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.
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.
This is small fry.
He’s never sailed in a submarine, but knows all about them and how to operate one. Aircraft piloting, running of countries and military tactics are also some of his theory based skillsets. Show some respect man.
It’s just a pity he did not learn how to put things down in writing clearly and concisely and then we would be able to understand exactly how much or how little he knows. I feel it’s the latter in most cases though.
albion1971:
It’s just a pity he did not learn how to put things down in writing clearly and concisely and then we would be able to understand exactly how much or how little he knows. I feel it’s the latter in most cases though.
Which seems ironic assuming you can’t understand the clear advantages of the A frame type outfit v close coupled which shouldn’t need any explanation from me given a junior school level of understanding of basic physics.Let alone when the argument in favour of close coupled v A frame is based mostly on driver training,ability and/or mindset to the job.
albion1971:
It’s just a pity he did not learn how to put things down in writing clearly and concisely and then we would be able to understand exactly how much or how little he knows. I feel it’s the latter in most cases though.
Which seems ironic assuming you can’t understand the clear advantages of the A frame type outfit v close coupled which shouldn’t need any explanation from me given a junior school level of understanding of basic physics.Let alone when the argument in favour of close coupled v A frame is based mostly on driver training,ability and/or mindset to the job.
What is ironic is the fact I have never ever discussed the difference between the two on here although having driven both and trained on one I can say quite specifically I understand the differences both for driving and loading.
I can also say I have driven car transporters. Have you?
Your appear to be (and not for the first time) making things up in your own mind again.
albion1971:
It’s just a pity he did not learn how to put things down in writing clearly and concisely and then we would be able to understand exactly how much or how little he knows. I feel it’s the latter in most cases though.
Which seems ironic assuming you can’t understand the clear advantages of the A frame type outfit v close coupled which shouldn’t need any explanation from me given a junior school level of understanding of basic physics.Let alone when the argument in favour of close coupled v A frame is based mostly on driver training,ability and/or mindset to the job.
Please become a transporter driver we need blokes like you - By the time I’ve got 11 cars on and gone to make loads of cash you would still be scratching your head wondering about some technical ■■■■■■■■. More money for me and the lads who do the do and don’t talk about it
To the OP - I have no idea mate but if I drop the lift axle it runs much sweeter when loaded. I hope this helps
How come Acumen use 4x2s carrying 10 cars on what looks like 3 decks?
How come Eddie Stobart never found a way to strap 45 cages of supermarket zb onto the frame?
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…
No apology necessary Lank, i waffle on far too much so hardly surprising you missed it.
Carryfast:
What is ironic is the fact I have never ever discussed the difference between the two on here although having driven both and trained on one I can say quite specifically I understand the differences both for driving and loading.
I can also say I have driven car transporters. Have you?
Your appear to be (and not for the first time) making things up in your own mind again.
Considering that I was just basing a ‘possible’ explanation,to the OP’s question, on those clearly defined loading ‘issues’ re close coupled trailers and you say you understand those ‘issues’.Then why all the aggro when there was obviously no need for you to have a go at me about that explanation.
As for that ‘possible’ explanation,concerning the issue of the conflict between trailer nose weight for stability v drive axle weight capacity,does it really matter if the thing is hauling a load of cars or a load of heavy pallets etc etc etc.Or even if its a car pulling a heavy trailer like a large caravan etc.IE the principle of the design flaw remains the same regardless.
Carryfast:
Please become a transporter driver we need blokes like you - By the time I’ve got 11 cars on and gone to make loads of cash you would still be scratching your head wondering about some technical ■■■■■■■■. More money for me and the lads who do the do and don’t talk about it
To the OP - I have no idea mate but if I drop the lift axle it runs much sweeter when loaded. I hope this helps
It’s those ‘technical issues’ which probably explains why the thing runs much sweeter with another axle to reduce the tail wagging the dog effect which,like the issue of avoiding a possibly over loaded drive axle,is another one of the advantages of A frame v close coupled.
Carryfast:
What is ironic is the fact I have never ever discussed the difference between the two on here although having driven both and trained on one I can say quite specifically I understand the differences both for driving and loading.
I can also say I have driven car transporters. Have you?
Your appear to be (and not for the first time) making things up in your own mind again.
Considering that I was just basing a ‘possible’ explanation,to the OP’s question, on those clearly defined loading ‘issues’ re close coupled trailers and you say you understand those ‘issues’.Then why all the aggro when there was obviously no need for you to have a go at me about that explanation.
As for that ‘possible’ explanation,concerning the issue of the conflict between trailer nose weight for stability v drive axle weight capacity,does it really matter if the thing is hauling a load of cars or a load of heavy pallets etc etc etc.Or even if its a car pulling a heavy trailer like a large caravan etc.IE the principle of the design flaw remains the same regardless.
If you check I was having a go at you because of your wording and explanations which are sometimes difficult to decipher.
Nothing to do with A frames etc.
Sorry but I am not the only one that thinks that.
Were you not very good at English at school ? Nothing to be ashamed of.
Just admit it and you might get less stick.
I’ve driven A frame outfits (Alstons Furniture) and close coupled wagon an drag ( Murfitts) and for the one legged animal from Mendlesham plus I brought my Trabbant back home from Holland in the back of a 3 1/2 ton Leyland Sherpa curtainsider, so does that make me an expert on vehicle transporters of which I know absolutely nothing about ■■
raymundo:
I’ve driven A frame outfits (Alstons Furniture) and close coupled wagon an drag ( Murfitts) and for the one legged animal from Mendlesham plus I brought my Trabbant back home from Holland in the back of a 3 1/2 ton Leyland Sherpa curtainsider, so does that make me an expert on vehicle transporters of which I know absolutely nothing about ■■
raymundo:
I’ve driven A frame outfits (Alstons Furniture) and close coupled wagon an drag ( Murfitts) and for the one legged animal from Mendlesham plus I brought my Trabbant back home from Holland in the back of a 3 1/2 ton Leyland Sherpa curtainsider, so does that make me an expert on vehicle transporters of which I know absolutely nothing about ■■
As I said even trying to carry 4 passengers and a boot full of luggage in a car then putting a heavy caravan on the back would tell them all they needed to know why Murfitts ran 3 axle prime movers to pull their close coupled trailers.Although it’s anyone’s guess as to why they chose a tag configuration instead of the lifting centre axle in this case.Although that car and caravan outfit driver would have been hoping that you didn’t decide to load the thing with zero trailer nose weight to make it a full 24 tonner as you were overtaking him.
Errr WTF was that ? I am on Famous Grouse at the moment CF so obviously not having the same effect as to whatever you are on
IIRC correctly the prime mover ( the bit that I sat in the front of) was a normal two axle rigid but the wiggly bit at the back had three axles an perfect stability on most loaded configurations.
albion1971:
If you check I was having a go at you because of your wording and explanations which are sometimes difficult to decipher.
Nothing to do with A frames etc.
Sorry but I am not the only one that thinks that.
Were you not very good at English at school ? Nothing to be ashamed of.
Just admit it and you might get less stick.
Believe it or not English was my only CSE result because I thought it was the only easiest and quickest one to bother turning up for.
As for the OP’s question it seems most likely to be either logically a case of possibly reducing the drive axle weight and/or directional stability of the outfit.Bearing in mind that 3 Range Rovers seems a bit light to put the gross of a 3 axle rigid over limit although a trailer nose weight issue will obviously add to that gross figure as part of the drive axle weight addition.
