Usage of hitch extensions in conflict with the manufacturer's recommendation(s).

The CMV in the attached photo (was not stopped for inspection, photo was sent in with no additional information) is using multiple hitch extensions in conflict of the manufacturer's recommendation(s) in order to "bumper pull" a gooseneck trailer. According to the hitch extension manufacturer, only the bottom receiver of these extensions can be used for towing. Using the top extension will reduce the hitch's weight capacity by 50 percent. Given the usage of the hitch extensions in the attached photo, the towing capacity of the hitch system on the truck has been reduced down by 75%. There is no current enforcement guidance regarding this matter nor does the current OOSC (3.g.) address this issue.

Request that CVSA develop guidance and/or OOSC item(s) regarding the usage of hitch extensions in conflict with the manufacturer's recommendation(s).

Back in 2013 an Ad Hoc committee did research and determined that an inspector needs to know tongue weight, towing weight and rating of the hitch. The committee should think about whether or not something should be placed in the OOSC for GVWR, as historically the vehicle committee has steered away from doing that. Question was raised on whether this an isolated incident or is it a problem.

It was brought up that if we apply the GVWR to bumper hitches then it would apply to all vehicles using those hitches. A comment was made that it is compounding in this instance, and that in this case with multiple use of attachments we could use wording to stop the use of compounding multiple components. Comment that using an extensions would be compounding, and that is a common occurrence. Comment that this is a 5th wheel and it is missing all of the components for it and would be OOS for that anyways. Comment that it could be either 5th wheel or gooseneck and looking at it this looks like a gooseneck hitch. Comment that it is a ball and coupler joint and would not be in the 5th wheel portion. Luke Loy commented that it’s a one off and by addressing it, things will get complicated quickly. It was discussed that it should be addressed with state or provincial laws and to stay away from putting it into CVSA OOSC. The overall consensus of the committee was that it should be addressed locally and to not make any changes to the OOSC. No action was taken and item was closed.