Carryfast:
The trailer axle weights would also have been interesting especially 2 and 3.
Don’t you have load sharing axle groups? In this country axles are weighed as a group, eg, a tri can weigh between 20,000 and 22,500kg, depending upon the scheme under which the vehicle it opperating. Multiaxle group axle weights are never considered individually.
I take it, the radio silence from Carryfast is further proof of his utter lack of understanding and knowledge of anything pertaining to trucks and transport.
No, it’s just that he won’t see the new posts until he once again passes through the inter-dimensional portal that links our dimension (a.k.a “reality”) with his alternative abode (Cloud Cuckoo Land) which must be where he currently is.
Alternatively, realising that he’s made a goose of himself, yet again, thinks that if he hides under the bed for a few days, we’ll forget his latest episode of verbal diarrhoea.
Star down under.:
Alternatively, realising that he’s made a goose of himself, yet again, thinks that if he hides under the bed for a few days, we’ll forget his latest episode of verbal diarrhoea.
Star down under.:
Alternatively, realising that he’s made a goose of himself, yet again, thinks that if he hides under the bed for a few days, we’ll forget his latest episode of verbal diarrhoea.
Nope.
Exactly. You need a greater sense of self-awareness than CF has previously displayed in order to realise you made a mistake.
Maybe he’s got other bunches of internet folk who are also in need of his boundless wisdom?
A saw a post from some nutjob on Fakebook at the weekend, wittering on about how there’s no such thing as “mass” and that consequently Einstein’s e=mc2 was obviously fake and that faster-than-light travel was possible.
“Someone else re-writing the laws of physics? No, that’s CF in disguise” I thought
Carryfast:
The trailer axle weights would also have been interesting especially 2 and 3.
Don’t you have load sharing axle groups? In this country axles are weighed as a group, eg, a tri can weigh between 20,000 and 22,500kg, depending upon the scheme under which the vehicle it opperating. Multiaxle group axle weights are never considered individually.
I take it, the radio silence from Carryfast is further proof of his utter lack of understanding and knowledge of anything pertaining to trucks and transport.
Obviously you agree with Franglais.Just put more air pressure into trailer axles 2 and 3 while dumping air from trailer axle 1 miraculously then supposedly reduces the weight applied on the road by axles 2 and 3.
Define scheme when most, if not all, of the weight of a bleedin great big heavy excavator is sitting behind trailer axle 1.How are you going to redistribute that weight equally across all 3 axles.
Bearing in mind that there is also much of the weight of a second bleedin great big heavy excavator sitting mostly on trailer axle 1.
Good luck with dumping more air from it to also shift even more of that weight onto trailer axles 2 and 3.
Zac_A:
Maybe he’s got other bunches of internet folk who are also in need of his boundless wisdom?
A saw a post from some nutjob on Fakebook at the weekend, wittering on about how there’s no such thing as “mass” and that consequently Einstein’s e=mc2 was obviously fake and that faster-than-light travel was possible.
“Someone else re-writing the laws of physics? No, that’s CF in disguise” I thought
Ironically the formula is better trashed by the fact that a tonne of enriched uranium contains a lot more energy than a tonne of tea leaves.
A bit like there’s a lot more weight sitting on trailer axle 3 of that outfit than trailer axle 1.
Zac_A:
Maybe he’s got other bunches of internet folk who are also in need of his boundless wisdom?
A saw a post from some nutjob on Fakebook at the weekend, wittering on about how there’s no such thing as “mass” and that consequently Einstein’s e=mc2 was obviously fake and that faster-than-light travel was possible.
“Someone else re-writing the laws of physics? No, that’s CF in disguise” I thought
Zac_A:
Maybe he’s got other bunches of internet folk who are also in need of his boundless wisdom?
A saw a post from some nutjob on Fakebook at the weekend, wittering on about how there’s no such thing as “mass” and that consequently Einstein’s e=mc2 was obviously fake and that faster-than-light travel was possible.
“Someone else re-writing the laws of physics? No, that’s CF in disguise” I thought
Ironically the formula is better trashed by the fact that a tonne of enriched uranium contains a lot more energy than a tonne of tea leaves.
A bit like there’s a lot more weight sitting on trailer axle 3 of that outfit than trailer axle 1.
So, even Einstein is not immune to your reworkings of science? Marvellous
Carryfast:
The trailer axle weights would also have been interesting especially 2 and 3.
Don’t you have load sharing axle groups? In this country axles are weighed as a group, eg, a tri can weigh between 20,000 and 22,500kg, depending upon the scheme under which the vehicle it opperating. Multiaxle group axle weights are never considered individually.
I take it, the radio silence from Carryfast is further proof of his utter lack of understanding and knowledge of anything pertaining to trucks and transport.
Obviously you agree with Franglais.Just put more air pressure into trailer axles 2 and 3 while dumping air from trailer axle 1 miraculously then supposedly reduces the weight applied on the road by axles 2 and 3.
Define scheme when most, if not all, of the weight of a bleedin great big heavy excavator is sitting behind trailer axle 1.How are you going to redistribute that weight equally across all 3 axles.
Bearing in mind that there is also much of the weight of a second bleedin great big heavy excavator sitting mostly on trailer axle 1.
Good luck with dumping more air from it to also shift even more of that weight onto trailer axles 2 and 3.
