“Dual function” tailgate exists

[LouCap]

Also, when you say the handles on the BUG, what are you referring to? I don't see any difference with the bed utility group.

Circling back on this, here are some photos of the BUG rail and the bedcover clamps. You can see the braces in the front and where the clamps attach to the rear of them.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[saxapl]

I think the point is that a regular tailgate never acts as an additional lever arm on the end of the bed sidewall.

That said, from looking at the pictures, I am pretty skeptical that those short braces up in the front corners really do much of anything to help the opposite end of the bed sidewall.

I was simply responding to the “tailgate down vs removed” comment. But yes, of course, the tailgate provides no support at the top of the rails when it’s down.

Back on point...

The function of the braces makes perfect sense, as the ability to open the split tailgate via side-mounted hinges can create a rotational moment in the horizontal axis that doesn’t exist with a standard tailgate, coupled with a significant lateral load on the bed sides.

I disagree with the earlier comment that “...the brackets are for when the tailgate is closed.” I don’t read that at all in the FCA engineer’s comments, and I think that’s the least “vulnerable” scenario from a structural standpoint.

Rather, the engineer appears to confirm that the bed sides lack sufficient lateral load capacity to handle these forces without an unacceptable amount of deflection and/or potential fatigue/failure. The braces, while small, add stiffness by reducing the effective length of the bed sides and coupling them to the front of the bed.

(FWIW - my first master’s degree was in structural dynamics. But I could still be wrong.)

That is not what the engineer is saying at all. He says that, with a two piece tailgate, you lose torsional rigidity. That may be true...but it does not necessitate the braces. You lose torsion rigidity when a one piece tailgate is down and removed. I would argue down does little for rigidity based upon the fact that the pivot point is not a solid attachment.

I agree that they are there for the moment created by the doors opening horizontally. That is what makes sense. That is not what the engineer said. His statement indicated that there was a difference in torsional stiffness, not moment.

 

[SpeedyV]

That is not what the engineer is saying at all. He says that, with a two piece tailgate, you lose torsional rigidity. That may be true...but it does not necessitate the braces. You lose torsion rigidity when a one piece tailgate is down and removed. I would argue down does little for rigidity based upon the fact that the pivot point is not a solid attachment.

I agree that they are there for the moment created by the doors opening horizontally. That is what makes sense. That is not what the engineer said. His statement indicated that there was a difference in torsional stiffness, not moment.

Stiffness is a measure of the ability to resist a load, whether lateral or rotational in nature.

 

[StuartV]

That is not what the engineer is saying at all. He says that, with a two piece tailgate, you lose torsional rigidity. That may be true...but it does not necessitate the braces. You lose torsion rigidity when a one piece tailgate is down and removed. I would argue down does little for rigidity based upon the fact that the pivot point is not a solid attachment.

I agree that they are there for the moment created by the doors opening horizontally. That is what makes sense. That is not what the engineer said. His statement indicated that there was a difference in torsional stiffness, not moment.

What @SpeedyV said.

Plus, I think you interpreted my post as strictly meaning the lever of the MFT barn door being pushed on - as in trying to open it too far. That actually wasn't what I was thinking at all. I meant the lever of the MFT barn door being pushed up or down when in an almost-closed position. I.e. a torsional load. E.g. simply the weight of the MFT barn door, when it's almost closed, trying to twist the bed sidewall. With a 1-piece tailgate, the weight of the gate is supported at both sides. Neither side of the bed ever has any real twisting force on it from the 1-piece tailgate. The MFT puts a twisting force on each side of the bed just from the weight of the barn doors when they are part way open. That is the lever arm I was talking about.

 

[Alxmlr789]

https://www.tonnopro.com/tonno-pro-uf-251-ultrafold-hard-panel-tri-folding-tonneau-cover

This one appears that it will work *when it is released* they currently are working on it for the 2019's and simply clamps to to bedrails.

