Hmmm....

[Dark_0ne]

I was sitting here thinking, it seems more than likely to me, that DOT is going to start requiring logs on cargo vans soon. What I was speculating about was what would happen then? Do you think there would suddenly be a demand for cube vans? I'm a big guy 6'5" 250+ and realistically I can't use a bunk in a B unit. (one of many reasons that I am more likely to go for a D unit) It would be pretty easy though to build a great bunk in a cube. Of course this would still basically be a B unit or a Sprinter competitor. Or do you think that most of the companies would just eliminate most of the Bs out there?

Opinions?

 

[LDB]

There's a thread in truck talk about the Aerocell. The top version can be put on an E450 chassis with 14050 gvw giving about 5500 available payload in 16'8" of body behind the seats. Even with a very nice sleeper it would still carry a significant load. It would be more of a B+/C- than a B unit.

Leo
truck 4958

Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[davekc]

That looks like the one I had seen except his was a ford deisel
Many companies are not currently putting vans on, but I think there will always be a market for them. I liked the one at the MATS show. I think it could be put on as a "C" unit with many companies.
Davekc

 

[Dark_0ne]

Actually that was the thread that got me thinking about what would happen if the DOT requires logs in cargo vans. The aerodynamics of that unit are excellent and as such the mileage should be pretty good. If you had to log anyway I would think there would be better revenue opportunities with a unit like this. Plus the ability to put a really nice sleeper in that unit. This assumes of course that companies would willing to sign these units.....

 

[davekc]

The super "B" could be an issue with some companies.
The larger version should qualify for a "C" unit but would be limited on Hazmats loads (DOT rule for cargo box to be separate from sleeper & cab) and maybe dock heigth.
Davekc

 

[LDB]

This is a really strong and fine looking chassis. If this is available in a 450 level diesel it would be the one I'd choose.

Leo
truck 4958

Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[terryandrene]

I think the primary distinction between the B and C is dock height for the C. It seems more and more customers are requireing dock high trucks nowadays because they either don't have a ramp, or don't want to go out in the weather.

That truck above would certaintly make a nice B for those carriers and O/O's that don't mind the extra administrative requirements of a logging 10,000+ GVWR van.

It wasn't many years ago that the mainstay of the Roberts Express (now FedEx Custom Critical) fleet was the Ford 450 Superduty with the 14' box and the coffin sleeper. The box was elevated by about three 4x4's on each frame member. Was was a funny looking, high center of gravity beast, but earned a lot of folks a lot of money.

 

[davekc]

We use to have a couple of those beauties back in the Roberts days
Davekc

 

[highway star]

I think if they were going to regulate vans it would have happened by now. Especially with the major revisions the log book just went through and is apparently still going through. If it did happen, I would be in a C or D unit in a heartbeat. If you're going to be regulated, you may as well go dock high and have a better freight base.

 

[RichM]

I believe logging for B vans will some day be a rule. What will happen is that will be an unfortunate acident in where a lot of children get killed from a collision with a van driver who maybe fell asleep.
If an investigation turns out to be that the driver was driving with no rest or time off in the last few days there will be a large outcry led by the talking heads and the media to require all commercial OTR vehicles to log.