Lyndon - AB
Member
Forgive my bit of tongue in cheek humor, I couldn't resist.
- Thread starter Lyndon - AB
- Start date
Forgive my bit of tongue in cheek humor, I couldn't resist.
Lyndon - AB
Member
Awwww, shucks. I knew I screwed up somewhere. Lol
No,you drove them on, instead of backing them on.
I could not resist.
Yesterday I got passed by a pu pulling a car trailer with a nice flat bed wagon on it. He had four chains and binders on it and one more chain on the tough, the problem was the chains were so long that the binders were bouncing off of the trailer floor. It was probably tight when parked, but it sure was not going up US 61.
I could not resist.
Yesterday I got passed by a pu pulling a car trailer with a nice flat bed wagon on it. He had four chains and binders on it and one more chain on the tough, the problem was the chains were so long that the binders were bouncing off of the trailer floor. It was probably tight when parked, but it sure was not going up US 61.
I thought you needed a tantum under the truck to pull a tri axle trailer although I don't remember where I got or heard that from . Probably on this site. I also thought you had to use wire to tie your binders down, not that fancy clamp you have on them. Other than those "serious" infractions it looks like you did a good job and I'm sure that Ford is up to the task. Your braver than me as I would never post a picture of my tie down jobs even though its just about the same as you did in the pictures. Good Job
carvel minne farmer
Well-known Member
looking good lyndon, I see your pulling a precision built trailer (I love pulling mine) you don't even fell them back there, the one I have is a 14k tandem bumper pull for the skidsteer, it pulls like a dream. all your hooks and chains are inside the rub rail (got a ticket for that at the pouce coupe scales) many years ago hauling a load of drill pipe to fort nelson!! locks on all your boomers your good to go :lol: the 2 j.d.'s going to west lock?
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
The left rear chain on front tractor has a twist in it.
Deduct 10 points.
Deduct 10 points.
Lyndon - AB
Member
It's a Precision, built in Manitoba. Really well built trailers, they handle like a dream.
Lyndon - AB
Member
Hey John, this is my second Precision, and I wouldn't pull anything else. Really well built, definitely worth the extra money. And I've talked to Adrian a few times, one of the main bosses at the factory, and he's been good to work with. Just got back from dropping the Deeres off in Westlock, have the big Ollie 990 loaded, and ready to have a blast tomorrow!
Lyndon - AB
Member
Up here in Alberta, I don't need to have a dually pickup to pull this trailer, but it's certainly on my wish list. I'm pushing the limits with my single wheel one ton. There aren't many low mileage dually gas pickups show up on the market though, almost everybody goes for diesels. I love my 6.0L gas engines, not really inclined to buy a Duramax.
Lyndon - AB
Member
Thanks DoubleR, after I had it all chained down to my satisfaction, I looked at it and thought it would be perfect for having a little fun on here. I've been around heavy equipment moves a bit, so got pretty particular about how I chain down.
Funny you mention Fords, the one I had died just before I got my first Precision trailer, so I picked up this GMC. It played with the first trailer, so I traded up to this one. It handles it pretty well, but I am straying pretty close to needing a dually now.
showcrop
Well-known Member
I pull a tandem dual trailer all over New England with an SRW. I got inspected once. The inspector checked my reg and just to be sure he checked my door sticker and the data plate on the trailer he was happy. You see 3 axle trailers pulled by SRW trucks on the road everyday.
showcrop
Well-known Member
D Beatty, even though I am sure it is not a reg anywhere except YTDOT, I prefer them on the left myself not only so that I can see them in my mirror more easily, but also it is just easier to do it methodically, and when you have driven a little while it is easer to be able to go down just one side to take up slack where you need to.
wilson ind
Well-known Member
what brand is a SRW truck. Never heard of that company?
i drove for an LTL freight line for 38 years and you can't beat a good set of mirrors on both sides a truck. I used both sides a lot seeing
as we pulled box trailers most of the time. Might use left a little more watching traffic coming around you. I bind my personal trailer on
both sides and watch both sides of trailer and not just binders but keep track of tires.
as we pulled box trailers most of the time. Might use left a little more watching traffic coming around you. I bind my personal trailer on
both sides and watch both sides of trailer and not just binders but keep track of tires.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
Can't be a "blanket statement" as there are thousands of SRW pickups pulling three axle rec trailers both fifth wheel and tags.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
[b:2e4f055ba6]S[/b:2e4f055ba6]ingle [b:2e4f055ba6]R[/b:2e4f055ba6]ear [b:2e4f055ba6]W[/b:2e4f055ba6]heel
As opposed to a DRW (dually).
1948CaseVAI
Well-known Member
I just love these posts because it is so much fun to read the things that guys just make up on the spot in order to be obnoxious! Fun times! And BTW I love your truck and trailer!
john in la
Well-known Member
SRW and DRW is based on weight hauled and tire size.
As long as you do not exceed the weight capacity of the axle/tires you can pull any trailer you want.
The one thing you guys overlooked.
That trailer requires a non commercial CDL to pull it in some states.
