40 ton lorry stopping distance?

[Ronald Tompkins]

Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

[Ret.]

On 13/02/2012 18:29, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

You are the Rev'd and I claim my £5.00

--
Kev


Be who you are and say what you feel because those
who mind don't matter and those who matter don't
mind.

- Dr. Seuss

[Mrcheerful]

Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

probably around 50 metres, a table is here of comparisons at various speeds.
Have you ever considered using Google?

http://www.ukmotorists.com/hgv%20braking%20distances.asp

[Mike]

Laden or unladen?

[Mentalguy2k8]

"Mike" <no...@gonefishing.net> wrote in message
news:jhbndk$cuj$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

It's easiest to use Google unladen.

[Ian]

"Ronald Tompkins" <%%@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:jhbkpl$639$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Depends if there is an extremely thick brick wall at the end of it.....

Seriously: the load has probably got a lot to do with things. I don't drive
HGV, but used to drive large vehicles with fairly fragile self-loading
freight on board.

The general idea was to take as long as possible in an emergency stop....
not just anchor the brakes to the floor regardless.

If driving a load of steel girders, no matter how well chained down, I think
I would be aware of all those blunt javelins behind me if I stopped the
lorry but the girders kept on coming.

And, FWIW, a Sheffield doubledeck electric tramcar could stop within its own
length from 30mph (but could its passengers?)
>

[R. Mark Clayton]

"Ronald Tompkins" <%%@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:jhbkpl$639$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

According to the Highway Code 212 feet or ~65m. (V + V**2/20 feet) (V in
mph)

In reality an alert driver in a well maintained truck with an ABS system
should get close to the theoretical minimum which would be about 40m. (0.3v
+ v**2/g) (v in any units/sec)

It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 13:28:07 -0000
"R. Mark Clayton" <nospam...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>In reality an alert driver in a well maintained truck with an ABS system
>should get close to the theoretical minimum which would be about 40m. (0.3v
>+ v**2/g) (v in any units/sec)
>
>It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight

Really? Have they got magic brakes that somehow grow their brake pads
if the truck is loaded?

B2003

[Mrcheerful]

as weight increases so does grip

[Clive]

In message <jhdral$cc1$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, bolta...@boltar.world
writes

I thought you had more sense. Greater weight on the roadwheels mean
more power can be applied to the brakes before skidding. Perhaps
you've never seen an empty HGV skid it's rear wheels.
--
Clive

[bolta...@boltar.world]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:27:56 +0000
Clive <cl...@yewbank.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight
>>Really? Have they got magic brakes that somehow grow their brake pads
>>if the truck is loaded?
>I thought you had more sense. Greater weight on the roadwheels mean
>more power can be applied to the brakes before skidding. Perhaps
>you've never seen an empty HGV skid it's rear wheels.

I have , but greater weight also means more energy that the brakes have to
disperse and there'll be a point at which they reach their limit. The same
laws of physics that applies to car stopping distances also applies to trucks.
I'd have thought that was pretty obvious.

B2003

[Mrcheerful]

cars weight does not vary as much. Lorry speed is limited so that stopping
distances are not excessive. Lorries have many more (and larger) tyres to
increase the possible stopping 'patch', the larger diameter also allows for
huger brakes.

[Nkosi (ama-ecosse)]

On Feb 15, 11:43 am, "Mrcheerful" <g.odonnel...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> huger brakes.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

a 17 ton truck to stop from 50 mph in 10 seconds(if that is possible)
would require 38.7 tons of force applied to its brakes for the 10
second period.

Nkosi

[Martin]

I am sure you have no idea how much force needs to be applied to the
brakes (I guess lorries have standard callipers and disk brakes do
they?) because you don't know the friction properties of the braking
system, areas, how many actual braking mechanisms there are, the effect
of temperature on the braking system, the mass and thermal properties of
the system and loads of other factors.

When you know all the factors THEN you can state how many newtons need
to be applied to the pads, I can't see it being 38 tons (by which I am
assuming you mean 340kN rather than mass)

[Cynic]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 14:32:53 +0000 (UTC), bolta...@boltar.world
wrote:

I suspect that they have perfectly normal tyres that increase their
road friction as the weight increases.

With modern vehicles the limiting factor is the tyre-to-road adhesion
rather than brake friction.

--
Cynic

[A_Random_Bloke]

I would guess.. a little bit more than this very lucky guy had!
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/ryedale/9545350.Lorry_driver_flown_to_hospital_after_bridge_crash_on_A64/?ref=fbrec

[OG]

So, back to the original question, "what's the rough stopping distance

[royp...@googlemail.com]

On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed
Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn 5 m behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph.

Tragedies just waiting to happen

[Omega]

wrote in message
news:547d8576-74cb-48c5...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed

..............................

A thousand metres???

omega

..............................

[Phi.]

<royp...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:547d8576-74cb-48c5...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins
> wrote:
>> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a
>> 40
>> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
>

It depends on what it hits.

[Tarcap]

wrote in message
news:547d8576-74cb-48c5...@googlegroups.com...

On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed

They could stop within a thousand metres without using the brakes at all.

[Eednud]

I doubt they take 1000m to stop. More like 100m.

--
Eednud

[Fredxxx]

Agreed, why the hatchback doesn't move across into an empty LH lane
beggars belief.

[Simon Mason]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 17:57:24 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:

> >
> > Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn 5 m
> > behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph.
> >
> > Tragedies just waiting to happen
>
>
> Agreed, why the hatchback doesn't move across into an empty LH lane
> beggars belief.

To let the restricted to 56mph HGV pass at 60mph plus?
How will it manage that without breaking the law and/or defeating the speed limiter?

--

Simon Mason

[Judith]

On Tue, 23 Dec 2014 10:03:52 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

What precisely has that go to do with you or the car impeding the lorry's
progress?

[Let It Be]

You have a problem there old son, HGVs are only allowed to travel by law at
56 mph maximum on such roads - so if you see truck that close to a car in
front it ain't doing 60mph!

I have a daughter who drives 44 ton arctics on all types of roads and she
has lots of stories to tell about car drivers who travel too slow in lanes 1
and 2 (she isn't allowed by law to use lane 3 to overtake them) and if it
happens in lane 2, the aforesaid idiot of a car driver very often refuses to
increase speed or move into lane 1 (even though it is now against the law to
travel in lanes 2 and 3 unless you are actually overtaking) - and remember
that HGV drivers have restricted driving hours.

Yep "Tragedies just waiting to happen" and very often those "Tragedies" are
caused by the incompetent car drivers.

If it wasn't for her quick thinking, she would have wiped two of them out of
existence last week when (at different times) the overtook her doing her
maximum 56 mph and pulled in front of her too close and for no reason,
reduced their speed to around 40mph for no particular reason - all caught on
her trucks dash-cams though!

[Simon Mason]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 19:30:58 UTC, Let It Be wrote:
> royp...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> >> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> >> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
> >
> > Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed
> > Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn
> > 5 m behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph.
> >
> > Tragedies just waiting to happen
>
> You have a problem there old son, HGVs are only allowed to travel by law at
> 56 mph maximum on such roads - so if you see truck that close to a car in
> front it ain't doing 60mph!
>

I think they are *allowed* to travel at 60mph on motorways, BUT as you say, they are limited to 56mph by the speed limiter, so in practice they won't be overtaking any car doing 60mph.

--

Simon Mason

[Flop]

On 23/12/2014 17:20, Tarcap wrote:
>
>

They have.

See the second (A120) part of the story:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-30391284



--

Flop

Insanity is hereditary, you get it from your children

[Fredxxx]

It just goes to show how inaccurate Tarcap is about their own
speedometer and/or judging other's speeds.

More's the reason for the hatchback to move to the LH lane if they're
only doing 56 or likely way less.

[Tarcap]

"Fredxxx" wrote in message news:m7e7r8$8ut$1...@dont-email.me...

On 23/12/2014 18:03, Simon Mason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 17:57:24 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn 5 m
>>> behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph.
>>>
>>> Tragedies just waiting to happen
>>
>>
>> Agreed, why the hatchback doesn't move across into an empty LH lane
>> beggars belief.
>
> To let the restricted to 56mph HGV pass at 60mph plus?
> How will it manage that without breaking the law and/or defeating the
> speed limiter?

It just goes to show how inaccurate Tarcap is about their own
speedometer and/or judging other's speeds.

?????
You'll have to show me where I mentioned anything about speed at all,
because I can't find it.

[Simon Mason]

Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane. If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to put some distance in before going back to my original speed.

--

Simon Mason

[Fredxxx]

Many humble apologies, I should have referred to the OP.

However your newsreader didn't add any ">>" such that the post included
text attributed to yourself.

[Ophelia]

"Simon Mason" <swld...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ed6cf560-242e-400d...@googlegroups.com...

Some drivers don't only do this to trucks. I have a Shogun and they do it
to me too:( I've lost count of the times I've had to break hard when some
loonie overtakes close and then slows right down:( Yes I do run a dash cam
and I reckon I need it!


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Fredxxx]

If I'm not in a hurry, I'll often stick behind a HGV to make sure I
drive at a constant speed and in the hope I might conserve a little fuel[1]!


[1] Whether the drag reduces fuel consumption, or the increased
turbulence increases it, who knows!

[Ophelia]

"Fredxxx" <fre...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:m7eena$q0$1...@dont-email.me...

Nor do I, but it is a good idea:)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

[Simon Mason]

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:

> >
> > Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane.
> > If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to
> > put some distance in before going back to my original speed.
>
> If I'm not in a hurry, I'll often stick behind a HGV to make sure I

> drive at a constant speed and in the hope I might conserve a little fuel!

I tend to do that on holiday. I do around 3500 miles of driving around Europe each summer and will often just sit in behind an HGV and eke out my fuel (less wind resistance) which can cost around £1000, so every little helps.

Another reason is you tend to stay out of trouble in places like Ukraine, because cameras and roadside cops can't see you in villages and nutcases in big Mercs can't crash into you head on as they overtake a long line of cars in the other carriageway.

--

Simon Mason

[Norman Wells]

Simon Mason wrote:
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
>> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane.
>>> If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to
>>> put some distance in before going back to my original speed.
>>
>> If I'm not in a hurry, I'll often stick behind a HGV to make sure I
>> drive at a constant speed and in the hope I might conserve a little
>> fuel!
>
> I tend to do that on holiday. I do around 3500 miles of driving
> around Europe each summer and will often just sit in behind an HGV
> and eke out my fuel (less wind resistance) which can cost around
> £1000, so every little helps.

Let's see. £1000 will buy you 800 litres of fuel at £1.25 per litre),
which is about 176 gallons, so you're doing less than 20 mpg.

You'd save far more by getting something a bit more fuel efficient.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <031e4383-7357-4ce5...@googlegroups.com>,
Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes

>On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
>> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane.
>> > If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to
>> > put some distance in before going back to my original speed.

I often do exactly the opposite, ie slow down slightly (sufficient for
the HGV to feel obliged to pass me), then return to my original speed.

>>
>> If I'm not in a hurry, I'll often stick behind a HGV to make sure I
>> drive at a constant speed and in the hope I might conserve a little fuel!
>
>I tend to do that on holiday. I do around 3500 miles of driving around
>Europe each summer and will often just sit in behind an HGV and eke out
>my fuel (less wind resistance) which can cost around £1000, so every
>little helps.
>
>Another reason is you tend to stay out of trouble in places like
>Ukraine, because cameras and roadside cops can't see you in villages
>and nutcases in big Mercs can't crash into you head on as they overtake
>a long line of cars in the other carriageway.
>

If you're following an HGV doing around 56mph, you should be far enough
behind not to be able to benefit from his drag.
>
>

--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <03ee6bef-6e8b-44ab...@googlegroups.com>,
Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes

When I'm pootling along at around what must be at least a genuine 70,
there's many an HGV I see up ahead that I should be gaining on fairly
rapidly, but in practice it seems to stay well in the distance for a
very long time indeed. Either I'm not doing 70, or they're not doing 56.

--
Ian

[Simon Mason]

If an HGV is going down a steepish hill or long drag, they can easily top 56mph.

--

Simon Mason

[Simon Mason]

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 20:52:09 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <031e4383-7357-4ce5...@googlegroups.com>,
> Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes
> >On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
> >> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:
> >
> >> >
> >> > Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane.
> >> > If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to
> >> > put some distance in before going back to my original speed.
>
> I often do exactly the opposite, ie slow down slightly (sufficient for
> the HGV to feel obliged to pass me), then return to my original speed.

I will do that if a car is getting too close, i.e, force it to overtake, but for a lorry, overtaking is a big manoeuvre, so I would rather they did not have to risk doing it to me.

--

Simon Mason

[Ian Jackson]

In message <3d989bcc-02c3-40b4...@googlegroups.com>,

Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes
>On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 20:52:09 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> In message <031e4383-7357-4ce5...@googlegroups.com>,
>> Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes
>> >On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
>> >> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:
>> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside lane.
>> >> > If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it to 70mph to
>> >> > put some distance in before going back to my original speed.
>>
>> I often do exactly the opposite, ie slow down slightly (sufficient for
>> the HGV to feel obliged to pass me), then return to my original speed.
>
>I will do that if a car is getting too close, i.e, force it to
>overtake, but for a lorry, overtaking is a big manoeuvre, so I would
>rather they did not have to risk doing it to me.

Big manoeuvre or not, it never seems to deter one HGV driver going at
56mph from instinctively trying to overtake another going at
55.9999999mph!
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <d55ba2a7-3b15-4593...@googlegroups.com>,

In that case, there must be some VERY long steepish hills on our UK
motorways (some of them well over ten minutes long).
--
Ian

[Judith]

On Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:29:26 -0800 (PST), Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com>
wrote:

So how close to the vehicle in front are you when you slip-stream them?

Less than your stopping distance perhaps.

It sounds like you drive your car just like you ride your push-bike.

[Let It Be]

Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <3d989bcc-02c3-40b4...@googlegroups.com>,
> Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes
>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 20:52:09 UTC, Ian Jackson wrote:
>>> In message <031e4383-7357-4ce5...@googlegroups.com>,
>>> Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes
>>>> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 13:23:16 UTC, Fredxxx wrote:
>>>>> On 24/12/2014 12:14, Simon Mason wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sometimes I will drive at 50-55 mph on motorways in the inside
>>>>>> lane. If I see an HGV behind me gaining ground, I will boot it
>>>>>> to 70mph to put some distance in before going back to my
>>>>>> original speed.
>>>
>>> I often do exactly the opposite, ie slow down slightly (sufficient
>>> for the HGV to feel obliged to pass me), then return to my original
>>> speed.
>>
>> I will do that if a car is getting too close, i.e, force it to
>> overtake, but for a lorry, overtaking is a big manoeuvre, so I would
>> rather they did not have to risk doing it to me.
>
> Big manoeuvre or not, it never seems to deter one HGV driver going at
> 56mph from instinctively trying to overtake another going at
> 55.9999999mph!

+1

And I have had the odd argument/discussion with daughter over this over the
years that she's been driving the HGVs.

From one discussion a while back, she did admit that she (and others) do it
simply out of boredom or to 'piss off' car drivers that have been giving
them grief - that admittance did raise the heat of the discussion a little.
:-)

When things cooled down a little, she then posed the question "why do car
drivers persist in trying to overtake her truck when negotiating a
roundabout and then blowing their horns and swearing at her when the rear of
her trailer 'pushes' them near to the roundabout edge due to the angle of
the turn?" My reply was simply they are poor/incompetent drivers for not
'sussing' that this happens when some 50 - 60 feet of metal on wheels goes
around a bend or corner - or idiots trying to get 'there' a little faster!

[Simon Mason]

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 23:32:58 UTC, Let It Be wrote:

>
> From one discussion a while back, she did admit that she (and others) do it
> simply out of boredom or to 'piss off' car drivers that have been giving
> them grief - that admittance did raise the heat of the discussion a little.
> :-)
>

If an HGV driver decides to play silly buggers by tailgating me, then I always have the option of booting it to 130mph which of course they don't have :-)

--

Simon Mason

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ebecc89a-994c-4da6...@googlegroups.com>,
Simon Mason <swld...@gmail.com> writes

Bully for you, Sunshine. Wow! However, for us ordinary plebs, 85 to
90mph is probably more than enough.

