Reply to: Lorry pushing car video

[Paddy]

Amusing idea, but if you ran a tanker with axles up when loaded you'd wear out the tires that were on the road quicker, and if they didn't actually burst you'd almost certainly find something like the brakes or the suspension would fail. They don't put the extra wheels on for fun...

Not so, that equation presumes that the vehicle is travelling in a straight line. Take a look when at it when cornering; there is far more friction and skew with the wheels down. There is some passive steering on the axils but not enough to counter the tyre wear.

[al_cam]

Or you could look at the GMTV interview they use, thereby avoiding the annoying American newsreaders and advert

Cheers - thought about that but I'm far too lazy.

[TimberWolf]

Based on simplistic physics, rolling resistance and friction are directly proportional to weight, so total wear would be the same no matter how many tyres you use. But in reality the physics of tyres is a bit more complicated than that, but that's where my first assumption would be.

[milanbenes]

sorry Dad,

allegedly it happens

I'll get me coat

Milan.

[threaded]

actually folks,

if you know anything about the haulage business, you'll know that if a trailer has three axels the road tax for the trailer is less than for a trailer with two axels,

however, because of the possibility to raise one of the axels theoretically to save the tyres when running empty,

there is a possibility by which allegedly some operators might run loaded or empty on only two axels thereby saving tyres and road tax contribution allegedly

Milan.

Amusing idea, but if you ran a tanker with axles up when loaded you'd wear out the tires that were on the road quicker, and if they didn't actually burst you'd almost certainly find something like the brakes or the suspension would fail. They don't put the extra wheels on for fun...

[milanbenes]

In this case he's probably right, if you watch the video the first pair of wheels on the trailer are raised. This is done to save fuel when towing an empty tank that doesn't need the support of all three axles to take it's weight.

actually folks,

if you know anything about the haulage business, you'll know that if a trailer has three axels the road tax for the trailer is less than for a trailer with two axels,

however, because of the possibility to raise one of the axels theoretically to save the tyres when running empty,

there is a possibility by which allegedly some operators might run loaded or empty on only two axels thereby saving tyres and road tax contribution allegedly

Milan.

[malvolio]

Did you notice what suspiciously looks like a the gear change...

But is it proof he knew?

There again, the number of times you get cut up be some twat joining from the slip road by overtaking on the inside and then cutting in too close, occasionally you feel like, nah, I'm not braking, not today.

Exactly my own thought. When the police caught up both were parked on the hard shoulder. I suspect the trucker knew eexactly what he was doing.

[threaded]

Ahem....my area of expertise I believe



Its going in a straight line. Its probably got best part a 500bhp engine with 1000nm of torque. Safe to say its handling wouldn't have been affected.

Did you notice what suspiciously looks like a the gear change...

But is it proof he knew?

There again, the number of times you get cut up be some twat joining from the slip road by overtaking on the inside and then cutting in too close, occasionally you feel like, nah, I'm not braking, not today.

[NickFitz]

Ahem....my area of expertise I believe

<NotTheNineOClockNews>
We like trucking, and we like to truck
</NotTheNineOClockNews>

[wobbegong]

Its going in a straight line. Its probably got best part a 500bhp engine with 1000nm of torque. Safe to say its handling wouldn't have been affected.

True, but I doubt he hit the Clio exactly dead on, and supposing the fact that there may well have been different tyre makes on the front to the back. A difference in drag coefficient as the tyres abraded must've caused some vibration if not noise and/or smell, if not, surely the oscillation of the car due to road surface and wind variations.

[Sockpuppet]

Ahem....my area of expertise I believe

or the change in handling characteristics and/or acceleration of his vehicle?

Its going in a straight line. Its probably got best part a 500bhp engine with 1000nm of torque. Safe to say its handling wouldn't have been affected.

Actually, if look closely, the tanker was totally empty, so there's an awful lot less momentum to conserve than you might suppose.

Correct.

Indeed sir, you are correct if the road tanker is empty, which I assume you deduced before you wrote your post (by using your infamous Threaded Time Machine™ to actually witness the driver picking up the empty tanker payload during the start of his shift) rather than obfuscate the rest of the board with verbal misdirects.

Threaded, as always, I embrace your intellectual colossus and the fact that you are the only person to respond to the derivative of the Navier–Stokes equation is an honour and also a timely reminder of how technically dehydrated the rest of the board are, so you and I can once again relish in our Heaviside step function smugness.

Or just look at the tag axles which are up as the tanker is running without a load Also there are no hazchem plates on the vehicle which indicated its probably been purged and cleaned even if not carrying harmful goods they usuallyc arry a "LOW HAZARD" plaque on tankers

[NickFitz]

Just spotted this update to this story.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...98317#35998317

It plays you an advert before showing the article, so be patient.

Or you could look at the GMTV interview they use, thereby avoiding the annoying American newsreaders and advert

[al_cam]

Just spotted this update to this story.

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/261848...98317#35998317

It plays you an advert before showing the article, so be patient.

[threaded]

Indeed sir, you are correct if the road tanker is empty, which I assume you deduced before you wrote your post (by using your infamous Threaded Time Machine™ to actually witness the driver picking up the empty tanker payload during the start of his shift) rather than obfuscate the rest of the board with verbal misdirects.

Threaded, as always, I embrace your intellectual colossus and the fact that you are the only person to respond to the derivative of the Navier–Stokes equation is an honour and also a timely reminder of how technically dehydrated the rest of the board are, so you and I can once again relish in our Heaviside step function smugness.

It's one of the skills I offer my clients.

Being a little bored, I've also worked out how fast they were going.

[Paddy]

Why? Were you driving at or under the limit then?

I was actually doing 30mph, the case got down to and argument of was it 30 or 31mph. The position of my front tyre was considered by the Judge to be (something like) 3cm different from what was actually in the photograph. Had I enlarged the image and taken it to court it would have shown the difference, ie 30mph position. As it was the Judge took advantage and interpreted the position to be about 3cm ahead than what it really was thus making my speed 31mph.