raymundo:
You cant believe everything you read up on by Googling the info
It’s actually based on the simple laws of gravity and good experience of having driven both close coupled and A frame drawbar outfits in which the former idea is an insult to the title. 
Nothing at all wrong with close coupled, when the prime mover is heavier and at least as long as the trailer, it makes for a stable vehicle with the added bonus of coach like ride quality, you wouldn’t want an A frame on car deliveries some of the places you have to get into, multi drop too, you haven’t got all day to ponce about on car deliveries, you could have the load off while someone with an A frame is half way through the 47 shunts required to get in somewhere tight.
The designs we are discussing are unstable in inexperienced idiotic and uncaring hands because the prime mover is dwarfed by and often lighter than the trailer.
Juddian:
Nothing at all wrong with close coupled, when the prime mover is heavier and at least as long as the trailer, it makes for a stable vehicle with the added bonus of coach like ride quality, you wouldn’t want an A frame on car deliveries some of the places you have to get into, multi drop too, you haven’t got all day to ponce about on car deliveries, you could have the load off while someone with an A frame is half way through the 47 shunts required to get in somewhere tight.The designs we are discussing are unstable in inexperienced idiotic and uncaring hands because the prime mover is dwarfed by and often lighter than the trailer.
That’s the point close coupled outfits are compromised in their weight distribution capability and unstable because of the interaction in weight transfer and the tail wagging the dog situation between the trailer and prime over.Which is why it’s no problem for a 25 tonner rigid to pull a 40 tonner trailer in the form of a scandinavian LHV drawbar outfit for example.But try doing that with a close coupled job and it will be a case of those alternating marker lights or worse.In addition to that conflict between the need for decent trailer nose weight for stability v prime mover axle weights.Which just leaves the question of personal preference based on the idea that an A frame will go in most if not all places that the equivalent artic or close coupled outfit will go depending on driver mindset. 
Carry why do you think that the few A frame design car transporters were soon abandoned as not much good for the job, yes you might be right again, super stable, can carry anything can go in anywhere, unfortunately no one wants them or they’d be the standard body.
One of my old mates used to have one, the thing was a nightmare, luckily he was a highly skilled A frame driver having been on a cattle transporter previously and he could put the thing anywhere.
I don’t think you quite get what car carrying is about, one job i had to do regularly was Avis Mayfair, which involved the mother of all blind sides from a 2 lane busy as hell one way street down beside the back of the embassy dodging all the traffic coming up the narrow cut through you would be backing down into, and about 300 yards back down to the rental office, North Audley Street into Providence Court, you’d never do that without a banksman at peak time with an A frame, well maybe you could but neither i nor the hundreds of poor sods who did deliveries like this every day of the week could/would either, just not worth the messing about, you never see an A frame on multi drop for good reason.
Thats me last post on this subject by the way, going over the same pointless carp now, cheers.
That’s fair enough Juddian.Ironically the example here seems to suggest not enough payload to require a 3 axle rigid to stay within the prime mover’s gross limit and not any large trailer nose weight issues on the drive.Which would logically support your reference to an improvement in the directional stability of the prime mover as anything else.
Carryfast:
That’s fair enough Juddian.Ironically the example here seems to suggest not enough payload to require a 3 axle rigid to stay within the prime mover’s gross limit and not any large trailer nose weight issues on the drive.Which would logically support your reference to an improvement in the directional stability of the prime mover as anything else.
Oh gawd, i wasn’t gunna post any more, that vehicle in the pic will gross between 41 and 42.5 tons, the GVW of the prime mover will be almost at peak weight, as Lank mentioned you would not be allowed to carry 7 big ones without a three axle prime mover, had it been a tandem it would have been well overweight and dangerous to boot.
Note how the last two loaded on the bottom of the trailer are as far forward as practicable, that vehicle will be rock solid on the road and all axle weights the right side of legal.
