Lift axles

[bobthedog]

Erm, on both those occasions I was actually driving up the hills when it decided to roll away. Might well be 9.5 tonnes. I have been away for 5 years and forget.
Dual drive could never give 100% extra…WTF are you rabbiting on about now? It gives nothing extra really. The steer axle is 7220 as I recall, the midlift is around 5 tonnes and the drive is 10.5 tonnes. The trailers need to have a neck rating of 13 tonnes to go to 44 tonnes so regardless of what drive configuration you have, you can only have an imposed weight of that 13 tonnes. Spread on 2 drive axles gives 6.5 tonnes per axle max, regardless of the capacity per axle. Personally, I would prefer to have all that 13 tonnes pushing an axle down on the road and have all of it pushing through one or two wheel than to have it fighting over a choice of four wheels.

Then again, as WN, NMM, me, and all the others know sod all compared to you, with your council driving experience, what more can we say? Clearly, we are all in the dark, probably stuck with our piddly trucks while you are more than able to blast past us at 90 mph in your 6x4 rigid pulling a 45’ trailer behind it, doing the work for free, because you know everything.

I have another one I would like to see you handle. A 6x4 pulling my old tanker out of Chard dairy with 20 tonnes of cream on board. It just would not work, especially if you hit that manhole halfway up over the hill.

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
Erm, on both those occasions I was actually driving up the hills when it decided to roll away. Might well be 9.5 tonnes. I have been away for 5 years and forget.
Dual drive could never give 100% extra…WTF are you rabbiting on about now? It gives nothing extra really. The steer axle is 7220 as I recall, the midlift is around 5 tonnes and the drive is 10.5 tonnes. The trailers need to have a neck rating of 13 tonnes to go to 44 tonnes so regardless of what drive configuration you have, you can only have an imposed weight of that 13 tonnes. Spread on 2 drive axles gives 6.5 tonnes per axle max, regardless of the capacity per axle. Personally, I would prefer to have all that 13 tonnes pushing an axle down on the road and have all of it pushing through one or two wheel than to have it fighting over a choice of four wheels.

Then again, as WN, NMM, me, and all the others know sod all compared to you, with your council driving experience, what more can we say? Clearly, we are all in the dark, probably stuck with our piddly trucks while you are more than able to blast past us at 90 mph in your 6x4 rigid pulling a 45’ trailer behind it, doing the work for free, because you know everything.

I have another one I would like to see you handle. A 6x4 pulling my old tanker out of Chard dairy with 20 tonnes of cream on board. It just would not work, especially if you hit that manhole halfway up over the hill.

[carryfast]

Carryfast:

bobthedog:
Erm, on both those occasions I was actually driving up the hills when it decided to roll away. Might well be 9.5 tonnes. I have been away for 5 years and forget.
Dual drive could never give 100% extra…WTF are you rabbiting on about now? It gives nothing extra really. The steer axle is 7220 as I recall, the midlift is around 5 tonnes and the drive is 10.5 tonnes. The trailers need to have a neck rating of 13 tonnes to go to 44 tonnes so regardless of what drive configuration you have, you can only have an imposed weight of that 13 tonnes. Spread on 2 drive axles gives 6.5 tonnes per axle max, regardless of the capacity per axle. Personally, I would prefer to have all that 13 tonnes pushing an axle down on the road and have all of it pushing through one or two wheel than to have it fighting over a choice of four wheels.

Then again, as WN, NMM, me, and all the others know sod all compared to you, with your council driving experience, what more can we say? Clearly, we are all in the dark, probably stuck with our piddly trucks while you are more than able to blast past us at 90 mph in your 6x4 rigid pulling a 45’ trailer behind it, doing the work for free, because you know everything.

I have another one I would like to see you handle. A 6x4 pulling my old tanker out of Chard dairy with 20 tonnes of cream on board. It just would not work, especially if you hit that manhole halfway up over the hill.

Co incidently I was actually driving a 8.5 tonne 4x2 Clydesdale loaded with a 9 tonne bulldozer once which went right through a zb manhole cover.I was pmsl when I said to guvnor it would’nt have happened if I’d been using a 6x4 Riever. .But an empty 6x4 gritter had just as good traction.

