...they took a lot of pictures, asked me in detail how the shell was mounted, and what kind of roads I was driving on ... I am aware that by mounting the shell, I probably either caused the crack or made it worse. But this same camper shell was installed on my '02 Taco, with no problems over 2 years of use. Is it unreasonable to expect that it would also work on a new Tacoma? ...
-Chris
I'm really sorry this happened to you, but I'd like to ask how you attached the Flip-Pac shell to your new Taco -- bolts, or what? Also, how many attachment points were there, and where were they located? Were any of them very near where the crack occurred?
I'm really sorry this happened to you, but I'd like to ask how you attached the Flip-Pac shell to your new Taco -- bolts, or what? Also, how many attachment points were there, and where were they located? Were any of them very near where the crack occurred?
Good question... I have spent WAY too much time trying to figure out the best way to mount my shell to this new bed. And my end result still wasn't satisfactory; in fact, I'm not sure I will ever be able to use my shell with this bed.
On my old truck, the shell was mounted using 6 bolts than ran through the top bed rails. These bed rails are where the fenders are welded to the inside of the bed - very strong - and the bolts went through two layers of steel this way.
If you pull the plastic rail caps off of the new trucks, however, all you'll find is the fender steel, as there is no bed steel for the fenders to weld to. You can bend this steel with your bare hands, and there's no way I would mount a shell to this, especially not for off-road use. The strongest point I could find in the bed is the bolts that hold the C-channels on the inside top of the bed. So I unbolted the C-channels and bolted on some angle iron in it's place, using the stock bolts and holes. I then bolted my camper shell onto these angle irons. This did not hold up very well; by the time I got home, one angle iron was loose and I actually sheared off the front bolt. The folks at the dealer agreed with me that the way I mounted the shell was probably the most secure way given the options.
Just to clarify, I never drilled or cut any part of the bed or truck. And the crack is nowhere near the angle irons that I bolted on. I think the crack happened because I had extra weight bolted on to the bed, and the rocking back and forth offroad caused extra stress on it.
If Toyota didn't test for this type of usage, what did they test for?
Good question... I have spent WAY too much time trying to figure out the best way to mount my shell to this new bed. And my end result still wasn't satisfactory; in fact, I'm not sure I will ever be able to use my shell with this bed.
On my old truck, the shell was mounted using 6 bolts than ran through the top bed rails. These bed rails are where the fenders are welded to the inside of the bed - very strong - and the bolts went through two layers of steel this way.
If you pull the plastic rail caps off of the new trucks, however, all you'll find is the fender steel, as there is no bed steel for the fenders to weld to. You can bend this steel with your bare hands, and there's no way I would mount a shell to this, especially not for off-road use. The strongest point I could find in the bed is the bolts that hold the C-channels on the inside top of the bed. So I unbolted the C-channels and bolted on some angle iron in it's place, using the stock bolts and holes. I then bolted my camper shell onto these angle irons. This did not hold up very well; by the time I got home, one angle iron was loose and I actually sheared off the front bolt. The folks at the dealer agreed with me that the way I mounted the shell was probably the most secure way given the options.
Just to clarify, I never drilled or cut any part of the bed or truck. And the crack is nowhere near the angle irons that I bolted on. I think the crack happened because I had extra weight bolted on to the bed, and the rocking back and forth offroad caused extra stress on it.
If Toyota didn't test for this type of usage, what did they test for?
So what is toyota doing for you on the repair list a new bed? and if so is the new bed going to hold up in the same manner as before? I dont think i like the plastic bed setup at all and hope it doesnt make it's way in the next Tundra..Truck's get heavy use and plastic is a cheap product to use on any application including the bumper..The new bed really is a disappointment ill tell my friends shopping for a new tacoma too look for the 2004 tacoma model instead plus he can get a better deal since there trying to make way for 2005..
... I have spent WAY too much time trying to figure out the best way to mount my shell to this new bed. And my end result still wasn't satisfactory; in fact, I'm not sure I will ever be able to use my shell with this bed.