Juddian:
Carryfast:
c2.staticflickr.com/8/7417/1085 … b478_b.jpgOh gawd, i wasn’t gunna post any more, that vehicle in the pic will gross between 41 and 42.5 tons, the GVW of the prime mover will be almost at peak weight, as Lank mentioned you would not be allowed to carry 7 big ones without a three axle prime mover, had it been a tandem it would have been well overweight and dangerous to boot.
Note how the last two loaded on the bottom of the trailer are as far forward as practicable, that vehicle will be rock solid on the road and all axle weights the right side of legal.
Going by a guess of less than 2,500 kgs per unit ? that has to be a bleedin heavy tare. 
Carryfast:
Juddian:
Carryfast:
c2.staticflickr.com/8/7417/1085 … b478_b.jpgOh gawd, i wasn’t gunna post any more, that vehicle in the pic will gross between 41 and 42.5 tons, the GVW of the prime mover will be almost at peak weight, as Lank mentioned you would not be allowed to carry 7 big ones without a three axle prime mover, had it been a tandem it would have been well overweight and dangerous to boot.
Note how the last two loaded on the bottom of the trailer are as far forward as practicable, that vehicle will be rock solid on the road and all axle weights the right side of legal.
Going by a guess of less than 2,500 kgs per unit ? that has to be a bleedin heavy tare.
I’d left by the time this current model was out, but most of the big ones were quoted for export at 2.5 tons RR’s (integral chassis) and 2.7 tons Disco 3/4 and Sport (separate ladder chassis), can’t see them being any lighter but happy to be put right.
With the smaller mid lift they probably saved 1/2 a ton, so my guess is that lorry would tare at 22 tons.
It was quite a shock when i weighed one of my old lorries coming out of Birkenhead docks, that was a Volvo FL12, W&D 10 car carrier, 5 axles, small mid lift on the long prime mover, small twin wheels on the tandem trailer, that would appear flimsy and small compared to the Plus 11 in the pic, yet it tared at 19 tons…cracking bit of kit though, just about the best car transporter i had, you could throw it about and it was as comfy on the road as a coach.
We appear to have drifted slightly from the OPs original question
Pimpdaddy:
Why is the unit on most car transporters a 6x2 with a light lift axle? If it all comes to less than 44T whats the point? Is the frame heavy? I’m working on an average weight of 1.2x11.
A typical 11+ car transporter will tare in at around 20-21 tonne. Although they look very lightweight with a small frame, the trailer top deck, for example, can lift and support 7.5 tonne 13 foot up into the air. There is an awful lot of steel very low down to support this capability.
The full size 6x2 midlift Scania that Juddian has referred to was a stable piece of kit. There are a couple of reasons why the more modern transporters have moved to a mini midlift:-
On a car transporter, every inch in height is critical. The industry works on a standard 16 foot maximum running height. The deck behind the cab sits immediately over the drive axle. Having used Scanias with full and mini midlifts, I can say that on a full size midlift, this deck will run slightly higher. As an example, if you were to put 3 Vauxhall Vivaros around the cab as per the photo of the Stobart transporter with Land Rovers, you would get the running height down to 16 foot or under with a midsize lift, whereas to do it with a full size midlift, you would be running with potentially uncomfortable clearance gaps between vehicle and deck.
Secondly, if you look at the side of a car transporter prime move, you will see the amount of kit required to be packed into a small space to ensure no loss of payload. This includes fuel tanks, hydraulic tanks, deck levers, adblue tanks, etc. The simple answer is that full size lift axles take up more space.
As previously stated, the reason car transporters need the 6x2 unit is also down to the way the weight of the payload is imposed differently to a ‘normal’ truck. With potentially a 2.7 tonne Land Rover on the peak over the cab, you need to consider that the engine of this vehicle is sat in front of the vehicle carrying it. With the exception of maybe straw lorries, I don’t think there are any other kind of trucks that impose weight directly on the steer axle in this way, so the presence of the lift axle is critical.
I hope this answers your question Pimpdaddy
Carryfast:
That’s fair enough Juddian.Ironically the example here seems to suggest not enough payload to require a 3 axle rigid to stay within the prime mover’s gross limit and not any large trailer nose weight issues on the drive.Which would logically support your reference to an improvement in the directional stability of the prime mover as anything else.
Note in the photo, the last Land Rover on the bottom is not kept at the back of the truck but driven as far forward as possible. This is another example of the requirement to keep the weight as far forward as possible to stop the tail wagging the dog…
The car transporter in the photo will tare in at around 20-21 tonne. With 7.5 tonne of Land Rover on the tractor unit you need the lift axle. Whatever arguments you may wish to offer to the contrary, the practical reality is if you attempted to run this combination of vehicles on a 4x2 unit, you would be either a very brave, or more realistically, a very stupid individual…
Lank:
Note in the photo, the last Land Rover on the bottom is not kept at the back of the truck but driven as far forward as possible. This is another example of the requirement to keep the weight as far forward as possible to stop the tail wagging the dog…
Apologies Juddian, just realised you have already mentioned this point…
Carryfast:
raymundo:
You cant believe everything you read up on by Googling the infoIt’s actually based on the simple laws of gravity and good experience of having driven both close coupled and A frame drawbar outfits in which the former idea is an insult to the title.
Carryfast, with the greatest of respect, your ‘good experience’ of driving different kinds of vehicles can also be translated into ‘little or no experience’ of car transporters and their different handling characteristics.
Lank:
I hope this answers your question Pimpdaddy
It does, thanks:)
Why do the trucks have no balls, most I’ve seen are 380, 400 etc?
Pimpdaddy:
Lank:
I hope this answers your question PimpdaddyIt does, thanks:)
Why do the trucks have no balls, most I’ve seen are 380, 400 etc?
That is a good question, lol. Car transporter drivers do have to suffer with lower powered vehicles.
I’ll be honest and say I don’t know the exact reason why this is. Do vehicles with a larger power output require a greater physical space? The ever present requirement to have the cab running as low as possible to prevent restriction of payload.
One interesting point is the low roof Scania prime movers frequently found on modern car transporters are apparently substantially more expensive to purchase than their larger contemporaries due to them being a specialised vehicle. Note the flat roof as against the sightly humped roof found on most low roof Scanias, and the height the cab sits on the chassis as against a standard unit…
Lank:
Carryfast:
raymundo:
You cant believe everything you read up on by Googling the infoIt’s actually based on the simple laws of gravity and good experience of having driven both close coupled and A frame drawbar outfits in which the former idea is an insult to the title.
Carryfast, with the greatest of respect, your ‘good experience’ of driving different kinds of vehicles can also be translated into ‘little or no experience’ of car transporters and their different handling characteristics.
As I said to Juddian that’s fair enough.Although having said that a random mixture of heavy pallets and loose cartons of varying weights on a four wheeler 16 tonner and close coupled trailer provided me with all the confirmation I needed as to the flaws in that type of design.Ironically to the point where I only ended up as the regular driver on the run after an unfortunate incident suffered by the previous driver in which one of the two outfits ended up on its side facing south on the northbound carriageway of the M6. After which he decided no more and walked away from the job. 
.Using it for car transporter work obviously won’t make that situation any better.
Carryfast:
Lank:
Carryfast:
raymundo:
You cant believe everything you read up on by Googling the infoIt’s actually based on the simple laws of gravity and good experience of having driven both close coupled and A frame drawbar outfits in which the former idea is an insult to the title.
Carryfast, with the greatest of respect, your ‘good experience’ of driving different kinds of vehicles can also be translated into ‘little or no experience’ of car transporters and their different handling characteristics.
As I said to Juddian that’s fair enough.Although having said that a random mixture of heavy pallets and loose cartons of varying weights on a four wheeler 16 tonner and close coupled trailer provided me with all the confirmation I needed as to the flaws in that type of design.Ironically to the point where I only ended up as the regular driver on the run after an unfortunate incident suffered by the previous driver in which one of the two outfits ended up on its side facing south on the northbound carriageway of the M6.
Ok. Yes, in many ways the configuration used for modern car transporters is not quite as stable as other concepts.
