60 tonne, 82' 10" road trains outside your local store
Discussion
jayfrancis said:
So you think that all three axle prime movers should have both axles driven?
yes, if they are running over 32Tonne and need a 3rd axle.jayfrancis said:
Absolute nonsense! Give me one reason for needing double drive on a normal tractor.
Double drives are much less efficent, use more fuel, harder to manovoure and cause more damage to the roads. There's 4 reasons why single drive is better.
Look, the point here is that since the introduction of >32tonne trucks to the UK, the roads have basically broken up, they were never designed/built to take the weights being put on them now.Double drives are much less efficent, use more fuel, harder to manovoure and cause more damage to the roads. There's 4 reasons why single drive is better.
this thread is about adopting a EU 60 tonne limit, pulling this with 1 driven axle is plain stupid (and in other countries which have B-doubles is illegal).
your argument about road damage with 6x4 is actually backwards in terms of road damage except for when making extreme tight manoeuvres (usually in somebody's yard, not on the road because their yard was never designed to deal with the size of trucks we have now).
the only part of your argument that actually holds water is the economy one, yes, a 6x4 is going to be ~500Kg's heavier, and have a small impact on fuel consumption.
jayfrancis said:
Have you driven anything bigger than a car?
Yes thanks.Scuffers said:
yes, if they are running over 32Tonne and need a 3rd axle.
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here. You don't need a third axle on a tractor unit until the gross weight exeeds 40 tonnes. Once the gross goes above 38 tonnes, a 5th axle on a truck/trailer combi is required, which can be either on the tractor or the trailer (ie, either a 3 axle tractor or 3 axle trailer)Scuffers said:
Yes thanks.
Hmmm I think not, simply because of what you've written above.500 kgs heavier? Try at least a tonne, probably more. So for every 44 double drives on the road we got to put another one on to make up for reduced payload.
Fuel consumption? You'll get 7 mpg best from a laden double drive compared to 9 mpg for a single drive. It's not all about weight for decent MPG, Imagine all those extra shafts and gears that have to be turned. MPG is king these days, even some of the Yanks are ditching their doubles for singles.
They damage the roads more because you can't lift the axle on a double drive like you can on a tag or pusher.
You must be very new and very green not to know these things if you have a licence to drive anything bigger than a transit.
Super Slo Mo said:
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here. You don't need a third axle on a tractor unit until the gross weight exeeds 40 tonnes. Once the gross goes above 38 tonnes, a 5th axle on a truck/trailer combi is required, which can be either on the tractor or the trailer (ie, either a 3 axle tractor or 3 axle trailer)
sorry, probably not worded too well.my point was the use of 4x2 prime mover and 3 axle trailers was the start of all this, as in when we went over 32T, that then lead to 3rd tag/etc axles being added to get to 40T.
Super Slo Mo said:
Not sure if I'm misunderstanding you here. You don't need a third axle on a tractor unit until the gross weight exeeds 40 tonnes. Once the gross goes above 38 tonnes, a 5th axle on a truck/trailer combi is required, which can be either on the tractor or the trailer (ie, either a 3 axle tractor or 3 axle trailer)
Not quite, it all depends on axle weights. You can gross 34 tonnes on a 4 axle artic as long as you stay within axle weight limits. You need 5 axles after that up to 40 tonnes and 6 axles above that.You don't need 2 driving axles on anything, it will move quite happily with 1 drive axle. In fact it will have more traction, use less fuel, carry more payload and be more manoverable.
jayfrancis said:
Hmmm I think not, simply because of what you've written above.
500 kgs heavier? Try at least a tonne, probably more. So for every 44 double drives on the road we got to put another one on to make up for reduced payload.
Fuel consumption? You'll get 7 mpg best from a laden double drive compared to 9 mpg for a single drive. It's not all about weight for decent MPG, Imagine all those extra shafts and gears that have to be turned. MPG is king these days, even some of the Yanks are ditching their doubles for singles.
They damage the roads more because you can't lift the axle on a double drive like you can on a tag or pusher.
