Is this Legal

Where in the law does it specify that you can't run 2 chains to a single point on the machine?



I would say that @Oldman83 post above showing both chains to the single center point is 4 tiedowns per 393.130(c)(1) and those tiedowns are attached to a mounting point specifically designed for securement per 393.130(c)(2).

The laws only specify 4 tiedowns nothing about 4 separate anchor points.

The definition of a tiedown from 393.5:



Again nothing about the anchor point is included. Only covers the chain/binder.

2 chains pulling forward and to the sides in front. 2 pulling back and to the sides on the back. Another chain or strap over the bucket or whatever attachment is on the end of the boom. That would be enough to legally secure this machine.

 

Cut that chain you have in half and put a slip hook on one end that you can easily hook into the center anchor point. The other end you hool to the d ring on the trailer and use 1 binder per side to go back to the d ring.

Like this:

Red and blue are individual chains. Green is a binder.


They might touch the tracks a little but the chain won't hurt that track at all resting against it.

The only cost to doing this is getting 2 more binders and 4 slip hooks.



That piece of plate steel on the track frame is stronger than the 2 chains you will have hooked to it. If you manage to rip it off you are already having a very bad day.

 

I'm no equipment hauler... but I've seen an awful lot of tractors secured on the road with 2 chains to a single anchor point... the draw bar. Now granted the fronts are usually secured at each wheel end or side of the frame to prevent tipping as well. I would think the biggest problem with using a single central anchor point would be risk of the load still being able to tip.

 

Perfect.

 

Your quote in 393.130(c)(2) is the section, as the points that have been specifically designed for that purpose. This question comes up, because he's trying to NOT use the attachment points that were designed for this. We can go round and round on the point of the 4 tiedown locations, since I've seen DOT officers cite the "independent" points for the 4, and although, a single point may be used, it also is supposed to be designed for that purpose. If that point is not designed to be able to hold that equipment, it does not qualify, just as any anchor point that does not meet required code can not be considered an anchor point for purposes of securement if it is not rated.
All rolling stock (of any size) from my understanding has always had the ideal securement focus to be immobilization by way of the 4 points/corners. We can again argue and disagree, but the question was ..."Is this legal?", and considering we don't know what the rating of that contact point was, if there were other ways to get to an anchor point that although inconvenient or difficult, was discarded so they could "do it an easier way" again, doesn't make it legal. Your assumption, is that the point is legal. I propose it is not. Neither of us knows....but as @TripleSix was pointing out the reason for the OP's question, shouldn't it be on the OP to point out the securement point and whether it was legal? I wasn't going to assume it was, since by his own admission, he could not "properly" at the "mounting points on the vehicle specifically designed for that purpose", secure the vehicle.
I've secured vehicles large and small also, but I also did so knowing the proper anchor points, and their ratings, so I can't in good conscience say yes. All you did was let him think it was legal, without knowing. I thought the point of helping people was to help them do the job safely and properly, not what ever works or is easiest, legal or not.
Like I said,

Below is a link to one DOT officer's explanation about Heavy Equipment regulations, and later in the video and another one I can't find right now, is the reference to the 4 independent corners, reference. Your mileage may vary, but I try to color inside the lines, not assume the outside is available.

 

Razor’s diagram is actually what I was referring to, except, I mentioned a clevis in the middle. My argument with any DOT who wanted to hassle would be that spot was designed by the manufacturer to tow the machine out of deep mud. Overkill for a securement point.

 

If that's true, I'd agree, as I have had to secure things like @Razororange 's and @Oldman83 's drawings, ...but they were designed for and rated for it.

 

That piece would be like hooking to the frame of a truck or trailer. Structural piece. Structural pieces don’t usually have a WLL stamped.

 

My main concern would be is that trailer rated to be hauling that mini to begin with?
Obviously without seeing the ID/Vin plate, looks like a utility trailer not a equipment trailer.
Seen a fair share of overloaded utility trailers, tires angled 4in out at the road or better yet tongue snaps in half.