Time for light-duty trucks to scale?
- Thread starter xmudman
- Start date
tknight
Veteran Expediter
I personally have no issues with cv I do however have a bug up my u know what over these overloaded old Penske/rider trucks,the rescue I jus did was over the limit on that blue bomber like way over reason it died was a broken spring imagine that I should have snapped a shot while it was still loaded with 6300 lbs of cast machine parts dropped my liftgate in his back door took 2 pallet jacks to move 6 pallets of iron one in my truck and he had to walk to borrow one from a grocery store for his end! Ruski boy was whining cause he was losing 1.20 a mile he only got 35 miles before the crack took effect! I got 2.00 and went 400 miles cha ching,then picked a load up this am to Yonkers for 7 am del delivery night all
There are well known senior EO member(s) who run illegal in a clearly over 10,000 lb. Vehicle and bragged about running overloaded a lot...and the BIG name company clearly was aware ...never did figure that out...opening yourself and your carrier for all sorts of litigation...not worth losing everything you own for a load or two...I'm no fan of those "peske penske" trucks...but our own are doing the same thing ...
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
That's no longer the case.
Half that payload weight was over his limit. Problem with those Penske trucks is that they're not set up for much. Move my furniture from one house to another-- great! It'll do that no problem. Try to move a lot of stuff that's heavy-- big problem. That truck has something like a 7,500 empty weight to begin with, it's posted as being under 10K gross, it's a converted van with a box that takes most of the capacity of the springs leaving little left over for payload. Add that, from the looks of that photo, that maintenance might not have been a high priority and the spring might have been ready to let go anyway.
The size fools you. That's a comparatively large box, it'll hold six skids. The payload capacity limits you to no more than two skids if they're really heavy like these in this story were. My van, a heavy 2500, (8,600 GVWR) will manage 2700 lbs and stay within the margin, BUT it won't try to deceive you into thinking you can squeeze more than two skids-- three if they're really short skids-- in there. It LOOKS LIKE a standard cargo van, not like a wanna-be box truck. A 3500 with a box body is easy to overload, it looks way bigger than it really is.
Last edited:
I think Xmudman may have been refering to over weight per axle which you can have an overweight and be well below your G.V.W. especialy if you dont ballance the load right.
Now, Im going to kick the hornets nest with a couple things, so be warned I might pisz you off real good.
As for being jealous of not having to comply? I follow the regs in my van as I do in my S/T.
C vans not posing a risk? Well, last week I went on an EMS call a cargo van was overweight, on its rears and the driver said he hadnt slept in a couple days. So, instead of making it arround a gradual bend he slid off the road plowed into a tree, and flipped. Luckily only minor injuries to the driver but It was hell staying professional and not being able to go off on this hopefuly soon unemployed moron. Worse part is the wreck wont be included in the FMCSA database as it is not considered a comercial vehical. The driver worked for a unknown carrier and not an EO member Yep, I asked.
Not only should they require C vans to scale and inspect but also R.V.s and vehicals pulling a trailer. By the way somone driving a 50 foot 35,000 lb motorcoach or pulling a trailer should have a C.D.L. as they are now a combination vehicle.
As clint eastwood put it in the enforcer.... "If you want to play lumberjack you need to handle your end of the log."
Understand, I dont like the ghepstopo method but, Im for regs if they target the right people. Play by the rules or be put out of business. Yes this will eventualy weed the garden and our job will be safer and more profitable.
Bob Wolf.
Now, Im going to kick the hornets nest with a couple things, so be warned I might pisz you off real good.
As for being jealous of not having to comply? I follow the regs in my van as I do in my S/T.
C vans not posing a risk? Well, last week I went on an EMS call a cargo van was overweight, on its rears and the driver said he hadnt slept in a couple days. So, instead of making it arround a gradual bend he slid off the road plowed into a tree, and flipped. Luckily only minor injuries to the driver but It was hell staying professional and not being able to go off on this hopefuly soon unemployed moron. Worse part is the wreck wont be included in the FMCSA database as it is not considered a comercial vehical. The driver worked for a unknown carrier and not an EO member Yep, I asked.
Not only should they require C vans to scale and inspect but also R.V.s and vehicals pulling a trailer. By the way somone driving a 50 foot 35,000 lb motorcoach or pulling a trailer should have a C.D.L. as they are now a combination vehicle.
As clint eastwood put it in the enforcer.... "If you want to play lumberjack you need to handle your end of the log."
Understand, I dont like the ghepstopo method but, Im for regs if they target the right people. Play by the rules or be put out of business. Yes this will eventualy weed the garden and our job will be safer and more profitable.
Bob Wolf.
I once again ask what has the continued addition of more regs done to increase big truck rates. Sure it sounds all sugar and honey but has done nothing to increase their rates so assuming it would increase small vehicle rates is rose colored glasses.
