Advantage/Dis-Advantages of welding vs. bolt-on

very well said boyd +1

+1 for you as well

dont think dhk really understands very much do you?

you dont quite get it do you? just because the frame has holes in it doesnt meen you can bolt a slider on thats gonna support the whole weight of the truck.

and btw how bout you read a little into this...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnuson–Moss_Warranty_Act

 

This guy cannot be serious??? LOL


Listen to what the good people are telling you

 

Zing!

 

I would love to hear an explanation on how adding additional metal via welding, would cause a frame to just break in half.

 

in his own little helmet wearing, window licking world.... anything is possible!

 

You see, AndrewFalk, it's a perfectly easy explanation. The thing is... that by adding extra metal to a frame... you're... uhh...



Nope, I got nothing. Don't see how that's possible. Even a bad weld between the sliders and the frame isn't going to weaken the frame only. The only weak spot will still be the connection between the frame and the sliders; that is, the sliders might break off, but the frame wouldn't be any more likely to snap.

Theoretically, adding a weld to the frame could leave a spot for rust to start forming. But seriously, that would take like 5 minutes of preventative maintenance to ensure no rust.

 

can you not fucking read?! look how many times people have told you there are holes in the frame BUT they will not support a solid structure to be able to support the weight of the truck! they can be used to hold a set of step bars to support a human....not a fucking one ton pick up.
obviously you are to ignorant to read anything at all and just post blindly and tardedly

i dont know anything about metallurgy but i do know alot about common sense. and you sir are lacking pretty much every motor function besides moving your fingers to type the same retarded things over and over.

 

No, actually I do. I'm just a few classes away from getting my mechanical engineering degree.

It seems like you have a decent amount of book smarts, but you are lacking in common sense, and experience concerning real world applications. There's a big difference between what theoretically COULD happen, and what actually occurs.

Maybe if someone got confused and used a plasma cutter instead of a MIG welder, then yes, the frame could break in half.

 

Welding to a tempered steel frame can weaken it.

But Tacoma frames aren't tempered.

Another know-it-all-web-wheeler for my ignore list.

 

once again i have to repeat myself... since your retarded and cant read or do anything like click a link im gonna copy and paste it here for you to hopefully read.
The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act (P.L. 93-637) is a United States federal law, (15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.). Enacted in 1975, it is the federal statute that governs warranties on consumer products. The Act was sponsored by Senator Warren G. Magnuson of Washington and U.S. Representative John E. Moss of California, both Democrats, as well as Senator Frank Moss of Utah, who co-sponsored it with Magnuson.
Contents

[hide]

• 1 Purpose
• 2 Definitions used
• 3 Requirements
  • 3.1 Full Warranty Requirements
• 4 Limitations
• 5 Remedies under the Act
• 6 See also
• 7 Sources
• 8 References
• 9 External links

[edit] Purpose

According to the Report of the House of Representatives which accompanied the law (House Report No. 93-1197, 93d Cong 2d Sess.) the Magnuson-Moss act was enacted by Congress in response to the widespread misuse by merchants of express warranties and disclaimers. The legislative history indicates that the purpose of the Act is to make warranties on consumer products more readily understood and enforceable and to provide the Federal Trade Commission with means to better protect consumers.[1]
The statute is remedial in nature and is intended to protect consumers from deceptive warranty practices. Consumer products are not required to have warranties, but if one is given, it must comply with the Magnuson-Moss Act.
[edit] Definitions used

The Magnuson-Moss Act contains many definitions:

• A "consumer" is a buyer of consumer goods for personal use. A buyer of consumer products for resale is not a consumer.
• A "supplier" is any person engaged in the business of making a consumer product directly or indirectly available to consumers.
• A "warrantor" is any supplier or other person who gives or offers a written warranty or who has some obligation under an implied warranty.
• A "consumer product" is generally any tangible personal property for sale and that is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes. It is important to note that the determination whether a good is a consumer product requires a factual finding, on a case-by-case basis. Najran Co. for General Contracting and Trading v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1081 (S.D. Ga. 1986).
• A "written warranty" (also called an express warranty) is any written promise made in connection with the sale of a consumer product by a supplier to a consumer that relates to the material and/or workmanship and that affirms that the product is defect-free or will meet a certain standard of performance over a specified time.
• An "implied warranty" is defined in state law. The Magnuson-Moss Act simply provides limitations on disclaimers and provides a remedy for their violation.
• Designations:
  • A "full warranty" is one that meets the federal minimum standards for a warranty. Such warranties must be "conspicuously designated" as full warranties. If each of the following five statements is true about your warranty's terms and conditions, it is a "full" warranty:
    • You do not limit the duration of implied warranties.
    • You provide warranty service to anyone who owns the product during the warranty period; that is, you do not limit coverage to first purchasers.
    • You provide warranty service free of charge, including such costs as returning the product or removing and reinstalling the product when necessary.
    • You provide, at the consumer's choice, either a replacement or a full refund if, after a reasonable number of tries, you are unable to repair the product.
    • You do not require consumers to perform any duty as a precondition for receiving service, except notifying you that service is needed, unless you can demonstrate that the duty is reasonable.
  • A "limited warranty" is one that does not meet the federal minimums. Such warranties must be "conspicuously designated" as limited warranties.
• A "multiple warranty" is part full and part limited.
• A "service contract" is different from a warranty because service contracts do not affirm the quality or workmanship of a consumer product. A service contract is a written instrument in which a supplier agrees to perform, over a fixed period of time or for a specified duration, services relating to the maintenance or repair, or both, of a consumer product. Agreements that meet the statutory definition of service contracts, but are sold and regulated under state law as contracts of insurance, do not come under the Act's provisions.
• Disclaimer or Limitation of Implied Warranties when a service contract is sold:

