Big ■■■■:
This ones not so lucky poor chat
Wow, amazing how quick and unexpected that that happened at the end there. 
Big ■■■■:
This ones not so lucky poor chat
Poor Sod Just goes to show it dont take much and you’re off 
orys:
Tarrman:
Can someone post the actual link to that first video please? I’m on my phone and can only view it.youtu.be/1d7K2khMdQQ this any help?
Thanks 
get that bad boy on Facebook lol
As KR says, not a pleasant experience, one minute you’re driving along nicely, the next you’re at all kinds of funny angles, had it happen a few times and I have to say it’s more luck than skill that keeps it all on the road, the only thing that stops it becoming a big accident is by leaving the brakes alone, as in the video, just keep steering into it and hope it doesn’t go too far around and go beyond the point of no return.
The last time I got it all wonky like that I was on the cruise at 65mph, all of a sudden it just went all over the place like in the video and then sorted itself out, all of this was happening at 65mph as the cruise never kicked off, it’s an overrated experience, I’ve got to say I have no plans to repeat it 
kr79:
I’ve had a very similar thing happen in a double drive I think the long wheelbase did help in that situation.
Most frightening experince I’ve ever had behind the wheel
I’ve had the same thing in Alberta last October and it was a truely horrendous experience I never wish to repeat. I think the longer wheel base helps but double drive just means less actual weight on each axle and promotes that sort of traction loss. I was empty at the time.
robinhood_1984:
kr79:
I’ve had a very similar thing happen in a double drive I think the long wheelbase did help in that situation.
Most frightening experince I’ve ever had behind the wheeldouble drive just means less actual weight on each axle and promotes that sort of traction loss. I was empty at the time.
It’s a 16x10 not a 16x2 or even a 10x2 for a reason.
Carryfast:
robinhood_1984:
kr79:
I’ve had a very similar thing happen in a double drive I think the long wheelbase did help in that situation.
Most frightening experince I’ve ever had behind the wheeldouble drive just means less actual weight on each axle and promotes that sort of traction loss. I was empty at the time.
It’s a 16x10 not a 16x2 or even a 10x2 for a reason.
Yes, because its a train thats running on rails and not a truck that needs to be versatile and manouverable. How often do trains drive axles kick out and start to jacknife while running on rail way tracks?
robinhood_1984:
Carryfast:
robinhood_1984:
kr79:
I’ve had a very similar thing happen in a double drive I think the long wheelbase did help in that situation.
Most frightening experince I’ve ever had behind the wheeldouble drive just means less actual weight on each axle and promotes that sort of traction loss. I was empty at the time.
It’s a 16x10 not a 16x2 or even a 10x2 for a reason.
Yes, because its a train thats running on rails and not a truck that needs to be versatile and manouverable. How often do trains drive axles kick out and start to jacknife while running on rail way tracks?
Jacknifing is usually all about ‘loss of traction’ either when under power or engine braking and if the axle weight equation was more important than number of drive axles you can bet that those old steam locos would have had less drive axles to create more traction through extra axle weight.That’s assuming the rail tracks could have withstood the extra axle weights without breaking. 
Carryfast:
Jacknifing is usually all about ‘loss of traction’ either when under power or engine braking and if the axle weight equation was more important than number of drive axles you can bet that those old steam locos would have had less drive axles to create more traction through extra axle weight.That’s assuming the rail tracks could have withstood the extra axle weights without breaking.
Except a freight train ways several hundred or even thousand tons, not 36 tons which is the legal maximum in the US. If you have a light load, or you’re empty and thus have potential traction issues, then how does having 8 sets of tires on the road in a North American double drive set up provide more traction than 4 tires on the road with effectively double the weight on those 4 tires?
You can post all the links that you want but unless you’re going to take me up on my offer of getting you a job in Canada so you can live your dream from the 1980s you’ll have to take the word of a person thats driven both and currently drives in North American with a double drive truck and has endless traction issues in the winter, instead of telling me how my own truck behaves, when you’ve never driven this or a truck like this your self.
Carryfast:
It’s a 16x10 not a 16x2 or even a 10x2 for a reason.
And it need sandboxes to put sand under its wheels to move for a reason 
orys:
Carryfast:
It’s a 16x10 not a 16x2 or even a 10x2 for a reason.And it need sandboxes to put sand under its wheels to move for a reason
LOL nice one Orys!
Carryfast:
if the axle weight equation was more important than number of drive axles you can bet that those old steam locos would have had less drive axles to create more traction through extra axle weight.That’s assuming the rail tracks could have withstood the extra axle weights without breaking.
As you noticed, the rails that would break under the weight are the issue here. It’s because for example on the locomotive like this:
that weights 125 tons, you have over 10 tons at each point of contact between rails and wheels. And as you can see if you look closer, this point of contact is much, much smaller than if it was fitted with soft tires.