You must be very new and very green not to know these things if you have a licence to drive anything bigger than a transit.
if it's a tonne different, then it is clearly not a 6x4 design to start with, but as adapted 4x2 design, axles do not weight that much (or don't have to) and 'all those gears' what? like 1 more diff and prop?500 kgs heavier? Try at least a tonne, probably more. So for every 44 double drives on the road we got to put another one on to make up for reduced payload.
Fuel consumption? You'll get 7 mpg best from a laden double drive compared to 9 mpg for a single drive. It's not all about weight for decent MPG, Imagine all those extra shafts and gears that have to be turned. MPG is king these days, even some of the Yanks are ditching their doubles for singles.
They damage the roads more because you can't lift the axle on a double drive like you can on a tag or pusher.
You must be very new and very green not to know these things if you have a licence to drive anything bigger than a transit.
Yes, they will be slightly less efficient, but not the 22% your claiming, me thinks your comparing apples with bananas!
I'll ignore the personal slants, it says more about you than I....
Scuffers said:
if it's a tonne different, then it is clearly not a 6x4 design to start with, but as adapted 4x2 design, axles do not weight that much (or don't have to) and 'all those gears' what? like 1 more diff and prop?
Yes, they will be slightly less efficient, but not the 22% your claiming, me thinks your comparing apples with bananas!
I'll ignore the personal slants, it says more about you than I....
I think I'll claim the higher moral ground here as I'm activley employed in the industry and know what I'm talking about, in fact it's part of my job to ensure the correct spec of truck and trailer is sent out to pick up different types of loads.Yes, they will be slightly less efficient, but not the 22% your claiming, me thinks your comparing apples with bananas!
I'll ignore the personal slants, it says more about you than I....
If you think a truck axle weighs less than a tonne you are sadly misguided. The 2 extra wheels and tyres must weigh half a tonne alone, you add on a diff, drive shafts and all the casing you're probably getting close to 2 tonnes.
The comments are not meant to be personal but you very obviously have little or no knowledge on the subject.
To sum up, if according to your previous posts you think any tractor pulling 32 tonnes or more ought to have double drive perhaps you can tell me why almost all UK trucks are 6x2 configeration? Are you right or is the whole logistics industry wrong?
I'll leave it there as I'm going on holiday for a few days. Let's hope I don't get stuck behind all those 6x2 trucks that are bound to be stuck on every hill between here and Devon.
jayfrancis said:
To sum up, if according to your previous posts you think any tractor pulling 32 tonnes or more ought to have double drive perhaps you can tell me why almost all UK trucks are 6x2 configeration? Are you right or is the whole logistics industry wrong?
easy to answer that, it's called cost and legislation.industry will always take the most cost-effective route, fact of life.
second part to this is just because something is cheaper to do, does not make it the best solution, if the legislation allows a cheaper solution, then that's what will be used.
point here is the the damage to the roads is never factored into this equation, we as tax payers have to deal with this, and even though trucks pay high road fund licences, if you proportion it to the damage they do and then work out the cars contributions to these, you will note that the cars are paying way more. (this all get's a bit academic when the road repair budgets get slashed time and again and they just get worse and worse).
streaky said:
Two or three of these pulling up outside your local 'convenience' store throughout the day will undoubtedly inconvenience other motorists ... not to mention the people who want(ed) to stop and shop.
<snip>
Streaky
oddly enough the supermarket branded convenience stores where i am use short trailer with rear steer 32 tonners for their deliveries ... as do Farmfoods ...<snip>
Streaky
streaky said:
Two or three of these pulling up outside your local 'convenience' store throughout the day will undoubtedly inconvenience other motorists ... not to mention the people who want(ed) to stop and shop.
<snip>
Streaky
Whereas the thousands and thousands of cars visiting the supermarkets aren't a nuisance at all. <snip>
Streaky
jayfrancis said:
Not quite, it all depends on axle weights. You can gross 34 tonnes on a 4 axle artic as long as you stay within axle weight limits. You need 5 axles after that up to 40 tonnes and 6 axles above that.