As long as you do not exceed the weight capacity of the axle/tires you can pull any trailer you want.
The one thing you guys overlooked.
That trailer requires a non commercial CDL to pull it in some states.
I had to take another or should I say a better look at the truck itself. At a glance I really thought it was a Ford as I didn't look close enough. I guess I was looking more at your tie down job. I pull my trailers with the almost the same truck only the Chev. version. I did the math when I brought my truck new and opted for a gasser too for my use as opposed to the diesel. I've been happy with my gasser even at my 7-8 miles to the gallon pulling a big load.
The Famous Grouse
Member
All tie-downs must be straps, not chains for any wheeled vehicle. Everybody knows that.
Whole rig is illegal as is in 52 states and 14 provinces. In fact, you could be arrested by the DOT just for posting that picture.
Grouse
Whole rig is illegal as is in 52 states and 14 provinces. In fact, you could be arrested by the DOT just for posting that picture.
Grouse
Looks like a nice job.
Kidding aside - and I enjoy these types of threads - with the chains angled so far and crossed front to back, the tractors are well braced for
rolling forward or rearward.
However, are they really held down onto the trailer that well? Would seem on a serious bump or on a rollover, the tractor weight would flex
chains/ rails/ etc and pull the chains enough to be leaving the deck. There is actually very shallow angle to hold downward, not much vertical
clamping?
Paul
Kidding aside - and I enjoy these types of threads - with the chains angled so far and crossed front to back, the tractors are well braced for
rolling forward or rearward.
However, are they really held down onto the trailer that well? Would seem on a serious bump or on a rollover, the tractor weight would flex
chains/ rails/ etc and pull the chains enough to be leaving the deck. There is actually very shallow angle to hold downward, not much vertical
clamping?
Paul
Russ from MN
Well-known Member
- Location
- Bemidji MN
I thought the lever binders were no longer legal, but it might not pertain to hauling your own tractors. That's all we ever used hauling
pulpwood but that was 45 years ago, don't ever recall having one come loose, and we didn't have fancy keepers like you have! I also
question the extreme angle of the binders, in an accident there would be a lot of stress on them.
pulpwood but that was 45 years ago, don't ever recall having one come loose, and we didn't have fancy keepers like you have! I also
question the extreme angle of the binders, in an accident there would be a lot of stress on them.
Lyndon - AB
Member
Thanks 1948CaseVAI! I too from time to time enjoy kicking the ant hill so to speak!
Lyndon - AB
Member
NYOlivers, thank you! The powertrain is still a bone stock 6.0L gas with 6L80E auto transmission. It has a leveling kit on the front to give it a nice level stance when not loaded, and load assist airbags in the back for when it's loaded. Beyond that, mostly cosmetic tweaks, and a Magnaflow exhaust system to give it a nice rumble. It's been a fantastic truck, does everything I ask of it.
Lyndon - AB
Member
DIM, fair enough, but a little difficult to do with a 4 chain, 4 binder cross pattern.
I would never x chains like that as it looks to me the front could actually be lifted up relatively easy. To me the back chains must pull back and down at no more than 45 degree angle and front forwards with no more than 45 degree angle. You are way WAY to flat with your chains. I would give a warning and make you change them before moving further.
Lyndon - AB
Member
You are entitled to your opinion, and I will respect that. I'm not changing mine.
showcrop
Well-known Member
cjunrau, here are the cargo securement rules from FMCSA web site. I can't find anything about the angle of the securement device. Perhaps you could point it out for us. Perhaps you are the authority in a certain area exclusive of FMCSA, if so could you advise us where that is so that we know that different rules apply in the area where you have authority
Cargo Securement
393.130 - Heavy Vehicles, Equipment and Machinery
These requirements are applicable to the transportation of heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery which operate on wheels or tracks, such as front end loaders, bulldozers, tractors and power shovels and which individually weigh 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or more. Vehicles, equipment and machinery which is lighter than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) may be secured in accordance with these rules, the rules for automobiles, light trucks and vans, or the general freight requirements.
393.128 - Automobiles, Light Trucks and Vans
This portion of the new standards applies to the transportation of automobiles, light trucks, and vans which individually weight 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) or less. Vehicles which individually are heavier than 4,536 kg (10,000 lbs) must be secured in the same manner as heavy vehicles, equipment and machinery (see the rules under /393.126).
On September 27, 2002, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) published new cargo securement rules. Motor carriers operating in interstate commerce must comply with the new requirements beginning January 1, 2004. The new rules are based on the North American Cargo Securement Standard Model Regulations, reflecting the results of a multi-year research program to evaluate U.S. and Canadian cargo securement regulations; the motor carrier industry's best practices; and recommendations presented during a series of public meetings involving U.S. and Canadian industry experts, Federal, State and Provincial enforcement officials, and other interested parties. The new rules require motor carriers to change the way they use cargo securement devices to prevent articles from shifting on or within, or falling from commercial motor vehicles. The changes may require motor carriers to increase the number of tiedowns used to secure certain types of cargo. However, the rule generally does not prohibit the use of tiedowns or cargo securement devices currently in use. Therefore, motor carriers are not required to purchase new cargo securement equipment or vehicles to comply with the rule. The intent of the new requirements is to reduce the number of accidents caused by cargo shifting on or within, or falling from, commercial motor vehicles operating in interstate commerce, and to harmonize to the greatest extent practicable U.S., Canadian, and Mexican cargo securement regulations.