On my old truck, the shell was mounted using 6 bolts than ran through the top bed rails. These bed rails are where the fenders are welded to the inside of the bed - very strong - and the bolts went through two layers of steel this way.
If you pull the plastic rail caps off of the new trucks, however, all you'll find is the fender steel, as there is no bed steel for the fenders to weld to. You can bend this steel with your bare hands, and there's no way I would mount a shell to this, especially not for off-road use. The strongest point I could find in the bed is the bolts that hold the C-channels on the inside top of the bed. So I unbolted the C-channels and bolted on some angle iron in it's place, using the stock bolts and holes. I then bolted my camper shell onto these angle irons. This did not hold up very well; by the time I got home, one angle iron was loose and I actually sheared off the front bolt. The folks at the dealer agreed with me that the way I mounted the shell was probably the most secure way given the options.
Just to clarify, I never drilled or cut any part of the bed or truck. And the crack is nowhere near the angle irons that I bolted on. I think the crack happened because I had extra weight bolted on to the bed, and the rocking back and forth offroad caused extra stress on it....
Yes, it sounds like you did the best you could under the circumstances. I've been trying to imagine how the SnugTop shell attaches, but I haven't been able to see one. I suppose they might make long shoes that slide into the C-channels and tighten down. If those were designed to distribute the shell's torque during 4-wheeling over the whole length of all three bed walls, it might help a little, but the side walls of the bed would still flex from side to side, especially near the tailgate, when the truck rocked vigorously.
I wonder what reinforcement is built into the side walls? If you look down thru the holes in the fender steel that lies under the plastic rail caps, can you see molded ribs reinforcing the walls?
Even after imagining how Toyota might have intended a shell to be attached, I'm having a hard time convincing myself that this is going to be strong enough to absorb the sorts of punishment that a 4x4 or work truck takes in normal use.
I had been hoping to trade my old 4Runner for a new Tacoma, but I'm starting to think about a Tundra now... before they too have composite beds.
Well, let's give Toyota some time. We'll see what they do to make it right.
..... If campers or weight can't be mounted to the bed (other than the Snugtop, which weighs half as much), they need to disclose that up front. I was happy that the dealer backed me up in these thoughts. The service manager even said "They're not going to sell many more of these if you can't mount shells on them."
Flip-Pac is 250-290 lb (per website). Snugtop Super Sport is about 250 (6'). Gemtop Gemsport is about 220 (6', 2004 model). There's no significant weight difference.
First of all, I think a lot of people are construing the cracking of the composite material as a lack of strength, rather than perhaps a lack of plasticity. It is proven that composite materials can be (and often are) stronger than steel or iron by a large margin. What we see here is a problem with the chemical and mechanical engineering of the material. The properties of iron or steel is its natural plasticity (or ability to deform without rupturing) and ductility (ability to bend without cracking) under pressure and temperature . Currently, we have had problems developing strong composites with these properties.
Using composites is relatively in its infancy (iron and steel has been worked with since the medieval ages). We are just beginning to see composites for truck beds, and I think that this will indeed be the future. Yes, composites are cheaper than iron and steen, but that doesn't mean that Toyota is only looking out for a lower production costs or that they are "cutting corners". In order for new technologies to be developed, there must be a demand, and once there IS a demand (i.e. companies making the leap and using the technology), improved materials can be made. Perhaps there *will* be a recall...perhaps not. Maybe in the next 2006 Tacoma, another, improved composite material will be used.
Well, in the end, I actually applaud Toyota's venture into unknown territory when it comes to a truck that could be used for heavy duty use. The other "trucks" using composites are more crossovers and marketed towards recreational use. Perhaps when composites have proven themselves (it'll take a little while probably--with stumbling blocks in the way like this cracked bed) all trucks will be sporting these new things. Composites are stronger, lighter, and cheaper...the only thing that needs to be fixed is their propensity for cracking.
It is proven that composite materials can be (and often are) stronger than steel or iron by a large margin.
Composites are stronger, lighter, and cheaper...the only thing that needs to be fixed is their propensity for cracking.
