jammymutt:
I saw a similar one a while ago with 3 transit size vans up in the air with nothing on the lower deck, like someone says i bet its just sheer laziness.
3 transit size vans would be to wide & too long too fit on the bottom decks.
You’d of lost yer bet.
Life’s a Gas:
[
only the way his vechicle is loaded, as I mentioned earlier.
Yes, I agree with you. Car transporters are “bottom-heavy” so it makes very little difference that the cars are loaded on the top deck.
Harry Monk:
Life’s a Gas:
[
only the way his vechicle is loaded, as I mentioned earlier.Yes, I agree with you. Car transporters are “bottom-heavy” so it makes very little difference that the cars are loaded on the top deck.
Glad that we seem to agree all round.
Do ya still luv me?? lol 
Life’s a Gas:
jammymutt:
I saw a similar one a while ago with 3 transit size vans up in the air with nothing on the lower deck, like someone says i bet its just sheer laziness.3 transit size vans would be to wide & too long too fit on the bottom decks.
You’d of lost yer bet.
I have seen them there before in the bottom deck and also in the top deck but lowered, so NO i would have won the bet.
Is this what they mean by top heavy?.
jammymutt:
I saw a similar one a while ago with 3 transit size vans up in the air with nothing on the lower deck, like someone says i bet its just sheer laziness.
When you say a “similar one” you must mean similar as in an artic as opposed to a wagon & drag.
Do the sums. 3 X Ford Transits + the unit + the gap between the unit & trailer = one very over length outfit.
Also I promise you that most artic transporters are far too narrow on the bottom deck to get out the doors of a van.
The very latest outfits may just squeeze 3 transits across the bottom but there is nothing similar between them & the one in the photo.
You also said you bet it was “just sheer laziness”, but as I explained before it’s nothing to do with laziness. It’s just the best way to run.
You would of lost.
Also I promise you that most artic transporters are far too narrow on the bottom deck to get out the doors of a van
Don’t understand that? I mean the top deck is the same width as the bottom deck, if anything the top deck has to be slightly narrower than the bottom so that it can fit between the uprights when it’s lowered? Which brings you onto, loading the top deck, you have to lower it onto the lower deck in order to drive the vans on, then get out to raise the deck 
No you get your mate with a rigid with a fixed ramp transporter up over the cab to create a nice long slope.
and to unload, you unstrap them, stick it in reverse and hit the… 
dennisw1:
Also I promise you that most artic transporters are far too narrow on the bottom deck to get out the doors of a van
Don’t understand that? I mean the top deck is the same width as the bottom deck, if anything the top deck has to be slightly narrower than the bottom so that it can fit between the uprights when it’s lowered? Which brings you onto, loading the top deck, you have to lower it onto the lower deck in order to drive the vans on, then get out to raise the deck
No the bottom deck is usually narrower between the wheel arches. As they are near the rear of the trailer they dictate the overall width of the lower deck because the cars/vans are loaded from the rear.
The trailer in the photo has an up & over set up. this means wider vechicles can be loaded but because they have to go up & unless very short,stay up. This means if you have vans on the lower deck they make the top deck to high to load.
Very few transporters have the up & over set up now because you can only have tandem axles with small wheels.