[240_gardner]

newmercman:

Wheel Nut:

newmercman:
it was all brought about by the French and the Dutch and their desire to cram as much into a lorry as possible (do you remember the DeRooy and Nobrot Dangerousangle units where the driver was almost standing up?) so the EEC in it’s wisdom granted us 16.5m overall length, but maximum trailer length of 13.6m, that way we could still drive lorries if we were taller than Gogzy anyway to appease the tree hugging fraternity they said these juggernauts had to be able to turn in a circle as in Wheelnut’s post, that’s why the front corners of a 45’ box are chamfered in, otherwise they wont go round in that aforementioned circle.

You forget that Bowker and Yeardley were also big users of Eurotrotters with a plywood bulkhead and no room for a ■■■■ bottle behind the seats.

Didn’t want to steal your thunder Malc…Honest

The common denominator here is Phillips I once saw a DeRooy outfit, a 2500 Daf wagon and drag chassis, but it had a one piece body that IIRC was over 50’ long, the body was mounted on two 5th wheels, the one on the prime mover fixed, the one on the trailer a sliding affair, that thing had 20’ bits of chassis poking out when it turned and it also had the back of the cab shaved and a piece of ply as a rear wall that started at the back of the doors, with the big old flat steering wheel in those Dafs I would not even be able to get in the cab

The Bowker Eurotrotters didn’t have a plywood bulkhead, because they were a Volvo factory build, and not an aftermarket conversion. From memory, Volvo built only 12 of these cabs, I think.

As you say, the common denominator was Philips, and these machines were built to meet the ‘Philips Concept’, which specified body dimensions to suit their packaging sizes, applied to demountable boxes. The first Philips bodies that Bowker had were tilts, each one 8.05m long. I think that the internal height was around 3 m, perhaps a little more.

Because of the requirement to have standard sized bodies, they were incompatible with anything else on the fleet:

Earlier drawbars operated on contract to Philips had a longer body on the wagon, and shorter on the trailer:

[bobthedog]

On Croomes we had 2 boxes or tilts which were 26’ long. The chassis of the trailer was a bit shorter so the vehicle was within the length limits. This gave us 52 linear feet on a combination which meant we only got nailed for overlength in Switzerland, unless we went through Rafz where they didn’t care… But it also meant we could swap boxes over from truck to trailer anytime.

In truth, those demountables we had were excellent. The only trouble was that the suspension required some fiddling with to get the legs off the ground sometimes.

They were 6x2 trucks, BTW, with rear lift axles…

Oh, and the pods we had were, I think, custom made. Lots more room than the Eurotrotter in the pics.

[wheel_nut]

240 Gardner:
You forget that Bowker and Yeardley were also big users of Eurotrotters with a plywood bulkhead and no room for a ■■■■ bottle behind the seats.

Didn’t want to steal your thunder Malc…Honest

The common denominator here is Phillips I once saw a DeRooy outfit, a 2500 Daf wagon and drag chassis, but it had a one piece body that IIRC was over 50’ long, the body was mounted on two 5th wheels, the one on the prime mover fixed, the one on the trailer a sliding affair, that thing had 20’ bits of chassis poking out when it turned and it also had the back of the cab shaved and a piece of ply as a rear wall that started at the back of the doors, with the big old flat steering wheel in those Dafs I would not even be able to get in the cab

The Bowker Eurotrotters didn’t have a plywood bulkhead, because they were a Volvo factory build, and not an aftermarket conversion. From memory, Volvo built only 12 of these cabs, I think.

As you say, the common denominator was Philips, and these machines were built to meet the ‘Philips Concept’, which specified body dimensions to suit their packaging sizes, applied to demountable boxes. The first Philips bodies that Bowker had were tilts, each one 8.05m long. I think that the internal height was around 3 m, perhaps a little more.

Because of the requirement to have standard sized bodies, they were incompatible with anything else on the fleet:

Earlier drawbars operated on contract to Philips had a longer body on the wagon, and shorter on the trailer:

It may have been a flippant comment or my memory is failing about the plywood I do remember the trucks, as an “anti social friend” of mine drove one for a while. I think he also drove one for De Bruin for a while. Howard Gray had more jobs than soft Mick but probably stayed with Bowker the longest, he loved those drawbar outfits.

