Sign up for The Wire Newsletter!

  1. EO University Join us at the Holiday Inn Detroit-Livonia on Thursday, May 14, 2015 for a full 4 hours on expedite trucking information, career information and tips. Learn from professionals how to be successful as an expedite Owner Operator! CLICK HERE to register today!

cargo van sleepers

Discussion in 'Truck Talk' started by ebsprintin, Apr 1, 2008.

  1. ebsprintin

    ebsprintin Active Expediter

    This is similar to another thread going, but my questions go in a little different direction.

    1) With all the talk about one of these days cargo vans having to start logging, can anyone picture how they might accommodate the lack of "DOT" sleeper space in a cargo van? Especially teams--I'm sure a cot snuggled amongst the load while rolling down the road won't cut it.

    2) How do you team drivers sleep while not driving now-a-days?

    eb
     
  2. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    Horizontal and eyes closed like everyone else. *L*

    Seriously...underload or empty???

    IF CV's had to have a DOT sleeper they'd be down to one skid and the sprinters down to two.
     
  3. terryandrene

    terryandrene Active Expediter

    All of the expediter cargo vans have sleepers that comply with the USDOT commercial motor vehicle regulations. That's because there are no current federal regulations for sleepers in vehicles under 10001 GVWR, unless, and while, hauling reportable quantities of hazardous materials.

    If drivers of cargo vans are eventually required to maintain logs, it would add to the admininstrative nightmare for true O/Os and carriers alike. The State administrators would probably like it due to the increased revenue potential.

    The narrow cargo vans and Sprinters cannot accomodate the required 75" length and the Ford/Chevy can't provide the height that would be required for a sleeper equipped van. So, if vans are required to log, they would be considered as not having a sleeper.

    Commercial vehicle drivers without sleepers would have to adhere to the HOS just like all the large trucks. Fourteen hours on duty; eleven hours driving. A team would be useless for a run longer than fourteen hours because both drivers would always be on duty at the same time. Van revenue and mobility would be considerably reduced. Straight thru deliveries on the longer runs would be ***igned to the straight truck, further reducing van revenue.
     
  4. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter

    With the new Sprinters extended you could actually comply with the 75" length and still have 8 feet for 2 skids...
    I thought the extended Chevy has about 12 feet??? You could still do a 1 skidder...but it would really eat into revenue.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  5. ebsprintin

    ebsprintin Active Expediter

    I sort of figure it would no longer be cargo vanning as we know it. But then the 10000+ cargo van may become the vehicle of choice.

    As a solo I can see that me sleeping in the cargo hold can be considered off duty, but the real problem as Terry and Rene point out, is the team under load needing to drive.

    Yeah, my question concerns where the non-driving team co-driver is sleeping when rolling down the road. I'm not wondering about the one sleeping in the drivers seat, because I can already picture that.

    eb
     
  6. terryandrene

    terryandrene Active Expediter

    Here is the FMCSA regulation regarding a sleeper berth. The way I interpret this, you must have a 75" mattress installed longitudinaly, or side to side, in the van. You cannot install this way in the Ford/Chevy or Sprinter as currently built. For now, at least, we'll have to settle for our 72" mattresses which are OK because van sleepers are not regulated by the USDOT.

    393.76

    You must also have an occupant restraint positioned fore and aft on the vehicle. If your sleeper was allowed fore and aft, you'd need a nascar type shoulder harness.


    <DIV class=Section1><DIV><DIV>
    <B>§393.76 Sleeper berths.
     
  7. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter


    I didn't know the requirement that it had to be side to side...Now that makes it tough.
     
  8. ebsprintin

    ebsprintin Active Expediter

    I did hear that some of the Sprinter RV's have slide-out walls. :)

    eb
     
  9. LDB

    LDB Seasoned Expediter

    I see where it discusses the longitudinal size of the bunk but I don't see where it requires being side to side. I've seen a number of sleepers that are along the driver side wall in various vehicles.
     
  10. Jack_Berry

    Jack_Berry Moderator Emeritus

    i talked to owners of a bob caldwell expeditor sprinter recently and they could not make the 2000# cargo weight with the sleeper, driver and attendant stuff.

    maybe the unicell drw would be the width to go if/when it comes down to it. i have talked to recruiters and they do not want a unicell drw that has to log in the van group right now.
     
