Phil's truck

[mrgoodtude]

Congrat's Phil and Diane on the new addition....
Just missed you in the bay area last week your truck created a stir with the shipper there. I would have spec'd the truck pretty much the same way since we happen to live in our's too. Honorable mention for the extra rows of e-track (never seems to be at exactly the right height) and the roof air. One thing I noticed was missing though, gotta get some naked lady mudflaps.

Mike and Cyn

 

[ATeam]

Regarding axle weights, it seems most people here already have it figured out. With the tandems placed near the front of the body, and all our freight handling equipment carried ahead of the tandems, all freight will be loaded behind the tandems. Thus, the weight of the freight in the rear tends to reduce the weight on the steers. That is because the truck frame acts like a lever and the tandems like a fulcrum.

When the truck has no freight on board, we'd have to work hard to tip the steers over 12,000 lbs. With all fuel and water tanks full to the brim, all personal and freight-handling gear on board and both co-drivers seated in the cab, the steers scale under 12,000.

If we put one of the co-drivers in back and a 300-pound courier in the passenger seat, and carried a couple-dozen furniture pads from the back into the sleeper, we could go over 12,000. But the problem then would be the courier's freight. Its weight would tend to reduce the front axle weight.

If we went over 12,000 on the steers it would not be a problem. Rex is correct when he says, "Most states will allow 20000lbs on the steer axle IF the truck has the proper components (axle, springs, wheels, tires, etc.)to support the weight." Our truck does Thus, our front-axle weight limit is the manufacturer's GVWR of 14,600 lbs.

The manufacturer's GVWR on the tandems is 40,000 lbs (20,000 lbs each). But as a practical matter, the FHWA Bridge Formula limits the weight on the tandems to 34,000 lbs.

For those who are curious, the Bridge Formula is explained online at:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/publications/bridge_frm_wts/index.htm

Additional information is in The Rand McNally Motor Carriers' Road Atlas, available at most truck stops and some book stores. It includes sections entitled "North American Federal Weight and Size Limits," "Bridge Formula Table," and "State/Provincial Weight and Size Limits." The first two sections are online at:
http://www.randmcnally.com/pdf/tdm/Federal_Bridge.pdf

We could discuss payload scenarios at length but the short story is, this truck can easily accommodate the FedEx Custom Critical C-unit payload requirement of 5,000 lbs.

The above numbers apply to National Network roads. Off the network, we will find our way through the complex web of state and local truck routes, truck restrictions, commercial vehicle rules and axle weight limits; just as all other expediters do in all types of trucks and vans.

Regarding the choices we made in the truck (cab type, box size, axle configuration, sleeper features, etc.), each one is right for us; and each would likely be wrong for many other people. The reverse is also true. Of the thousands of choices thousands of expediters made for their trucks, the choices were right for them, but not for us.

That's OK. Numerous business and life styles are practiced in expediting. If there was a "right" truck out there, everyone would be driving it. Spec'ing a truck is a highly individualized process. We got the truck we wanted. 'Nuff said about that.

Moot said, "Maybe over the next couple of months you could share with us some of the decisions and rationale behind the specing of this truck."

I'm working on that piece now, but keep what I said above in mind. Spec'ing a truck is a highly individualized process. I've never advised anyone to buy a truck and I never will. However, I will be happy to share with others what many drivers shared with us; namely, their decisions and rationale behind the spec'ing of their trucks. That information was very useful to us. I hope our information will be useful to others.

Highway Star said, "The big bunk, small box has been done many times before. Having been done before, it is odd that it was'nt done right the first time."

Diane and I couldn't agree more. The vendor failures are explained in Jeff Jensen's article (See: http://www.expeditersonline.com/artman/publish/New_expediter_truck.html).

It was no fun rejecting the first truck but it would have been less fun trying to make an illegal and undrivable truck work.

That was then. This is now.

The disappointments are behind us.

We are literally driving on!

