Dargo
Super Member
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
- Messages
- 5,981
- Location
- S. IN
- Tractor
- Jinma, Foton, TYM, Belarus, Yanmar, Branson, Montana, Mahindra and maybe some green and orange too.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( The regs for tie-downs do not take accidents into consideraiton at all. The calculations are based on accelerations not exceeding 0.6 G's or something like that (I don't remember the exact number))</font>
It's actually .8 as I mentioned earlier. However, that does not factor in any flex in your trailer. Simple flex in a light weight trailer can easily result in a a shock load of 1.6 (as mentioned earlier). Neither of these equations take an accident into consideration. I mentioned that because I'd prefer to not have my tractor break loose and run over me if someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them. I'd have to assume that you've had someone pull out in front of you. Again, for the cost, I value my life more than $30.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...so thats why you see the landscapers using the trailers with the rail sides - they don't have to bother tying all those machines down becuase the sides prevent them from moving around or falling off.
- Rick )</font>
Actually, I'd have to say that 99% of the landscapers use the trailers with the rail sides because they are cheaper. The trailers with the rail sides are considered utility trailers, and would be adequate for most landscapers. The trailers without the sides generally are considered car trailers and would be more appropriate to use hauling a CUT.
I figured that someone would advocate not tying equipment down at all. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif At least others are concerned with the appropriate size of chains and binders, and not worried about how to transport equipment without tying it down at all. Anyway, thanks! I now won the bet I had with someone else here. I said that someone would say that it is okay to not secure equipment on a trailer. He said no way someone would say that. So, hey you (I won't mention your name - just 'hey you' /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif), I'll take that payoff with a nice sized bottle of Crown. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif
It's actually .8 as I mentioned earlier. However, that does not factor in any flex in your trailer. Simple flex in a light weight trailer can easily result in a a shock load of 1.6 (as mentioned earlier). Neither of these equations take an accident into consideration. I mentioned that because I'd prefer to not have my tractor break loose and run over me if someone pulls out in front of me and I hit them. I'd have to assume that you've had someone pull out in front of you. Again, for the cost, I value my life more than $30.
</font><font color="blue" class="small">( ...so thats why you see the landscapers using the trailers with the rail sides - they don't have to bother tying all those machines down becuase the sides prevent them from moving around or falling off.
- Rick )</font>
Actually, I'd have to say that 99% of the landscapers use the trailers with the rail sides because they are cheaper. The trailers with the rail sides are considered utility trailers, and would be adequate for most landscapers. The trailers without the sides generally are considered car trailers and would be more appropriate to use hauling a CUT.
I figured that someone would advocate not tying equipment down at all. /forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif At least others are concerned with the appropriate size of chains and binders, and not worried about how to transport equipment without tying it down at all. Anyway, thanks! I now won the bet I had with someone else here. I said that someone would say that it is okay to not secure equipment on a trailer. He said no way someone would say that. So, hey you (I won't mention your name - just 'hey you' /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif), I'll take that payoff with a nice sized bottle of Crown. /forums/images/graemlins/cool.gif