Thanks for the information about blasters- I thnk I’ll get one, at some stage.
Regarding the axle positions of the Friderici KWs, most of the ones Robert put on page 1 seem to have the axle set back by less than 1ft. The one photographed from the rear seems like a normal US type. That batch of photos shows European-style trailers, IE axles forward, short wheelbase, both step frame and straight frame tilts. They look as if there should be more weight over the rear of the tractor,to take advantage of the two drive axles. What do I know? The things used to go back and forth to Asia every day!
Saviem:
And talking of living pods, we here converted a rather “rumpy” Aerodyne import to have a walk in shower, wc, and kitchen pack, inside the Aerodyne cab…and the fun that we had trying to grt the toilet not to let go of its contents when the cab was tilted…but we did succeed…eventually…but the trials were frought with danger!!!
Happy memories
Perhaps a Bollinger will cool my ardour!
Cheerio for now.
How did Le Centaure deal with the tilting toilet problem?
Hi Anorak, I wasn’t getting at any one, if you have a look at the later Friderici photos ( probably taken a few years later ) you would see that the axles were getting a more rear ward location, also have look at the White RC II thread, there is a good photo on there of DT subbie pulling a 12 mtr cube with the axles nearly at the back. I notice on Utube that the Russians that are using Ameriacn trucks were also starting to use American style trailers.
Saviem:
Yes, when Fource Four Publishing was created by Andrew Frankl, and Pat Kennet, and our Truck magazine was born,
One of my formative experiences (I suppose you could call it) M. Saviem was reading (and wanting more of) Pat Kennett’s writing in TRUCK in the late 70s/ early 80s. Although I would’ve been but a teenager when I first picked up a copy of TRUCK, the attention to detail still impressed me - to be honest, I don’t think in all the decades since that day in 1978 I’ve ever read anyone in any similar publication who’s come close to his professionalism, scrupulous honesty, attention to detail and (thankfully) dry wit.
The other name you mention in FF Publications is Andrew Frankl who, if what remains of my memory serves rightly, had a significant (if relatively hidden) role in helping CAR magazine achieve its deserved status back in the 70s and 80s. Like TRUCK, for me CAR was head and shoulders above the rest, not just for the depth of technical coverage and the breadth of the motors and issues it covered but for its attitude to its readership (it, like TRUCK, treated them as intelligent beings with a well-developed critical faculty and a sensitive nose for bovine ordure) and for its humour. As a rookie in the world of HGVs at the time, I bought and avidly read every issue of TRUCK I could afford to buy - when I’d read Kennett’s articles and tried and mostly failed to understand the technical side, Phil Llewellyn’s Long Distance Diary was a respite, a wonderfully accurate yet light-of-touch account written by a keen outsider. It’s no coincidence Llewellyn went on to become one of CAR’s longest-serving and most-respected writers.
Would that today’s truck and car mag writers had half the enthusiasm, technical knowledge, respect and wit that Kennett, Frankl and Llewellyn had.
Jelliot:
Hi Anorak, I wasn’t getting at any one, if you have a look at the later Friderici photos ( probably take a few years later ) you would see that the axles were getting a more rear ward location, also have look at the White RC II thread, there is a good photo on there of DT subbie pulling a 12 mtr cube with the axles nearly at the back. I notice on Utube that the Russians that are using Ameriacn trucks were also starting to use American style trailers.
Jeff…
No problem mate. If Friderici’s preference was tendimg towards the typical US trailer axle position, then they were learning what we both know! (or suspect, at least). The US rigs, with an identical bogie at each end of the trailer, look best to me, and form usually follows function. In this case:
The long-wheelbase US artic will be more tolerant of load position, with regard to changes in axle weights, than the short wheelbase Euro version.
The US trailer bogie will suffer less tyre scrub than a Euro triaxle.
The US 16 ton double drive bogie will have more traction than even a French 13 tonne drive axle.
The Euro drive axle will cause more road wear, based on the old “fourth power rule”, than the US tractor’s bogie. Add this to the road damage caused by the trailer tyres scrubbing in tight corners.
The only advantage the Euro combination has is that it is more maneouvrable, although those Scandinavian and Italian drawbar outfits seem happy enough. I reckon the present Euro 40 tonne “standard” artic is the result of an excess of French influence in Brussels.
To Saviem am i losing it or as a kid i used to save money and order overdrive loved yank stuff ,did,nt one head line read parity now or i dont plough ,all to do with harvest trucking
En-Tour-Age:
the first 15! Kenworth’s
had 435hp Detroit Diesels and Fuller 15-speed.
That spec and a 6 wheeler drawbar outfit would have been just about perfect.The speed the sound and the handling would have been about as good as it got.
