Would You Haul it ??

[Raildudes dad]

In Michigan, the portable scales are certified on a regular basis and admissible in court. The county road agency I work for only has portable scales and all our tickets hold up in court. Refusal to get weighed is a misdemeanor and affects your CDL according to our chief weigh-master.

 

[TriHonu]

We recently had a DOT officer put on a training seminar for our company. The way he explained chaining, if the chain leaves a tie-down, goes through a loop on the machine, and returns to the original tie down point, you can figure the whole weight rating of the chain. If the chain does not go to the same tie down point, it only counts for half of it's capacity. In this picture, if I understand the rules correctly, the chains could only count for half of their rated capacity.

Nope, it is the reverse.

From the Federal Motor Carriers Cargo Securement Rules:

Minimum Working Load Limit for Cargo Securement Devices and Systems

The aggregate working load limit of any securement system used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half the weight of the article or group of articles.

The aggregate working load limit is the sum of:

One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of cargo;

and

The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.

In the original picture the chains that attach to two places on the trailer are credited for their full WLL.

If the chains had been attached just from the trailer to the Genie they would only be credited for 1/2 their WLL.

 

[Deerehauler]

Thank you, Trihonu. This reinforces what others were saying about basketing. The next time I see this officer I will get some clarification. Two chain runs are better than one, right

 

[JDOFMEMI]

TriHonu

Thanks for the quote. Can you let folks know where it came from, as some of the DOT enforcers have misunderstood this section, and like to argue with the drivers who are doing it right, and are convincing them that the wrong way to figure WLL is right.

 

[TriHonu]

TriHonu Thanks for the quote. Can you let folks know where it came from, as some of the DOT enforcers have misunderstood this section, and like to argue with the drivers who are doing it right, and are convincing them that the wrong way to figure WLL is right.

It is from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Cargo Securement Rules . It is the twelfth paragraph.

You can also download "Understanding the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Cargo Securement Rules PDF" 44 pages, 898 kb. This section is on page 4. You may want to print a copy of this and put it in the glove box. If you want to make your point, show them a copy of their rules with the appropriate paragraphs highlighted.

From what I found online, there is a pending clarification/modification to the last paragraph in this rule that will read similar to the following -

The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the opposite side of the vehicle.

The original draft of this section made a distinction between direct and indirect tiedowns. They chose not to put the wording and definitions in this section due to it being very technical in nature. The have now found that there are loads being secured that meet the current requirements and are not safely secured. This is complicated by enforcement officials who do not fully understanding these rules or understanding the full intent of each section.

If you Google "Cargo Securement Rules Direct Indirect" you will find notes of numerous meetings/hearings on these rules and the issues being presented by trucking organizations, shipping companies, trailer manufacturers and other groups that are impacted by these regulations.

 

[Nothinbetter]

Cross chain.

I have to wonder why they'd secure it down to the opposite sides?

Seems to me, that if the machine wanted to roll over, in the direction of the red arrow, there's nothing really applying any downward force to keep it from doing so.

Why not simply go from the near side directly down to the attach point, as illustrated by the green arrow?

Also not sure why they'd bother attaching to two different points with each chain. That seems like an awful lot of slack to have to take up, especially with snap binders.

:beatsme

The pivot point is going to be the tires where they touch the deck. Being the chains are inside and above that point I don't see how it could flip off the trailer. Cross chain or not to cross chain I think is a judgement call depending on the load. The less angle of the chain the less leverage downward, the
greater you gain down but I would think lose side to side.

Maybe I'm wrong, haven't chained that much large stuff down.

 

[Dozerboy]

Minimum Working Load Limit for Cargo Securement Devices and Systems

The aggregate working load limit of any securement system used to secure an article or group of articles against movement must be at least one-half the weight of the article or group of articles.

The aggregate working load limit is the sum of:

One-half the working load limit of each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle to an attachment point on an article of cargo;

and

The working load limit for each tiedown that goes from an anchor point on the vehicle, through, over or around the cargo and then attaches to another anchor point on the vehicle.

In the original picture the chains that attach to two places on the trailer are credited for their full WLL.

If the chains had been attached just from the trailer to the Genie they would only be credited for 1/2 their WLL.

I maybe reading with a accent, but this contradicts Securement guidelines for Direct and Indirect. I do count binder at 1/2 there WILL when I chain down just so I don't have to worry about it though.

 

[Tiny]

How about these decked trailers bad idea or is there a better way ? sorry bout the pics someone had a finger print on the lens

 

[Tiny]

Same thing here , Look ok ? I dug the thread back up because of the info in it........... good stuff in my feeble mind

 

[farmerleach]

I would doubt that the trailers are tied down properly.

 

[Tiny]

I would doubt that the trailers are tied down properly.

