Right Six. My thinkin was if a guy had this on all four corners, you "might" be able to have a better argument with one of those C.S. short pee peed DOT guys & leave him thinkin about it.
This is how I do it... 8 chains like this,and 1 over the stick. A bigger piece gets 2 more chains on the tracks pulling to the rear.
This is interesting. If this truly meets the indirect criteria it would be very easy to hook an end of a chain to a spool, run it through the machine tie down eye, and come back to the next spool adjacent to where you started. I know at one time I read somewhere that for indirect the the two anchor points had to be on opposite sides of the trailer but maybe they have removed that language. This g stuff is crazy. Heck if I wanted to tie down a 8,500 lb pickup and used a G70 3/8 on each corner most would think that was overkill for something that light but it wouldn't meet the .8g forward. The two chains in the rear at direct would be 3300lb each or 6600lb against forward movement. .8 times 8500lb is 6800lb.
I am a clueless newbie following discussions like this for the purpose of education, so please take my comments/questions in that context. I get the necessity to use securements of proper WLL relative to the cargo they are securing. Regarding the points and methods though, I just see a simple picture in my mind that helps me understand it a little better (I think). Regardless of how much it weighed, if there was a "cart" that had freely-rolling and freely-swiveling wheels sitting on a trailer and I wished to secure it, how would I do it? There would either have to be securements that pulled in opposing directions on opposing sides/ends in order for the item to remain in place, OR there would have to be securements that crossed over it and pulled it downward toward the trailer in order to render it stationary. Then it would just be a matter of choosing securements of the proper strength for the chosen method. That's obviously not a technical explanation based on the rule book, but it helps me understand the concept. Am I thinking about it correctly?
Yes if you did that it would be be an indirect and good for 100% of the wll, it used to say if it was attached to the same side it was 50% then it was changed. As far as the 0.8 G thing that applies to the breaking strength not the WLL; https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/393.102
@TripleSix is right about needing to pull both directions, in your example that's what you need to do. One chain pulling one way doesn't do much good. And that's why you need to make sure you've got plenty so if one fails you've got backup so to speak.
I dont copy and paste lawyer speak since i am not a lawyer. Thats a simple explanation why theres is the difference between the WLL of indirect and direct securement. Minus the lawyer speak because lawyer speak doesn't explain WHY.
Yes you are. You have a free wheeling cart. Stop it from shifting. Prevent any movement left, right, forward, rear, up and down. Now, lets get specific. This cart is 74000 lbs. 10000lb rule requires 4 points minimum. Then cover for the weight. Make sense?
No I'm not offended I thought this was friends having a friendly conversation. It has nothing to do with "lawyer speak" the regulations say attached to the trailer passing over around or through and returning to a different point on the trailer gets 100%. I paraphrased it instead of copying and pasting.
I just found it. This specifically says if you connect to the trailer to the machine and back to a seperate point on the trailer on the same side it is one half the WLL. You have to go from one side to the other for full WLL. What is interesting though is they state this 1/2 WLL business is for the purposes of calculation of the aggregate WLL and I wonder if direct tie downs are counted as half for purposes of the 8g. https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/regulations/title49/section/393.106?section