Jelliot:
Hi Anorak, I wasn’t getting at any one, if you have a look at the later Friderici photos ( probably take a few years later ) you would see that the axles were getting a more rear ward location, also have look at the White RC II thread, there is a good photo on there of DT subbie pulling a 12 mtr cube with the axles nearly at the back. I notice on Utube that the Russians that are using Ameriacn trucks were also starting to use American style trailers.
Jeff…
No problem mate. If Friderici’s preference was tendimg towards the typical US trailer axle position, then they were learning what we both know! (or suspect, at least). The US rigs, with an identical bogie at each end of the trailer, look best to me, and form usually follows function. In this case:
The long-wheelbase US artic will be more tolerant of load position, with regard to changes in axle weights, than the short wheelbase Euro version.
The US trailer bogie will suffer less tyre scrub than a Euro triaxle.
The US 16 ton double drive bogie will have more traction than even a French 13 tonne drive axle.
The Euro drive axle will cause more road wear, based on the old “fourth power rule”, than the US tractor’s bogie. Add this to the road damage caused by the trailer tyres scrubbing in tight corners.
The only advantage the Euro combination has is that it is more maneouvrable, although those Scandinavian and Italian drawbar outfits seem happy enough. I reckon the present Euro 40 tonne “standard” artic is the result of an excess of French influence in Brussels.
At last we agree on something although you forgot last but not least the virtual zero tail sweep in having the axles as close as possible to the rear of the trailer.
As for the Euro 40 tonner the prize for mad euro axle positioning belongs with the Italian idea for the new extra length semi trailers.
Perhaps the trailer axle positions was to do with the road/rail regulations.
In 2000 I stayed with a Swiss family (in Nyon !!!) and they mentioned their latest referendum had prohibited all large transport from using the road network.
Semis had to uncouple and then swap to the rail system at the border where the trailer was suspended between rail bogies.
Only local “light” trucks were permitted on their roads.
Don’t know if this is still enforced.
The road/rail idea was trialled here in Aus but never caught on.
cargo:
Perhaps the trailer axle positions was to do with the road/rail regulations.
In 2000 I stayed with a Swiss family (in Nyon !!!) and they mentioned their latest referendum had prohibited all large transport from using the road network.
Semis had to uncouple and then swap to the rail system at the border where the trailer was suspended between rail bogies.
Only local “light” trucks were permitted on their roads.
Don’t know if this is still enforced.
The road/rail idea was trialled here in Aus but never caught on.
The 4 wheel tractor/three axle trailer combination began in France in about 1972 (better-informed contributors may give a more accurate date). At that time, it was a 38 tonne vehicle. Its predecessor in France was a 2+2 (axles on tractor and trailer) at 35 tonnes. Germany also had five-axle 38 tonners but, for some reason, liked its traditional twin-steer tractors with these. The KW engineers must have regarded Europe with some derision!
I guess the best compromise may be the Scandinavian version- a long-wheelbase 6x2 tractor, long-pin trailer and trailer axles in a position to place enough weight over the kngpin. Tell me that this does not “look right”!
cargo:
Perhaps the trailer axle positions was to do with the road/rail regulations.
In 2000 I stayed with a Swiss family (in Nyon !!!) and they mentioned their latest referendum had prohibited all large transport from using the road network.
Semis had to uncouple and then swap to the rail system at the border where the trailer was suspended between rail bogies.
Only local “light” trucks were permitted on their roads.
Don’t know if this is still enforced.
The road/rail idea was trialled here in Aus but never caught on.
The 4 wheel tractor/three axle trailer combination began in France in about 1972 (better-informed contributors may give a more accurate date). At that time, it was a 38 tonne vehicle. Its predecessor in France was a 2+2 (axles on tractor and trailer) at 35 tonnes. Germany also had five-axle 38 tonners but, for some reason, liked its traditional twin-steer tractors with these. The KW engineers must have regarded Europe with some derision!
I guess the best compromise may be the Scandinavian version- a long-wheelbase 6x2 tractor, long-pin trailer and trailer axles in a position to place enough weight over the kngpin. Tell me that this does not “look right”!0
The Euro trailer axle position issue seems to be all about an aversion to cut in and a preference for tail sweep.Together with an acceptance for high single drive axle loadings. Which aren’t as acceptable in the states the obvious answer to that being the double drive configuration which also obviously works best with out a large rear trailer overhang lifting weight off the pin.
Carryfast:
The Euro trailer axle position issue seems to be all about an aversion to cut in and a preference for tail sweep.Together with an acceptance for high single drive axle loadings. Which aren’t as acceptable in the states the obvious answer to that being the double drive configuration which also obviously works best with out a large rear trailer overhang lifting weight off the pin.
I take it you are referring to the Gavin McArdle K100. While I agree that it looks fabulous and, according to the text, works better than the usual Euro dimensions, I doubt it would pass the “turning corridor” test that they have in Europe now.
