| Forum Stats | Members: 24,379 Threads: 59,501 Posts: 706,258 Total Online: 177 Newest Member: Hot Sauce | | |  | | 
04-26-2009, 11:55 AM
| | "THE DESTRUCTION OF AMERICA" by Obama. | | Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: "CLUB SMOKESTACK"
Posts: 12,019
| | Truck weight limit increase to 97,000 ... An effort to put heavier trucks on the nation's interstate highways is rolling along, and Wisconsin interests are helping power the rig.
MillerCoors and the Wisconsin Paper Council have joined trucking industry and shipping groups pushing for 97,000-pound single-trailer trucks on the interstates, up more than 20% from the current standard of 80,000 pounds. PLEASE CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST OF THE STORY. | 
04-26-2009, 04:05 PM
| | Seasoned Veteran | | Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Georgia
Posts: 4,056
| | Let the Rate wars begin It wouldn't take long before some large carriers who are able to make the initial equipment investment to move in. Then they will find a way to haul for an amount only marginally above the 80k rates. That's exactly what happened when the 53s were introduced on a large scale. They were meant for high volume light weight freight. The big carriers started hauling 53 feet of freight at the 48 foot price, thereby forcing everybody else to buy them(53s) to remain competitive. In the end, nobody won except the shippers. | 
04-27-2009, 12:31 AM
| | Naturally Oozing | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North of Columbia
Posts: 4,600
| | Heavier trucks, opponents say, would mean more rollover crashes, more fatalities, more damage to pavement and a lot more damage to bridges at a time when the country's infrastructure is already fractured. No chance I would pull such a load.
The article typically does not address the FACT that such weights will severely impact the Equipment, so a third axle on the Tractor AND the trailer is required otherwise the Equipment has a much reduced operating life. Thank you SMOKESTACK!! | 
04-27-2009, 09:13 PM
| | Veteran | | Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Me
Posts: 238
| |
I would have to disagree. I have run overweight / overlength before with stock company trucks (with permits), without undue wear and tear. While there were trucks that ran those loads fairly regularly, they had no more issues than ones under 80k,but only proven drivers got those heavy runs.(all 5 axle units)
I see it more as a driver ability to handle the weight properly than an equipment issue.
And it would most likely only require an extra axle on the trailer unit as opposed to both. Which would bring proper loading into play also.
All in all, I don't see it happening for a few (2-4) years.
| 
04-27-2009, 09:33 PM
| | Naturally Oozing | | Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: North of Columbia
Posts: 4,600
| |
Here then are some Proven Drivers, they're just NOT American. Australian Road-Trains Photo Album | 
04-28-2009, 12:24 PM
| | Only Thinking Retirement. | | Join Date: May 2006 Location: Out in the West
Posts: 5,322
| | Actually a truck hauling 97,000 lbs. with 6 axles does less damage than a truck hauling 80,000 lbs with 5 axles. The extra axle is in the trailer so instead of having 34,000 lbs in two trailer axles you have 51,000 lbs spread over 3 axles. Either way it comes to 17,000 lbs per axle in the trailer.
When we pull triples we can haul 105,000 lbs on 7 axles. And we run 20,000 lbs per axle instead of 17,000 lbs.
Of course you may only be that heavy on your drive axle since the weights usually go down on your second and third trailer. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is On | | | |