Applicability of the New Rules
The new cargo securement rules apply to the same types of vehicles and cargo as the old rules, covering all cargo-carrying commercial motor vehicles (as defined in 49 CFR 390.5) operated in interstate commerce. This includes all types of articles of cargo, except commodities in bulk that lack structure or fixed shape (e.g., liquids, gases, grain, liquid concrete, sand, gravel, aggregates) and are transported in a tank, hopper, box or similar device that forms part of the structure of a commercial motor vehicle.
Performance Criteria
FMCSA has adopted new performance requirements concerning deceleration in the forward direction, and acceleration in the rearward and lateral directions, that cargo securement systems must withstand. Deceleration is the rate at which the speed of the vehicle decreases when the brakes are applied, and acceleration is the rate at which the speed of the vehicle increases in the lateral direction or sideways (while the vehicle is turning), or in the rearward direction (when the vehicle is being driven in reverse and makes contact with a loading dock). Acceleration and deceleration values are commonly reported as a proportion of the acceleration due to gravity (g). This acceleration is about 9.8 meters/second/second (32.2 feet/second/second), which means that the velocity of an object dropped from a high elevation increases by approximately 9.8 meters/second (32.2 feet/second) each second it falls. FMCSA requires that cargo securement systems be capable of withstanding the forces associated with following three deceleration/accelerations, applied separately:
1. 0.8 g deceleration in the forward direction;
2. 0.5 g acceleration in the rearward direction; and
3. 0.5 g acceleration in a lateral direction.
These values were chosen based on researchers' analysis of studies concerning commercial motor vehicle performance. The analysis indicated that the highest deceleration likely for an empty or lightly loaded vehicle with an antilock brake system, all brakes properly adjusted, and warmed to provide optimal braking performance, is in the range of 0.8-0.85 g. However, a typical loaded vehicle would not be expected to achieve a deceleration greater than 0.6 g on a dry road. The typical lateral acceleration while driving in a curve or on a ramp at the posted advisory speed is in the range 0.05-0.17 g. Loaded vehicles with a high center of gravity roll over at a lateral acceleration above 0.35 g. Lightly loaded vehicles, or heavily loaded vehicles with a lower center of gravity, may withstand lateral acceleration forces greater than 0.5 g.
Generally, motor carriers are not required to conduct testing of cargo securement systems to determine compliance with the performance requirements. The new rules explicitly state that cargo immobilized or secured in accordance with the general securement rules, or the commodity-specific rules, are considered to meet the performance criteria.
Requirements for Securement Devices
The new rules require that all devices and systems used to secure cargo to or within a vehicle must be capable of meeting the performance criteria. All vehicle structures, systems, parts and components used to secure cargo must be in proper working order when used to perform that function with no damaged or weakened components that could adversely affect their performance. The cargo securement rules incorporate by reference manufacturing standards for certain types of tiedowns including steel strapping, chain, synthetic webbing, wire rope, and cordage. FMCSA has updated the rules to reference the November 15, 1999, version of the National Association of Chain Manufacturers (NACM) Welded Steel Chain Specifications. The agency notes that some of the working load limit values in the 1999 version differ slightly from the previous edition of this publication. Also, the 1999 version includes working load limits for a new grade of alloy chain, grade 100. The agency also changed its reference for synthetic webbing from the 1991 edition to the 1998 edition of the Web Sling and Tiedown Association's publication. Generally, the working load limits are the same as those in the 1991 publication. Changes in the references do not necessarily mean the older securement devices need to be replaced. Motor carriers are not required to replace tiedown devices purchased prior to January 1, 2004. If the tiedowns satisfied the old rules, the devices should also satisfy the new rules.
Proper Use of Tiedowns
The new regulations require each tiedown to be attached and secured in a manner that prevents it from becoming loose, unfastening, opening or releasing while the vehicle is in transit. All tiedowns and other components of a cargo securement system used to secure loads on a trailer equipped with rub rails must be located inboard of the rub rails whenever practicable. Also, edge protection must be used whenever a tiedown would be subject to abrasion or cutting at the point where it touches an article of cargo. The edge protection must resist abrasion, cutting and crushing.
Use of Unmarked Tiedowns
The new rules do not prohibit the use of unmarked tiedown devices. Although many of the participants in the public meetings and numerous commenters to the rulemaking proposal argued the rules should include such a prohibition, FMCSA believes it is inappropriate to prohibit unmarked tiedowns at this time. However, in view of the potential safety hazards of motor carriers misidentifying unmarked tiedowns, there is a provision that unmarked welded steel chain be considered to have a working load limit equal to that of grade 30 proof coil, and other types of unmarked tiedowns be considered to have a working load limit equal to the lowest rating for that type in the table of working load limits.