[3300john]

Carryfast:

bobthedog:
I can’t be bothered to try to snip away at your virtually unintelligable post to get the relevant parts, curryfart, but you have just proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
IIRC, the Spaniards and French were allowed up to 13 tonnes on a drive axle. Not sure if that has changed or not.
Also, IIRC, the maximum allowed on a 6x2 drive axle is 10.5 tonnes, while on a 4x2 it is 11.5. Bottom line on that is that replating is generally a paper exercise between 36 and 40 tonnes on a 4x2 and 38 to 44 tonnes on a 6x2. I may be wrong, but I think the UK laws state that a 6x4 on general haulage is allowed 9 tonnes per axle. The ability to dump the air to really load the drive axle can make all the difference. When you have watched some poor fool have to put 4 sets of chains on and still not be able to get away then you start to get it, but you would have to youtube it because that is as close to real life as you will ever get. There goes your entire argument… So sorry…NOT!!

Your drawbar nonsense, well read this…

Wheel Nut:
A good post and Bob and I along with others will have had the problem where all the load is at the rear of the trailer. Illegal you say, possibly, but it happens with a liquid tanker, move off the load moves back, it picks the wheels up and a 4x2 will have more traction than a 6x4 and more payload

Try climbing out of Chard with a 34000 litre barrel loaded with 18000 litres in the rain with any of your daydreams. You would be calling out a wrecker, and if you had your drawbar dream then there is a fair chance you would be calling the fire crews and ambulances because your 6x4 would probably being. I still disagree!on its side or in some poor persons car. I slid all the way down the hill outside Rowes in Newquay once, during the only snow most had ever seen there. That was in a loaded 6x4 rigid. I slid halfway down a hill on the winter roads once, and had to bury the trailer in a ditch to stop. That was in a 6x4 Kenworth. Chances are, with a set of single chains on a single drive axle that that wouldn`t have happened. Then again, I would never have taken a 6x2 up there because of the lakes and beaverdams.
Someone described curryfart as entertaing

9.5 t each on a 6x4 but correct me if I’m wrong.Which,allowing for the extra 100% amount of contact between road and wheels,is probably worth around at least 15 tonnes,maybe more on a 4x2 or a 6x2 drive axle with it’s undriven axle lifted.But yes you’re right it is possible for any type of parked truck,with it’s park brake applied,to slide down a hill and wipe out whatever gets in it’s way,while the driver is in the cafe having a break if the road is slippery enough .But zb happens.But I’ve posted the general result of the argument on those youtube clips which shows the difference in the real world between having a single drive axle and having two.Which is probably why that land rover and those yank 18 wheelers are getting on with it while all the trucks in Northampton and in Germany are stuck.

Hiya…for what its worth it is,nt the trucks that get stuck its the whizzy cars that stop everything. then you can,nt get going again.
I ve done some really bad winters out of Buxton and never got stuck with a 4x2 tractor its when you introduce light weight vehicals
that the trouble starts.

[3300john]

Carryfast:

bobthedog:
I can’t be bothered to try to snip away at your virtually unintelligable post to get the relevant parts, curryfart, but you have just proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
IIRC, the Spaniards and French were allowed up to 13 tonnes on a drive axle. Not sure if that has changed or not.
Also, IIRC, the maximum allowed on a 6x2 drive axle is 10.5 tonnes, while on a 4x2 it is 11.5. Bottom line on that is that replating is generally a paper exercise between 36 and 40 tonnes on a 4x2 and 38 to 44 tonnes on a 6x2. I may be wrong, but I think the UK laws state that a 6x4 on general haulage is allowed 9 tonnes per axle. The ability to dump the air to really load the drive axle can make all the difference. When you have watched some poor fool have to put 4 sets of chains on and still not be able to get away then you start to get it, but you would have to youtube it because that is as close to real life as you will ever get. There goes your entire argument… So sorry…NOT!!

Your drawbar nonsense, well read this…

Wheel Nut:
A good post and Bob and I along with others will have had the problem where all the load is at the rear of the trailer. Illegal you say, possibly, but it happens with a liquid tanker, move off the load moves back, it picks the wheels up and a 4x2 will have more traction than a 6x4 and more payload

Try climbing out of Chard with a 34000 litre barrel loaded with 18000 litres in the rain with any of your daydreams. You would be calling out a wrecker, and if you had your drawbar dream then there is a fair chance you would be calling the fire crews and ambulances because your 6x4 would probably being. I still disagree!on its side or in some poor persons car. I slid all the way down the hill outside Rowes in Newquay once, during the only snow most had ever seen there. That was in a loaded 6x4 rigid. I slid halfway down a hill on the winter roads once, and had to bury the trailer in a ditch to stop. That was in a 6x4 Kenworth. Chances are, with a set of single chains on a single drive axle that that wouldn`t have happened. Then again, I would never have taken a 6x2 up there because of the lakes and beaverdams.
Someone described curryfart as entertaing

