What's new

Yellow | YRC seeks higher truck weight limits

hmmmm but if they keep getting rid of straight dock workers ,whos gonna load them high and tight.............. u/d's hahahahaha!!!!!
 
MRjlm66 said:
Drop a gear driver 97,000 lbs :TR10driving03:

Ohio.com - YRC seeks higher truck weight limits
Click to expand...
An exerpt from the article... "Bigger trucks are ''far more difficult to maneuver safely,'' Oberstar said at the hearing. Such trucks require greater stopping distances, don't handle as well on highway ramps designed for smaller vehicles and can't keep up with traffic going uphill, Oberstar said."

...Hard enough to roll 80,000 lbs. gross with a castrated 12hp Briggs & Stratton... What does Mr. Smid propose we use for power with 97,000 lbs. gross?...

Another exerpt from the article... "Consumer advocates Public Citizen said weight increases would make the vehicles more difficult to drive and put more wear and tear on the roads."

No kiddin'?... Just look at how they have fared with 80,000 lbs. gross rolling over them...

These ol' trucks pop and crack bad enough as it is now... 8 - 10 year old tractors and 20 + year old trailers with wore out springs couldn't handle the added weight... Plus, our new model pup trailers only have one spring leaf and squat bad enough at today's max axle weight restriction... Anymore added weight and they would rub the tires...
 
Sounds to me like Mr. Smid is advocating the use of triple trailer combinations------ everywhere. Just remember that the third trailer is pulled for pretty cheap like 1/10th of a cent per mile! That could mean job cuts as well and we know yrc loves to cut jobs!
 
I don't think triples are that bad as lond as you can pull off somewhere and get a bite to eat or drink. The real solution to more weight is to just pull doubles at higher weights or to just use the trailers with a bunch of lift axles like up in Canada. Look at their roads though. They are all tore up.
 
If they allowed 20,000 per axle and 34,000 on tandoms except eliminated the overall gross weight cap it would not significantly increase wear. A single w/2 pups could haul about a significantly heavier load in the rear pup. It would be easier to stop under most conditions, not harder.
 
vwaggs said:
If they allowed 20,000 per axle and 34,000 on tandoms except eliminated the overall gross weight cap it would not significantly increase wear. A single w/2 pups could haul about a significantly heavier load in the rear pup. It would be easier to stop under most conditions, not harder.
Click to expand...

I don't know how they calculate all the wear and tear factors, but it would seem like it would be no different than a spread axle. The dolly/jiff would have 20k and the axle right in front of it on the rear of the front trailer is about the same distance as a spread. The only thing I don't know is if the extra 10k lbs for the total load of the truck would make that much of a difference since its all in 75 foot of length.
 
vwaggs said:
If they allowed 20,000 per axle and 34,000 on tandoms except eliminated the overall gross weight cap it would not significantly increase wear. A single w/2 pups could haul about a significantly heavier load in the rear pup. It would be easier to stop under most conditions, not harder.
Click to expand...
This has already been going on. It's the old heavy lead trailer with a lite rear trailer. If you scale under 20,000 pounds per axle and are under gross, who knows how much the lead trailer actually weighs.
 
vwaggs said:
If they allowed 20,000 per axle and 34,000 on tandoms except eliminated the overall gross weight cap it would not significantly increase wear. A single w/2 pups could haul about a significantly heavier load in the rear pup. It would be easier to stop under most conditions, not harder.
Click to expand...

Bad idea in most places.
I cant believe it would be easier to stop in anything but perfect conditions on flatlands with little or no curves such as most of Ohio. Our equipment is cut back and to small to handle this weight. Almost half our equipment has some pretty serious brake issues now as it is.Just do a real thorough PTI and tell me how many units you see brake shoes that have 1/4 to 1/8 of the pad hanging out of the brake drum. Loading a gross over 80K would also bring us back to a high and tight situation on many loads and this could result in many rear loads being a bit on the topheavy side which is very dangerous in the mountain and curvy country. Our tires have improved greatly over the years but they are not ready for this either and the suspension on these trucks sure isnt ready to handle the weight. Ever take a close look at what the torqtion bars and bushings on these jiffs look like? It may scare you. Sure is allot of wear now on most of them.At 120 I have had trouble slowing for the off ramp on many occasions with heavy loads after reaching the bottom of the mountain with an 80K gross. Kind of embarrasing at times when you reach the end of the ramp and have to wait for the smoke and stink to clear. Matter of fact you can tell where a truck came from and how heavy it is on our drop pad just buy walking the length of it and using your nose. Another really big issue here is the roads are not designed for this weight and never will be. The weight cracks concrete and the bridges have some serious issues already. Newer interstates are reclaiming asphault and as fast as they can reclaim them ...well....the heat and weight is putting ruts in them that are a constant danger.Heavier trucks would only serve to make them deeper.
I could just go on and on here but the bottom line in my opinion is.....Its not safe and it would only be abused by large carriers to exploit work rules and cut jobs while compromising safety!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top