Accident Where Integrity of CMC (cab mount chop) Questioned?

I don’t know much about steel. Toyota calls it “high strength steel”. I don’t know what their definition is

 

I think "high strength steel" is a generic term that sounds good in marketing like "aircraft grade aluminum" but really doesn't mean anything specific.

 

Yes. Dealers are also selling heavily modified 1st gens right now that they took in on trade because the market for them is crazy at the moment. A lot of those have been lifted, welded up and abused...hell many have had frame reinforcements/repairs done in the rust belt, not to mention steel bumpers that don't undergo crash test/airbag testing (ARB is the only one that does). Yet they're still selling these trucks.

That particular dealership that denied the Tundra was probably being overly cautious, he was probably able to trade it in at the next Toyota dealer across town.

 

A buddy of mine got in a head-on with a CMC. His purple SCS Ray 10’s with Yokos came into the cab. They managed to sew his feet back on below the knees. This is him today (post recovery):

 

I was just thinking about that video or a similar video that I had seen on this forum in the past. Speaking as an attorney who deals with insurance adjusters on a daily basis, IF the crash resulted in the wheel ending up in the cabin, and IF that was a cause of injury/damages, you better believe that the insurance company would use the CMC as a defense. Given the video evidence of how the CMC works in connection to the deflection of the wheel away from the cabin; its a pretty good defense.

 

That's as far as I got... because the rest of it is word salad.

First of all... I would venture to guess less than 1% of adjusters would even know to look for a CMC... of that 1% maybe 10% of those adjusters would even take the time to look for the CMC.

So where is the liability? They would have to prove the CMC caused the wreck, or caused the injury... they can't... so they don't look... so the question of liability is moot.

To expand... if you are going to make the point that CMC is a liability concern... literally ANYTHING you do to a vehicle is that same concern. Down to different brand tires handle and behave differently (even same size).

Also, wheels, different brand (much less size) shocks, different bumpers, a camper shell, and on and on and on and on and on and on and on... ALL alter "the design" of the truck.

How many times have you heard of an insurance adjuster assigning liability to a camper shell?

This entire arguement hinges on vauge hypotheticals, and arm chair engineers trying to come up with reasons and excuses why they don't want to do a modification to their truck, and have an extreme conviction to convince everyone else they are right.

 

Lol... that's not what the designers thought.

But. wait... so you're saying the MAIN FRAME MEMBER that literally holds the entire truck together isn't as important as the crossmembers? How is the side rail of the frame less important than the crossmembers... that are connected to the side rail of your frame?

And ok... so what happens if you're involved in a crash and your slider ends up on the other car's windshield?

 

No. You're missing the point... No one said anything about camper shells or brands of tires. Design changes, as you aptly referred to them. We're talking about material modifications to the structural integrity or drivability of the vehicle that could have had a causal connection to the incident.

Counsel for insurance companies rely on TONS and TONS of crash data, prior claim evidence and photos and observations from body shops doing the postmortem on wrecked vehicles (among other things) to make their assessments. It's not some generic guy with a combover and a toothpick sticking out of his mouth after a greasy lunch just eyeballing things and making a best guess if there's a serious accident.

I'll repeat: the risk may likely be relatively minor that a claim could be denied, thereby leaving you on the hook. But it ain't zero. And what's completely irrelevant is what you, me, we....TW in general thinks about the negative effects of a CMC. If you find yourself in that situation, you can argue any side of metallurgical wisdom you may possess. It won't mean anything. For the record, I don't think it's a big deal either, but I do know how the back end of those claims work. If the insurance adjusters and counsel dig in their heels, best of luck to you.

 

Ask the people on the jury. They are the only people whose opinion matters.

Game. Set. MATCH.

 

Again... nothing but words.
I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you.

 

You wonks keep talking about "liability"

Here are the top 25 causes of traffic accidents in the U.S.

https://seriousaccidents.com/legal-advice/top-causes-of-car-accidents/

Notice that NO WHERE ON THAT LIST is "vehicle modification."

Design defects are on there... but that is the Ford Pinto blowing up when rear ended, a Suzuki Samurai rolling over, or a Toyota Corrola excelerating without the foot on the pedal... it's where the Lawyers go after the big pockets with the Car Companies.

No one is coming after you because you took a 5 inch long 1/2 inch thick shaving off of your cab mount...

No one is coming after you because you put a push bumper on your truck, or bigger tires, or wheels with more offset.

Because they will not be able to prove those things were the cause of the accident when it is almost 100% certain that another, more provable cause was at fault... like...

Distracted driving
Speeding
Drunk driving
Reckless driving
Weather
Or the AT LEAST 20 other causes of accidents that make the list before vehicle modification.

 

You obviously can't understand it for yourself.

 

Dude. I could fucking care less about liability. What I do care about is making a mod that could end up hurting someone, especially a loved one.
Again, a CMC, in certain crashes, could let the wheel and tire come through the firewall and floor and whatever is in the footwells...meaning feet and legs.
I posted fact. You posted nothing.
Listen... or not.

 

That image I shared isn’t part of a marketing campaign. I think it’s a diagram for the dealership auto body / frame shops or others performing repairs. I can’t recall where it came from, but it’s clearly not part of a brochure they are using to sell Tacomas to the general public, so I’m not sure it’s a “marketing” ploy.

 

Dude... you have no friggen clue what you're talking about. A CMC is not going to be the cause of your loved one getting hurt.

The CMC is not going to cause structural degradation to the vehicle.

Besides... the cab mount isn't even as important as the cross members... because the cab mount attaches to those side rails of the frame you said weren't as important

I'd venture to guess you don't even actually know what the CMC even involves.

 

Sigh...now you're missing the point differently. Here we go. No one said a CMC will cause an accident. But to your point about the Pinto and the Samurai et al, yes. Those were defective and unreasonably dangerous conditions that were, in part, a cause of many accidents.

The point is that, with the right type of impact, what could have been a benign "fender bender" may become much more structural due in no small part to your structural modification to the vehicle. You lose a leg when someone hits you indirectly from the front like those crash test photos from earlier and you want their underwriter to back up an armored truck full of cash to your house? Well, again, you may very well run the risk of being denied. Similarly, there's a reason why you see tons of mustangs and cameros with slicks and skinnies set up for drag racing in CoPart lots. Tried to swerve to miss something, 3" wide fronts couldn't find any grip. Claim denied. Proximate cause. Look it up.

 

What you are missing is that in the modern age, Toyota uses the Cab Mount as the wheel intrusion guard/deflector to achieve their “small overlap crash” worthiness rating. It essentially keeps the wheel out of the cab in a small overlap crash, and needs to be strong enough to do so. That’s why they keep getting bigger.

 

You are missing the point here. The modification is not causing the crash. The modification is increasing, causing, or otherwise giving rise damages which may or may not have existed but for the modification in an already existing crash. You better believe the accident reconstructionists and biomechanical engineers who are literally nothing but professional experts are up to speed on how these modifications can change the dynamics of a motor vehicle crash.

It is a comparative fault issue in some states, could be a complete bar to damages in others.

 

Hey....let's leave Samurais out of this!