 

[jaminjim]

You have a cool truck, the only "wrong" choice that I see was no TV and satilite dish.:+

 

[Dynamite 1]

glad to see you finally got the truck YOU wanted. believe me i know how frustrating a build can be. i would not worry about payload increasing front axle weight. my truck is the same way , although heavier on the steers than yours 11,760 full of fuel, water and us and our stuff. the cantilever effect works well if the rear axle is placed rite. if i put 2000# just 24" off the front wall it reduces the steer axle weight considerably. my only problem is with your front axle itself. i know its a 14000# axle with all the components but from the pictures the front tires look of normal size and generally 6250# is the weight a standard ply truck tire gives you and the dot only recognizes 6000#. i realize you have been over and over this but look at the tire weight rating printed on the tire itself just one more time to be safe. i went through the tire front axle weight rating thing myself. front axle weight rating whether you have a sticker saying 14000# or not does'nt mean squat if the tires are not designed and have the ply rating to handle the 14000#. all in all though, the truck is very nice and should give comfort and durability for years to come. congratulations, TNT

 

[LDB]

My eyes weren't good enough the first time I looked at the itty bitty pictures and still aren't now to positively determine what the front tires are but that's a good point. The guy I talked to with the Volvo T/T set up for 14k front axle had hefty front tires. They weren't the gigantic blocky ones you see on mixers or dumps but were definitely heavier than the standard 6250# tire. You could tell from 20 yards away so the scale house people could look out the window and tell when he rolled across the scale. I'm sure that's what keeps him from being pulled in all the time. That's an important point in general. As Phil confirmed, the tandems are so far forward under the box it would be impossible to transfer weight to the front but for others it's an important fyi point.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5507, 5508, 5509
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[greg334]

Ok I got it all now but I am still a little confused by the Pounds per Square Inch issue.

I mean take the 600 PSI limit, what is the contact area for a tire? for 20K that means that the surface area must be at leasts 16.5 sqaure inches per tire or am I wrong in my assumption that this is how it is measured?

 

[jaminjim]

Greg, Me thinks that it is 600lbs times tire width, not foot print. That applies when some states don't just have limit on total weight on the axle. The six hundred can vary by state.

Now about that TV.......

 

[LDB]

Well, 20,000/600 is 33.34/4 is 8.34 square inches per tire on a tandem rear axle. Using the Goodyear G302 drive tire as a reference it has a retread base width of 8.875 inches. I'm no engineer but I'm guessing the width of tire contact patch is similar so we could presume there's 8.34 inches minimum tread width on the ground. I would make a WAG, since my truck isn't here to go look at, that there's 1.5-2 inches minimum of fore/aft tread on the ground. If that's the case then there's a 50-100% larger contact patch than the minimum required. These are all non-scientific guesstimates from looking at tire info on the web here http://tinyurl.com/nes3l and picturing the truck in my head.

Leo Bricker, 73's K5LDB, OOIDA 677319
Owner, Panther trucks 5507, 5508, 5509
Highway Watch Participant, Truckerbuddy
EO Forum Moderator
----------
Support the entire Constitution, not just the parts you like.

 

[davekc]

>Dave, I'm with you on wondering about the secrecy and the
>engineers. The truck does'nt appear to be anything new.
====================================================
Some have to create controversy when they can't think to write about anything.
Many knew of both truck builds.
The second turned out alot better than the first one we seen in Fort Wayne.


Davekc
owner
21 years
PantherII
EO moderator

 

[greg334]

> I have seen two of the Volvo 770 sleepers streched to
>somewhere around 10 to 11 feet. looked kind of neat. Must be
>some very good welders, because I could see no seam and no
>warp at all. But I did see them from across the Interstate.
>
>Funny thing was I saw them just a few days apart and have
>not seen one again.

I have seen some really good work on a few Volvos that are used in the EC world, they are not used to haul freight so they are more of a static design with static payloads. One had a stretched sleeper, the design was well thought out, the flow into the box was done really nice and the sleeper/cab still retained the air ride system. Talking to the owner of the truck he said it took the conversion company a month to do the work from start to finish (which didn't include a chandlier) and another month to get the comm box all finished with the gear, generators and wiring - not bad for the amount of work done. I guess my point is that it can be and is done a lot.