You don't need 2 driving axles on anything, it will move quite happily with 1 drive axle. In fact it will have more traction, use less fuel, carry more payload and be more manoverable.
the only 6*4 tractor units I see these days are on the walking floors that take high volume low mass stuff to the dumps from the council 'tip' - and need the traction when travelling on the unsurfaced bits of the final dump site ( and even then still need a pull from another unit or a dozer sometimes) and STGO unitsYou don't need 2 driving axles on anything, it will move quite happily with 1 drive axle. In fact it will have more traction, use less fuel, carry more payload and be more manoverable.
isn't the standard 'improve traction' on a 6*2 with lift axle ' sod axle weights, lift the tag and put the 'bogie' weight through the drive axle'
Scuffers said:
easy to answer that, it's called cost and legislation.
industry will always take the most cost-effective route, fact of life.
second part to this is just because something is cheaper to do, does not make it the best solution, if the legislation allows a cheaper solution, then that's what will be used.
point here is the the damage to the roads is never factored into this equation, we as tax payers have to deal with this, and even though trucks pay high road fund licences, if you proportion it to the damage they do and then work out the cars contributions to these, you will note that the cars are paying way more. (this all get's a bit academic when the road repair budgets get slashed time and again and they just get worse and worse).
A 4wd drive car will always do better in the snow/mud etc than a 2wd car but we don't all drive 4x4's do we? According to your logic we all should.industry will always take the most cost-effective route, fact of life.
second part to this is just because something is cheaper to do, does not make it the best solution, if the legislation allows a cheaper solution, then that's what will be used.
point here is the the damage to the roads is never factored into this equation, we as tax payers have to deal with this, and even though trucks pay high road fund licences, if you proportion it to the damage they do and then work out the cars contributions to these, you will note that the cars are paying way more. (this all get's a bit academic when the road repair budgets get slashed time and again and they just get worse and worse).
If all trucks were 6x4 as you suggest then would you be prepared to extra transport costs on just about everything you buy? Because just about everything you buy arrived on a truck.
A modern 6x2 tractor with a tri-axle trailer with road friendly air suspension does much less damage to the roads than you imagine. An over specced, over engineered 6x4 will do much more road damage. Fact.
I think we'll agree to disagree on this one but one look at the vast majority of trucks on UK roads will prove me right everytime.
Thanks for the debate.
mph1977 said:
the only 6*4 tractor units I see these days are on the walking floors that take high volume low mass stuff to the dumps from the council 'tip' - and need the traction when travelling on the unsurfaced bits of the final dump site ( and even then still need a pull from another unit or a dozer sometimes) and STGO units
isn't the standard 'improve traction' on a 6*2 with lift axle ' sod axle weights, lift the tag and put the 'bogie' weight through the drive axle'
Correct. But only until traction is regained then the lift axle will automatically drop.isn't the standard 'improve traction' on a 6*2 with lift axle ' sod axle weights, lift the tag and put the 'bogie' weight through the drive axle'
mph1977 said:
isn't the standard 'improve traction' on a 6*2 with lift axle ' sod axle weights, lift the tag and put the 'bogie' weight through the drive axle'
but most modern trucks will only allow you to lift it below a certain speed, or for a limited period of time. Can be a nuisance under some circumstances.F i F said:
Sainsbury's have quite a decent fllet of small rigids and try to address this issue.
They do but the rigids only go to the shops where you physically can't get anything bigger in. If there's room, even if it's only just enough it'll be a 10m urban (these can go some places you won't get a 26t rigid) or 13m trailer.philthy said:
but most modern trucks will only allow you to lift it below a certain speed, or for a limited period of time. Can be a nuisance under some circumstances.Renault Premium wouldn't lift it at all over a certain weight, only shift weight to the drive axle for traction.. Was a problem in tight store yards at full weight where the extra turn you get with it up makes all the difference between getting on in one or a few shunts!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff