why is it only fuel price that has to be watched and examined when other factors like truck price and payload , mpg ect do not get a mention .An article in the news said productivity in the construction industry had gone down well well no wonder with new trucks costing a fortune then payload loss into the tonnes per vehicle no body seems to care .I know as a tax payer I do care It is our tax that pays to build roads ECT to pay for all the infrastructure and I do not feel I am getting value for money .A walking floor at 3 or four ton loss in payload plus all the moving parts that wear out is not environmentally friendly .
At he moment I am still very happy with my Renault 8x4 it is nearly three years old and is one the last euro 5’s. Unfortunately I will not be able to change it ever because I will be losing at least 1/2 a ton of payload and be faced with a price increase of at least ten grand for a euro 6. I have not had nor do I foresee a rate rise because of course fuel is down a bit ! Your so right fuse
It’s mad that on a steel body tipper your doing well now to get 19 ton payload many are near 18.5 especially with all the fors crap on them.
Look on Thompsons’ website. They say G.Webbs have bought some day cabbed Scania P cabs with steel Charlton Superlite (standard size) bodies. Thompsons say these can carry “19.6t”. Is it just me or does that sound like wishful thinking?
West Coast Haulage new Scanias have Thompson Loadmaster Lites and these carry about 19.1t. I think to get a good payload you need to either make the bodies paper thin or make them very shallow.
I think the MGW should be increased to offset the weight of all these add ons, but I don’t get why Daf don’t resurrect the rubber suspension as fitted to Alphas. Surely the added weight of Euro 6 could be negated?