Unrated and Unmarked Anchor Points
FMCSAs cargo securement rules do not require rating and marking of anchor points. While the agency encourages manufacturers to rate and mark anchor points, the new rules do not include a requirement for ratings and markings.
Front End Structures on CMVs
FMCSA revised its rules concerning front-end structures or headerboards by changing the applicability of the requirements to cover CMVs transporting cargo that is in contact with the front-end structure of the vehicle. By contrast, the old rules required certain vehicles to be equipped with front-end structures regardless of whether the devices were used as part of a cargo securement system.
Summary of the new cargo rules
The new cargo securement rules include general securement rules applicable to all types of articles of cargo, with certain exceptions, and commodity-specific rules covering commodities that are considered the most difficult to determine the most appropriate means of securement. Requirements concerning securement, working load limits, blocking and bracing are applicable to all commodities being transported. The commodity-specific requirements take precedence over the general rules when additional requirements are given for a commodity listed in those sections. This means all cargo securement systems must meet the general requirements, except to the extent a commodity-specific rule imposes additional requirements that prescribe in more detail the securement method to be used.
General Rule
Cargo must be firmly immobilized or secured on or within a vehicle by structures of adequate strength, dunnage (loose materials used to support and protect cargo) or dunnage bags (inflatable bags intended to fill space between articles of cargo or between cargo and the wall of the vehicle), shoring bars, tiedowns or a combination of these.
Cargo Placement and Restraint
Articles of cargo that are likely to roll must be restrained by chocks, wedges, a cradle or other equivalent means to prevent rolling. The means of preventing rolling must not be capable of becoming unintentionally unfastened or loose while the vehicle is in transit. Articles of cargo placed beside each other and secured by transverse tiedowns must be:
1. Placed in direct contact with each other, or
2. Prevented from shifting towards each other while in transit.
Minimum Working Load Limit for Cargo Securement Devices and Systems
The aggregate working load limit of any securement system used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half the weight of the article or group of articles. The aggregate working load limit is the sum of: One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of cargo; and The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.
Minimum Number of Tiedowns
The cargo securement system used to restrain articles against movement must meet requirements concerning the minimum number of tiedowns. This requirement is in addition to complying with rules concerning the minimum working load limit. When an article of cargo is not blocked or positioned to prevent movement in the forward direction, the number of tiedowns needed depends on the length and weight of the articles. There must be - one tiedown for articles 5 ft or less in length, and 1,100 lbs or less in weight; two tiedowns if the article is -
1. 5 ft or less in length and more than 1,100 lbs in weight; or
2. greater than 5 ft but less than 10 ft, regardless of weight.
In the following example, one tiedown is required because the article of cargo is 5 ft in length and does not exceed 1,100 lbs. If the article of cargo were greater than 5 ft in length but less than 10 ft, two tiedowns would be needed regardless of the weight. When an article of cargo is not blocked or positioned to prevent movement in the forward direction, and the item is longer than 10 ft in length, then it must be secured by two tiedowns for the first 10 ft of length, and one additional tiedown for every 10 ft of length, or fraction thereof, beyond the first 10 ft. An example of this is provided below. If an article is blocked, braced or immobilized to prevent movement in the forward direction by a headerboard, bulkhead, other articles that are adequately secured, or other appropriate means, it must be secured by at least one tiedown for every 10 ft of article length, or fraction thereof.
Special Rule for Special Purpose Vehicles
Generally, the basic rules concerning the minimum number of tiedowns do not apply to a vehicle transporting one or more articles of cargo such as, but not limited to, machinery or fabricated structural items (e.g., steel or concrete beams, crane booms, girders, and trusses, etc.) which, because of their design, size, shape or weight, must be fastened by special methods. However, any article of cargo carried on that vehicle must be secured adequately to the vehicle by devices that are capable of meeting the performance requirements and the working load limit requirements.
Thank you Colin
oliver power
Member
I just went through all this stuff, as well as a DOT seminar. cjunrau , you are correct. Also, over center binders are not band. To take this a little further, leaving the hitch in the receiver is also not illegal. So, if you get a ticket for leaving the hitch in the receiver, fight it. State trooper giving the seminar said he doesn't know how that myth come about. He went out of his way to clear the hitch in receiver myth.
The "over center binders aren't legal" thing came about some time back when the wording in the FMCSR was changed to say that "a binder must be adjustable" or words to that effect. This lead some people to believe that the Feds were saying only screw types were legal. No. If you think about it, an over center binder is obviously adjustable. And that's where the myth came from.
