the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
The bridge is not marked as both 13’9" and 14’Thick as pig [zb]…
Remind me what is 4.2m converted to feet and inches ?.
Why are you so determined to proof me right?
Why are you so determined not to answer the question.
A 4.25m stepframe trailer would be an obvious question in this case.
But then you think it’s a 16’ trailer v a 15’9’’ bridge.
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
A similar trailer, unencumbered by the weight of a bridge on top of it…A similar trailer without the low streamlined headboard and under 4.2m let alone 14’ high.
Well done Currywürst, you could have at least tried to find one in pallet net work livery.
Oh, you tried…
Must try harder.
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
A similar trailer, unencumbered by the weight of a bridge on top of it…A similar trailer without the low streamlined headboard and under 4.2m let alone 14’ high.
Well done Currywürst, you could have at least tried to find one in pallet net work livery.
Oh, you tried…
Must try harder.
Let’s just say that I made a better job of showing that it’s more likely to be a 4.25m stepframe that hit a 13’9’’ bridge than you have in showing that it’s a supposed 16’ trailer that hit a 14’ let alone 15’9’’ bridge.
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
The bridge is not marked as both 13’9" and 14’Thick as pig [zb]…
Remind me what is 4.2m converted to feet and inches ?.
Why are you so determined to proof me right?
Why are you so determined not to answer the question.
A 4.25m stepframe trailer would be an obvious question in this case.
But then you think it’s a 16’ trailer v a 15’9’’ bridge.
I have already answered your questions.
But one more time, in crayons, just for you
(Read this slowly, or ask a grown up to read it for you)
The signs, do NOT state the exact clearance between bridge and road.
The signs, state the maximum height of a vehicle, that is allowed to drive underneath the bridge.
The sign in feet and inches, will state a height less than the actual clearance, in feet and inches.
The sign in meters and centimeters, will state a height less than the actual clearance, in meters and centimeters.
A vehicle measured in feet and inches, uses the sign, that uses feet and inches.
A vehicle that is measured in meters and centimeters, uses a sign that uses meters and centimeters.
There is no need to converted meters to inches, or vice-versa
There is one exception to that, if the maximum vehicle height is only given in feet and inches, a driver of a vehicle, measured in meters and centimeters, will have to convert to the nearest measurement, and round down.
This has been most enlightening.
Your driving career was cut short, because of your attitude problems.
Your engineering career, was cut short because of your inability to follow simple measurement instructions.
Anyway, I’m bored of this now. I have a real life to enjoy,.
Carryfast:
the nodding donkey:
A similar trailer, unencumbered by the weight of a bridge on top of it…A similar trailer without the low streamlined headboard and under 4.2m let alone 14’ high.
So you’ve just gone and found a random trailer from a random company that is nothing to do with the company nor the trailer in the OP - That is about as relevant too this discussion as you naming any companies you have driven a lorry for in the last 25 years!
I was going to leave this alone, but…
@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.
Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
You just need to look at the ratio between the police car and the height of the trailer in the OP to get an idea that trailer is 16ft, give or take a inch. Carryfast won’t see that though!
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
That Venus cooked Mars. Obviously.
CF Using a bit of his leftover ‘Windage’ from the ‘Warming up an engine’ thread that he kept running for a few years. 
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
And down the rabbit hole we go…
whisperingsmith:
CF Using a bit of his leftover ‘Windage’ from the ‘Warming up an engine’ thread that he kept running for a few years.
Obviously, you need to warm an engine up, to avoid pressure in the crankcase…
the nodding donkey:
This has been most enlightening.Your driving career was cut short, because of your attitude problems.
Your engineering career, was cut short because of your inability to follow simple measurement instructions.Anyway, I’m bored of this now. I have a real life to enjoy,.
To enlighten you my engineering career never happened by my own choice and request.
My driving career was cut short because of a knackered back caused by using class 1 drivers as warehouse labour.
Not because I wouldn’t have driven a 4.25m high truck under a bridge marked 4.2m regardless of the sign saying 14’.
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
You can’t get a width v height measurement from the pic because of the angle of the camera v the trailer distorting the perspective.
But it’s a reasonable bet that the width of the max arch height lines on the bridge are less than 3m wide.
The height of the trailer looks less than 1.5x that.
So nothing there which wouldn’t fit the scenario of a >14’ high trailer hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.
tmcassett:
You just need to look at the ratio between the police car and the height of the trailer in the OP to get an idea that trailer is 16ft, give or take a inch. Carryfast won’t see that though!
The car is a lot closer to the camera than the truck.
the nodding donkey:
Franglais:
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?And down the rabbit hole we go…
Im at home and have some outside stuff to do....and its frosty… 
I’m at home too, more accurately working from home and clearly procrastinating 
I note CF is posting in the wee small hours of the morning, suggesting he too is probably not overburdened with work today.
Clearly CF has boundless confidence in his own mathematical abilities, and time to spare, so here’s something that is worth him spending time on, it is allegedly worth $1,000,000 if it can be proved correct - shouldn’t take more than an afternoon for someone with CF’s ability 
The Beal conjecture
[sciencealert.com/6-simple-m ... -can-solve](https://www.sciencealert.com/6-simple-maths-problem-that-no-one-can-solve)
The Beal conjecture, basically goes like this…
If Ax + By = Cz
And A, B, C, x, y, and z are all positive integers (whole numbers greater than 0), then A, B, and C should all have a common prime factor.