 

[LouCap]

https://www.tonnopro.com/tonno-pro-uf-251-ultrafold-hard-panel-tri-folding-tonneau-cover

This one appears that it will work *when it is released* they currently are working on it for the 2019's and simply clamps to to bedrails.

The clamps need to be pushed down vertically to secure them, which won't work for me because of the BUG rails. But, if you don't have the bed utility group, it looks like it could work!

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Alxmlr789]

The clamps need to be pushed down vertically to secure them, which won't work for me because of the BUG rails. But, if you don't have the bed utility group, it looks like it could work!

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

It could work if you remove those BUG rails?

 

[LouCap]

It could work if you remove those BUG rails?

Yeah, it looks like they could work. But, I like those for securing loads, and it looks like they were in place when the bed liner was sprayed in, so I'm good.

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Alxmlr789]

I respectfully have to disagree with you. I own a RAM with the Dual Function Tailgate, and I bought the Mopar cover. It will not fit unless you remove the brackets in the non Rambox bed. The side rails cannot be mounted flush to the sides with the brackets in place. I know this because my dealership tried. At the very least, the brackets would have to be loosened so the rails could fit behind them, and even then, you'd have to notch out the bed cover rail so the bracket bolts could remain in place. In addition, the knobs used to secure the bed cover line up exactly with the diagonals on the brackets, so no go there.

MAYBE, if the brackets were flipped (so the diagonal was lower) and the bed cover rails notched to accommodate the bracket bolts, then it might work. I've been looking into this for almost a week now, and after an hour on the phone with RAM last week the best input I could get from customer service was, "we're looking into it, and we'll get back to you." As I posted earlier, the Truxedo Sentry might work with the flipped brackets and no notches, but I'd have to test that.

Been looking at the sentry as well. Two modifications would need to be made to fit with the brackets. The sentry appears to sit 1/2" above the bed which would likely be in our favor.

First, the last 8-9" of the rail that needs to be clamped would have to be trimmed, drilled or otherwise modified to fit around the bracket on the bedside, which would actually not seem to be a problem because it doesn't have a drain tube like the MX4/Undercover style, and the clamp could be moved to right at the end of the bed bracket. And depending on how far the latch and how high sits away from the bulkhead, the latch would either need to be trimmed or you'd need to use a bolt instead of the latch. See my attached children's drawing for reference. I would really need to get one in hand to see if it's possible.

OR we just wait patiently and wait for a company to come up with something. I'd imagine someone would want to make a lower profile cover (the top mount ones are just ugly) that works for this as i see it becoming a fairly popular option. There's 3-4 on my local dealer lot now.

 

[LouCap]

Been looking at the sentry as well. Two modifications would need to be made to fit with the brackets. The sentry appears to sit 1/2" above the bed which would likely be in our favor.

First, the last 8-9" of the rail that needs to be clamped would have to be trimmed, drilled or otherwise modified to fit around the bracket on the bedside, which would actually not seem to be a problem because it doesn't have a drain tube like the MX4/Undercover style, and the clamp could be moved to right at the end of the bed bracket. And depending on how far the latch and how high sits away from the bulkhead, the latch would either need to be trimmed or you'd need to use a bolt instead of the latch. See my attached children's drawing for reference. I would really need to get one in hand to see if it's possible.

OR we just wait patiently and wait for a company to come up with something. I'd imagine someone would want to make a lower profile cover (the top mount ones are just ugly) that works for this as i see it becoming a fairly popular option. There's 3-4 on my local dealer lot now.

I agree, a little bit of modification would have to be done, but I like the look and functionality of that!

Sent from my SM-G975U1 using Tapatalk

 

[Alxmlr789]

Here’s a few photos of the bed with the bracket removed and an undercover flex rail mounted (leftover from my Sierra)

I played with the swing door without the brace on and i don’t understand how it adds any stiffness (or why they put it at the top of the damn bed if it does). The bracket almost does not fit square with the bed when it is loosely fit.

