• Thank you for visiting HeavyEquipmentForums.com! Our objective is to provide industry professionals a place to gather to exchange questions, answers and ideas. We welcome you to register using the "Register" icon at the top of the page. We'd appreciate any help you can offer in spreading the word of our new site. The more members that join, the bigger resource for all to enjoy. Thank you!

Is this an acceptable way to bind.

Squizzy246B

Administrator
Joined
Sep 9, 2005
Messages
3,388
Location
Perth, Western Australia
Occupation
Digger Driver
Here's a shot or 2 of "this week's DOT/FMCSR acceptable way to bind a track machine," provided you use acceptable rated chains and binders, and enough of them. This TimberKing feller buncher weighed 64,000 lbs. I threw a chain over the dipper, and 2 over the cutting head to make sure I was OK crossing Virginia scales, headed to IronMart in Lexington, SC from Hopkinton, NH. ScaleMaster commended my efforts, and that's all that counts...:notworthy


G,day Lowboy. I'm not nit picking cause I think you did a good job....but how do you think that arrangement would go if someone was to calculate the required fore and aft restraint on your rules. It looks like you got lateral well covered.
 

Ford LT-9000

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
B.C. Canada
Occupation
Rolling around in the dirt
That buncher isn't going to move anywhere its been over-chained which is good. That machine starts to go anywhere it will pull the truck and trailer over with it. With that kind of weight the truck isn't going to stop on a dime so there is no way a hard brake application (Panic stop) will get that machine to shift forward.

Seen one of the lowbeds in the area the couple days ago carrying a 98,000lb excavator which is 12' wide they had the tracks cross chained front and back with the boom chained down. No problems moving the machine 100 kilometers to the site they were going to. I know where they came from and they already encountered 2 10% down grades the rest of them are 7% grades. Highway has twists and turns then they get to here more grades but the road is narrower. With the machine being 12' wide they are well over the center line to using up the northbound side of the road to make the corners.

I think I mentioned this before but anybody that runs a lowbed is a different breed of truck driver. One thing they have more skill driving heavy trucks.

You have more worries about these large trucking companies that have inexperienced or not so brite drivers. The company pays so low a good experienced driver won't work for them.
 

Ford LT-9000

Banned
Joined
Nov 17, 2005
Messages
1,484
Location
B.C. Canada
Occupation
Rolling around in the dirt
The trucking industry has gotten so bad that good drivers don't want to drive anymore so large companies are scraping the bottom of the barrel for drivers.

There is one large company in B.C. I won't mention the name but some of their drivers are holy crap how did they get a class 1 (A) license :eek:

All they do is Van work there is no way they could do flatbedding or any other kind of freight.
 

Grader4me

Senior Member
Joined
Jan 11, 2006
Messages
1,792
Location
New Brunswick, Canada
G,day Lowboy. I'm not nit picking cause I think you did a good job....but how do you think that arrangement would go if someone was to calculate the required fore and aft restraint on your rules. It looks like you got lateral well covered.


Question for ya Squizzy..In your regulations you're not allowed to use the tracks as anchor points, if I remember correctly. The machine in the picture doesn't look like it has anything else except the tracks to anchor to. How would you tie this type of machine down in order to meet the fore and aft restraint rules? I know that like me you would probably never be near a machine like this let lone haul one. Just curious...:)
 

LowBoy

Senior Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
1,149
Location
Southern Vt. on the Mass./NH borders
Occupation
Owner, Iron Mountain Iron & Equipment (Transport)
G,day Lowboy. I'm not nit picking cause I think you did a good job....but how do you think that arrangement would go if someone was to calculate the required fore and aft restraint on your rules. It looks like you got lateral well covered.









No nit picking detected here, Squizz. If you analyze the photos closely, you'll see there are a set of 1/2" chains diagonally across front and rear of tracks to a D-ring. In addition, there are ALSO a set of 3/8" chains in the same configuration. I added THREE 3/8" chains to secure the cutting head and stick, which would exceed the chain rating maximum requirement of 30,000 lbs. for the 3 chains being used.

Fore & aft movement is virtually eliminated by the degree of angle in which the chains are pulling away in both directions from the trackframe and/or pads themselves.Thus, shooting holes in the fore & aft movement issue.

Where we have to be careful here in the states, is in WHERE we secure the end of the chain or binder, meaning the hook, to. I've been informed that by going from the beam of the trailer with a hook, whether it's a chain or binder, will reduce the working load capacity by 50%...Poppycock in my opinion, but my opinion carries NO weight (no pun intended,) with the authorities I have found in the past.

That big 'ol gal had four 1/2" mankiller chains diagonally binding it down, plus four 3/8" chains diagonally binding it down, PLUS three 3/8" chains holding the stick and cutting head. If it were to want to come off that float mate, believe me when I tell you, it was taking me with 'er...:drinkup
 
Top