Sellers of consumer products who make service contracts on their products are prohibited under the Act from disclaiming or limiting implied warranties. (Remember also that sellers who extend written warranties on consumer products cannot disclaim implied warranties, regardless of whether they make service contracts on their products.) However, sellers of consumer products that merely sell service contracts as agents of service contract companies and do not themselves extend written warranties can disclaim implied warranties on the products they sell.
[edit] Requirements

The Act provides that any warrantor warranting a consumer product to a consumer by means of a written warranty must disclose, fully and conspicuously, in simple and readily understood language, the terms and conditions of the warranty to the extent required by rules of the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC has enacted regulations governing the disclosure of written consumer product warranty terms and conditions on consumer products actually costing the consumer more than $15. The Rules can be found at 16 C.F.R. Part 700.
Under the terms of the Act, ambiguous statements in a warranty are construed against the drafter of the warranty.
Likewise, service contracts must fully, clearly, and conspicuously disclose their terms and conditions in simple and readily understood language.
Warrantors cannot require that only branded parts be used with the product in order to retain the warranty.[2] This is commonly referred to as the "tie-in sales" provisions,[3] and is frequently mentioned in the context of third-party computer parts, such as memory and hard drives.
[edit] Full Warranty Requirements

Under a full warranty, in the case of a defect, malfunction, or failure to conform with the written warranty, the warrantor:

• must, as a minimum, remedy the consumer product within a reasonable time and without charge;
• may not impose any limitation on the duration of any implied warranty on the product;
• may not exclude or limit consequential damages for a breach of any written or implied warranty on the product, unless the exclusion or limitation conspicuously appears on the face of the warranty; and
• if the product, or a component part, contains a defect or malfunction, must permit the consumer to elect either a refund or replacement without charge, after a reasonable number of repair attempts.

In addition, the warrantor may not impose any duty, other than notification, upon any consumer, as a condition of securing the repair of any consumer product that malfunctions, is defective, or does not conform to the written warranty. However, the warrantor may require consumers to return a defective item to its place of purchase for repair.
[edit] Limitations

The Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act does not invalidate or restrict any right or remedy of any consumer under any other federal law, nor does the Act supersede the Federal Trade Commission Act as it pertains to antitrust actions.
The Act does not invalidate or restrict any right or remedy of any consumer under state law. The Act is not the dominant regulation of consumer product warranties, and while it prescribes certain disclosures and restricts certain limitations on warranties, it leaves other warranty law untouched.[4]
Although the Act covers warranties on repair or replacement parts in consumer products, warranties on services for repairs are not covered.
The federal minimum standards for full warranties are waived if the warrantor can show that the problem associated with a warranted consumer product was caused by damage while in the possession of the consumer, or by unreasonable use, including a failure to provide reasonable and necessary maintenance.
[edit] Remedies under the Act

The Act is meant to provide consumers with access to reasonable and effective remedies where there is a breach of warranty on a consumer product. The Act provides for informal dispute-settlement procedures and for actions brought by the government and by private parties.
The FTC has been mandated by Congress to promulgate rules to encourage the use of alternative dispute resolution, and full warranties may require mediation and/or arbitration as a first step toward settling disputes.
In addition, the federal government has the authority to take injunctive action against a supplier or warrantor who fails to meet the requirements of the act.
Finally, consumers may seek redress in the courts for alleged violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act. A consumer who has been injured by the noncompliance of a supplier may bring an action in federal court if the amount in controversy is over $25,000 or a class action if the number of class plaintiffs is greater than 100. If the jurisdictional amount, or number of plaintiffs, do not meet these thresholds, an action under the act may be brought only in state court.[5] Moreover, one of the key aids to the effectiveness of the Act is that a prevailing plaintiff may recover reasonable costs of suit, including attorney fees.[6]
[edit] See also

• Specialty Equipment Market Association
• Warranty claim
• Lemon Law

[edit] Sources

• American Jurisprudence, 2nd
• Federal Trade Commission
• 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.
• 16 Code of Federal Regulations 700
• House Report No. 93-1197, 93d Cong 2d Sess.
• Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002).
• Richardson v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 254 F.3d 1321, 45 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d 56 (11th Cir. 2001).
• Najran Co. for General Contracting and Trading v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc., 659 F. Supp. 1081 (S.D. Ga. 1986).

[edit] References

1. ^ Davis v. Southern Energy Homes, Inc. 305 F.3d 1268 (11th Cir. 2002)
2. ^ 15 USC 2302(c)
3. ^ http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/business/adv/bus01.shtm#Magnuson-Moss
4. ^ Richardson v. Palm Harbor Homes, Inc., 254 F.3d 1321 (11th Cir. 2001)
5. ^ See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1)
6. ^ 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1)(B)(2).

 

cutter welder potato tomato....same fucking shit

yeah quit being so god damn dumb and wheeling your obviously danger ridden truck

 

That there is comedic genius.

I'd add my two cents but it's been pretty much covered in this thread and a few dozen others.

 

I just called up SCORE and requested they immediately stop all sanctioned races due to safety concerns. All that welding they have done to those trucks is incredibly unsafe and those trucks are in danger of literally disintegrating.

I just wanted to let you all know I’m on this and will be starting a petition to ban all welding in the U.S. We need to go 100% bolt on to insure the safety of our children as they have done in Canada.

 

I think the only school bus in danger is the short one this guy is riding. Hopefully his helmet will protect him.

 

i like how he wont even comment on what i say...

 

weld is weaker than bolt on and with bolt on you can always take on and off so i would go with bolts

 

i think he has that disease where if he sees anything smart it automatically is blanked from his mind.... i think its like fucktardpotatoallia