New Log Truck

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

Here's the trunk cut.

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

Now for the fun part.

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

Picked this whole piece up by the end and drug it over.

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

Loaded the log on the ground no problem. It was 50" at the larger end and about 14' long. Going by Carl's speadsheet, it weighed in at nearly 11,000 lbs.

Lumberjack · Feb 11, 2006

Mark, awesome truck, great work!

I need to closely inspect my spreadsheet formula, I think I made an error, need to look at each rows formulas. I noticed something awry using it to weigh pieces I was blocking down.

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

I never checked it out Carl. Let me know if it doesn't add properly.

Lumberjack · Feb 11, 2006

Sure thing, I dont want any errors causing an accident for anyone!

Mark Chisholm · Feb 11, 2006

[ QUOTE ]
Sure thing, I dont want any errors causing an accident for anyone!

[/ QUOTE ]
<<<Insert "Hold Harmless" Stament Here>>>
/forum/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Lumberjack · Feb 11, 2006

Its all good, no errors

!

I figured out what it was, my sheet did have an error, the sheets through the revisions were suppose to be canned to prevent that from happening. Nothing too major, the 28" was off on my sheet.

To find the average diameter rather crudely but very quickly, small end plus big end/2.

It becomes tricky with large knots where leaders come together.

Lumberjack · Feb 23, 2006

[ QUOTE ]
I'm now thinking about a 24"x24" x 2" thick pad on top of a 36" pad. Seems like a good set up to me. What do you think? The bottom of the outriggers are 10"-12" I think. I should measure them to be more accurate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oooops sounds good Mark, its been a while I know.

Anywho, I was oogling over the pics and I thought about something. You may want to run the truck over scales and see how much weight is on the front axle. Being its a 66k chassis thats 20/46 axles. With the tandems setup at the very back of the box it could be possible to overload the front axle and not mean to. The boom weighs 8klbs plus the cab motor yada yaad.. I bet your fine but its something to think about. I (think) I would perfer to have the tandems set forward just a bit, BUT with a 20k front axle and that short a box... its probably nothing to worry about.

Have no worries I am still lusting over that money hog!

I wish I could make this mine:
http://cgi.ebay.com/national-n-65-knuckl...1QQcmdZViewItem

Mark Chisholm · Feb 24, 2006

Carl,

I was wrong on the GVW. It has 46,000 # tuftrac suspension, but the axle gvw is 40,000#. So, the GVWR is 60K#.

I have dumped it at a recycling center twice now with pretty good loads on it. Each time it weighed in at 53K or 54K. I still have 3 more ton to go.

tnttree · Feb 24, 2006

Speakin about weight, MN is so screwed up - get this if your tandems are less than 9' 1" a part they down rate them to 33K no matter if they are 46 rears, this really sucks. My truck ways 36K empty, with my 20 front I can only carry 17K even though the truck is GVW at 66K. MN is screwing me out of 13k in payload. Its a bridge calculation they say. my ass its a fund raising calculation /forum/images/graemlins/mad.gif

Had this ole girl sold, and was shopping a new one --140k estimats --- I started rethinking and rethinking the numbers . . we decided to throw a new Serco loader(35K) on the paystar 5000 chassis only 125,000 miles on her she'll still go along time -- loader's pretty tired

Tom Dunlap · Feb 24, 2006

What is a 'bridge calculation' ? I heard of that years ago when a friend ran tandem end dumps but he didn't make it clear either. From what I remember it had to do with concentrating the load on too short a wheelbase and causing damage. Think of the difference of supporting a load on show shoes or spiked heels. Load per square inch is what seems to be the issue. Maybe not though...

It sounds a little like what an operator might face if they beefed up the suspension on a truck but the rating from the factory was lower. The owner would be in violation no matter what. Or another example, the owner pays a license at a higher weight than the truck is rated. Even though the load may be under the license fee it's still over the chassis capacity.

Lumberjack · Feb 24, 2006

I wasnt talking about overloading the truck as a whole, but rather the front axle getting overloaded from too much weight to far forward in the box. You can be "overloaded" at 45k if any axle is carrying more than it should, such as 22k on the steer axle.

With a rig that clean however, I bet the cops dont bat an eye at it.

TNT, WTH does your truck weigh that much??? Man thats a heavy rig (it seems)!

A 9'1" spread is crazy, immagine a 10 wheeler with a spread like that, how much damage would it do scrubbing the tires?

I have seen the math on it, its plasuable, but a pain for sure. 33k in such a confined area is hard on a bridge, much less 46k.

I find it funny they will allow 66k on 10 tires, or add another 8 tires and you can carry 80k. The first 10 are carrien 6.6k the last 8 a paltry 1750lbs per tire. Spreading the load out really does help the bridge in the long run.

Lumberjack · Feb 24, 2006

Tom you are largely right, not so much PSI, but load concentration. I cant remember where the PDF is I had on it. 160 pages of cracker dry information. By spreading the load points out farther it does less damage to bridges, but more to other roads.

Heavy cranes weighing over some magic number (125k? I have forgotten) have to cross bridges at 10 miles per hour to keep the stresses lower, increasing the life span of the bridge.

One option for TNT might be installing a pusher axle 9'1" in front of the rear tandem to drop when crossing bridges, pick up elsewhere. By transfering the weight from the front tandem to the drop axle it would be the same for the bridge, however it wouldnt be feasible to totaly unload the front tandem, but you could dial in 20k on the pushers air and call it even (23k per if its a 46k pair.)