-Mark
I agree with you. I really like composites in many applications. However, when you say they're stronger than steel, I think you mean that they are stonger "pound for pound" when compared to steel.
It's like the old saying that spider webs are stonger than steel. Yeah, I'm sure it is when the weights of the web and steel are the same. That doesn't mean we should start throwing natural spider web material on vehicles.
As much as I like composites on things such as firearm stocks, motorcycles, construction applications...etc, I'd rather have the tried-and-true steel on the parts of my truck that take the most abuse. Just line the bed with Line-X or Rhino and you're far better off than any composite right now. I may not be saying that in years to come when the technology has progressed, but composites in truck beds are inferior to steel right now.
Why can't they just make trucks out of the same stuff they make the "black box" in airplanes?
Ryan
__________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
I agree with you. I really like composites in many applications. However, when you say they're stronger than steel, I think you mean that they are stonger "pound for pound" when compared to steel.
It's like the old saying that spider webs are stonger than steel. Yeah, I'm sure it is when the weights of the web and steel are the same. That doesn't mean we should start throwing natural spider web material on vehicles.
As much as I like composites on things such as firearm stocks, motorcycles, construction applications...etc, I'd rather have the tried-and-true steel on the parts of my truck that take the most abuse. Just line the bed with Line-X or Rhino and you're far better off than any composite right now. I may not be saying that in years to come when the technology has progressed, but composites in truck beds are inferior to steel right now.
Why can't they just make trucks out of the same stuff they make the "black box" in airplanes?
Ryan
So according to you, we should of never advanced through wood? Or heck even stone?
When was there ever a time where something new has thousands of years of testing before it hit the market? Someone already said it best that steel has been worked on since the medival ages... If you don't trust natrual progression in development, then you'll never have stronger material... Wood ladders would of never seen aluminum if this was the case...
Once again, this is ONE bed and ONE truck... We have yet to see another incident... I'm sure there are plenty of steel beds over the years that got tore up, just that they probably didn't get posted because there was nothing else to compare to...
GM offered theirs as an option. The option cost about $1,500. They planned on selling 50,000 and sold about 5,000. It was dropped after two years.
We know that the new composite material is lighter and costs less than steel, but the durability is in question. Only time will tell.
Interesting that the new Tacoma commercial does not push the bigger size or engine, but is about the bedliner. They are really trying to sell the idea to the public.
If you don't trust natrual progression in development, then you'll never have stronger material... Wood ladders would of never seen aluminum if this was the case...
They have ALUMINUM ladders now!? Where the hell have I been!?!?
Sorry to have nothing better to contribute to this thread... just a little comic relief.
__________________
-Austin
2003 Toyota Tundra SR5 TRD Sport
It's like the old saying that spider webs are stonger than steel. Yeah, I'm sure it is when the weights of the web and steel are the same. That doesn't mean we should start throwing natural spider web material on vehicles
actually the military has been doing just that for a few years now, its still in R&D but from what I understand they already have a working bullet proof vest made up of spider web blended material.... it was on that tachtical to practical show.
__________________ HAVE YOU DRIVEN OVER A FORD LATELY?
Team West SAWS (cranked up to 3.25")
Total Chaos UCA
ORS Manual hub kit
reese front receiver hitch
10,000 lb. winch on receiver hitch
Warn Quick connects front and rear
rear brake porportioning valve mod
3" perfomance products body lift
skyjacker AAL
wheelers urithane kit for front swaybar and steering rack
BFG AT's
Eagle101 wheels
CB radio W/ dual fiberglass 48" ant.
So according to you, we should of never advanced through wood? Or heck even stone?
Yeah, that's what I'm saying. I wish my truck was made out of wood and stone... whatever man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KAuss
When was there ever a time where something new has thousands of years of testing before it hit the market?
The undustrial revolution was only a few decades ago. Look how far we've progressed with technology and materials since then. That's why I said that I'll take the steel beds until the composite technology proves to be superior. I think it's only a matter of time. On the other hand, steel has been around for a loooong time. It'll be around when we're long gone... and for good reason.