A common prime factor means that each of the numbers needs to be divisible by the same prime number. So 15, 10, and 5 all have a common prime factor of 5 (they're all divisible by the prime number 5).
So far, so simple, and it looks like something you would have solved in high school algebra.
But here's the problem. Mathematicians haven't ever been able to solve the Beale conjecture, with x, y, and z all being greater than 2.
For example, let's use our numbers with the common prime factor of 5 from before….
51 + 101 = 151
but
52 + 102 ≠ 152
There's currently a US$1 million prize on offer for anyone who can offer a peer-reviewed proof of this conjecture…Zac_A:
I’m at home too, more accurately working from home and clearly procrastinating
I note CF is posting in the wee small hours of the morning, suggesting he too is probably not overburdened with work today.Clearly CF has boundless confidence in his own mathematical abilities, and time to spare, so here’s something that is worth him spending time on, it is allegedly worth $1,000,000 if it can be proved correct - shouldn’t take more than an afternoon for someone with CF’s ability
[sciencealert.com/6-simple-m ... -can-solve](https://www.sciencealert.com/6-simple-maths-problem-that-no-one-can-solve) The Beal conjecture, basically goes like this… If Ax + By = Cz And A, B, C, x, y, and z are all positive integers (whole numbers greater than 0), then A, B, and C should all have a common prime factor. A common prime factor means that each of the numbers needs to be divisible by the same prime number. So 15, 10, and 5 all have a common prime factor of 5 (they're all divisible by the prime number 5). So far, so simple, and it looks like something you would have solved in high school algebra. But here's the problem. Mathematicians haven't ever been able to solve the Beale conjecture, with x, y, and z all being greater than 2. For example, let's use our numbers with the common prime factor of 5 from before…. 51 + 101 = 151 but 52 + 102 ≠ 152 There's currently a US$1 million prize on offer for anyone who can offer a peer-reviewed proof of this conjecture…
We are both on TNUK, therefore we are peers.
50/50 ?
Carryfast:
Franglais:
I was going to leave this alone, but…@CF
Go to the first post. Look at the picture.
Get a ruler, or your thumb, or anything, and measure the width of the trailer.
99.9% sure that is 2.55m or 8ft 4ins.Now apply your ruler/thumb/thingy to the height of the trailer, ground to roof.
What conclusions would you draw from that comparison?
You can’t get a width v height measurement from the pic because of the angle of the camera v the trailer distorting the perspective.
But it’s a reasonable bet that the width of the max arch height lines on the bridge are less than 3m wide.
The height of the trailer looks less than 1.5x that.
So nothing there which wouldn’t fit the scenario of a >14’ high trailer hitting a 4.2m clearance bridge.
Firstly you`re still talking imperial and metric in the same sentence, seems foolish to me.
If you know your vehicle ht in metric, obey the metric signage. If you know your vehicle ht in imperial, obey the imperial signage.
Scondly, to my eye it is nearer 2 x 3m than 1.5 x 3m, but we`ll ignore that.
Third point.
Does the bridge cross the road at 90deg?
No, so the perspective distortion you mention is relevant here, indeed a quick look at the roof will show that the bridge is offset more than the trailer is. But you ignore that.
What error is there due to the camera not being at 90deg to the trailer?
We do need lots of guestimates for that.
Or get out there and do it…
Looks to me…(not a good start, Ill admit)....that the camera is about 3 car lengths from the trailer? 15-ish m? And the camera is in the road. Road width about-ish 7.5m, its 1m from kerb?
So the observer`s point of view is about 2.75m from c/l of trailer (so about 1.5m off side of trailer?)
Or a scale drawing on the back of a ■■■ packet?
Carryfast:
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> Remind me what does 4.2m equate to in imperial.AS you have never driven a wagon on the Continent you have no need to know, and if you had of done you would have known your trailer height in metric not imperial
Suggest you read everything I’ve written here based on the fact that I am of a select few generation that by necessity was taught to understand and think in both systems of measurement.Including making things from metric drawings on imperial calibrated machines.
To be fair my simplistic 39’’ = 1m just means that I’m even more likely to stop and even less likely to take out any 4.2m bridges with a 13’9’’ > high truck.
CF !
That particular bridge is marked up wrong ,
You can get a high cube container under there with room to spare
I take 4.27m trailers under easy
That trailer was a DD so no hope
Also do you know where that bridge is and have you actually driven under it ?
A quick reconstruction outside gives us a simple right triangle with the hypotenuse being the rear of the trl.
And from full size measures (a ■■■ packet ain`t big enough) one side at 20cm.
Deploying our old friend Pythagorus
The third side (the apparent width of the trailer) is sq.rt of, 2.55sq minus 0.2sq.
Equals 2.542m
Due to the offset of the observer the trailer appears less than 1cm less than it actually is.
Open to correction on the above.
Just to counter the first argument I can see, I moved the pov to 10m away rather than the 15m I estimated.
And the offset to 2m away from side of trl.
Both are IMHO the extremes of what we see, and will give the greatest error. This gives a side to the triangle of approx 40cm.
False reading of 2.52m an error of about 3cm
The technical term, in estimates like this, ( not in rocket science) is
Sweet Fanny Adams.
The trailer, scaling its width to its ht, is about-ish 2x 2.55m
Or
About-ish 2x 8ft 4inches
More than is legal, but we are only dealing with estimates.
Using again the lexicon of technical terms, where we found Sweet F A, and prefixing that with a more common usage,
A blind man, can see that`s too ■■■■■■■ tall.