Odd ST configuration

[BEARTRUCKER]

Sitting here at the Pilot @ West Memphis, across from me is a Landstar ST. Box looks like a 20 footer, Volvo cab with a standard sleeper. They have dual rear axle plus a raised tag axle situated near the nose of the box. Don't see a reefer. Why the tag?? Also see a car carrier with a trashed yello Lamborghini and a 59 caddy coupe (chopped??). Any way - was wondering about the axle config on the ST.

 

[highway star]

My guess would be to help with the heavy steer axle that Volvos are known for.

 

[moose]

It used to be a tandem axle ,
Till themm Lamburgini crashed into it , and now it's stuck on the up position ,
probably heading to the shop ...



Moose.

 

[FREE TO FAIL]

i am the guy with the truck the steerable tag is designed so i can load up to 27 K in the 24ft box without going over on the steers have 2 150 tanks so full of fuel its easy to be over with freight.

 

[x06col]

It's really good to read about a "thinking" O/O whom chooses to field equipment that will maximize their success there JD. Steada setting in the samo cookie cutter truck.

I find that "ODD" is mostly in the eye of the viewer.

 

[ATeam]

Outside the box thinking is a delight wherever you see it, if for no other reason than it makes you think. But I have to wonder about the need for a straight truck that can carry that much weight. Having been driving straight trucks for a while, Diane and I can count on one hand the time any of them have been anywhere close to their weight capacity.

Sure, you can spec a truck to carry a lot of weight, but at what point does it become worth doing so? Obviously the question has been considered in this case. I would be interested to hear more.

 

[MentalGiant]

Have you seen some of the drivers out there lately.

Just kidding, although when we first got into the expediting business, we had a Frieghtliner Century that was converted into a straight truck, don't remember the actual deminsions atm, but it had a dual rear axle setup and we were able to carry a lot of weight. At times we came close coming to the max to what we could carry. One time it was a lot of metal in metal bins that we picked up in Indiana and took to NJ. In most cases, it was some kind of metal that weighed the most.

 

[x06col]

Phil, when leased to a Carrier like yours, and all you can haul is 4 skids or so, and have capacity for 10k or so, all you are going to see is in fact the small dim loads. No doubt in my mind fedup gets many moves that are dense in nature that will go on a E that take up 8-10 foot and weigh 20k lbs (a mold comes to mind).

Your dispatchers don't have the flex or skills to utilize what really is available in the fleet.

 

[ATeam]

At times we came close coming to the max to what we could carry.

That's what I am getting at, the "at times" part. How does one decide the cost/benefit tradeoff of higher payload vs. the initial and ongoing expense of a second or third axle?

Presumably, it has something to do with greater amounts of freight that is available and more money for more weight. How much of this heavy freight must you have to make the heavy truck capacity worth paying for and how reliable are the sources for such freight?

I'm not being critical. Just interested in kicking the subject around. Since a three-axle straight-truck owner-operator has surfaced, it might be an informative conversation to have.

 

[ATeam]

My guess would be to help with the heavy steer axle that Volvos are known for.

Heavy steer-axle Volvos are a myth.

In 1978, Volvo's 780 came out heavy on the front axle. Since then, the front axle has been moved further ahead and the tanks further back. Weight-saving components have been built in. All other models were fine. All models being sold today are fine.

There was once a flap about heavy front-end Volvos started and widely publicized by OOIDA. As proud as I am to be an OOIDA supporter, they can be embarrassing at times, and this was one of those times. OOIDA's case turned out to be all smoke and no fire.

I drive a Volvo straight truck and the front end is not heavy. If you know of any that are heavy now, I think it will be because of how the truck is spec'ed and/or loaded, and not how it was designed at the factory.

If we wanted to, we could easy overload the front end of our truck by moving the rear axles back and loading up the box and sleeper with more weight. People who overload their front axles ought not blame the manufacturer.

Notice that on our truck the Volvo engine is heavier than some competiting engines. There is an oversize sleeper (full of stuff), three water tanks, a reefer, a generator and a full toolbox that sit between the front and rear axles. In the truck body, several hundred pounds of freight handling equipment ride ahead of the rear axles. Even with all that, our front axle is not heavy.

 

[mjolnir131]

well ateam as with most things on this forum it's either a hit or a myth!

Sorry could not resist a little myth-direction, looks like i got us into an other fine myth.

 

[mjolnir131]

I guess that observation about Landstar drivers not posting was a small myth-conception.

 

[FREE TO FAIL]

I haul a fair share of sister company freight (ie Ranger) the loads are quite a bit heavier then the traditional expedite freight last load 19000# from IN to las vegas. The cost benifit ratio is nonexistant paid $3000 for the axle installed with wheels and tires more then paid for itself. Used to haul heavy truck parts like axle assemblies and brake drums easy to max out. Lastly ride comfort is much better with the rear axles as far back as you can get them. So you can be heavy on a volvo front axle depending on placement of drives. Got a Cummins N14 500 hp with a wet engine weight of 3000 lbs wich is all on the front axle.

 

[BEARTRUCKER]

i am the guy with the truck the steerable tag is designed so i can load up to 27 K in the 24ft box without going over on the steers have 2 150 tanks so full of fuel its easy to be over with freight.

Steerable? Its sits under your box.
Just wondering.
As far as "odd", to me it was not a familiar site, there for I considered it "odd".
Been on the road 3 years and taint never seen on afore.

 

[FREE TO FAIL]

yes it is steerable so as to eliminate tire scrub wheen rounding corners.... feel free to come on by if your still here in memphis.

 

[pelicn]

Jdevidts, Would it be possible to post a picture of your truck so that we can see it?

How does a steerable axle work? Could you explain please?

 

[FREE TO FAIL]

steerable axle works by following front axle ie resistance turning is only slight about 11 to 15 degrees off of center just enough to prevent scrubing of tires uses a regular steering axle with a bar connecting both tires with shock absorbers to compensate for bump steer. see the watson chalmers site if you have trouble visualizing. Pic attached.

 

[greg334]

So what you are saying is that you need the third axle to balance out a front heavy truck?

 

[BillChaffey]

It sounds like, although on a much larger scale, what GM offered on their Pickup's a few years ago. Where the rear wheels had some ability to turn, for tighter corners.

 

[FREE TO FAIL]

no what i am saying is that when the payload is very heavy (more then most of you can or want to carry) the lift axle is used to take the weight off the front axle. i really only use it on heavy bulky loads that fill the box. i dont care what configiration you have, putting over 20k in the box (like floor tile) you are going to be overweight in a class eight in a 12k front axle state. Anyone thats spec'd a class eight will realize that with fuel weight of around 2400 full and a payload your probably going to be over. Additionally as an added beifit you get an extra set of brakes and more ground contact in inclimental weather. I have the tag brakes plumbed into the trailer brake button so i can use the trailer brake lever as a way to slowly brake the truck without worring about heating the main brakes going down steep grades (in conjunction with the 3 stage jake)