I don't think you can find anything on angles. I cn't. What I am saying is that tractor could be turned almost all the way around with flat tied X underneath. There is no way that that tractor would stay without moving on some of the roads I drive on. Law says can NOT move forward backward or lateral. NOw I know it says nothing about up. but that tractor is not secured in my opinion. I can almost bet it can be moved without alot of force. I don't know the measurements of all the lengths of chain and width of trailer. But I would love to make a model of that and turn it and see if it would turn. as you can see the front chain would get loose if you flipped the tractor around. so lift it and turn looks very doable to me. Not saying it would fall off it just doesn't look good to me. And yes I know the DOT make up there own rules as they see fit, and the law the way it is written is left up to interpretation, and hard to understand.
showcrop
Well-known Member
cjunrau, just look at the pics more carefully. I know what you are saying. You are looking at the cross point as a point where the chains could twist around each other. That is not the case. It looks different from coming out to each side away from the front and rear but it accomplishes the same thing as a conventional set of securing units: a pair out to each side pulling backward and a pair out to each side pulling frontward.
Pete in MD
Well-known Member
- Location
- Central Maryland
oliver power,
About 3 years ago Maryland enacted a law making it illegal to leave an unused hitch in the receiver.
Haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket.
About 3 years ago Maryland enacted a law making it illegal to leave an unused hitch in the receiver.
Haven't heard of anyone getting a ticket.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
Those tractors are not going anywhere.
They are not going to remain chained and "spin" at the chain cross over point or anywhere else.
They will bounce some and get some air between tires and trailer deck if you hit the speed bumps hard enough, etc.
The shallow angle of the chains does not induce much downward force.
Now I am wondering if it is proper or illegal to secure with four chains at each corner of tractor. But only two binders, too the back only. Right or wrong, I never use four binders.
They are not going to remain chained and "spin" at the chain cross over point or anywhere else.
They will bounce some and get some air between tires and trailer deck if you hit the speed bumps hard enough, etc.
The shallow angle of the chains does not induce much downward force.
Now I am wondering if it is proper or illegal to secure with four chains at each corner of tractor. But only two binders, too the back only. Right or wrong, I never use four binders.
Lyndon - AB
Member
Cjunrau, you must have a different set of physics than I do. I've bottomed out the suspension of my truck on frost heaves, and NOTHING MOVES. The chains are fiddlestring tight all the way around, so that the tires are squashed down some. I don't follow this "spin" idea you have stuck in your head. No matter which way the forces push on the tractor, the chains are keeping it in place.
I've chained this way for years, never had a load shift. Hauled heavy equipment a couple times too. If you think you have a better way, put your money where your mouth is and post pictures.
I've chained this way for years, never had a load shift. Hauled heavy equipment a couple times too. If you think you have a better way, put your money where your mouth is and post pictures.
So you are making an opinion call. No law to back it up. Yet you said you'd hand out a warning make someone change it to suit your opinion. And you accuse DOT of making stuff up? FYI- DOT (actual trained DOT cops) use the FMCSR and State V+T Law work within the law. The FMCSR rules committee that actually produces the "DOT Laws" is made up of trucking industry representatives, LE and career political appointees. There are reams and reams of paperwork behind every law or rule and yes, the rules are updated over time to reflect changing technology and real life experience on the road. It can be confusing which is why there is so much training involved and why we spent so much time trying to keep truckers up dated on changes and why we handed out "fix it tickets" for the simple stuff rather than pounding some guy who was trying to do it right, but just needed a little help.
Opinion isn't law and you would have been doing exactly what you accuse DOT of doing (which would be illegal) by making someone change something the law doesn't require or even address.
Grandpa's Fords
Member
There are other laws to consider like physics and geometry.
Lyndon nice load, tractors and hauler. I used this same method many times especially when I had short trailers with longer load.
Barring breakage or failure you could hook a crane to one those tractors and lift everything, well maybe unhook truck first.
So unless your tractor can bend in half or tie down points tear off like you said they won't move.
Excuse my rough drawings but hopefully illustrates that they can't move. The math doesn't lie. If someone wants to model this all that would be necessary is 2 2x4's or furring strips about 6'-8' long attached near center of each to form an x. Plant lower 2 ends in some soft ground, then attempt to lift either upper (or both) ends and notice what happens. Or to be more elaborate attach the lower ends to the floor then attach another 2x4 each end to the top edges of the x and remove center attachment or pivot of the x. then try lifting and notice again what happens. One of the fixed points has to move either on the tractor or trailer to lift the tractor off.
By the way I have been inspected at DOT checkpoints when using this method and merrily been sent on my way without issue.
Lyndon nice load, tractors and hauler. I used this same method many times especially when I had short trailers with longer load.
Barring breakage or failure you could hook a crane to one those tractors and lift everything, well maybe unhook truck first.
So unless your tractor can bend in half or tie down points tear off like you said they won't move.
Excuse my rough drawings but hopefully illustrates that they can't move. The math doesn't lie. If someone wants to model this all that would be necessary is 2 2x4's or furring strips about 6'-8' long attached near center of each to form an x. Plant lower 2 ends in some soft ground, then attempt to lift either upper (or both) ends and notice what happens. Or to be more elaborate attach the lower ends to the floor then attach another 2x4 each end to the top edges of the x and remove center attachment or pivot of the x. then try lifting and notice again what happens. One of the fixed points has to move either on the tractor or trailer to lift the tractor off.