I’m also thinking about would a diagonal brace like this accomplish the same thing and it could fit under the rails of a tonneau

 

[MQQSE]

LOL! sorry man.

Check this one out.

I don't really like how high up it sits off the bed rails but it utilizes the bed tracks for fastening.

Nice vid and installation; FYI it's not a DODGE.

 

[Alxmlr789]

Nice vid and installation; FYI it's not a DODGE.

Not mine, just sharing...it’s a ram! Lol

 

[saxapl]

What @SpeedyV said.

Plus, I think you interpreted my post as strictly meaning the lever of the MFT barn door being pushed on - as in trying to open it too far. That actually wasn't what I was thinking at all. I meant the lever of the MFT barn door being pushed up or down when in an almost-closed position. I.e. a torsional load. E.g. simply the weight of the MFT barn door, when it's almost closed, trying to twist the bed sidewall. With a 1-piece tailgate, the weight of the gate is supported at both sides. Neither side of the bed ever has any real twisting force on it from the 1-piece tailgate. The MFT puts a twisting force on each side of the bed just from the weight of the barn doors when they are part way open. That is the lever arm I was talking about.

This makes some sense. The lever created by the closed, but unlatched, door would put a new rotational force on the bedside. However, it is a brief force and the design of the braces is not optimized for that force. The best brace for resisting that force would have been from the bed floor to the bedside, vertically bottom to top. Arguably it would have been less obtrusive too if flush mounted at the front of the bed. The way the braces are installed, the strength of the brace is optimized for lateral force, not the rotational force described.

Possibly they are resisting multiple forces. I guess it is possible they are also ill-conceived bandaids without much thought. If the rotational lever described is the reason they are needed, then I bet removal would result in the doors not latching because of the sag in the bedside. This would mean if there was a replacement structure keeping the bed square, such as a hard tonneau like a Diamondback or topper, the braces would not be needed.

 

[SpeedyV]

Possibly they are resisting multiple forces. I guess it is possible they are also ill-conceived bandaids without much thought.

This seems most plausible. You have a vehicle already in production before the tailgate design is finalized, so whatever you do has to fit within production processes that have already been put in place.

 

[StuartV]

Possibly they are resisting multiple forces. I guess it is possible they are also ill-conceived bandaids without much thought. If the rotational lever described is the reason they are needed, then I bet removal would result in the doors not latching because of the sag in the bedside.

Poor band-aid is my guess as well.

But, I doubt that the design is so bad that without the braces the doors would sag.

My guess is that they are fine for normal use. My guess is that the braces are for the cases that would make people go "well, why did you do that, stupid??" For example, somebody's kid gets in the back of the truck, then hangs on one of the barn doors and pushes off to swing out. The kid's full weight is on the door as it's at an almost-90 degree angle to the bed wall. I could see where THAT might cause some bed sidewall twist....

 

[saxapl]

But, I doubt that the design is so bad that without the braces the doors would sag.

I agree with this. I am sure they were added out of an abundance of caution or because they did not take the time to test the long term impact of the new design, so they just added the braces.

 

[LouCap]

I agree with this. I am sure they were added out of an abundance of caution or because they did not take the time to test the long term impact of the new design, so they just added the braces.

Did you ever get the topper for your truck? I'm curious if it fits with the braces in place.

 

[saxapl]

Did you ever get the topper for your truck? I'm curious if it fits with the braces in place.

Not yet...they said 4 weeks. Got to be close.

 

[Alxmlr789]

I agree with this. I am sure they were added out of an abundance of caution or because they did not take the time to test the long term impact of the new design, so they just added the braces.

I took them off for a day, and played around with the bed doors and did not really see any sign of how they would affect anything structurally. I agree it may be for someone's 90lb 4 year old swinging like tarzan, or even an older fella using the door as a handrail on the way down.

More reason for me not letting anyone use my truck. lol