With just passing my class 2 last week I am starting my class 1 in a fortnight. Funny enough my friend is doing his class 1 that week also.
I have opted to go down wag and drag route simply because I’m used to the man now and have covered every possible route around wetherby.
My friend is doing artic and says me passing in wag and drag is like a fake licence cheating etc.
Whats your thoughts?
I’ve read on here wag and drag is a bit easier. So much like taking an auto over a manual. Why wouldn’t you set yourself up for success?
That said personally I’d sooner do class 1 in an artic to immediately be getting that experience. As you’ll probably be driving an artic once passed right?
That said, no it isn’t cheating. Ignore your mate, he’s winding you up.
Sent from my E6653 using Tapatalk
Supposedly W+D is easier to drive as the drag will follow the wagon, but the trailer on an artic always wants to cut in.
That been said W+D is supposedly harder to couple up as it only has a very small hole to match up with the pin.
I would want to do it properly and use an artic to get the experience while under professional training.
I would call it cheating but that doesn’t mean am putting you down.
I chose to pass cat C in a manual for the experience and the training from a professional.
.
The goal has always been class 1 artic I’ve no interest in rigids
The main thing for me in I know the truck I know the routes and the drag is near enough same length as artic
I think the inexperience will be hooking trailer up on artic and thats about it
once you pass why don’t you take a lesson on an artic? solves the problem
To me, this is purely personal choice. I’ve mentioned dozens of times on the forum that I have no axe to grind as we operate both types for CE training.
The comments above are correct. Drawbar is easier as it follows nicely (this assumes that the vehicle and trailer are married correctly and this isn’t always the case). The downside is the coupling which demands a bit more accuracy. I would strongly suggest 3 hours in an artic before attempting an assessment for work.
In favour of training in an artic is the indisputable fact that this is what most folks will end up driving so you’re better prepared for a pre-employment assessment drive - not to mention the first couple of weeks work. It can be argued that examiners will use a little more latitude with a full size artic eg catching a kerb with a drawbar will probably result in a fail whereas consideration will be given to the size of the vehicle with an artic.
There is an obvious advantage in using the same vehicle for CE drawbar as for C though I consider it a great shame if that becomes a major factor. At that point, you are assumed to be a professional driver so that really shouldn’t matter too much.
We have no great difference in pass rates for either configuration.
No more to say really. It is, as I said, personal choice. And I wish everyone the best no matter which way they go.
Pete 
No it’s not cheating. I did my class one with Peter Smythe’s. I took an offer that was available but it was only for w+d. I did the training and test, with the option that I could book a conversion course for a morning on an artic while still saving some money (if I felt I needed one). Some people claim ‘nowhere runs w+d’s’,‘nowhere runs manual gearboxes’ etc. Yet as a lad on my dcpc said one of the biggest employers in Peter Smythe’s area is sports direct…who run quite a few w+d. Take a conversion course later…then it covers all bases. You also get more practise at what would be realistic reversing on an artic
Sent from my MotoG3 using Tapatalk
It’s a fact that we have Sports Direct up the road and they run a substantial number of w+d together with a huge number of artics. In fairness, that is a bit of an exception. This is easy to demonstrate. Just have a look at the trucks on a motorway. How many artics do you see compared to w+d.?
Having said all that, training on w+d followed by a conversion to artic is a very good way of achieving the end result for those who don’t fancy artic straight away.
Pete