1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188 
BRAKING CHOICE
Page 50
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Referring to the letter from Mr Salter (CM 26 April-3 May) on the subject of anti-lock systems for semi-trailers, I agree entirely with your response.
However, we should recognise that the principle behind current braking regulations is to give stability (ie straight-line braking) priority over stopping distance. In this respect, anti-lock meets the requirement well.
If balance and sensitivity are preferred under all conditions of loading, then a load-sensing valve is needed. Either loadsensing or anti-lock is legally required and, to my knowledge, every UK trailer manufacturer can offer the choice. The customer must decide which is more suitable for his needs, or specify both, as would be the case in mainland Europe.
M B Peacock,
Product engineering manager, Garphyttan, Newton Aycliffe, Co Durham.