By the way I have been inspected at DOT checkpoints when using this method and merrily been sent on my way without issue.
BarnyardEngineering
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rochester, NY
The DRW truck requirement for tandem dually or triaxle trailers is a state thing, not a Federal rule.
Someone else reported getting a ticket for towing a tandem dually trailer with an SRW truck some years ago. Not sure if it was this site or a different one I was participating in. Something about the axle rating on the truck had to match or exceed the individual axle rating on the trailer...
Someone else reported getting a ticket for towing a tandem dually trailer with an SRW truck some years ago. Not sure if it was this site or a different one I was participating in. Something about the axle rating on the truck had to match or exceed the individual axle rating on the trailer...
Lyndon - AB
Member
Grandpa's Fords, thank you for the drawing and the math, that's what I had in mind but couldn't put to paper. I think it would be fun to lift the whole trailer via the tractors as an experiment, too bad a crane the right size is too pricey to rent. The model A was held down with four 5/16 schedule 70 chains, and the model R was held down with four 3/8 schedule 70 chains. I also place a great deal of faith in the rubs rails, this is an extremely well built trailer. I'm sure nothing would shift or break if lifted.
As a side note, several people have commented about the angle of my chains. Even when chaining outward from a tractor, I still do a cross pattern with a fairly flat angle. The reason for that is it allows anchor point of each chain to be as close to the outside of the machine as possible, for greater stability, and allows for a completely straight chain with no interference from tires or other obstructions.
As a side note, several people have commented about the angle of my chains. Even when chaining outward from a tractor, I still do a cross pattern with a fairly flat angle. The reason for that is it allows anchor point of each chain to be as close to the outside of the machine as possible, for greater stability, and allows for a completely straight chain with no interference from tires or other obstructions.
Grandpa's Fords
Member
You are welcome. I've been following the post for a few days and couldn't quite get it to paper either. Those were the 4th attempt. If it was done to scale and actual measurements plugged in then can you prove it to be correct easily. I was lucky to just find the compass and straight edge still in a desk drawer.
BarnyardEngineering
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rochester, NY
I was thinking more along the lines of Iowa because they're just about the worst when it comes to inane DOT rules that go above and beyond Federal standards.
Yes, I'm aware you've probably driven through wherever this is with a SRW truck towing a tandem dually or triaxle trailer and the fuzz didn't jump out of the bushes, drag you out of the truck, and stand on your neck with a gun pointed at your head. All that means is you didn't get caught, or anyone that did see you either wasn't thinking of that particular rule out of the 1000's they have to keep straight when they saw you, or they saw you and decided to let you go because it was a nice day and they were in a good mood.
showcrop
Well-known Member
The point Barnyard, is that the FMCSA regulations are SIMPLE. They just don't care about all of the little details that YTDT gets so much fun out of. Does the truck have the legal load capacity to tow the trailer or not? Simple! The inspector checked the truck and trailer data plates. Simple!
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
The nicer the rig, trailer and load appear, the more you can get away with.
You go down the road in an outfit that looks like it was rescued from the scrapyard just begs for a closer look by LEO, no matter the flavor.
You go down the road in an outfit that looks like it was rescued from the scrapyard just begs for a closer look by LEO, no matter the flavor.
You want to know what DOT cops look for as far as pulling you over? First thing is "Is it a CMV?" because if it isn't, why bother? 2nd- Any obvious violations jump out at you? 3rd- Is it a rig I haven't looked at twice in the last 3 weeks? That's what I was looking for. If it's got the current CVSA level 1 sticker, pass it by. If it's got straps with knots or a flat tire or crap like that it's getting pulled.
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
Please clarify...............
or What do you mean by this?
Is it a Commercial Motor vehicle-
Commercial motor vehicle means any self-propelled or towed motor vehicle used on a highway in interstate commerce to transport passengers or property when the vehicle—
(1) Has a gross vehicle weight rating or gross combination weight rating, or gross vehicle weight or gross combination weight, of 4,536 kg (10,001 pounds) or more, whichever is greater; or
(2) Is designed or used to transport more than 8 passengers (including the driver) for compensation; or
(3) Is designed or used to transport more than 15 passengers, including the driver, and is not used to transport passengers for compensation; or
(4) Is used in transporting material found by the Secretary of Transportation to be hazardous under 49 U.S.C. 5103 and transported in a quantity requiring placarding under regulations prescribed by the Secretary under 49 CFR, subtitle B, chapter I, subchapter C.
IOW, if it isn't a CMV then there's no reason to even look at it if you're a DOT cop looking for a vehicle to check under the FMCSR. That doesn't mean State laws don't apply if the DOT officer is also local LE. I'm just referring to what we looked for in the DOT line.
Grandpa's Fords
Member
Bret,
I'm in no way disputing or disagreeing with you, but am confused by;
" [b:49b445c87f]I'm just referring to what we looked for in the DOT line.[/b:49b445c87f]"
The line you refer to is rather blurry.
