Trailer axle overweight--Going to CA

"Some states allow longer semitrailers but impose a maximum kingpin-to-center-of-rear-axle (KCRA) or kingpin-to-center-of-rear-tandem (KCRT) distance to limit truck offtracking."
Right out of this report:
http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/nchrprpt505_harwood.pdf
Diagram on the cover says it all.

 

Some people confuse the kpra law with a bridge law.

 

Amen

 

I've gotten in to sparing matches with people who keep calling KPRA laws bridge laws.

 

I had no idea what bridge law was till Oregon invited me in for some coffee to the tune of $300.

It was an argument with the office about who was going to pay the bill. They told me 3 times I was totally legal. Not once was bridge mentioned. Where Oregon bridge is lower then national bridge.

 

You wish to spar? Today was the first I heard of the KPRA abbreviation.

 

Bridge laws have to do with how much weight you are allowed based on distance between axles and axle groups. For example, 48' spread axle, allowed 20k each, if they were closer, it would be reduced as they get closer until they are considered a 34k tandem. Essentially, the further apart they are, the more weight allowed.

KPRA laws require the tandems be no further from the kingpin, which means that it is the opposite of a bridge law.

 

After careful reading of your answer Kind Sir, your post matches my understanding. KPRA came into play and Im thinking... well the tandem rear axle cannot be a certain distance from the Kingpin anyway to me it's something new encountered to be learned.

To be honest with you I have a hard time remembering when I cared about tandem's distance from king pin for two reasons, It's either a 10 foot spread covered wagon or a 48 footer. Not a 53 until later. And those carried a california mark at which you set the rear axle and presto compliant for California PROVIDED a confirmation CAT scale weigh showed all axles to be legal.

Are we in agreement then? If not? I peacefully await your turn Kind Sir.

 

Yup we are. And BTW, your response shows how worthless 53' are. Most of the time the can only be loaded to the 48' mark only. Then, if you're in California or anywhere else that cares, you have to have it reworked if it isn't right in the right spot. Give me a 48' spread axle, and I'll never cross a CAT scale again!

 

Ok Mr Bean. I have one more card for you.

Consider this kind sir.

48 foot load of UTZ Potato Chip. Weight is so so.. what? 9000 pounds? Maybe? CUBE out that 48 footer. Give a bag to the driver maybe.

I don't know what they do to volume ok? But if you have a 53 foot you can stack maybe four more pallets with say 9 Tins stacked by threes and shrink wrapped. The tins would be about 2 feet across, 3 high and so on. It's a extreme example.

The problem I have with this post on my own is I have no knowledge how the billing is going to be affected by 4 more pallets of Utz chips, obvioulsy it's going to be 40 dollars per tin, about 120 times three stacks of tin per pallet, that's tsk tsk tsk tsk aha... 360 dollars chps on the pallet times 4 pallets we are up to a cool 1440 dollars worth of chips. How does that make more money in mileage pay? I dont eff know.

See my problem?

Also.. I still support the original use of the 53 footer for volume purposes. I never did get taught or learn how to use cube in trailer to maximize revenue. Only mileage.