So if you put the same locomotive on two axles only, each point of contact would have to withstand well over 30 tons. You can’t do that obviously, so you try to get as much grip as possible by sanding the rails and putting more axles. But then, if the rigid boty has too much axles, then it will get stuck on the bends - that’s why this one has two cars of three axles each that move. To pull heavier trains, you use that baby:
which has four cars at two axles each and weights just under 200 tons (and basically speaking it’s made of two these:
connected together.
As for trucks, there is no issue with that, as:
- The point of contact with the road is much bigger, due to tires being soft and wider.
- Even loaded trucks weight a fraction of what the engine only weights.
There is a reason, as you pointed out rightly, why the trains have all wheel driving: it’s because due to them having more axles, the grip is so crap, that they try to get more of it.
This is also the reason why off roads cars are build that way, that they have all whel drive, not that they just have another drive axle added on the back.
P.S. Sorry I am using Polish engines, I don’t know much about British railways.
robinhood_1984:
Carryfast:
Jacknifing is usually all about ‘loss of traction’ either when under power or engine braking and if the axle weight equation was more important than number of drive axles you can bet that those old steam locos would have had less drive axles to create more traction through extra axle weight.That’s assuming the rail tracks could have withstood the extra axle weights without breaking.Except a freight train ways several hundred or even thousand tons, not 36 tons which is the legal maximum in the US. If you have a light load, or you’re empty and thus have potential traction issues, then how does having 8 sets of tires on the road in a North American double drive set up provide more traction than 4 tires on the road with effectively double the weight on those 4 tires?
You can post all the links that you want but unless you’re going to take me up on my offer of getting you a job in Canada so you can live your dream from the 1980s you’ll have to take the word of a person thats driven both and currently drives in North American with a double drive truck and has endless traction issues in the winter, instead of telling me how my own truck behaves, when you’ve never driven this or a truck like this your self.
The princible of having more drive axles on a truck being more advantageous regarding traction than having less is just the same as on a rail locomotive.That’s why the idea has been proved over and over again over the years.Unfortunately for me there’s no way now that I can get there or anywhere else to drive a wagon to just prove what I already know anyway.Suffice to say that even our local running gritters and snow ploughs here have mostly now been specced as double drive instead of 4x2 not just the motorway ones.The idea being first tried ( successfully ) at least on the council where I worked during the 1980’s with a few Magiruz Deutz ones for the local roads in addition to the Fodens used for the motorways.
However I’m sure that if you really must have a 4x2 then if you wait a while the North American operators will eventually be only to pleased to introduce them to save some fuel.However somehow I think that you might get a shock when you realise just how that idea will actually perform in the real world of North American winters combined with North American speeds.While I don’t think that the artics in the videos posted here were travelling at anything like regular North American type speeds or power outputs in bad conditions when they tried to tie themselves in knots.As in nmm’s example of it getting out of shape while running in bad conditions at 65 mph.While that situation can only get ( much ) worse in all cases when trucks are running light or empty which isn’t exactly ideal regardless of axle configuration or which side of the Atlantic you’re on.
I dont think the US will ever go to four wheelers because they’re so obsessed with axle weights. What is possibly on the cards is the introduction of mid-lifts. Then, just like in England when we cant get traction, we can lift the useless axle and put more weight on to the remaining one to increase traction. Double drives are all well and good in off-road and adverse conditions when you have enough weight on the rear end to get traction in the first place but not much cop when you’re prancing about on an interstate at a maximum of 36 tons in the US and usually much less.
Carryfast:
That’s why the idea has been proved over and over again over the years.
Where? Because I am pretty sure, that not on the railway, for the reasons I described above.
Carryfast:
However somehow I think that you might get a shock when you realise just how that idea will actually perform in the real world of North American winters combined with North American speeds
What about the much-higher-than-American speeds in much-more-extreme-winter-conditions-in-Russia?
Incidentally, this truck also perform very well in African summer on the sand, as this is Kamaz, the very one that claimed most wins in that Paris Dakar Rallys so far. Maybe you heard it, the one when the trucks do thousends of miles speeding on very bad road, or on the sandy desert…
But hey, they are Russians, they are stupid. So let’s see who won second biggest number of these rallies??
But, hey, this is Tatra, they are Eastern European, so stupid as well. So let’s see, what De Rooy team drive:
Crap, still just single axle… How could that be? For sure, in that sandy conditions, anyone who would put double drive truck will beat everyone with their superior traction and everything? The smartest truck engineers in the word, specialists in putting the trucks in extreme conditions, and noone got your idea yet? Man, you should enter next year Dakar rally, you should win even with your 1980 Magirus Deutz, as long as it will be double drive…
A LOT of ■■■ came out there!