9.5 t each on a 6x4 but correct me if I’m wrong.Which,allowing for the extra 100% amount of contact between road and wheels,is probably worth around at least 15 tonnes,maybe more on a 4x2 or a 6x2 drive axle with it’s undriven axle lifted.But yes you’re right it is possible for any type of parked truck,with it’s park brake applied,to slide down a hill and wipe out whatever gets in it’s way,while the driver is in the cafe having a break if the road is slippery enough .But zb happens.But I’ve posted the general result of the argument on those youtube clips which shows the difference in the real world between having a single drive axle and having two.Which is probably why that land rover and those yank 18 wheelers are getting on with it while all the trucks in Northampton and in Germany are stuck.

Hiya…for what its worth it is,nt the trucks that get stuck its the whizzy cars that stop everything. then you can,nt get going again.
I ve done some really bad winters out of Buxton and never got stuck with a 4x2 tractor its when you introduce light weight vehicals
that the trouble starts.

[carryfast]

3300John:

Carryfast:

bobthedog:
I can’t be bothered to try to snip away at your virtually unintelligable post to get the relevant parts, curryfart, but you have just proved that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
IIRC, the Spaniards and French were allowed up to 13 tonnes on a drive axle. Not sure if that has changed or not.
Also, IIRC, the maximum allowed on a 6x2 drive axle is 10.5 tonnes, while on a 4x2 it is 11.5. Bottom line on that is that replating is generally a paper exercise between 36 and 40 tonnes on a 4x2 and 38 to 44 tonnes on a 6x2. I may be wrong, but I think the UK laws state that a 6x4 on general haulage is allowed 9 tonnes per axle. The ability to dump the air to really load the drive axle can make all the difference. When you have watched some poor fool have to put 4 sets of chains on and still not be able to get away then you start to get it, but you would have to youtube it because that is as close to real life as you will ever get. There goes your entire argument… So sorry…NOT!!

Your drawbar nonsense, well read this…

Wheel Nut:
A good post and Bob and I along with others will have had the problem where all the load is at the rear of the trailer. Illegal you say, possibly, but it happens with a liquid tanker, move off the load moves back, it picks the wheels up and a 4x2 will have more traction than a 6x4 and more payload

Try climbing out of Chard with a 34000 litre barrel loaded with 18000 litres in the rain with any of your daydreams. You would be calling out a wrecker, and if you had your drawbar dream then there is a fair chance you would be calling the fire crews and ambulances because your 6x4 would probably being. I still disagree!on its side or in some poor persons car. I slid all the way down the hill outside Rowes in Newquay once, during the only snow most had ever seen there. That was in a loaded 6x4 rigid. I slid halfway down a hill on the winter roads once, and had to bury the trailer in a ditch to stop. That was in a 6x4 Kenworth. Chances are, with a set of single chains on a single drive axle that that wouldn`t have happened. Then again, I would never have taken a 6x2 up there because of the lakes and beaverdams.
Someone described curryfart as entertaing

9.5 t each on a 6x4 but correct me if I’m wrong.Which,allowing for the extra 100% amount of contact between road and wheels,is probably worth around at least 15 tonnes,maybe more on a 4x2 or a 6x2 drive axle with it’s undriven axle lifted.But yes you’re right it is possible for any type of parked truck,with it’s park brake applied,to slide down a hill and wipe out whatever gets in it’s way,while the driver is in the cafe having a break if the road is slippery enough .But zb happens.But I’ve posted the general result of the argument on those youtube clips which shows the difference in the real world between having a single drive axle and having two.Which is probably why that land rover and those yank 18 wheelers are getting on with it while all the trucks in Northampton and in Germany are stuck.

Hiya…for what its worth it is,nt the trucks that get stuck its the whizzy cars that stop everything. then you can,nt get going again.
I ve done some really bad winters out of Buxton and never got stuck with a 4x2 tractor its when you introduce light weight vehicals
that the trouble starts.

