RSI Smart Cap

FWIW I'm putting Fishbone stiffeners on the front and some Extreme Terrain low profiles on the tail so I can still use a drawer system. Thought better safe than sorry, and Fishbone confirmed that it will work with RSI as long as you have a track system.

Now to just get that cap...

 

Have a link to low profile?

 

Wasn't my first choice of overall stiffeners, meaning if I didn't have a custom built drawer system (without much clearance like a Decked) I would have chosen one with more reinforcement across the bottom. https://www.extremeterrain.com/tacoma-bed-stiffener-kit-ap-307435.html

 

why those over total chaos?

they look similar with a different top

 

Cheaper here: or even lower here: https://www.summitracing.com/parts/aof-ap-307435

 

Total Chaos stiffeners have an extremely small gusset. They’re a structurally inferior design to pretty much every other option.

 

well thats a bummer since i just got the total chaos ones. but they look like the mounting holes are the same so i should be able to swap them if i want i guess

 

Which is interesting to think about - do you know of any testing to compare the different brands?

For example, if you were to bolt each variant of stiffener into a jig that mimics their installation in a Tacoma bed, and "pulled" from the same spot at the top of each, which would fail at what force?
Further, is that force reasonable?
Does it matter if one brand is 1.3x stronger than another, when both are stronger than any force the truck would experience?

If the only force that would cause a stiffener to fail would also be catastrophic to the truck itself, does the 1.3x stronger difference really matter?

 

None will 'fail'. - Unless its due to a collision, or something out of normal driving.


The issue is how well do they do their job - of being stiff - to prevent flex. TC bed stiffeners are not as 'Stiff' as others... Their construction will allow more flex than many others' designs. You'll see cracks before any stiffener 'fails'.

How much flex is OK? I dunno. I'd stick to the theory that less flex is better than more.

I have a cap; but do not carry any significant weight otherwise. I do not believe it is a major issue in any case... Beds are not 'failing' as Tacos go down the trail... - Mostly.

I like the additional attachment points on mine.

 

Got the data for comparison?

 

We've got just a few Evo Sport 5ft bed caps left in stock and another dozen arriving in the next few days. This is likely the last of the 5ft Evo Sports until October! If you're wanting one of the new caps, grab them while they're available.

Interwebs ---->>>> OFFROADALLIANCE.COM

 

Yeah i think most companies put them in the same place to clear the bed structure and taillight bits.

This isn't really a thing that requires testing. It's just a matter of physics.

Looking at comparable designs, it's more than 1.3x difference between the TC stiffeners and others on the market. For the application, stiffer is better. I'd buy an option with a beefy gusset if I were to pick up a topper or bed bars.

Sure.

99% of aftermarket parts are fabbed from either a basic carbon steel (like A36) or a general use stainless steel (like 304). All commonly available and commercially used steel alloys have similar enough material properties that the performance of a part like this comes down almost exclusively to its design.

The majority of the strength in bending for a corner bracket comes down the size of its gusset. Simply put, bigger gusset = more stiff. Total Chaos has one of the smallest gussets of the available stiffener brackets, it's very small. With every thing else about material properties known, we can say the TC design is inferior to others on the market that use larger or multiple gussets.

 

until I see one these stuffies separate/fail due to welds, gussets…or testing results from an actual lab (that does this and I doubt any will), I’m gonna be an “ass” and assume they are fairly equal. Happy to be proven wrong tho.

 

You're wrong. But sure; you do you.

 

ok, yes. I will. Thanks for your expertise here.

 

That’s an awful lot of assumptions made… and saying “it’s just a matter physics”, yeah guy - physics involves testing and experiments.

 

Stop it! Who need testing when you can just look at it?!!

 

Physics is math. Materials science isn’t assumptions. It’s all known quantities. All of these properties are listed in engineering tables.

 

Is this a follow the science scenario?