Comedy writes itself

What do those tires weigh?

 

Not only that, but what is that bracket rated at? The tires don't weigh much, but it would have been better to hook that chain to the frame instead of the fuel tank bracket. I mean, I'm not willing to hook anything to my fuel tank securement system other than fuel tanks.

 

I still don't think that one chain pulling backward at an angle would be better for preventing forward movement than two pulling straight down.

If the coil wasn't in a rack that would be different.

 

Well, keep in mind that you can't have two pulling straight down, because you can't attach multiple chains to one securement point. But as for the effectiveness of the two different setups, it would depend entirely upon the size of the coils and the size of the timbers in the racks and the distance between them. It would depend on the angle that the coil would be moving if it tipped forward out of the rack. So you can't say one or the other without knowing the specifics, and then doing the math.

 

Now the next question ... As a shipper would you want to load on that banged up unit knowing that they’ve lost a coil before ..

 

Only in the movies.

Maybe there is a way we could greatly simplify the situation a bit. Maybe reduce the amount of tiedowns used to see where they are the most effective. Reduce it down to two tiedowns. Or one tiedown.

No, wait, that would be illogical.

 

Yes that would be illogical

 

I for the most part agree with ya, if you can pull down into the racks hard enough it’ll have to come up to get out. However a chain pulling backward coops keep the racks and all from sliding forward. I will note that I rarely see a coil with a chain pulling back like is described.

 

That makes sense. With friction mats being a requirement I would think that downward pressure would be more beneficial to prevent it from sliding forward. Maybe it's a moot point with larger coils. Even if you start from the center and work your way out, the amount of chains needed would eventually end up with chains at an angle anyway.

Me neither, but it just doesn't look quite right.


Maybe what bothers me is chains like that would be of better use inside the width of the coil timbers. Then they would also be able to provide enough downward pressure to keep the coil from poping out/over the coil timber.

Like that chain in the far front preventing backward movement. Sure, the straighter the chain is towards the movement it's trying to prevent the stronger it's going to be. But it really doesn't do anything to prevent forward movement. If it was inside the width of the coil timber it could also prevent forward movement, at least better than it would outside the timber. Maybe it would provide some redundancy, you may not have each chain doing the best job it can, but It wouldn't be the only chain trying to do it.

This is a bad image for an example. I'm sure they didn't take into account the securement regs for weight. They arn't exempt just because it'a a coil. It was from California.

 

I think this NFHR (NO FREAKING HEADACHE RACK) Transportation out of Stupidville!!!!! Wow