Do you qualify as an "automobile transporter?"

That is what I am thinking, the diagram in Figure 4 of the Freight Operations Guidance book shows front overhang on their line drawing of the high-mount, but no mention of including it in the measurement. I have been cited for front of trailer overhang in New York before, other times have had the MCE officer say it is allowed, again simple and clear guidelines would help.

 

Kudos to the dot though, they have come up with the perfect revenue collection device. If you say you are an autohauler you get a ticket for being overlength, If you tell them you are a flatbed you get a ticket for load over the trailer.

Moneymaker I tell you!!!!!

 

It's about revenue and looking like they are needed. I just find it amusing that in one state I'm a safe law abiding truck and then I cross over state lines and all the sudden you better watch out!!! I'm a rolling death trap because I have a car overhanging my trailer. Oh my god!!!!! Stop that truck before that overhang kills someone!!!!


I know what can change that law and make overhang safe in that state..........................MONEY!

 

All this crap makes me want to say #### it and buy a stinger or #### it and sell everything. Haven't decided yet

 

I agree Terry, really thinking about trading in the high mount for a stinger, I could use the extra capacity anyway and the Cottrell 7509 is almost as quick and easy to load as my Miller, plus I have been wanting a sleeper just to have if I do not like how things shake out with RAT in the next few months.

I did email the FHWA, and received a reply regarding clarification of the guidance stating must carry vs. the regulation stating may carry, the official position of the FHWA is that both the tractor and trailer must be purpose built for hauling automobiles in order to qualify as specialized auto transport equipment. The further explain that although the tractor must have the capacity to carry an automobile, it doesn't have to have one loaded to still be considered specialized, meaning you need the cab rack but don't have to ever use it, logical right? While this would allow you to have the overhang front and rear, I think it hinders you more because now you may be restricted to 65' bumper to bumper whereas as just a flatbed trailer you can be unlimited in length so long as there is no overhang. Either way it sucks, the rules are so outdated it isn't even funny.

For anyone that wants a copy, it came as an official position statement, PM me your email address and I will forward it to you.

 

Brian, I was going to ask you about getting your day cab and 53 down to 65 oal I'm not douting you could get it to 65 but could you turn it? Reason I ask is I did some measuring today and I need about 2.5" minimum to have trailer swing clear the cab, AND this is with a 30" kp setback that I use, just about everyone else uses an 18" setback with would require more space.

I was just figuring a day cab with a 120 bbc and a 53 trailer you are already at 63 only leaves you 2 feet for swing?

I can agree on going stinger as I have looked at it for a long time biggest issue is if you build something specific to your needs you better love it, because you are married to it, and if you try and sell the truck and trailer seperate you take a bath on both.

You lose a lot of vestility in being able to upgrade or sell a tractor or trailer seperatly, just my three cents, used to be two cents but I had to raise it for inflation.

 

So you DONT have to use you cab rack, hmmm Home Depot has 2" PVC and black spray paint right?

So ridiculous it's not funny

 

Stan, you are right on it being tight and I don't have a 120 BBC, rather my VNM is 108" BBC and it just makes the 65' when I have the fifth wheel slide all the way forward. Putting a roof rack on this tractor would be useless unless I was hauling smart cars, but it would legally allow me my overhang on the trailer. I wrote the FHWA again today to clarify one more point, Mr. Berg has been most helpful, he confirmed via email today that a 53' trailer is allowed the overhang to the rear as long as the full combination is in compliance with 23 CFR 658, but he was unclear about front of trailer overhang, which is what my last two tickets have been for in New York. There is one CVE officer that insists because I am a 53' trailer I am not allowed any overhang on the trailer, even if I meet the definition of automobile transporter. I am hoping to get the clarification from FHWA, then I will decide if I want to put a useless headrack on my current rig or just go with something new, maybe a stinger.

If I stay high mount I am thinking a M2 112" BBC, they make one with a 24" bunk and a DD13 that would meet my overall length requirements, be fuel efficient, and more comfortable than my current ride, but I am wary of the newer engine technology. I know you run 9 of them in the Cascadia, would think about one of them but the smallest BBC they have is 112" in daycab configuration and I really want a baby bunk just in case.

Thanks for your three cents LOL, I enjoy having the ability to bounce my crazy ideas off other independent thinkers like you and the other contributors in this section.

 

Not crazy ideas at all, just trying to get the most from your equipment while trying to stay within the blurry lines that we are given.

I'm in the same boat as far as BBC small bunk goes, the cassies are 113 as opposed to the M2 at 112, as you noted the difference is in the bunk as the smallest sleeper on the cassie is 48" Why they discontinued the century/Columbia 34 I will never know?

There are some other options if you are brave, the absolute best bbc/bunk is the Transtar at 107 bbc plus their bunk gets you at 133" BUT you are stuck with the maxforce engine.

You can go M2 106/bunk at 132 BUT you are limited to an ISL at 350/1150, I do like the motor (super lite) AND the Allison 3000HS is NOT an expensive option, it might work for you locally, I was tempted, but it just isn't enough to get me over the Rockies comfortably.

Then the M2 112/bunk at 138" next up is the Western Star 4700 with a 110 BBC, (I love this truck) as a bonus you can get a set forward or back axle, BUT WS for whatever reason will not offer there 34' stratosphere sleeper on it, you could add a sleeper, but I like factory when it comes to that stuff.

You also have the M2 114 it is 2" longer than the M2 112 BUT you get some options you can't get on the 112 (set forward set back for one)

Next up is the Volvo VNM 430 comes in at 145" also YOU can get a Mack Granite with a 30 bunk that comes in at 148' and then the Cassie 48 at 153"

Believe me, I have spent months deliberating over this, but if I was you it would be 90" BBC Argosy glider all the way, only reason I don't is that there is simply no good solution for taking one into Cali.