Colorado bent frame

[Deleted member 1634]

Three? Out of the 790,235 second gen Colorado's / Canyon's that have been built? Nonsense.

Fact is if you overload the frame, via excessive loading, it will fail predictably. That's not GM's problem... because it's beyond the stated capacity.

Need more capacity? Then buy a truck with more capacity.

Personal responsibility seems to be lost in our society today.

I would agree that 3 instances does not require a call to action by GM. 300 maybe a bit of eye raising. 3000 for sure needs some more research.

Sponsored

 

[Deleted member 1634]

My only thing about all of this is that it seems like everyone is running wild with the idea that the truck was overloaded and used improperly. I read through this thread and I didn't see where that was stated definitively. Maybe I missed it or it was buried in some article or outside link somewhere, and if that's the case then I rescind my comment. But there are certainly ways that this could've happened within the allowable specs GM laid out. Engineering is all about reducing the likelihood of failure in a percentage of scenarios. There is no way to design for every single possible outcome, of which there are infinite. And the fact that there have only been 3 instances of this, makes me think that maybe there was a very unlikely grouping of variables coming together at the exact right time for this to happen. Maybe it was a failure of the owner/driver, sure, but maybe he hit a bump at just the right speed with just the right brake application and just the right trailer loading to cause a once in a million failure to occur. Every individual aspect was within the allowable specs, but something that may not have been designed for or considered, or that was considered but deemed so unlikely to happen that it's not worth the time, effort, added weight, and/or added cost occurred. There are probably thousands of drivers who overload their trucks all the time, and hundreds of those who go off-road with them. If only 3 failures have ever occurred, then something else must've happened.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that there are a lot of stupid people out there doing a lot of stupid things, but lets not allow our own internal bias to be the judge, but rather the facts.

 

[Zaph]

Hi Zaph,

A bit of a back story on the Ford F450....we experienced frame cracking on trailer tow durability on the first year of offering the F450. so it as suggested to put a doubler frame insert in the frame only to find that the problem moved to the end of the doubler. It turned out upon analysis by my engineers that the the hole spacing and size mattered. We made changes. If you saw three of these bent frames, then GM has a huge problem on their hands unless the chose to ignore the problem, which may be the case. Do not know... We, Ford had a Transmission parking pawl issue and we got away with issuing a sticker that said to make sure the hand brake was set in addition to putting the vehicle into Park.....What a crock...

What would be damning is if frame updates appear on future model years of the Colorado. A doubler frame insert, that oval slot gone, etc. That would basically admit that they had a problem.

Also the scary thing about this whole story is that a maker will use ANYTHING to get out of paying for huge damages. (not just GM) I mean this is not a surprise to me, but it is one of the reasons I'm not putting larger tires on my truck.

 

[Zaph]

Need more capacity? Then buy a truck with more capacity.

Personal responsibility seems to be lost in our society today.

Agree about personal responsibility. Idiots are doing stupid crap all the time and trying to get other people to pay for it.

I think the problem here is the truck is failing in a way that is not expected. And I highly doubt that dynamic loading limits of the tongue weight are explained in the manual in the detail required to prevent this.

 

[VAMike]

My only thing about all of this is that it seems like everyone is running wild with the idea that the truck was overloaded and used improperly. I read through this thread and I didn't see where that was stated definitively.

It's the most likely explanation, and can't be proven unless the guy who did it ran the trailer right down to the weigh station to preserve damning evidence against himself. But given how few Colorados have exhibited the problem, it seems really unlikely that a properly configured trailer would cause this--and overloading trailers is really common, much more so than engineers screwing up load calculations on a frame that's been in service for years.

 

[Dr. Zaius]

If you look at the trailer wheels, it appears that he was able to bend the trailer axle as well.

The ground is level and it looks like a good bit of camber going on there.

Maybe just the pic angle but it looks bent, especially compared to the wheel on the rear of the truck.

That makes me think more of hooning than design flaw.

No matter how good you engineer or build something, someone will be able to screw it up in a way the engineers never envisioned.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

It's the most likely explanation, and can't be proven unless the guy who did it ran the trailer right down to the weigh station to preserve damning evidence against himself. But given how few Colorados have exhibited the problem, it seems really unlikely that a properly configured trailer would cause this--and overloading trailers is really common, much more so than engineers screwing up load calculations on a frame that's been in service for years.

I guess my point was that since this failure has happened so infrequently, and that we both agree that overloading happens more frequently, then something else besides just overloading is the cause. Simply overloading it wouldn't result in this type of failure, unless you went crazy beyond the limits which is extremely unlikely to happen with a little 2100lb trailer in normally designed for conditions. I'm also not saying the engineers missed something or screwed up the loading either. Frame bending is pretty basic and one of the first things considered, so I don't doubt the analysis is correct there. I was just saying you can't engineer for everything.

And I think you said exactly what I'm saying, it can't be proven. But my take on that is that we shouldn't be outright blaming the driver as the default. Things happen, and sometimes there's no one to blame and that's all there is to it.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

If you look at the trailer wheels, it appears that he was able to bend the trailer axle as well.

The ground is level and it looks like a good bit of camber going on there.

Maybe just the pic angle but it looks bent, especially compared to the wheel on the rear of the truck.

That makes me think more of hooning than design flaw.

No matter how good you engineer or build something, someone will be able to screw it up in a way the engineers never envisioned.