There were’nt any cars stopping those trucks which were stuck in Germany and Northampton and those yank 6x4 artics just overtake all the cars anyway and the reason they can do that is because they’ve got more driven wheels in contact with the road than a zb 6x2 has and everyone here seems to have some issue and problem with the basic maths of the grip coefficient,of two drive axles added together,even though individually they’re loaded at a (slightly) lower weight, which actually in the real world means more traction in total not less.It’s the old adage less can sometimes mean more.

[renaultman]

newmercman:

bigdennis:
For me the biggest problem with mid lift, most of which are non-steering is that the front pair turn, the back pair on a differential follow the line, but the two in the middle want to go on the way they were pointed, low speed entry into Silvey’s yesterday and the front wanted to go towards the kerb. If all lift axles were made steering axles, with the weight penalty which is imposed, that would be my preference.

Silvey’s, that’s the one at J17 on the M4? If so, that place is lethal, I’ve had understeer there in a 4x2 with super singles on the front, there was a car coming up so I shot across lively and nearly ended up in the cafe, more to do with bad road surface than axle configuration (or in my case, speed )

But you’re right about handling, a positively steered mid lift will corner like it’s on rails

Crazyfast, a 6x4 yank with any trailer would be undriveable in the UK, trust me, I know about these things, you may get away with it in a swb Volvo, but a ‘proper’ yank tank would not be any fun at all

I’ve never driven a Tag, So can’t comment, but must agree about a steered midlift. Had an 85 with a steering midlift and it was brilliant to drive, The only thing to come close was the minilift that replaced it.

[carryfast]

renaultman:

newmercman:

bigdennis:
For me the biggest problem with mid lift, most of which are non-steering is that the front pair turn, the back pair on a differential follow the line, but the two in the middle want to go on the way they were pointed, low speed entry into Silvey’s yesterday and the front wanted to go towards the kerb. If all lift axles were made steering axles, with the weight penalty which is imposed, that would be my preference.

Silvey’s, that’s the one at J17 on the M4? If so, that place is lethal, I’ve had understeer there in a 4x2 with super singles on the front, there was a car coming up so I shot across lively and nearly ended up in the cafe, more to do with bad road surface than axle configuration (or in my case, speed )

But you’re right about handling, a positively steered mid lift will corner like it’s on rails

Crazyfast, a 6x4 yank with any trailer would be undriveable in the UK, trust me, I know about these things, you may get away with it in a swb Volvo, but a ‘proper’ yank tank would not be any fun at all

I’ve never driven a Tag, So can’t comment, but must agree about a steered midlift. Had an 85 with a steering midlift and it was brilliant to drive, The only thing to come close was the minilift that replaced it.

Which would prove the case for the good old fashioned British 8x4 prime mover drawbar outfit which the New Zealanders still use in updated and upgraded modern day form.

[bullitt]

bobthedog:
… Croome had dozens. Murfitt had hundreds…

YEAH!!!..and Croomes went to China as well!!!

My mate told me!!:lol:

[bobthedog]

Carryfast:
There were’nt any cars stopping those trucks which were stuck in Germany and Northampton and those yank 6x4 artics just overtake all the cars anyway and the reason they can do that is because they’ve got more driven wheels in contact with the road than a zb 6x2 has and everyone here seems to have some issue and problem with the basic maths of the grip coefficient,of two drive axles added together,even though individually they’re loaded at a (slightly) lower weight, which actually in the real world means more traction in total not less.It’s the old adage less can sometimes mean more.

Do you still not get it, Curryfart? They still only have one driven wheel at anyone time. The whole purpose of differentials is to put power to the wheel with the least resistance. The only way you can have 4 wheels driving at one time is with 4 way lockups, then the damned thing will not steer at all.

You need to start looking at wiki and maybe allow google to be your friend because you might be able to learn something worthwhile, although I would, in your case, suggest that you use your allotted time in the asylum computer room to study something less taxing… Maybe basketweaving or paint by numbers…

[carryfast]

bobthedog:

Carryfast:
There were’nt any cars stopping those trucks which were stuck in Germany and Northampton and those yank 6x4 artics just overtake all the cars anyway and the reason they can do that is because they’ve got more driven wheels in contact with the road than a zb 6x2 has and everyone here seems to have some issue and problem with the basic maths of the grip coefficient,of two drive axles added together,even though individually they’re loaded at a (slightly) lower weight, which actually in the real world means more traction in total not less.It’s the old adage less can sometimes mean more.