As far as through rv crowd i can understand why people say that but won't happen because of the money the rv industry would lose in sales.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
As far as through rv crowd i can understand why people say that but won't happen because of the money the rv industry would lose in sales.
Sent from my Fisher Price ABC-123.
No one said cargo vans don't pose any risk at all. Clearly they do. But so does a Toyota Corolla. The same tree-plowed and flipped cargo van above could have been a Dodge Caravan or a Ford Explorer or a Honda Prius and the results, and the risk, would be the same to the general public.
It's not about zero risk, it's about unreasonable risk. Heavy trucks and buses, and vehicles carrying HAZMAT, pose an unreasonable risk to the general public. Cargo vans, and RVs, certainly post a risk to the general public, but it's not an unreasonable risk or even a greater risk than the general public already poses to itself. The FMCSA doesn't keep track of non-CMV accidents, but the DOT does, and they have a separate category for vans and light trucks, a category for each vehicle type, specifically to keep track of the accident and injury rates. They do this for several reason, not the least of which is to ensure manufacturers are complying with safety regulations, and so they can identify any unusual uptick in accidents of a certain vehicle type.
If cargo vans or RVs had a higher rate of accidents and injuries than that of the general public, they would be regulated and/or require special licensing and training. The public would demand it. When a cargo van or an RV has an accident, it's a mess, but it's not any more of a mess or the injuries any more severe or numerous than that of any other general public accident. Unlike, say, a big truck where the accident is devastating and nearly everyone except the driver is killed. If cargo vans or RVs killed nearly everyone they came in contact with and the drivers walked away, the public would demand regulation of those vehicles.
Currently, cargo vans and Corollas and Winnebagos pose the same exact risk to the public, so there is no valid reason to single out cargo vans and regulate them. None.
It is interesting that, with very few exceptions (the exceptions being mostly people who work in Safety departments of large carriers so that their jobs would be easier if every vehicle had to follow the same rules), the only people who are advocating the regulation of cargo vans to log and scale are people who coincidentally are required to log and scale. They always say it's not because of jealousy, yet they can never come up with a valid, reasoned argument for regulating cargo vans. Their arguments are rife with classic logical fallacies, usually one where they cite an extreme example to try and prove the rule, and go, "See! See! See!" It's interesting, because if you apply the same logic, then all station wagons would have to be regulated because of Clark Griswold.
It's not about zero risk, it's about unreasonable risk. Heavy trucks and buses, and vehicles carrying HAZMAT, pose an unreasonable risk to the general public. Cargo vans, and RVs, certainly post a risk to the general public, but it's not an unreasonable risk or even a greater risk than the general public already poses to itself. The FMCSA doesn't keep track of non-CMV accidents, but the DOT does, and they have a separate category for vans and light trucks, a category for each vehicle type, specifically to keep track of the accident and injury rates. They do this for several reason, not the least of which is to ensure manufacturers are complying with safety regulations, and so they can identify any unusual uptick in accidents of a certain vehicle type.
If cargo vans or RVs had a higher rate of accidents and injuries than that of the general public, they would be regulated and/or require special licensing and training. The public would demand it. When a cargo van or an RV has an accident, it's a mess, but it's not any more of a mess or the injuries any more severe or numerous than that of any other general public accident. Unlike, say, a big truck where the accident is devastating and nearly everyone except the driver is killed. If cargo vans or RVs killed nearly everyone they came in contact with and the drivers walked away, the public would demand regulation of those vehicles.
Currently, cargo vans and Corollas and Winnebagos pose the same exact risk to the public, so there is no valid reason to single out cargo vans and regulate them. None.
It is interesting that, with very few exceptions (the exceptions being mostly people who work in Safety departments of large carriers so that their jobs would be easier if every vehicle had to follow the same rules), the only people who are advocating the regulation of cargo vans to log and scale are people who coincidentally are required to log and scale. They always say it's not because of jealousy, yet they can never come up with a valid, reasoned argument for regulating cargo vans. Their arguments are rife with classic logical fallacies, usually one where they cite an extreme example to try and prove the rule, and go, "See! See! See!" It's interesting, because if you apply the same logic, then all station wagons would have to be regulated because of Clark Griswold.
You don't need more regulation. Enforce the laws already on the books,that will be a big help.
Example: The doofus in Bob Wolfe's example. Overweight vehicle, probably bad maintenance and way overtired, this guy was undoubtedly giving probable cause for being stopped long before he had the accident. Do you mean to tell me he passed any number of cops and NONE of them could be bothered to stop a vehicle that was already showing signs of grief? A guy who hasn't slept in two days is going to be weaving all over the road just like a drunk, so right there you have probable cause, plus a van that is seriously overloaded gives some sign of that-- it just doesn't "look right". You don't need regulation, you need enforcement of the laws you already have-- regardless of what vehicle we're talking about.