With the influx of gas industry truck traffic in my area of Pa. We have found that locals state and fed are all here and inspecting on a fmsca level whether they are trained for it or not. I can tell you the local leo's have many citations thrown out by the judge.
We can't tell who is fed or not and state or not or maybe I should say we don't know who or what they are enforcing. I understand that it shouldn't be an issue if you keep the equipment legal but when a truck has been pulled in 3 times in a week at 3 different places with little or no infractions, it gets rather costly to the owner.
I agree that if a vehicle looks, smells ands sounds like junk it probably has not been properly maintained and becomes a target.
I have witnessed non gas related trucks overloaded with poorly bound loads be flagged through. I don't believe these issues exist in every area and realize this area hasn't seen this type of enforcement, in many respects it was overdue.
Our local police had claimed to be authorized to do these inspections but after so many overturned citations they no longer inspect and now seem to turn a blind eye.
Although I seem to be complaining the fact is because of enforcement the number of incidents versus the amount of truck traffic we have is remarkably low.
All citations I've seen were issued by the state whether they were state enforcement or not. Is it possible that Pa. has become an agent of fmsca?
I'm in no way disputing or disagreeing with you, but am confused by;
" [b:49b445c87f]I'm just referring to what we looked for in the DOT line.[/b:49b445c87f]"
The line you refer to is rather blurry.
With the influx of gas industry truck traffic in my area of Pa. We have found that locals state and fed are all here and inspecting on a fmsca level whether they are trained for it or not. I can tell you the local leo's have many citations thrown out by the judge.
We can't tell who is fed or not and state or not or maybe I should say we don't know who or what they are enforcing. I understand that it shouldn't be an issue if you keep the equipment legal but when a truck has been pulled in 3 times in a week at 3 different places with little or no infractions, it gets rather costly to the owner.
I agree that if a vehicle looks, smells ands sounds like junk it probably has not been properly maintained and becomes a target.
I have witnessed non gas related trucks overloaded with poorly bound loads be flagged through. I don't believe these issues exist in every area and realize this area hasn't seen this type of enforcement, in many respects it was overdue.
Our local police had claimed to be authorized to do these inspections but after so many overturned citations they no longer inspect and now seem to turn a blind eye.
Although I seem to be complaining the fact is because of enforcement the number of incidents versus the amount of truck traffic we have is remarkably low.
All citations I've seen were issued by the state whether they were state enforcement or not. Is it possible that Pa. has become an agent of fmsca?
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
As I thought, your concentrating only on CMV's because that is where your agency can reap the biggest fines?
Does that also mean DOT officers are purposely ignoring privately owned, non-commercial vehicles when they see an obvious problem?
And I thought after 911, Homeland Security made it so that all LEO agencies are authorized to enforce all laws of the land.
Game Wardens now pulling over vehicles for a burned out tail light, etc.
I don't know how your local police are trained. I went through several weeks of training and testing to get certified as a DOT Inspector. It's not something you just go out and learn through OJT. When you get into the HazMat side it takes a LOT of training and it all involves constant updates and more training.
No, we concentrated on CMVs because we were specifically trained as DOT Inspectors for the NYSP CVEU (Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Unit) which is a little over 100 Troopers out of 5000 across the state. The vast majority of tickets handed out were "fix it" tickets, ie- get your mud flap or tire replaced within a certain period of time and there is no fine. Fines are set by the Legislature and decided on by the courts. LEO's have nothing to do with that side. In the CVEU it wasn't the number of tickets that mattered, it was the number of inspections you did over a month. If you got some guy hauling 140K lbs w/o an overweight permit or caught someone hauling HazMat in a dangerous fashion you were a good guy, but it's not like you became a Hero of the People or anything. As far as ignoring violations outside the FMCSR, no, we didn't on my job because we were also NYS Troopers, charged with enforcing the full range of Criminal, V+T and Selected Laws in NYS. So if I saw a drunk or some clown beating on his wife, I took care of it. But not all states have DOT Inspectors that are LEO's. Even in NYS we had DOT Inspectors that worked for the NYS DOT, the guys that plow the roads. They had no police powers and had to have a Trooper write any tickets for violations found. But, they were qualified Federal DOT Inspectors. NYS adopted the FMCSR init's entirety some years back and the State law mirrors the Federal precisely. So the Federal statutes apply within NYS to non-interstate CMVs.
I don't know where you heard Homeland authorized LEOs to enforce all laws of the land, but no, it's not true. Homeland doesn't have the authority to do that in the first place if I understand what you mean. What does happen is that an LEO coming in contact with who may be an illegal alien, for instance, will contact Homeland Immigration side (Border Patrol) and see if what he has warrants further investigation by USBP or things like that. But that has been common for at least 30 year IME. There were Troopers and other local LE who were cross trained and certified in certain specialized areas of Federal Law, like DOT or Immigration or on nuclear material, but that was a specialized thing requiring a bunch of extra schooling, testing and certification. But there is no blanket authorization by Homeland to enforce things you aren't fully trained in that I'm aware of. I don't know what state you live in but in my state EnCon Officers (Game Wardens) are trained the same as Troopers, they just specialize in Fish and Game laws. They can pull a car for a tail light and write a ticket if they want, just as Troopers can haul someone in for jacking deer. If that's not how things used to be in your state, then I'd look to see if your legislature changed the laws or if there was some court decision authorizing it.