Do you still not get it, Curryfart? They still only have one driven wheel at anyone time. The whole purpose of differentials is to put power to the wheel with the least resistance. The only way you can have 4 wheels driving at one time is with 4 way lockups, then the damned thing will not steer at all.

You need to start looking at wiki and maybe allow google to be your friend because you might be able to learn something worthwhile, although I would, in your case, suggest that you use your allotted time in the asylum computer room to study something less taxing… Maybe basketweaving or paint by numbers…

Bobthebog (used after a vindaloo ) I don’t ever remember having driven a 6x4 gritter with only one wheel drive or that would have been a 6x1. and those yank artics seem to confirm my experience that if the thing is rolling at around 50-60 mph on a motorway covered in snow it generally does’nt lose all it’s traction on 3 (six) of it’s driven wheels by sending all the drive to just one (two) unless the thing has actually stopped or slowed to a crawl on a road with severe difference in grip one side or the other and that’s the time for diff and maybe cross locks and I’ve certainly managed to keep a 6x4 moving and steering in conditions which have stopped most,if not all,traffic on a motorway. The whole purpose of differentials is to provide for the different distance travelled by one side of the axle than the other on bends and corners but it still provides drive to both sides.It’s only when you lose traction completely, on one side of an axle,that the diff then sends all the drive to that wheel.But that does’nt really matter at 50 or 60 mph because you don’t generally lose all traction,at that speed,on one side of one or two drive axles and there’s even less chance of that with 2 drive axles and usually it’s a case of both sides are running on slippery surface or in the tyre tracks already made just like in that yank video.In which case you’ll get equal grip levels both sides and the diffs just work the same as if the road was clear and dry.If it does lose speed and it’s a case of starting off again then you’ve got the diff and cross locks to get all the axles working together and on both sides if needed.But the issue,of the possibility of one side losing traction,when running at slow speed or stopped,also applies to single drive axles just the same,but you don’t have the advantage of being able to use the traction provided by having the combined traction co efficient of the two drive axles just like I said in that case.But you’re trying to make an argument over an issue which has been proven in favour of double drive axles years ago which is why the yanks still have the good sense to use them.Think this one says everything about single drive axles even loaded to probably maximum.

youtube.com/watch?v=H_Kwrs-rWPs

[bobthedog]

And clearly you understood what I meant, if only up to a point. Had you just had to drive the last 100 miles I just had then your opinion of 6x4s would probably have changed by now.

The 6x4 has its uses, but a 4x2 would have been rather less of a handful tonight with decent traction control than the Mighty Pete was.

[carryfast]

bobthedog:
And clearly you understood what I meant, if only up to a point. Had you just had to drive the last 100 miles I just had then your opinion of 6x4s would probably have changed by now.

The 6x4 has its uses, but a 4x2 would have been rather less of a handful tonight with decent traction control than the Mighty Pete was.

Sounds to me like you need to get home and get a job based in Poland doing euro work with a 40 tonner in that case. But if I was still unlucky enough to be working for the council I’d probably still be able to stick two fingers up in the old British/French salute as I drove by your stuck outfit going up Riegate hill with the decent ‘traction control’ provided by that 6x4 gritter versus yours if it’s a bad winter this year. But at least we’ve agreed that a 4x2 running at 40 tonnes gross is better than a 6x2 running at 44 t at last but it took a long time getting there.By the way did you read the comment on that video saying that he should have lifted the mid lift .It might have worked,if it was’nt automatically controlled,when loaded,to stop him getting nicked for an axle weight overload assuming that the thing did what my Clydesadale did when it went through that manhole cover .It’s just that luckily for me that was in the yard at the time not on the road. But it’s just as well that the thing did’nt look like it’s trailer axles were all loaded to max or he’d still be there now .But if you ever do decide to trade the Pete for a Polish based 4x2 Scania maybe I’d be interested in going over there to do the job when you’ve left,so long as your guvnor has remembered to spec the Pete with diff locks and crosslocks.

[cruise_control]

I can sum this thread up in one sentence,

Carryfast loves mass debating over 6x4’s

[removalboy]

Cruise Control:
I can sum this thread up in one sentence,

Carryfast loves mass debating over 6x4’s

[bobthedog]

[milodon]

Carryfast:
.Except that even their wagon and drags would be better if they were pulled by 6x4 prime movers

I feel an apology coming on for agreeing with you in the past When in a hole, the best soultion would be to stop digging. Why do you think you know better than all the scandinavian transport companies put together?