I hadn't seen that picture before. Trailers like that are built pretty stout and don't break easily. Nor do truck frames. So that's quite the load condition to cause both the trailer and the truck to fail like that. I'd be interested to know more about what actually happened. I'd like to get into some trailer overlanding type of stuff like that (we already have an off-road worthy trailer) and would hate to be another victim of this type of failure, especially if it's a condition that is relatively mundane and easily experienced.

 

[Dr. Zaius]

I don't know if the full story will ever get out.

The driver went after everyone to cover the cost.

Insurance company (failed) GM (failed).

He's probably now trying to find the owner of the property so that he can sue them for having a rut in their dirt road and no flashing neon lights and signs to warn him of it.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

What would be damning is if frame updates appear on future model years of the Colorado. A doubler frame insert, that oval slot gone, etc. That would basically admit that they had a problem.

Also the scary thing about this whole story is that a maker will use ANYTHING to get out of paying for huge damages. (not just GM) I mean this is not a surprise to me, but it is one of the reasons I'm not putting larger tires on my truck.

Hi Zaph,

It would certainly be a red flag if they put in a doubler...Not so much taking out the punch that stamps the oval hole.... We had law suits at Ford where the suit stated we clearly corrected a problem. The industry attorneys will always say that just because We made a change does not mean the old design was a problem.

How this one got out the door of GM is surprising. With today's analysis techniques this area of the frame would have shown to be highly stressed and changes could have been made to the design to low the stress levels. This is not cyclic fatigue but monotonic yield of the frame.... Scary!

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[Deleted member 1634]

How this one got out the door of GM is surprising. With today's analysis techniques this area of the frame would have shown to be highly stressed and changes could have been made to the design to low the stress levels. This is not cyclic fatigue but monotonic yield of the frame.... Scary!

You're obviously right in saying that this is an area with high stress concentration, but that doesn't mean that it still doesn't meet regulations and is safe for use. There are plenty of stress concentrations all over the vehicle that could fail under any number of load conditions as you know. But always outside of the design limits for the vehicle. And in excessive tongue weight load condition I would definitely expect it to fail at that location. But like I said in a previous post, frame analysis is pretty simple, especially for a failure mode like this, and would not be missed or overlooked by any respectable engineer/company. I know you know all this, but I just want it made clear that a lack of engineering on something so simple would not be my first reasoning for failure. If it comes out that GM made such a simple mistake and let a defective design out the door like this, then shame on them, but I highly doubt that to be the case.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

You're obviously right in saying that this is an area with high stress concentration, but that doesn't mean that it still doesn't meet regulations and is safe for use. There are plenty of stress concentrations all over the vehicle that could fail under any number of load conditions as you know. But always outside of the design limits for the vehicle. And in excessive tongue weight load condition I would definitely expect it to fail at that location. But like I said in a previous post, frame analysis is pretty simple, especially for a failure mode like this, and would not be missed or overlooked by any respectable engineer/company. I know you know all this, but I just want it made clear that a lack of engineering on something so simple would not be my first reasoning for failure. If it comes out that GM made such a simple mistake and let a defective design out the door like this, then shame on them, but I highly doubt that to be the case.

Hi Matt,

I agree with you. I doubt this was overlooked. I cannot say why for sure, but I would not be surprised to learn that someone higher up the management structure made the decision to go with it, gambling it would not cause a problem..

Not frame related but talk about dumb decisions. The first Explorers were criticized for harsh ride. Shocks and springs were redone, but minor effect. So the higher ups made the decision to lower the tire pressure recommendation to 26 psi to help the situation. Unfortunately the rim roll off was 25 psi...the pressure where the tire under side load can break the tire bead seal to the rim. We all know the fiasco that caused.... The higher up, who will remain nameless...abruptly retired from the company as I remember....

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

 

[HenryMac]

Trailers like that are built pretty stout and don't break easily.

I worked with a guy who would vacation in the Southwest every year. He was a "rock hound" and would fill his vehicle with the rocks he and his wife collected and bring them back to Ohio.

The weight adds up really quick... when it's rock.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

Hi Matt,

I agree with you. I doubt this was overlooked. I cannot say why for sure, but I would not be surprised to learn that someone higher up the management structure made the decision to go with it, gambling it would not cause a problem..

Not frame related but talk about dumb decisions. The first Explorers were criticized for harsh ride. Shocks and springs were redone, but minor effect. So the higher ups made the decision to lower the tire pressure recommendation to 26 psi to help the situation. Unfortunately the rim roll off was 25 psi...the pressure where the tire under side load can break the tire bead seal to the rim. We all know the fiasco that caused.... The higher up, who will remain nameless...abruptly retired from the company as I remember....

Best,
Phil Schilke
Ranger Vehicle Engineering
Ford Motor Co. Retired

I definitely have plenty of experience dealing with upper management stupidity. So I'm with you there. If it does end up being a deficient frame design, then it's likely not the engineer, it's the manager who gave the go ahead to skip the redesign to save time, cost, available payload, etc.

 

[Deleted member 1634]

I worked with a guy who would vacation in the Southwest every year. He was a "rock hound" and would fill his vehicle with the rocks he and his wife collected and bring them back to Ohio.

The weight adds up really quick... when it's rock.

Well sure, you can break anything if you try hard enough. haha

Sponsored