  11. LDB

    LDB Seasoned Expediter

    The full size Aerocell is plenty wide enough to put a sleeper side to side with 91" inside width. The 17' body is 16'1" inside length which would allow 3 skids and about a 42" sleeper. The issue is the logging because it would have to be on a 4500 chassis. That effectively makes it a C unit that isn't dock high. The big advantage to the operator is about a 22' overall length and probably 14-15mpg on gas vs 10mpg on diesel for a dock high C unit. It's also not hindered by clearance issues nearly as often. The disadvantages are the inside width and 3 skid limit vs. 6 for a dock high C. I wouldn't mind the logging since I'm used to it anyway. I just don't know how much freight you'd get. Perhaps some C unit operators will advise what percentage of their loads are no more than 3 skids as well as how many 2 skid runs they get. Whereas vans now are limited to 3k or less this vehicle could be built to easily handle 5k in weight. It's an interesting design idea.
     
  12. terryandrene

    terryandrene Active Expediter

    Leo: I have also seen fore and aft mattresses in sleeper berths, but if the regulation that I cited is current, your berth must have a side to side lenth of 75" and a restraint that secures an occupant from moving forward during rapid deceleration.

    One more point. A 6 wheeler over 10,000 GVWR would have to log, but if a 75" sleeper is not available, a team would be limited to 14 hour runs before stopping for a reset.

    It's all a moot point right now because our van sleepers aren't regulated, but if in the future....
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  13. OntarioVanMan

    OntarioVanMan Expert Expediter


    "But if in the future"....it's going to be a nightmare....hopefully we won't be around to deal with it!!
     
  14. LDB

    LDB Seasoned Expediter

    I just like the full size Aerocell concept for a very comfortable sleeper and C weight capability minus the dock height and extra floor spots. I agree on the logging requirement whether team or solo in that unit.

    I guess I'm just dumb but I can't see where it must be side to side. I see where it must be 75" long by 24" wide and I agree it must have a restraint system to prevent motion toward the front of the vehicle but I can't see where it mandates the bunk being side to side. I'll defer to better understanding than I have at the moment.

    Another interesting idea, at least to me, would be the full size Aerocell set up to carry 4 skids offset to the right side by 7 inches. That would allow 28" along the full length of the drivers wall for double bunks, cabinets etc. and leave another 21" along the passenger side wall for additional storage options. It would need some sort of roller floor to get the skids in and out but could be done.
     
  15. greg334

    greg334 New Recruit

    Maybe the need to redefine at what level logging should take place. I am all for 16k, it will stop me complaining about the pickup trucks pulling trailers. :p
     
  16. Jack_Berry

    Jack_Berry Moderator Emeritus

    re-thinking this i do remember a chevy cube van that was available in the classifieds. it had lower/upper bunks included and restraints on the lower bunk. seems these folks ran for landstar and had 4 skid position but that must have been real light freight.

    okay that one is gone but here is the drw aerocell from the classifieds
    Cargo Vans : 2006 14,000 gvw chevrolet aerocell 159 wheelbase


    and guess what color it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  17. LDB

    LDB Seasoned Expediter

    That must be a heavier chassis than it appears from the grill etc. since it says 14k gvw. It looks to be the 3500 chassis and I thought the gvw on that even in dual rear wheel was well below 14k. I'd go for the 4500 chassis in I believe it's a 16,400 gvw rating. That would easily give 5k capacity with margin left over. They are good looking vehicles and with that new Ford chassis looking so good would really be a head turner.
     
  18. Jack_Berry

    Jack_Berry Moderator Emeritus

    if you go to the unicell site and click on options/stripes there is a 4500 chassis there with a nice box.

    taz quoted me one for about 45K. add the geo floor rollers and you are onto something.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008
  19. LDB

    LDB Seasoned Expediter

    I don't find the page you referred to but did see in the chassis pool several Ford's in 4x4 configuration. That could be interesting during winter.
     
  20. Jack_Berry

    Jack_Berry Moderator Emeritus

    click on the yellow optional equipment box. then click on aerocell stripes under the decal heading. sweet.

    i think taz said with i would need to order a 5500. i quoted it with a d-max. don't know if that made a difference.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2008

Share This Page