Don’t know why I bother.
Orsy: It’s the weight combination that is the killing. 7,5t front, 11,5 drive makes for = 19t and the triple 24ton. Any person with just a little bit in the brain will know that pulling something that is heavier than the thing it’s being pulled by is going to cause big problems when the traction is bad.
A 6x2 makes for 7,5t front, drive 11,5t tag 7,5t = 26t tripple 24ton. Now are we talking. The weight is allways going to be on the truck if the driver now how to load.
The 2 axle truck above combined with a badly greased fifth wheel and we have a death machine on slippery roads.
You can’t compare Tatra to anything else. There backbone construction is really something special.
youtube.com/watch?v=kcwUst1OWQ4
Icee:
Any person with just a little bit in the brain will know that pulling something that is heavier than the thing it’s being pulled by is going to cause big problems when the traction is bad.
Of course. But carryfast tells physics. If you could load truck in a way that all that weight would be on single axle, it would be better, because it will have better traction. You can’t do it due to axleweight issue - just as you can’t do it with the trains, and as I wrote above this is the reason why engines have so many axles.
You can’t compare Tatra to anything else. There backbone construction is really something special.
youtube.com/watch?v=kcwUst1OWQ4
I know, I am not comparing drive system or suspension, just the axle numbers.
orys:
Of course. But carryfast tells physics. If you could load truck in a way that all that weight would be on single axle, it would be better, because it will have better traction. You can’t do it due to axleweight issue - just as you can’t do it with the trains, and as I wrote above this is the reason why engines have so many axles.
Exactly you can’t load a train’s drive wheels to the point of creating sufficient traction to pull it’s overall gross weight without breaking the tracks therefore you use lots of drive wheels to reduce the individual axle weights and the amount of tractive effort needed to be applied by each drive wheel to overcome the inertia of the overall weight of the train.
Which is exactly the same logic as the Americans are ( rightly ) using in the case of double,or even tri,drive tractor units.IE they don’t want the high axle weights because of road damage over thousands of miles of roads.In addition to which,in deep snow,just like on soft slippery ground,putting the type of weight needed,to overcome the loss of traction,caused by slippery snow and ice,just digs the drive axle in deeper and means that you’ve added the issue of having to climb out of a deep hole in the snow to the one of loss of traction on the flat.
The idea of dumping air from the undriven axle of a 6x2 is just a flawed compromise of effectively turning a 6x2 into a 4x2.In which case all the drawbacks of high axle weights apply combined with the fact that,unlike with a double drive,loss of traction with a single drive axle is far more likely to result in total,or at least one side,loss of contact with the road at the back of the unit,resulting in a jacknife situation.Which is how the double drive North American wagons can usually manage to run at far higher speeds,in far worse weather,without as many problems,than single drive Euro trucks can.
As for the offroad 4X2 Tatra yeah right see how far it would get loaded to 18 t gross let alone as a 44 tonne gross artic.Which is why any landfill operator with any sense used a double drive Foden for the job wether 6/8 wheeler rigid or artic.While those like me who had a 4x2 Clydesdale usually needed the help of one to pull the thing out of the zb.The same applies in the case of gritters/snowploughs. 
Carryfast:
Exactly you can’t load a train’s drive wheels to the point of creating sufficient traction to pull it’s overall gross weight without breaking the tracks therefore you use lots of drive wheels to reduce the individual axle weights and the amount of tractive effort needed to be applied by each drive wheel.
I am glad I managed to get through for you.
Which is exactly the same logic as the Americans are ( rightly ) using in the case of double,or even tri,drive tractor units.IE they don’t want the high axle weights because of road damage over thousands of miles of roads.In addition to which,in deep snow,just like on soft slippery ground,putting the type of weight needed,to overcome the loss of traction,caused by slippery snow and ice,just digs the drive axle in deeper and means that you’ve added the issue of having to climb out of a deep hole in the snow to the one of loss of traction on the flat.
So they don’t do it because double drive is better than single axle. They do it to reduce axleweights.
As for the offroad 4X2 Tatra yeah right see how far it would get loaded to 18 t gross let alone as a 44 tonne gross artic.Which is why any landfill operator with any sense used a double drive Foden for the job wether 6/8 wheeler rigid or artic.While those like me who had a 4x2 Clydesdale usually needed the help of one to pull the thing out of the zb.The same applies in the case of gritters/snowploughs.
Of course heavy tippers are build on more axles, for the same reasons as americans or constructor of train engines are doing it. But did you said before, that your 4X4 snowplougs were struggling in winter? So please stop laughing at Tatra:
But of course Tatra makes as well vehicles with more axles:
Incidentally due to the unique design of the undercarriage mentioned before, Tatra is lighter, so its tippers have higher payload than other trucks.
And especially for you: Tatra 10X10: