I thought we were talking about the axle weights on a 5-axle artic grossing 44t, but maybe it’s just me.
also the a-frame fetish is beyond me - i’ts a tool for a job, where an a-frame is required. just like an artic is a tool for a job where an artic is required. there’s not much that an a-frame can do, that an artic can’t but there are many things that an artic can and a n a-frame cant.
milodon:
I thought we were talking about the axle weights on a 5-axle artic grossing 44t, but maybe it’s just me.also the a-frame fetish is beyond me - i’ts a tool for a job, where an a-frame is required. just like an artic is a tool for a job where an artic is required. there’s not much that an a-frame can do, that an artic can’t but there are many things that an artic can and a n a-frame cant.
We are talking about ‘the axle weights’ on a typical 2 + 3 artic running at 44 t gross.I’m saying that the idea isn’t ideal to put it mildly which seems to be backed up by the Brit authorities calling for 3 + 3 in that case. 
As for drawbars,assuming it’s not an indivisible load that’s longer than or too heavy for either load deck,as I said,the difference between GTW of the A frame v GCW of the artic makes the idea of a 5 axle 44 tonner more viable,regarding all the arguable weight issues,which apply in the case of the artic.
yes, you are right, carry on