Getting the most from extra payload
Page 17
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I AM SO glad that Commercial Motor (March 13) has added its cogent arguments on volume payload relationships to the formative discussion of future weights and dimensions. Yours is the first journal to support the submission the Institute of Road Transport Engineers made to the Department of Transport that an overall width of 2.53 metres was needed to accommodate two rows of imperial pallets, and that the proposed 12.2-metre loadspace and 4.2-metre overall height restrictions would negate much of the economic benefit intended to flow from allowance of extra payload.
Two other, technical elements have since come to light in support of an extra inch on width. One is that it is turning out to be difficult to fit the new low-profile low-height tyres inside 2.5 metres. The other is that if tyres are to be ringed with side valances to fight side spray and still leave space for wheel movement and preserve present wheel track for stability, then a fraction of an inch each side will be needed to fit them.
It does not seem to be generally realised that as much extra productivity could result from another inch on width as an uplift from 32.5 to 34 tonnes on four axles.
The industry cannot equate the expected environmental and economic benefits if the dimensions are to be more severely restricted. If the Transport Secretary seeks more concessions to the environmental champions there are far more meaningful improvements he could force — on noise, suspension and braking performance, to take but three examples. This is the line the IRTE has taken.
JOHN M. DICKSON-SIMPSON Transport Press Services Cowcross Street London EC1