Hope that clears up some of your misconceptions. I've been retired almost 10 yeas now, but that's about how it worked and still works to the best of my knowledge in my state. Your's may differ.
BarnyardEngineering
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rochester, NY
Then why do we hear horror stories of truckers being fined heavily and put OOS because some empty holes in the frame of their truck were not filled with bolts? If they're not looking at the little details, such things would not happen.
The way you talk, I should be able to park my skidsteer on my trailer with no chains or straps and head on down the road. Truck and trailer have the load capacity, so what's the problem? They don't look at the little details right? Baloney! The right DOT officer is going to put me OOS because I used two chains instead of four, one on each corner. The next is going to put me OOS because I used a strap on the bucket and not a chain. You just never know what the DOT officer is going to nit-pick on any given day. You can do things a perfectly valid and safe way for decades, and all of a sudden one day a DOT officer will tell you you're doing it wrong, write a ticket, and put you OOS. I read first-hand accounts of this ALL THE TIME.
So your assertion that DOT isn't looking at the details is bogus.
showcrop
Well-known Member
Simple, barnyard, you hear stories because stories are interesting to tell and to hear, and the more they are told the more embellished they get, right? So far as reading first hand accounts, how do you get the inspectors to email their summonses to you? are you really a DOT administrator posing as a YTer?
DoubleO7
Well-known Member
- Location
- Crystal River, FL
The first hand account is some friend telling you he got ticketed for no bolts in empty bolt holes in his truck frame.
In reality it was for zero tie downs on his load and is too embarrassed to admit his lazyness.
BarnyardEngineering
Well-known Member
- Location
- Rochester, NY
So the only "valid" firsthand accounts are the summonses written by the DOT officials? "I personally was written a ticket for XYZ..." from the trucker that ACTUALLY received the ticket carries no merit? They're lying, making up stories? Wow. I can see continuing this discussion further would be a complete waste of time.
Did he show you the inspection report? What did the violation refer to? Empty bolt holes that are supposed to have, for instance, an axle positioning device would be a problem. People love to tell stories and people love to add or take away from the story to make it grow in their favor. Human nature.
You can be written a ticket for an officer misconception of the law. Then can go to court to fight it. But if you don't bother, you can correctly go around saying you got a ticket for something, but that does not make it a new law. It was an improperly enforced law.
At the end of the day, the law is the minimum. Yeah, if you're hauling private you don't have as many restrictions in most states, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the requirements. Maybe you won't get a medical card, but you probably shouldn't be driving your truck all over if you're on medication that suggests you shouldn't.... You shouldn't use straps where a chain is better. You shouldn't drive a questionably safe truck around just because it has a farm exemption (opps).
Each state has it's own intrastate rules, once you cross state lines its a different game. You might think you're just hauling private, but did you deduct those tractors on a schedule F? I have seen lots of folks enjoy the benefits of different tax strategies, but then you'd declaring yourself a business, and all of a sudden... you are one.
At the end of the day, the law is the minimum. Yeah, if you're hauling private you don't have as many restrictions in most states, but that doesn't mean you should ignore the requirements. Maybe you won't get a medical card, but you probably shouldn't be driving your truck all over if you're on medication that suggests you shouldn't.... You shouldn't use straps where a chain is better. You shouldn't drive a questionably safe truck around just because it has a farm exemption (opps).
Each state has it's own intrastate rules, once you cross state lines its a different game. You might think you're just hauling private, but did you deduct those tractors on a schedule F? I have seen lots of folks enjoy the benefits of different tax strategies, but then you'd declaring yourself a business, and all of a sudden... you are one.
Similar threads
We sell tractor parts! We have the parts you need to repair your tractor - the right parts. Our low prices and years of research make us your best choice when you need parts. Shop Online Today.
Copyright © 1997-2024 Yesterday's Tractor Co.
All Rights Reserved. Reproduction of any part of this website, including design and content, without written permission is strictly prohibited. Trade Marks and Trade Names contained and used in this Website are those of others, and are used in this Website in a descriptive sense to refer to the products of others. Use of this Web site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy TRADEMARK DISCLAIMER: Tradenames and Trademarks referred to within Yesterday's Tractor Co. products and within the Yesterday's Tractor Co. websites are the property of their respective trademark holders. None of these trademark holders are affiliated with Yesterday's Tractor Co., our products, or our website nor are we sponsored by them. John Deere and its logos are the registered trademarks of the John Deere Corporation. Agco, Agco Allis, White, Massey Ferguson and their logos are the registered trademarks of AGCO Corporation. Case, Case-IH, Farmall, International Harvester, New Holland and their logos are registered trademarks of CNH Global N.V.
Yesterday's Tractors - Antique Tractor Headquarters
Website Accessibility Policy