However, as a car payload will generally ‘cube out’ before it ‘weighs out’, the drawbar configuration is more suitable for car transport than an artic configuration. Artic car transporters with a peak, as used historically, have thankfully been suspended from production. As well as carrying a couple of cars less than a drawbar, the swinging ‘peak’ took its toll on much highway infrastructure down the years from traffic lights, road signs, lamp-posts, buildings and scaffolding. Although immensely fun to drive when you had the hang of them, I don’t think you will find many previous transporter drivers who will disagree that the fundamental design was lethal. Most won’t disagree with the decision to suspend production of this type.
So when discussing drawbars, the 40/60 split which has been adopted by all manufacturers for UK spec transporters (i.e. those designed with a running height of 16 foot as opposed to the European 4 metres) offers the greatest advantages. It’s far more manoeuvrable than a 50/50 split drawbar, and can get in to spaces an artic can get into but a more stable 50/50 split drawbar cannot.
The stability issue you have raised is only really a concern when the configuration is placed in the hands of either an inexperienced or lazy driver. The requirement to place weight forward is ever present and this should be at the forefront of your mind every time the vehicle is loaded. Interestingly, the height the cars are carried has much less effect on stability, hence you will often see a transporter which has cleared its lower decks still running around with cars on the upper decks.
So yes, although the modern car transporter is not ‘perfect’, the fact that this basic configuration has been adopted by all car transporter manufacturers show that this design requires the fewest compromises when payload, manoeuvrability, and stability are taken into consideration.
Lank:
One interesting point is the low roof Scania prime movers frequently found on modern car transporters are apparently substantially more expensive to purchase than their larger contemporaries due to them being a specialised vehicle…
I thought it’d be because they’re decent motors, they are the best trucks on the road (fact) & they hold their value pretty well.
Pimpdaddy:
Lank:
One interesting point is the low roof Scania prime movers frequently found on modern car transporters are apparently substantially more expensive to purchase than their larger contemporaries due to them being a specialised vehicle…I thought it’d be because they’re decent motors, they are the best trucks on the road (fact) & they hold their value pretty well.
You misundstand me. I was comparing the price of the low roof Scanias used on car transporters with higher roof offerings from the same manufacturer, the price difference being on account of it being a special order.
The reason that Scanias are becoming the dominant vehicle in the industry is primarily due to the dimensions of the cab. This same reason is why for example, you will not see many DAF CFs pulling drawbar transporters as the cab is too big and payload restricting.
As regards resale value, I don’t think that is much of a concern for most operators. In this industry, due to the procurement cost of the trucks, they’re run until they’re dead anyway. It’s not necessarilyan industry suited to drivers who like shiny new trucks… 
Lank:
, I don’t think that is much of a concern for most operators. In this industry, due to the procurement cost of the trucks, they’re run until they’re dead anyway…
I thought so [emoji16]
Lank:
So when discussing drawbars, the 40/60 split which has been adopted by all manufacturers for UK spec transporters (i.e. those designed with a running height of 16 foot as opposed to the European 4 metres) offers the greatest advantages. It’s far more manoeuvrable than a 50/50 split drawbar, and can get in to spaces an artic can get into but a more stable 50/50 split drawbar cannot.The stability issue you have raised is only really a concern when the configuration is placed in the hands of either an inexperienced or lazy driver. The requirement to place weight forward is ever present and this should be at the forefront of your mind every time the vehicle is loaded.
I was mainly referring to the type of coupling method.IE close coupled v A frame not prime mover and relative trailer size.
Which then obviously,as I said,in the case of the close coupled design,leads on to that conflict between,as you rightly say the essential ever present need to ensure a decent amount of forward weight bias/nose weight on the trailer.But which as I said then affects load distribution flexibility of the trailer and drive axle weight in the case of a full freighted,or some times not even full,prime mover.
It’s mostly that,together with its better resistance,if not immunity,to the tail wagging the dog situation,in which the advantages of the A frame type in that regard outweigh any of its perceived disadvantages in manouvrability.Although there may arguably be exceptions to that rule and as Juddian said car transporter work is probably one of those exceptions.
