyres are a big problem, if a vehicle is capable of doing over 120 KPH it has to have a particular type of tyre, not a truck tyre, if the manufacturer was to limit the speed to 110 KPH he could raise the GVM by fitting truck tyres to the vehicle that is presented for the ADR testing process. The motoring journalists would have a field day bagging a vehicle that could only do 110 so they would not sell and the manufacture would lose. Limiting the 200 series to 110 would cause a scream from the drivers who have no regard for the law, but it would enable the tyres and
suspension to be changed and a safer overall result. An example is the Mercedes Sprinter it is limited to 129KPH so it can run a special truck tyre and carry 3 tons. Eric.
FollowupID:
547049
Follow Up By: Member - Oldbaz. NSW. - Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:09
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:09
In response to your allegations that my pathetic generalisations
reflect very poorly on my good self. If you care to read my post
carefully you may note I said some posts refer to the woeful
carrying capacity of the LC200, others on Patrols. I did not target
one model, I simply stated facts that have occurred previously in
posts on this matter. You obviously completely missed the point of my post about the importance of weight & subsequent
insurance issues. You, apparently are quite happy that modern
4wd have bugger all carrying capacity. Am I offended?
Of course not !!. My skin is far too thick, & I think your opinion
of my character reveals much more of yours than it does of mine.
Cheers.....:))....oldbaz.
FollowupID:
547158
Follow Up By: Member - Olcoolone (S.A) - Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:48
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 10:48
Oldbaz no need to explain I know what you ment......perhaps Gone Bush has just ordered a LC200 and you put a stop to his excitment.
FollowupID:
547169
Reply By: Gerhardp1 - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 18:38
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 18:38
This link spells it out fairly
well for the 70 series.
http://www.lovells.com.au/products.php?p=gvm
I agree that there are too many people with a "she'll be right" attitude who ignore the regulations.
I just hope those who are overloaded don't run into my family.
The price of the accident is far too high, as someone said above, $100,000 plus ORC and accessories is a pretty big loss to take. The lease/loan payments won't stop just because the vehicle is written off, either.
The pity is that the poor innocent victim will have to sue the offender, and will be lucky to get $1.00 a week.
AnswerID:
282539
Follow Up By: Gone Bush (WA) - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 23:53
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 23:53
It's interesting that the kit must be fitted before the vehicle is registered; it can't be fitted afterwards.
FollowupID:
547125
Reply By: Peter 2 - Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 23:06
Saturday, Jan 19, 2008 at 23:06
I think that tyres would be the least of the problems associated with higher GVM's.
Anyone who has had a 4wd for the last 25 or 30 years will tell you that while modern vehicles are faster, safer, more comfortable, more economical and are fitted with a lot of crap that is not needed in the bush, they are also weaker with lighter drivetrains, thinner metal and lot's of plastic components but still weigh more than a 25 y/o cruiser or patrol.
They are also cad cammed to do the designed job, just! and the downside is smaller payloads, shorter life, more expensive repair costs and more breakages if overloaded or used for their intended use for more than 10% of the time.
I too was worried about my troopy exceeding its GVM when loaded for outback trips, hence the Humvee, 1250 kg payload and a 100% duty cycle, I'll never wear it out!
AnswerID:
282607
Follow Up By: Davo_60 - Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:13
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:13
Hi Peter,
Just wondering what '100%' duty cycle means in relation to the vehicle and payload?
Cheers,
Dave
FollowupID:
547159
Follow Up By: Peter 2 - Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:29
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 09:29
It means exactly what it says, the vehicle is rated to carry full payload 100% of the time over all conditions. It has 60% sideslope and 40% gradient at full load. The winch is rated at continuous duty as
well.
Basically it means that all the systems are able to endure extreme operating conditions even when the truck is fully laden and can do so continuously without overheating, being unable to stop or prematurely wearing out any component.
All the physical load limits for tie down points, recovery points, COG etc at full load are all given on a plate affixed to the truck as
well as the operators handbook.
The also give fuel consumption with different tyres (crossply or radial) and loads and in differing off road conditions.
Towing capacity is 1500kg's unbraked and 3500kg's braked.
FollowupID:
547160
Follow Up By: Davo_60 - Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 15:52
Sunday, Jan 20, 2008 at 15:52
Interesting, thanks.
Dave
FollowupID:
547223