Tubbysboy:
… carryfast normally I skip past your drivel on any subject… but this one you are completely ■■■■■■■ in the wind.
As opposed to the idea that high axle weights are road friendly
It’s clear who’s talking a load of drivel.
So here we are Europe is planning on going to 60 tonnes on 8 axles.
Similar to 44t on 6 axles in terms of axle weights even if they upped it to 64t.
Carryfast:
Tubbysboy:
… carryfast normally I skip past your drivel on any subject… but this one you are completely ■■■■■■■ in the wind.As opposed to the idea that high axle weights are road friendly
It’s clear who’s talking a load of drivel.
So here we are Europe is planning on going to 60 tonnes on 8 axles.
Similar to 44t on 6 axles in terms of axle weights even if they upped it to 64t.
You really are clutching at straws aren’t you ■■ 
Date of article ::
Get ready for super lorries weighing 60 tonnes under new EU plans
By RAY MASSEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 09:39 GMT, 1 February 2011
pierrot 14:
Carryfast:
Tubbysboy:
… carryfast normally I skip past your drivel on any subject… but this one you are completely ■■■■■■■ in the wind.As opposed to the idea that high axle weights are road friendly
It’s clear who’s talking a load of drivel.
So here we are Europe is planning on going to 60 tonnes on 8 axles.
Similar to 44t on 6 axles in terms of axle weights even if they upped it to 64t.You really are clutching at straws aren’t you ■■
Date of article ::Get ready for super lorries weighing 60 tonnes under new EU plans
By RAY MASSEY FOR THE DAILY MAIL
UPDATED: 09:39 GMT, 1 February 2011
60t on 8 axles doesn’t exactly help your bs case for 44t on 5 axles.
Carryfast:
switchlogic:
So you’re anti higher weights and bigger vehicles? Or pro? How does that fit with your anti rail campaign?I’m obviously advocating maximising gross weights while minimising axle weights.
To the point of even removing gross weight limits which are then just a function of the number of axles.
More axles is just moving cost of road damage from Government to operators.