The taking of moments applies to rigid systems. This is not a rigid system
A little thought would show that if the three axles have the same pressure in the air bags then they will each transmit the same amount of weight onto the road.
Air suspension is one of the reasons we run at higher weights on air than on mechanical springs that don`t easily distribute load between axles.
The only air pressure that concerns CF is that in the balloon tyres on each side of his dust cart he pushes around Leatherhead on day release from his secure accommodation
Bewick:
The only air pressure that concerns CF is that in the balloon tyres on each side of his dust cart he pushes around Leatherhead on day release from his secure accommodation
This is…
Politically insensitive, it upsets minorities and it has no place on a forum.
Oh dear. In the real world I took a loaded 4X2 unit and 13.6m Tandem for brake test and multi test last week, a couple of days before only the unit’s MOT appointment.The trailer was loaded with a stack of empty pallets each side against the headboard then three pallets each side on end. This done to shift the c of g further towards the rear while loading the unit as heavily as possible within its reduced taxation weight. Behind that were 16 approximately one tonne pallets of bagged ballast on pallets. This reached to just in front of the first trailer axle.
The RBT recorded weights as unit steer 6972, drive 11561 and the trailer as 6416 and 6486. In order to get the best possible readings for the trailer’s PMI RBT a 5t stillage of concrete was added just inside the trailer doors. To the surprise of the forklift driver this altered the trailer axle readings to 8916 and 8986. It did not increase the rearmost trailer axle to over 11t.
Since the unit was clearly slightly overweight for its MOT appointment (the ballast was wet and 16 pallets usually is OK) One pallet of ballast was removed from the front of the trailer. the unit axle weights on test now read 6846 &10650
Edit Add: As it reads I have mistakenly transposed the trailer axle weights, in each case the slightly heavier axle was the front one.
cav551:
…the trailer as 6416 and 6486… a 5t stillage of concrete was added just inside the trailer doors… To the surprise of the forklift driver this altered the trailer axle readings to 8916 and 8986. It did not increase the rearmost trailer axle to over 11t.
The suspension working as it should and distributing the load over the axles in that group irrespective of load position.
Carryfast:
The trailer axle weights would also have been interesting especially 2 and 3.
Don’t you have load sharing axle groups? In this country axles are weighed as a group, eg, a tri can weigh between 20,000 and 22,500kg, depending upon the scheme under which the vehicle it opperating. Multiaxle group axle weights are never considered individually.
I take it, the radio silence from Carryfast is further proof of his utter lack of understanding and knowledge of anything pertaining to trucks and transport.
Obviously you agree with Franglais.Just put more air pressure into trailer axles 2 and 3 while dumping air from trailer axle 1 miraculously then supposedly reduces the weight applied on the road by axles 2 and 3.
Define scheme when most, if not all, of the weight of a bleedin great big heavy excavator is sitting behind trailer axle 1.How are you going to redistribute that weight equally across all 3 axles.
Bearing in mind that there is also much of the weight of a second bleedin great big heavy excavator sitting mostly on trailer axle 1.
Good luck with dumping more air from it to also shift even more of that weight onto trailer axles 2 and 3.
There is a ride height valve on the middle axle, if the trailer body is too low the valve is open and air flows into the suspension air bags, once it rises to the set ride height the valve will close do no more air flows, all 6 airbags are at the same pressure as they are on the same circuit, if they are at the same pressure, then give or take all 3 axles will weigh the same.
Just like I tried explaining to you last week, compensating axles you treat as 1 to work this stuff out, the pivot is obviously the middle axle on a tri axle trailer, and you have a theoretical pivot point for a midlift or tag on a unit.
And it’s 24t for a tri axle bogie in the UK star down under
cav551:
Oh dear. In the real world I took a loaded 4X2 unit and 13.6m Tandem for brake test and multi test last week, a couple of days before only the unit’s MOT appointment.The trailer was loaded with a stack of empty pallets each side against the headboard then three pallets each side on end. This done to shift the c of g further towards the rear while loading the unit as heavily as possible within its reduced taxation weight. Behind that were 16 approximately one tonne pallets of bagged ballast on pallets. This reached to just in front of the first trailer axle.
The RBT recorded weights as unit steer 6972, drive 11561 and the trailer as 6416 and 6486. In order to get the best possible readings for the trailer’s PMI RBT a 5t stillage of concrete was added just inside the trailer doors. To the surprise of the forklift driver this altered the trailer axle readings to 8916 and 8986. It did not increase the rearmost trailer axle to over 11t.
Since the unit was clearly slightly overweight for its MOT appointment (the ballast was wet and 16 pallets usually is OK) One pallet of ballast was removed from the front of the trailer. the unit axle weights on test now read 6846 &10650
Edit Add: As it reads I have mistakenly transposed the trailer axle weights, in each case the slightly heavier axle was the front one.
Let’s get this right you think that the 5t of stillage/s behind trailer axle 1 equates to the same effect on trailer axle weight distribution as a 15-20t excavator.Or even placing the equivalent 16t that you’ve described as being placed AHEAD of trailer axle 1.You and Franglais have made a poor attempt to re write the laws of moments, see saws and pivot points and nothing will shift the weight of that rear digger from trailer axles 2 and 3 to trailer axle 1 let alone onto the pin in that regard.
Can “we” agree? Those of us who are rational can, the frontmost axle (ie nearest to the tractor unit) is axle 1. However those inhabiting non-rational dimensions will have alternative explantions
