Four in front six off the back

Discussion in 'Car Hauler and Auto Carrier Trucking Forum' started by Tropsnart, Dec 21, 2015.

  1. Tropsnart

    Tropsnart Heavy Load Member

    889
    1,669
    Jun 8, 2015
    Pavilion New York
    0
    I read an article today that states changes have been approved for automobile transporter overhang for stinger steered equipment. Merry Christmas to us!
     
    sandiego_son Thanks this.
  2. Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  3. Hammer166

    Hammer166 Crusty Information Officer

    5,542
    17,196
    Aug 18, 2007
    ~8600+' and loving it!
    0
  4. brian991219

    brian991219 Road Train Member

    2,515
    4,600
    Aug 10, 2013
    Lords Valley, PA
    0
    Yup, it is in section 5513 of the recently passed FAST Act (highway bill), it increases the overhang on Federal highways for stingers. Sadly the 88,000 pound limit was cut, that would have been really good to have the extra length as well as weight, maybe next time.

    This change also clarified the ability of stinger auto transports to carry cargo on the tractor, with or without vehicles, which will allow more flexibility in back hauls and should help the guys who haul salvage (since those were not considered "vehicles" under the old rules and technically made overhang illegal).
     
    sxdime, Karen O, OWT and 1 other person Thank this.
  5. The Truckist

    The Truckist Medium Load Member

    342
    245
    Sep 11, 2010
    0
    That's actually section 5520.
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text

    Scroll down a little more than halfway.

    It's just another way for the ticket writers to confuse the issue. You were already allowed 82 (75 plus 3 in front, 4 out back). If they read it as 80 feet total now INCLUDING the 4 front & 6 back overhang then it's actually a 2 foot reduction. On it goes.
     
    Last edited: Dec 22, 2015
    Reason for edit: additonal thoughts
  6. SLANT6

    SLANT6 Road Train Member

    1,094
    1,371
    Dec 3, 2012
    The Nut House
    0
    +1
    The problem is that the nitwits that write these laws have no clue about Auto Carrier equipment.
    And, a lot of drivers do not realize that the overhang limits go out the window once empty, and they do not suck in the movable extensions off the rear. Anything past the rear trailer structure is over length empty.
     
    12 ga Thanks this.
  7. Terry270

    Terry270 Road Train Member

    1,455
    1,675
    Jan 21, 2014
    BG, KY
    0
    “(G) imposes a vehicle length limitation of less than 80 feet on a stinger-steered automobile transporter with a front overhang of less than 4 feet and a rear overhang of less than 6 feet; or”.


    Clear as mud as usual. Could easily be read either that "vehicle length limitation" is the vehicle just sitting there unloaded, and that you are allowed 4ft front, 6ft rear overhang. Or that total length limitation load and all is 80ft
     
  8. Tropsnart

    Tropsnart Heavy Load Member

    889
    1,669
    Jun 8, 2015
    Pavilion New York
    0
    My interpretation is as follows:

    The vehicle must be no more than 75ft 11 and 15/16 inches if your front overhang is less than 4 ft and your rear overhang is less than 6 ft.
    However if either overhang is greater than the limit the 80 feet restriction does not apply.
     
  9. Hammer166

    Hammer166 Crusty Information Officer

    5,542
    17,196
    Aug 18, 2007
    ~8600+' and loving it!
    0
    Spent a little time reading this today. One could make the argument that the first change could be used to argue the highmounts are auto transports under the definition. But even if one won that argument, they didn't change the length limits on them, so y'all are still screwed.

    On the six foot overhang... I'm fairly certain any overhang over 4 foot has to be lit at night. And everyone is gonna have to relearn how to load to be legal on weights, while long off the back and stretched out.
     
  10. The Truckist

    The Truckist Medium Load Member

    342
    245
    Sep 11, 2010
    0
    First look at the title of this thread made me think of the number of illegals (politically incorrect nowadays, I guess) that refused to come on out of the cars on my load after about 20 of their amigos done jumped & ran off at the Petro in Weatherford, TX back some years ago. I had slept at the Petro in El Paso on the east side that night and drove to Weatherford & stopped for fuel. Colder'n a well-digger's #### and the stowaways started piling out of the upper deck cars like rain falling. In t-shirts at that. Them was some cold Mexicanos right there. Hope they made it to where they was goin.
     
