What’s the law with these apart from the obvious over weight .
I mean more like tax and getting stopped by vosa do they always have to be used when carrying a load thanks
Only when the weight requires them to be used.
Coffeeholic:
Only when the weight requires them to be used.
Thanks
Its quite a comon myth that you get reduced tax if your vehicle has one and I’ve even heard stories of companies insisting they’re run in the down positon all the time.
As coffeeholic says, they’re only needed when there is overloading on the drive axle.
I have a double wheeled lift axle on my 26T I hate it up with a load on even 3t nearer the front its just too bouncy.
I like the axle down for more stability, no sensors on this thing all manual buttons 
you get the odd rigid with a lift axle at the back ie co op have the like in this picture http://www.gray-adams.com/6,1641/news/coop_takes_the_plunge_with_radical_new_gray_adams_dolphin/ have to have the lift axle down when on a public road as the over hang is illegal with the axle up
Are you sure thats a lift axle on there. Why would any manufacturer make or customer specify a truck with a lift axle that makes it illegal?
This is my over hang with the axle down
I was not aware of any law on the length of the vehicle overhang, just the load overhang.
With regard to c&u regs I think over hang limit was 60% of wheelbase .
m1cks:
Are you sure thats a lift axle on there. Why would any manufacturer make or customer specify a truck with a lift axle that makes it illegal?
Makes me think as that one I drive was a tractor unit (I am led to believe by Scania) converted to a ridged after market.
Drift:
m1cks:
Are you sure thats a lift axle on there. Why would any manufacturer make or customer specify a truck with a lift axle that makes it illegal?Makes me think as that one I drive was a tractor unit (I am led to believe by Scania) converted to a ridged after market.
Your’s doesn’t look like a tractor unit. The cost of stretching it would’ve made it not economically viable compared to one already built.
I agree, but it does has some extra ancillary (disconnected) bits on the rear but they could have been for the box 
One story was it was a box then a guy in Scania said he looked at the history and it was a unit
The bed definitely is stretched and the rear axle is an addition, its not a Scania axle (I cant remember the name) actually its a pain in the rear as its so slow lifting and dropping also raising and lowering the bed.
I was told it was possibly an Andover bed but I cant find anything to confirm that.
Coffeeholic:
Only when the weight requires them to be used.
So how do you go on with a trailer with first and third axle lift?
The Dpt brake code states it must have a retarding force < than 1500kg per wheel whether empty or loaded on park on a 39000kg gross weight trailer.
If the wheels are not on the ground how can that work.
Bking:
Coffeeholic:
Only when the weight requires them to be used.So how do you go on with a trailer with first and third axle lift?
The Dpt brake code states it must have a retarding force < than 1500kg per wheel whether empty or loaded on park on a 39000kg gross weight trailer.
If the wheels are not on the ground how can that work.
IANAL but my guess is that a wheel in the raised position ceases to be, legally speaking, a wheel.
Santa:
Bking:
Coffeeholic:
Only when the weight requires them to be used.So how do you go on with a trailer with first and third axle lift?
The Dpt brake code states it must have a retarding force < than 1500kg per wheel whether empty or loaded on park on a 39000kg gross weight trailer.
If the wheels are not on the ground how can that work.IANAL but my guess is that a wheel in the raised position ceases to be, legally speaking, a wheel.
That’s a possible theory but would be good if one of the oracles here could clarify - would that also mean a defective tyre on a lift axle would be immune to prosceution? Only ever heard of MMTM stories of this.