taffytrucker:
CF I was using the extra length of a trombone trailer plus the over hang as an example. You have the extra length as its extended so therefor cuts in behind you plus with the overhang no much different to the new length trailers plus with them you have rear steer something we didn’t have. Even the driver above as he says a newbie can cope fine with care. So whats the fuss about. Take your time and if unsure get out and check
I know the extra length of a trombone would increase the amount of cut in which is what I said.But as I said cut in is the inherent characteristic of an artic because that’s how it’s designed to work.It’s not designed to work under the idea of trying to reduce cut in by increasing the overhang at the expense of tail sweep which rear steer is just there to move with nothing more.Which is why any one with any sense in the states runs with the trailer axles as far back towards the end of the trailer as possible.While as usual the Californian law makers just haven’t got a clue.
moomooland:
Was overtaking one of Palletlines down Keele Bank last night and he had to back off rapidly when the rear end began rocking violently from left to right, at one stage i really thought he was going to lose it!
we have have got about 20 with more on the way,if they are loaded incorrectly(ie the weight at the rear)they drive like the tail wagging the dog experiance,we call it the long trailer shimmey or the tank slapper, makes ya backside work overtime.
moomooland:
Was overtaking one of Palletlines down Keele Bank last night and he had to back off rapidly when the rear end began rocking violently from left to right, at one stage i really thought he was going to lose it!
we have have got about 20 with more on the way,if they are loaded incorrectly(ie the weight at the rear)they drive like the tail wagging the dog experiance,we call it the long trailer shimmey or the tank slapper, makes ya backside work overtime.
Yet another reason why it’s better to put the extra length in front of the trailer axles not behind them.
I just spotted on that list that my bosses are allowed eight of the big ■■■■■■■■■ Didn’t know that and really don’t like the thought of it.
Given that our trailers are usually used on concrete and steel loads, there cant be much you can fit on a 15 metre semi that wouldn’t blow the weight on a standard one anyway. Add to that lots of London and construction site work and the thought of trying to maneuver one of them about scares the hell out of me.
Still, I wouldn’t mind a go with one for general RDC work or trunking for a while. It would be something to put on my CV at least, especially if the results of the trial are that everyone is allowed to use them. Drivers with 14 or 15m experience will then be more in demand than blokes that have stuck to 13m tauts all their life. Its like transporters or bulkers really, every trailer type drives differently and you just need to learn your trailer and drive the load you have today not the one you delivered yesterday.
nsmith1180:
I just spotted on that list that my bosses are allowed eight of the big [zb]. Didn’t know that and really don’t like the thought of it.
Given that our trailers are usually used on concrete and steel loads, there cant be much you can fit on a 15 metre semi that wouldn’t blow the weight on a standard one anyway. Add to that lots of London and construction site work and the thought of trying to maneuver one of them about scares the hell out of me.
Still, I wouldn’t mind a go with one for general RDC work or trunking for a while. It would be something to put on my CV at least, especially if the results of the trial are that everyone is allowed to use them. Drivers with 14 or 15m experience will then be more in demand than blokes that have stuck to 13m tauts all their life. Its like transporters or bulkers really, every trailer type drives differently and you just need to learn your trailer and drive the load you have today not the one you delivered yesterday.
I don’t think there’s many advantages in wanting or having experience of using a flawed engineering design regarding artics,just to suit even more idiotic uk government regs imposed on the uk road transport industry on the CV.
nsmith1180:
I just spotted on that list that my bosses are allowed eight of the big [zb]. Didn’t know that and really don’t like the thought of it.
Given that our trailers are usually used on concrete and steel loads, there cant be much you can fit on a 15 metre semi that wouldn’t blow the weight on a standard one anyway. Add to that lots of London and construction site work and the thought of trying to maneuver one of them about scares the hell out of me.
Still, I wouldn’t mind a go with one for general RDC work or trunking for a while. It would be something to put on my CV at least, especially if the results of the trial are that everyone is allowed to use them. Drivers with 14 or 15m experience will then be more in demand than blokes that have stuck to 13m tauts all their life. Its like transporters or bulkers really, every trailer type drives differently and you just need to learn your trailer and drive the load you have today not the one you delivered yesterday.
I don’t think there’s many advantages in wanting or having experience of using a flawed engineering design regarding artics,just to suit even more idiotic uk government regs imposed on the uk road transport industry on the CV.
What are we now, a year into a ten year trial? Surely over the course of the trial the problems will be identified and re-engineered to a more suitable solution. I would have thought that the best solution would be a standard tri-axel rear steer mounted further back but not all the way. And to be honest, who cares if the trailer fails the turning circle test by a paving slab if it is only ever legally allowed to be used for trunking/RDC work.
The law would need to be changed to state that the trailers could only be used for moving from hub to hub, (including an operators premises to a location acting as a hub/RDC for a different haulier). Holding a percentage of the fleet for trunking operations only is nothing new, most major hauliers do that with Deckers anyway and it has to be cheaper to hold specialist trunk trailers than to blow the trunk on a standard 13m semi and be forced to lay on an extra unit, trailer and driver to complete the work of the day.
eddie snax:
Took a Trumbone 55’ out through Huddersfield and into a small village a few weeks back, no problem, and had a fantastic collection of wing mirrors when I’d done
Love it lol.
Is trumbone one of those sliding skelly trailers?
moomooland:
Was overtaking one of Palletlines down Keele Bank last night and he had to back off rapidly when the rear end began rocking violently from left to right, at one stage i really thought he was going to lose it!
Why was that then mate? Was it down to tramlines or trailer design or even driver error?
moomooland:
Was overtaking one of Palletlines down Keele Bank last night and he had to back off rapidly when the rear end began rocking violently from left to right, at one stage i really thought he was going to lose it!
Why was that then mate? Was it down to tramlines or trailer design or even driver error?
Prob the same as the ■■■■■■ coming up the m5 last night texting his mate saying "I got one of them new trailers. Dogs nuts but sways l " then almost plough s into a broken down truck …
Its a big box on wheels drive with care and caution no problem
Drive like a ■■■■ look like a ■■■■
So that’s the back end of the trailer with the cab turned towards the nearside. Does that help you at all? I’m driving a white unmarked unit and trailer, so no guessing who I’m driving for but it sticks out noticeably when I’m on a bay
When I’ve got my batteries charged up I shall try and get a few side on shots and perhaps some better ones if you’re interested. My main concern at the start of the day is not to hit the gate on the way out as the swing tends to pivot on the forward and mid axle…
It doesn’t lock whilst reversing either so, er, yeah…
I saw a Tesco 15.6m trailer the other week, never reliased we had any
Presumably they aren’t used on store deliveries 'cause it’s bad enough at some places getting a 13 in…
Lusk:
I did not realise that on a tri axle both the second and third axle are steering axles. Is this common place with these 15.65’s?
I think there’s some which have an equal distance between each axle and axle 2 and 3 turn. The more common design of 2 axles then a larger gap only have the one steer axle.
carry fast you say duck arse trailers are the best. Wrong…maybe in the states but not here. rear steer are better.
now do you in your wisdom remember Fish tail trailers.(i suppose so you invented them) they are by far the best
but a little heavy.you’ll never beat one of those for manovering.
John
3300John:
carry fast you say duck arse trailers are the best. Wrong…maybe in the states but not here. rear steer are better.
now do you in your wisdom remember Fish tail trailers.(i suppose so you invented them) they are by far the best
but a little heavy.you’ll never beat one of those for manovering.
John
For a given length you’ve got two choices either put the ( fixed ) axle/s as far back as possible therefore more cut in or put them forward to reduce cut in at the expense of tail sweep.The common fact is that length can’t just be made to disappear it has to go somewhere.If you put the axles at the back then it’s just a case of controlling cut in by moving over as far as possible away from the direction in which you’re turning which is what driving an artic is ( supposed to be ) all about.Whereas in the case of setting the axles too far forward,as in the case of these lash ups,the cut in is reduced at the expense of ridiculous levels of tail sweep.Which then makes turning a balancing act of leaving enough room on one side for the cut in,while also leaving enough room on the other for the tail sweep,all then based on guesswork as to wether the tail end is going to wipe out something or someone every time you need to make a turn.In this case the rear ‘steer’ is all about providing axle support under the swinging tail end which pivots around the fixed axle/s the placing of which is what matters.
As usual the Americans know how to make an artic.Except,that is,for the Californian government who are just as stupid as the EU and the British one if not more.
3300John:
carry fast you say duck arse trailers are the best. Wrong…maybe in the states but not here. rear steer are better.
now do you in your wisdom remember Fish tail trailers.(i suppose so you invented them) they are by far the best
but a little heavy.you’ll never beat one of those for manovering.
John
For a given length you’ve got two choices either put the ( fixed ) axle/s as far back as possible therefore more cut in or put them forward to reduce cut in at the expense of tail sweep.The common fact is that length can’t just be made to disappear it has to go somewhere.If you put the axles at the back then it’s just a case of controlling cut in by moving over as far as possible away from the direction in which you’re turning which is what driving an artic is ( supposed to be ) all about.Whereas in the case of setting the axles too far forward,as in the case of these lash ups,the cut in is reduced at the expense of ridiculous levels of tail sweep.Which then makes turning a balancing act of leaving enough room on one side for the cut in,while also leaving enough room on the other for the tail sweep,all then based on guesswork as to wether the tail end is going to wipe out something or someone every time you need to make a turn.In this case the rear ‘steer’ is all about providing axle support under the swinging tail end which pivots around the fixed axle/s the placing of which is what matters.
As usual the Americans know how to make an artic.Except,that is,for the Californian government who are just as stupid as the EU and the British one if not more.
So you know nothing about fish tails because you said nothing…no cut in no tail wag…english or american
3300John:
carry fast you say duck arse trailers are the best. Wrong…maybe in the states but not here. rear steer are better.
now do you in your wisdom remember Fish tail trailers.(i suppose so you invented them) they are by far the best
but a little heavy.you’ll never beat one of those for manovering.
John
For a given length you’ve got two choices either put the ( fixed ) axle/s as far back as possible therefore more cut in or put them forward to reduce cut in at the expense of tail sweep.The common fact is that length can’t just be made to disappear it has to go somewhere.If you put the axles at the back then it’s just a case of controlling cut in by moving over as far as possible away from the direction in which you’re turning which is what driving an artic is ( supposed to be ) all about.Whereas in the case of setting the axles too far forward,as in the case of these lash ups,the cut in is reduced at the expense of ridiculous levels of tail sweep.Which then makes turning a balancing act of leaving enough room on one side for the cut in,while also leaving enough room on the other for the tail sweep,all then based on guesswork as to wether the tail end is going to wipe out something or someone every time you need to make a turn.In this case the rear ‘steer’ is all about providing axle support under the swinging tail end which pivots around the fixed axle/s the placing of which is what matters.
As usual the Americans know how to make an artic.Except,that is,for the Californian government who are just as stupid as the EU and the British one if not more.
So you know nothing about fish tails because you said nothing…no cut in no tail wag…english or american
If you know of a way to build an artic outfit,especially one with a 50 ft + semi trailer,without any cut in or tail sweep let’s see it.
taffytrucker:
CF I was using the extra length of a trombone trailer plus the over hang as an example. You have the extra length as its extended so therefor cuts in behind you plus with the overhang no much different to the new length trailers plus with them you have rear steer something we didn’t have. Even the driver above as he says a newbie can cope fine with care. So whats the fuss about. Take your time and if unsure get out and check
I know the extra length of a trombone would increase the amount of cut in which is what I said.But as I said cut in is the inherent characteristic of an artic because that’s how it’s designed to work.It’s not designed to work under the idea of trying to reduce cut in by increasing the overhang at the expense of tail sweep which rear steer is just there to move with nothing more.Which is why any one with any sense in the states runs with the trailer axles as far back towards the end of the trailer as possible.While as usual the Californian law makers just haven’t got a clue.
Yea run with axles at the back and mess up your drive and steer weights which by the look of it you know nowt about. Having such a big tail swing can help to when tight for space slide axles to the front hey presto tails swings in a lot quicker. Just by moving the axles one hole bout 6" or so that shifts 500lbs of weight either on or off the drives so as i said yea great idea. Long as its loaded within the axle weights it’s fine. To used to 45 ft trailers and loading more or less how people wanted then having to think bout it
taffytrucker:
CF I was using the extra length of a trombone trailer plus the over hang as an example. You have the extra length as its extended so therefor cuts in behind you plus with the overhang no much different to the new length trailers plus with them you have rear steer something we didn’t have. Even the driver above as he says a newbie can cope fine with care. So whats the fuss about. Take your time and if unsure get out and check
I know the extra length of a trombone would increase the amount of cut in which is what I said.But as I said cut in is the inherent characteristic of an artic because that’s how it’s designed to work.It’s not designed to work under the idea of trying to reduce cut in by increasing the overhang at the expense of tail sweep which rear steer is just there to move with nothing more.Which is why any one with any sense in the states runs with the trailer axles as far back towards the end of the trailer as possible.While as usual the Californian law makers just haven’t got a clue.
Yea run with axles at the back and mess up your drive and steer weights which by the look of it you know nowt about. Having such a big tail swing can help to when tight for space slide axles to the front hey presto tails swings in a lot quicker. Just by moving the axles one hole bout 6" or so that shifts 500lbs of weight either on or off the drives so as i said yea great idea. Long as its loaded within the axle weights it’s fine. To used to 45 ft trailers and loading more or less how people wanted then having to think bout it
Weight distribution isn’t rocket science.There’s nothing advantageous in weight distribution in running an artic with it’s trailer axles set forwards.It just puts more weight on the rearmost trailer axle while removing it from the drive/s.While the extra tail sweep is more of a nightmare going forwards than any advantage,if any,it might provide in swinging into a gap going backwards.Yeah right great idea.If you believe the Californian state government and Italian trailer designers .