Special note to those paying attention: I see the wrecks you big fellows get into-- all by yourself, no cars involved. Tell me AGAIN how regulations help control the doofus factor-- I keep forgetting when I see some of these wrecks. Too often we find that the driver was keeping multiple books and running way overtime on his hours, sometimes on marginal equipment-- and we find this out AFTER the wreck. A few years back a steel hauler had a tangle with a train, I still remember that story. Near Bourbonais, Illinois. Over tired, three logbooks, tried to beat the train. The driver lived-- the train hit the trailer-- but many of the passengers on the train didn't live.
Example: The doofus in Bob Wolfe's example. Overweight vehicle, probably bad maintenance and way overtired, this guy was undoubtedly giving probable cause for being stopped long before he had the accident. Do you mean to tell me he passed any number of cops and NONE of them could be bothered to stop a vehicle that was already showing signs of grief? A guy who hasn't slept in two days is going to be weaving all over the road just like a drunk, so right there you have probable cause, plus a van that is seriously overloaded gives some sign of that-- it just doesn't "look right". You don't need regulation, you need enforcement of the laws you already have-- regardless of what vehicle we're talking about.
Special note to those paying attention: I see the wrecks you big fellows get into-- all by yourself, no cars involved. Tell me AGAIN how regulations help control the doofus factor-- I keep forgetting when I see some of these wrecks. Too often we find that the driver was keeping multiple books and running way overtime on his hours, sometimes on marginal equipment-- and we find this out AFTER the wreck. A few years back a steel hauler had a tangle with a train, I still remember that story. Near Bourbonais, Illinois. Over tired, three logbooks, tried to beat the train. The driver lived-- the train hit the trailer-- but many of the passengers on the train didn't live.
Last edited:
Lol......the pot calling the kettle BLACK. ......
Sent from my SGH-T959 using EO Forums mobile app
My truck is 9900#..6900# empty....bet yours is over 10,000# wise a$$.. Never seen a dually box van that was not.. Hows the fuel mileage going?? ..lol
Sent from my DROID RAZR using EO Forums mobile app
Last edited:
Sorry, Mr. K I A , but as stated on EO before mine is SRW and the door plate states 9900 gvw...... empty wt..with me, fuel, personal items allows for 2700 available freight weight. ..and when I add my AC & generator the available weight will be dropped to 2600 with Bolt.....and in 2 1/2 months ...1 load over 2200 lbs.....and I guess I ve been doing OK. . ...lol
Sent from my SGH-T959 using EO Forums mobile app
Sent from my SGH-T959 using EO Forums mobile app
OK, I'll admit that bothers me. A cut-away van with a box, single rear wheels-- how do you manage any meaningful payload at only 9,900 GVWR? I'll have to agree with asjssl that the fuel mileage has to be the pits too. Your box truck has a nearly identical payload rating to my standard van, and I'm bound to get somewhat better fuel mileage simply because I don't have to wind-drag of that box.
For 1 thing , i never bragged about MPG ,, I knew going in with this type of cube van the mpg would be low....but now after over 30,000 miles i' ve learned the sweet spot as far as MPH......and this is only about a 18 month deal until the new and improved vans Finally come out. ......on a brighter note the average extra gas money ( $ 140,) a week is averaging me more than $ 800. a week in additional revenue for a sprinter type van.......and with NO payments .. its even better. ...... OH yeah .....I don t haul cheap freight or short non- profit loads. ...either.....
Sent from my SGH-T959 using EO Forums mobile app
paullud
Veteran Expediter
For 1 thing , i never bragged about MPG ,, I knew going in with this type of cube van the mpg would be low....but now after over 30,000 miles i' ve learned the sweet spot as far as MPH......and this is only about a 18 month deal until the new and improved vans Finally come out. ......on a brighter note the average extra gas money ( $ 140,) a week is averaging me more than $ 800. a week in additional revenue for a sprinter type van.......and with NO payments .. its even better. ...... OH yeah .....I don t haul cheap freight or short non- profit loads. ...either.....
Sent from my SGH-T959 using EO Forums mobile app
In a bigger vehicle you know going in that the MPG will go down but if you can find the right speed by slowing down you can minimize it.
Sent from my SCH-I535 using EO Forums mobile app
Murraycroexp
Veteran Expediter
I'm struggling with my own decision like this. To either "turtle-top" an extended Express or to go with a cab-wide cutaway that's 12' long. I just don't trust myself to spend the extra time, effort and money to properly maintain a Sprinter. Although I'd love to drive one. I'm just a Chevy man.