|
There are computer programmes used by the larger transporter firms whereby the vehicles to be loaded can be fed in and the programme tells the driver where to put them.
|
>>and the programme tells the driver where to put them.
I think GB might care to comment on that too. ;>)
|
|
I expect GB is on the road at the moment, he will see this later.
|
|
Probably just stack those Cubes vertically?!
|
|
Alternate Cubes along the transporter upside down to give a totally solid block.
|
|
Flat-pack self assembly - you'd get several hundred on a transporter.
|
Flat-pack self assembly - you'd get several hundred on a transporter.
You read it here first. Buy shares now in IKEA for when they start manufacturing and marketing their own cars. All you'll need to fix any problems will be a screwdriver, an allen key, and one of those self-tightening things
|
|
|
Flat-pack self assembly ...
Solve all our parking problems at a stroke too.
|
Ah if only they did think of the poor old transporter jockey when they designed cars..;)
The change in car shapes particularly the trend for higher cars and all cars being much bigger has been a real headache for the transporter industry, whereas up till about 7 to 10 years ago transporter bodies (rechassised several times) would still be perfectly serviceable at 20 or more years old.
Thats all changed and we now have probably half a dozen common similar designs by the 3 or 4 main makers of car transporter bodies, with odd specialised types for specialized work, these are routinely updated with changes to stretch deck lengths to accomodate the ever increasing size of cars, not only that but you'll have no doubt seen most new transporters are now 6 axle whereas 4 axle was perfectly adequate 10 years ago, cars have got heavy too.
On a personal note i prefer tying down the old tried and tested way (underbody, which clamps the car to the deck) but nearly all tying down is now by wheelstraps and chocks, and that indeed is often the only permitted way now...i won't give my view.
Smaller cars have got higher too, which is another problem.
The shapes of cars are not influenced by transporting needs, we have to fit round whatever the maker builds which is only right, and when new models are released the bigger carriers will conduct load trials to see what will go where and how best to load, much better than old soaks scratching their heads and guessing (wrongly..;)
I wish there was a computer program to tell me where to put them, the blessed computer could then put them on and tie 'em down whilst i mince about drinking tea, i'm afraid it's still a case of long term use and dare i say skills involved in knowing how to get the best and safest configuration...takes many years before a driver is really competent.
Some makers distribution centres (run by big operators) do have load plans as a guide only, and all proper transporter companies have tried and tested methods and sequences to adhere to, but the driver still has to get the load to fit....and thats one reason why i hate automated manuals..;)
Edited by gordonbennet on 08/02/2010 at 20:46
|
I was going to say no way do car designers think about how they are going to be transported.
Thanks for that GB you summed it up to a tee. I never even gave this issue a thought.
|
Does the tall car trend give you problems with routes GB? Thinking of low bridges etc. ?
I was overtaking a transporter while we were both passing under a flyover on the motorway recently and while there must have been plenty of clearance as he still had the same load when he hadpassed through to the other side it looking wincingly tight from my angle. Made me duck for some reason. Nearly spilled my coffee.
|
I also had some thought about low bridges in the past, Hump. No so much to do with the increased height of loads but the fact that resurfacing always seemed to be done by trowelling on another layer of tarmac.
I used to see a lot of British Vita artics on the M6. They were very tall to carry max bulk rather than weight.
It amused me to see one waiting for the weighbridge at Bowden. Even full, I would think they had only a quarter of a ton on board....block foam !
Ted
|
Does the tall car trend give you problems with routes GB? Thinking of low bridges etc. ?
Nearly spilled my coffee.
Yes and no, depending on the number of cars and the load configuration we will route for 16' maximum height unless we know that we are lower, the tall cars can cause us a problem...usually on a multi drop run so we'll get rid of a few vehicles before getting down.
Trees are a bigger problem and local knowledge comes very important, if you follow or indeed are coming toward a transporter weaving all over the road, it could be that the driver is sozzled, but more likely trying to dodge around low branches.
The strapping down method i mentioned before has had a bigger impact than management realise...3 decks of cars tied down my way (good old Frank i miss him) will see the vehicle probably 6" lower in travelling height, that makes a big difference with tree damage, still i don't make the rules and the people paying my poor wages do.
Yes it does look very close when you see a full height truck go under a bridge, but there's usually 3" clear space, so don't drop that hob nob in the coffee, the splash could make your eyes water.;)
Ted, i'd like to have seen the driver of the Vitafoam truck smiling merrily at the weighbridge.
|
|
|