 

[ATeam]

my only problem is with your front axle
>itself. i know its a 14000# axle with all the components but
>from the pictures the front tires look of normal size and
>generally 6250# is the weight a standard ply truck tire
>gives you and the dot only recognizes 6000#. i realize you
>have been over and over this but look at the tire weight
>rating printed on the tire itself just one more time to be
>safe.

You raise a valid concern; one that was considered in the build. The steer tires are 295/80R22.5H. Load rating printed on the side of each steer tire is 7830 lbs; meaning the steer tires themselves could legally carry 15,660 lbs. Thus, the limiting factor is the manufacturer's GVWR, which is 14,600.

We considered the pounds per square inch issue as well and included 9-inch rims on the front. That's because in some states, the tire width is not measured by the width of the tire but the width of the rims. Either way, we're fine.

 

[Glen Rice]

Wow what a cool truck! You guys really did your homework and turned a bad situation into a home run! Wait till the rest of the Expediting community gets to check out your unit! The quality and attention to detail are obvious. Janice and I wish you all the succes you both deserve. With your business sense and work ethic you two will set a standardfor the rest of us to strive for. Again we love your truck and patriotic theme!
Your friends for life,
Glen and Janice

 

[cheri1122]

Considering the source, that is about the highest praise one could hope for, Glen - good to hear from you! And I agree, it is a sweet ride indeed.

 

[ATeam]

Moot said,

"Maybe over the next couple of months you could share with
>us some of the decisions and rationale behind the specing of
>this truck. I would be interested in why you chose Volvo?
>I know your last truck was a Western Star. Why a class 8?
>Have you ever run a 7. Is there much of a loss in fuel
>enconomy going with a twin screw? Do you see a loss in
>revenue with the "C" unit.

The first step is to list all the specs in one place. Then I can provide the rationale behind each one. The specs can now be read at:

http://successfulexpediters.com/Madsen/MadsenTruckSpecs.htm

Rationale to follow.

 

[ATeam]

Moot wrote, "Maybe over the next couple of months you could share with us some of the decisions and rationale behind the specing of
this truck. I would be interested in why you chose Volvo?"

I had some time to do some writing today (Saturday). With the specs section done, I've started the comments and discussion. As you will see, it is a work in progress.

Spec'ing a custom truck is no small task. In writing this piece, I'm creating the document I wish Diane and would have had when we first began the process. It is my way of giving back the time and advice numerous drivers shared with us when we asked them about their truck specs and builds.

http://successfulexpediters.com/Madsen/MadsenTruckSpecs.htm#Comments

 

[ATeam]

Moot wrote,

Is there much of a loss in fuel
>enconomy going with a twin screw?

Do you see a loss in
>revenue with the "C" unit.


We looked into the twin screw fuel economy issue before making the twin screw decision. There is no hard data source out there that we found that directly answers the question. Dual drive axles (twin screws) have two fuel economy disadvantages compared to a single drive axle. First, they put four more tires on the ground, thus increasing rolling resistance and degrading fuel economy. Second, the additional drive-train mechanisms (gears, axles, bearings, etc) of the second drive axle adds friction to the overall drive train, also degrading fuel economy. Having interviewed a number of people who we thought might know, and finding none who had anything more than a general idea, we came to believe that twin screws will degrade fuel economy by about 0.2 mpg when compared to a single drive axle/lift axle configuration, when the lift axle is raised.

The 0.2 mpg we heard from others was consistent with the results of experiments we made using lift-axle-equipped trucks. We ran trucks with lift-axles up and down for extended periods of time and observed about a 0.2 mpg fuel economy loss with the lift axle down.

Regarding the C-unit/D-unit revenue difference, that question is perhaps best answered by looking at the FedEx Custom Critical fleet averages. Those appeared in another thread after you asked your question, Moot. See:

http://www.expeditersonline.com/dcforum/DCForumID2/2015.html#13

You will see the difference between C-unit teams and D-unit teams is negligable. One half-way-decent load would bring Cs and Ds to equal status. While we have barely one month's worth of revenue to refer to, our personal, one-truck change from DR to CR is consistent with what the fleet averages say. We have seen no significant difference in revenue between the two unit types. In other words, we're doing just as well with a CR unit as we did with a DR unit.