  11. brian991219

    brian991219 Road Train Member

    2,515
    4,600
    Aug 10, 2013
    Lords Valley, PA
    0
    You are right about the length on highmounts, no real change there. The rule now allows 75 foot bumper to bumper, but no overhang so it really doesn't matter except I can use a longer tractor with my trailer in states such as my home state of PA that previously limited me to 65'.

    As for highmounts not being auto transports, you are wrong there Hammer166, they always have been if the combination meets the very restrictive Federal definition found in 23 CFR 658.13. A highmount that wants to take advantage of overhang has to be at or under 65' bumper to bumper and have a cab carrier. If they meet those requirements they are then allowed 3' front and 4' rear overhang, always have been no change there. In reality, it is almost imposible to meet this definition with a 53' trailer, even with my single axle daycab I am 67', however our 48' trailer with our old FL112 was 63', wish I still had that unit.

    To support my position that highmounts are in fact auto transports here is an excerpt from the FHWA regarding this issue, the link to the original text is contained within.
    Laws and Regulations Related to Automobile Transporters:

    • The length provisions established under Federal law [Title 49 USC, Section 31111 (b)] for vehicles operating on the National Truck Network cover only the two types of vehicle combinations listed in 658.13(a)(1) and (2). These two vehicle combinations are frequently referred to as STAA vehicles:

    1) Truck tractor-semitrailer

    2) Truck tractor-semitrailer-trailer.


    The Federal law recognized that other types of vehicle exist that may need accommodation, hence Title 49 USC, Section 31111 (g) provided that " ... the Secretary may make decisions necessary to accommodate specialized equipment ... " The rulemaking for specialized equipment included "Automobile Transporters."


    • 23 CFR 658.5 defines Automobile Transporters as "any vehicle combination designed and used specifically for the transport of assembled highway vehicles, including truck camper units." The FHWA defines "auto transporter" as a combination (truck tractor and semitrailer) designed and used specifically for the transport of assembled highway vehicles. This means in order to be considered specialized equipment, both the power unit and the trailing unit (vehicle combination) must be designed and have vehicle-carrying capability.


    • The second sentence in 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1 )(i) which states, in part, " ... As provided in § 658.5, automobile transporters may carry vehicles on the power unit behind the cab and on an over-cab rack" means that the power unit may or may not be carrying vehicles, but the reference to the definition section 658.5 still requires that the entire combination be designed to transport vehicles - both the power unit and the semitrailer.


    • 23 CFR 658.13(e)(1 )(i) continues stating, "No state shall impose an overall length limitation of less than 65 feet on traditional automobile transporters [5th wheel located on tractor frame over rear axle(s)], including "low boys," or less than 75 feet on stinger-steered automobile transporters (additional 3 and 4 foot overhangs apply, respectively)."
    FHWA Position: If the truck tractor of a combination transporting automobiles is not equipped with vehicle-carrying capability then the combination is not considered "Specialized Equipment" and does not fall under the provisions or limitations found in 23CFR 658.13(e). Such a combination is a truck tractor-semitrailer and is considered an STAA vehicle that is covered under the length provisions found in 23 CFR 658.13(a)( c). While STAA vehicles operating on the National Network have no overall length limit the 3 and 4 foot overhangs permitted for specialized equipment-automobile transporters are not allowed.


    The following material is from FHWA's public web site on freight issues found at http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/size_regs_final_rpt/index.htm The illustrations clearly show the vehicle carrying presences on the power unit of the of automobile transporters. The full subsection on auto and boat transporters is provided for continuity even though the immediate question relates only to specialized automobile transporters.
     
    sandiego_son Thanks this.
  • Truckers Report Jobs

    Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds

    Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.

  • Draft saved Draft deleted