Most of the scuttlebutt @ FMCSA is 57' with a third axle on the trailer. California is expected to allow 43' KPRA (the kingpin would have to be a foot further back). The biggest issue I see with the 90-100K gross is that engines now seem to be 425-450HP max. It seems like we are reverting back to the 318 Detroit @ 80K climbing the grapevine at 4 MPH. Back when people paid attention it was not that big of a deal, today people in their 180 MPH BMW M5 have a hard enough time dealing with trucks going 40 MPH up hills.
My reason for the OP was I wonder if 57' 3 axle trailers are going to scare off potential steering wheel holders (from the SWIFT school) or just make everyone take longer to get a mile for the same money.
How long is too long, 57'?
Discussion in 'Experienced Truckers' Advice' started by Guntoter, Sep 25, 2012.
Page 3 of 5
-
-
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
-
I remember when the Freightliner Argosy came out, the showcase vehicle was hooked to a 57 or 59 foot trailer with a retractable 3rd axle and was capable of grossing 97k. That was back in 1999.
-
I had a pick up at an Ashley Furniture facility (in Ripley, MS as I recall) that had two 65' 3 axle trailers on site, complete with all the Ashley markings. I asked about them and the individual in shipping said they were only used to transport materials and finished products between buildings in the area. Those puppies were behemoths to even look at. I couldn't imagine jockeying them around.
-
The problem is, lots of shippers in old east coast cities are designed for 48' trailers and Coe trucks. A few of the customers I go to require a 48' or less trailer, and all of the 48s I pull are getting quite old now, and we have alot more 53s.
It might work out west but getting to a tiny dock in New Jersey seems unrealistic with a 59 when you can barely get a conventional with a 48 in there. That and truck stops in older eastern cities don't really seem good for 53s either.
Here is the crux of the issue as I see it, we have become far more productive workers in most industries without a corresponding wage gain, in trucking this is amplified by moves companies can make to force productivity (focus on teams, longer trailers) and cut costs (idle timers, governers, lease drivers) not to mention some companies are even cutting pay by mile rates. -
It's funny how common multi-axle trailers are in Ontario, Michigan, Alberta, B.C and European countries but most of the US only deal with tandem trailers maxing out at 80,000.... Lots of drivers on here think 90,000LBS is heavy but it's on the smaller scale for me (and many others).... I have a 8 axle setup and can haul up to 140,000 (no permits required)... Plus in Ontario we started using steering lift axles which don't get lifted when turning corners.. Another thing I see that is not common in the US is lift axles... I see in the flatbed forum about drivers making homemade lift axle setups why not just order it from factory?
Anyhow more axles = better stopping... More rubber on the ground.. Still require more space with the heavy weights tho... -
Michigan is a prime example of why we don't need heavy trucks all over this country. You ever driven on their poor excuse for roads?
-
MackDaddyMark Thanks this.
-
-
Pulled a 57' one time in Texas, it was weird. The few turns I had to do werent tight but was nerve racking. I could tell there was an additional 4'. Weirder yet I pulled a narrow 38' or 40' trailer. Honestly the 57' wasn't too bad once you made a few turns, but I don't want to see them on the east coast.
-
I mean for places like this, isn't that what box trucks are for?
Trucking Jobs in 30 seconds
Every month 400 people find a job with the help of TruckersReport.
Page 3 of 5