I would like to know why you think they are not tied down correctly Also, Don't worry .I'm married so my feelings are all gone LOL. If you don't like the way you see something done . Please tell us why . I really want to know

 

[muzy]

Other than top trailer being aired up yet looks good to me. Nice to see your chain links all straight like that. You could haul my crap for sure.....if I had any.
muzy

 

[DrJim]

All I haul on my Contrail 12,000 lb GVWR is my Bobcat 773 and attachements. For years, I saw contractors around here hauling 742B's on drop-axle Cronkites without any chains at all . I agree with all you--the direction of the tie-down is crucial. I was disgusted with seeing $4-6,000 trailers with only 4 or so different tie-down locations. Rather than welding and burning the paint off a new trailer, I just had Towmaster/Contrail make with one with several additional tiedown points, allowing more angle-of-pull choices. From the factory, this cost me less that buying the D-rings and welding rods.

I confess to a weak link: The trailer is enough to handle a rented T300, but the hitch on my 2007 Classic GMC Duramax is not rated high enough for the maximum trailer weight. The only solution is to jerk that off and install a heavier receiver hitch, for example, by Curt. <http://www.curtmfg.com/>

99% of the bumper-pull rigs around here exceed the rating of the hitch. GM, Ford, and Dodge brag about torque and towing capacity and then put a 1/2 rated hitch on the vehicle. It seems wasteful to jerk it off and replace it--would be more effiicient for them to fit the maximum capacity hitch from the start.

I like ratchet binders--not the imports, either. There is only one se for "snap" binders--where you have a chain going through 2 or more points, with some slack and the links drag through the rings or whatever, the snap binder is great for quickly pulling the slack out of the chain, minimizing the need to reposition and unwind the ratcheting screws to take up slack. Ratcheting binders have another advantage: I stop after the first 1/2 or so and snug the binders to take up any minute slack that develops as the load position "settles".

I've driven a road tractor one time: I was 17, on a highway construction job (Atco: Pellissippi Pkwy between Solway and Lovell Rd). It was bobtail, on a raw compacted red-clay subgrade. . . after an afternoon thundershower. I was not only young, I was bad stupid. Raced it up to about 45 mph and then stomped the brakes. Round and round and round and round. . . but thankfully, not down any embankment. ointhead

 

[tonka]

Just for S and giggles i would have thrown a set of chains on the top trailer going to the middle trailer

 

[willie59]

Would I haul it?

Umm.........NO!

A driver stopped in today and loaded an SK200LC. Just drove it up on his de-tatch and shut it down with the centerline of the track chains hanging over the side. Then simply put ratchet binders from bed rail to inside of track pad, binder damn near vertical.

Good Gawd ya lazy driver! You're already overwidth, put your damn sideboards on the cleats and be a little nicer to the track chains! Not to mention, you just might lose that machine because your lazy!

 

[Tiny]

Atco , Was that a company machine or just in for repairs ? Does your outfit have a policy for hauling your rental stuff ?

 

[willie59]

Atco , Was that a company machine or just in for repairs ? Does your outfit have a policy for hauling your rental stuff ?

That's a machine going to auction, had another company haul it for us. I had this same driver try to load an SK480 without sideboards once, I did put a stop to that one. I don't claim to be a truck driver, but I know a little about loading and dogging down equipment. Gonna have to talk to boss about this fella.

 

[muzy]

LOL, ya you better talk to that drivers boss. Had to look it up but SK480 is 12 ft wide pad width 34.5 inches..... would put that drive chain at 9foot. Ya thats no good. Mabe the driver thinks the machine will stay on better when the tracks are kinda wrapping around the trailer frame. Moma mea. muzy

 

[willie59]

LOL, ya you better talk to that drivers boss. Had to look it up but SK480 is 12 ft wide pad width 34.5 inches..... would put that drive chain at 9foot. Ya thats no good. Mabe the driver thinks the machine will stay on better when the tracks are kinda wrapping around the trailer frame. Moma mea. muzy

Well, I was in the shop when that fella walked in and said he couldn't get that 480 on his de-tatch, which baffled the hell out of me??? I go down to the rig and trailer, seems he was having trouble, as you stated, getting that wide machine up the ramps of the de-tatch before it would get to the side boards, tracks would get in all sorts of a bind. Good grief...truck driver my arse!

Machine was partially up on trailer, headed up the ramps, tracks in a bind. I got in the cab, spun the house around, dropped the bucket on the ground and raised the rig up using boom cylinders. Walked the machine on the sideboards while extending the arm out and set her squarely on the sideboards. Geeezzzz...this ain't rocket surgery! :Banghead

 

[tonka]

Would I haul it?

Umm.........NO!

A driver stopped in today and loaded an SK200LC. Just drove it up on his de-tatch and shut it down with the centerline of the track chains hanging over the side. Then simply put ratchet binders from bed rail to inside of track pad, binder damn near vertical.

Good Gawd ya lazy driver! You're already overwidth, put your damn sideboards on the cleats and be a little nicer to the track chains! Not to mention, you just might lose that machine because your lazy!



View attachment 75692

Now i ain't gonna get in a ****'n match with you ATCO, but they haul stuff like that out west all the time with no ext. and side boards...