For example, a supermarket has 35 foot long, large rigids and also artic trailers that are about 30 foot long. Why is that?
Because potentially the rigid is can be used in more places (safer to reverse around joe public than an artic). The main reason I can think of, is that the artic unit is flexible, it can be paired up with any kind of trailer you might have in the yard. And also, if you have damaged panels on a rigid then the whole vehicle is off the road, whereas the tractor unit just marries up to a different trailer and gets on with the job.
But still! - I can’t quite see the logic, why not have small & rigids, then proper sized artic trailers? There’s something logical here I’m missing.
You mean like how Stobart and Waitrose and co have smaller trailers? It’s so they can fit in to the smaller drops obviously. Also, the MPG figures might be equal or better on a large rigid than putting a small artic on the run.
Plus they want to get the most out of their vehicles. By having a small or mid rigid they are limiting what they can carry. With the artic they are flexible to send an artic and small trailer into a drop a rigid would normally only visit but for whatever reason that rigid isn’t available today, and the drop needs to get done!
Saratoga:
Plus they want to get the most out of their vehicles. By having a small or mid rigid they are limiting what they can carry. With the artic they are flexible to send an artic and small trailer into a drop a rigid would normally only visit but for whatever reason that rigid isn’t available today, and the drop needs to get done!
Sometime’s artics are more maneuverable than what rigids are also.
If doing supermarket work, I find the the shorter urban rear steer trailers much easier to manourve in & out of the tight yards / bays / car parks etc than a standard rigid