Carryfast:
The Euro trailer axle position issue seems to be all about an aversion to cut in and a preference for tail sweep.Together with an acceptance for high single drive axle loadings. Which aren’t as acceptable in the states the obvious answer to that being the double drive configuration which also obviously works best with out a large rear trailer overhang lifting weight off the pin.
I take it you are referring to the Gavin McArdle K100. While I agree that it looks fabulous and, according to the text, works better than the usual Euro dimensions, I doubt it would pass the “turning corridor” test that they have in Europe now.
That seems to be where they’ve arrived at now.It’s all about adding loads of tail sweep and obviously erratic axle loading issues to pass the ridiculous cut in tests.
Now, that’s going to take some serious work to restore… but, a gent in Los Angeles, Paul Cox, has undertaken a similar restoration that is simply jaw dropping… Paul also has a Facebook account for the “K100 Aerodyne”… it would be good for them to make contact with him as he has a multitude of contacts for parts and services…
Very tight long-pin trailers cause a new set of problems in tight spaces because of the overhang at the front. We had these on Breda Transport (garment trailers) and they could be a real bind at times manoeuvering in Moroccan factories designed for rigids and donkey-carts. Meanwhile, here’s another Friderici KW! Robert
I am aware that it is a bit off topic, but does anyone have photo’s of Friderici’s Steyer’s that I mentioned in an earlier post, the ones with the pod on the back. regards Jamie.
if you trawl back through Top Run and look for photos by Daniel Fermont you’ll get quite a few as he was one of the drivers before moved onto a KW drag. I think it might be as far back as 2005 or even farther… That’s him in the green top loading a trailer onto the Henschel ? (spelling ) they were on a contract delivering very large spools of electric cable at the time…
Davidoff I haven’t forgotten about you I pm you back at the weekend
En-Tour-Age:
the first 15! Kenworth’s
had 435hp Detroit Diesels and Fuller 15-speed.
That spec and a 6 wheeler drawbar outfit would have been just about perfect.The speed the sound and the handling would have been about as good as it got.
Carryfast, at last we agree!!!
That 15 speed made the Detroits lack of low end torque manageable…and the sound track was magical…and the fuel consumption…unimanagable!!!
Imported two to that spec, with SQHDs @3.7, sitting on 8 bag air, one a “coffin cab”, (had the bogie cut off it to go under a T600 4x2, and the single Rockwell went into the coffin cab, which we stretched into a lwb, and put a 28ft Hay and Straw body on her), Then the other was a 108in Aerodyne ex Bekins “MOMA &POPPA”, and she went to Wauthier in France, (and back came a Willeme with a Detroit, which went to Senegal…and is probably still working there)!!!
But the 15 speed made the Detroit a different motor, (whatever the chassis), …a real “hooooooooooooligan” of a lorry, to be loved by any driver…and cowboy…
En-Tour-Age:
the first 15! Kenworth’s
had 435hp Detroit Diesels and Fuller 15-speed.
That spec and a 6 wheeler drawbar outfit would have been just about perfect.The speed the sound and the handling would have been about as good as it got.
Carryfast, at last we agree!!!
That 15 speed made the Detroits lack of low end torque manageable…and the sound track was magical…and the fuel consumption…unimanagable!!!
Imported two to that spec, with SQHDs @3.7, sitting on 8 bag air, one a “coffin cab”, (had the bogie cut off it to go under a T600 4x2, and the single Rockwell went into the coffin cab, which we stretched into a lwb, and put a 28ft Hay and Straw body on her), Then the other was a 108in Aerodyne ex Bekins “MOMA &POPPA”, and she went to Wauthier in France, (and back came a Willeme with a Detroit, which went to Senegal…and is probably still working there)!!!
But the 15 speed made the Detroit a different motor, (whatever the chassis), …a real “hooooooooooooligan” of a lorry, to be loved by any driver…and cowboy…
But fuel consumption…oh dear!!!
Cheerio for now.
The figures ( correctly ) show that you’re selling the beast short.That torque curve doesn’t drop below 1,200 lbs/ft from 1,150-1,650 when the ■■■■■■■ never even made that at it’s peak.
How I wish that I could have been working for Friderici in the day.Favourite truck spec living in my favourite country running far and wide all over Europe and further.
I’ll just have to settle for my memories of similar in those fire trucks on the roads between Feltham and Chobham and then being able to be a real hooligan off the public roads when I got there.
Gentleman,this post is fantastic reading, were there any british drivers on for Frideric
I used to see them quite a lot through transit and in europe ,but never took much notice of them because they were just another truck.all the techno details ,gearbox ,axels.engine rating,trailer.pin location,rear axel location to be honest and not being rude at all ,but the "AVERAGE DRIVER"would not have given a hoot about any of it ,you would just drive what you got given and got on with it…what about the single axel merrwoth 40ft axel right at the rear,flat trailer who thought of that…behind a maxi commer 60miles an hour down the M1…ps the photographs are really good,