So relax about me not wanting technology to progress or whatever you said and take the time to re-read my post.
Ryan
__________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
I agree with you. I really like composites in many applications. However, when you say they're stronger than steel, I think you mean that they are stonger "pound for pound" when compared to steel.
It's like the old saying that spider webs are stonger than steel. Yeah, I'm sure it is when the weights of the web and steel are the same. That doesn't mean we should start throwing natural spider web material on vehicles.
I actually meant that composites ARE stronger than steel...whether that means "pound for pound" or overall. Once again, I said that the problem with composites is its plasticity. It would take a whole lot less force to take a sheet of steel and bend it (permenantly deforming it--of course you could pound it back into shape) than you could with a composite. Also, you could easily punch a hole into steel with a LOT less force than you could with a composite. What makes steel/iron desirable is that it will deform before it breaks. So what needs to be done? Make the composite less stiff/brittle and voila, we have a superior truck bed than steel...of course, the engineering of such stuff is difficult. As for natural spider web material...GO FOR IT! That is the strongest semi-pliable material known. One problem though: how do you produce enough spider web material to make a truck bed? To create a spider web farm would be prohibitively expensive...look at regular cloth silk...VERY expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryone
As much as I like composites on things such as firearm stocks, motorcycles, construction applications...etc, I'd rather have the tried-and-true steel on the parts of my truck that take the most abuse. Just line the bed with Line-X or Rhino and you're far better off than any composite right now. I may not be saying that in years to come when the technology has progressed, but composites in truck beds are inferior to steel right now.
Why can't they just make trucks out of the same stuff they make the "black box" in airplanes?
There is a key phrase you used to describe steel: "tried-and-true". Development is breaking out of the "tried-and-true" and taking risks. I reiterate: development is supported by demand. If we stick with steel, there will be no demand and no one will try to improve the material for a specific application (i.e. truck beds). Growing pains!
I wonder who developed this composite bed? Is it the same as with the other vehicles with composite beds? Okay...I guess I have rambled on long enough
I’m really not trying to start a holy war between steel and composites here. This may be the ONLY bed that cracks out of EVERY new Tacoma. We may have debated about materials and bed construction for 4 pages already for nothing… but then what would be the fun of a discussion forum?
Like I pointed out before, I really like composites. I bought a composite pistol because of its characteristics. A lot of handgun owners call them “Tupperware” and believe that they are inferior to steel pistols, but I really like my “tupperware” handgun.
I’m not sure, but along with the differences in thermal expansion and hardness that I mentioned before, maybe composites don’t have the same tensile strength as steel…YET. Maybe they do, I don’t know.
In general, a material’s tensile strength is its “stretching strength”. Like the analogy of steel in concrete I used before:
-Concrete has high compression strength (strong when pressed, like in a vise). But concrete is weak when it is “stretched.”
-The rebar is placed in concrete to give it tensile strength.
Maybe today’s composites are similar to concrete in that they have less tensile strength than steel. This (along with differences in thermal expansion and hardness) may explain the cracking. These are just guesses. I wish I could find graphs and tables that show which material is stronger in each area.
As far as spider web material… I knew it was stronger than steel. I had no idea they were experimenting with a synthetic composition of it in body armor. It would definitely be lighter along with other added benefits I’m sure. Of course they can’t have a “spider web farm” and genetically mutate arachnids to produce massive amounts of webbing. It has to be synthetic or else PETA and Pam Anderson would have an aneurism. Also, synthetic or not, it may be cost-prohibitive to install in truck beds.
As far as “taking risks” in developments with new technology:
- I’m all for advancements in technology. Doesn’t mean I want to be the guinea pig and pay a lot of money for something that hasn’t been tested extensively. The same reason I waited until the Tundra was out for a few years before I bought one. The same reason I would wait a few years to buy the new Tacoma. Doesn’t mean I don’t believe in progression.
Ryan
__________________
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
Also, synthetic or not, it may be cost-prohibitive to install in truck beds. 
Linear Mode