--
Ian

[Simon Mason]

Only on derestricted autobahns, of course :-)

--

Simon Mason

[terryv8s...@gmail.com]

44t driver, 3 football pitches!! Scary when being braked checked!!

[terryv8s...@gmail.com]

U can carry approx 26 ton on a trailer! And yes it makes a huge difference, try drivin ur car wid a 2.5 ton weight in the boot!

[terryv8s...@gmail.com]

Some people! Anyone heard of momentum? Kinetic energy? I drive these trucks, trust me, fully freighted, idiot car driver brake checkes me cos i flash to say turn ur fog light off!! Yeah theres stainage!!

[Let It Be]

What's all this bullshit about?

My daughter drives such vehicles for a living and after listening to me
reading your posts to her over the 'phone - she reckons you should:

a) Learn the English language.
b) Keep a your distance from the vehicle in front.
c) If you can't handle the glare of a cars low-level rear fog lamp when
sitting up high in the tractor unit - and for losing your temper at such an
incident - you should surrender your HGV licence (if you actually have one)
on the grounds that you are mentally unfit to drive such a vehicle (or any
vehicle for that matter).
d) You should *never* be trusted!

Oh, and she asks the question, if you do *legitimately* hold a licence to
drive such a vehicle, do you have the legally required CPC to go with it as
well?

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 13 February 2012 18:29:09 UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Using the formula [used] in the Highway Code 213feet or just under sixty-five metres, however the distances have not been updated since the days of rod operated drum brakes and cross ply tyres.

If the lorry driver is alert and the lorry has ABS and disk brakes then a much lower figure should be achievable in the region of 35 to 40 metres.

It WON'T matter whether the lorry is loaded or not, although I would not like to make such a stop in a half full tanker or fire engine...

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 15:35:58 UTC, royp...@googlemail.com wrote:

> On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
>

> Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed
> Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn 5 m behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph.

No they will be doing less than 60mph. These small family hatchbacks are being driven by members of the middle lane owners club, and won't pull over [into the usually empty inside lane] to let lorries [that are not allowed in the outside lane] to overtake. In a car you have to pull out two lanes and then back to get past them. These are the ones who should get tickets to sit a theory test.

There was an amusing letter in the RAC magazine many years ago from a motorist complaining about lorries inches from his bumper with full beam on. Their reply was polite, but to paraphrase it was "FFS pull over!".

>
> Tragedies just waiting to happen

Yes ignorant or inconsiderate drivers making things difficult for other road users and they would be much safer in the inside lane where they should be.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Wednesday, 11 November 2015 14:46:59 UTC, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 15:35:58 UTC, royp...@googlemail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> > > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> > > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
> >
> > Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed

I forgot to respond to this bit. Answer given elsewhere in this thread, however even a train (with shiny steel wheels on shiny steel rails) can stop from 100kmph (52mph) in 250m, so 1km is just nonsense.

[graham...@gmail.com]

Anyone know how I calculate a 12 ton HGV doing 30KMPH (in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

[Norman Wells]

<graham...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d0cfce2-0af8-4199...@googlegroups.com...

>
> Anyone know how I calculate a 12 ton HGV doing 30KMPH (in an emergency stop)on a
> dry surface?

Depends what you want to calculate.

[Graham T]

On 10/11/2015 21:21, terryv8s...@gmail.com wrote:
> 44t driver, 3 football pitches!! Scary when being braked checked!!
>

At what speed?

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 13 February 2012 18:29:09 UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:
> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40

> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Highway code answer: -

212' 9.6" 64.86m

Modern conditions, alert driver, disk brakes, ABS - probably about 40 - 45m.

BTW it's the same for a car.

Theoretical minimum 31.975m

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Wednesday, 15 February 2017 14:28:27 UTC, graham...@gmail.com wrote:
> Anyone know how I calculate a 12 ton HGV doing 30KMPH (in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Highway code (official answer) 36'4" - 11m

Modern vehicle (disk brakes, ABS) and alert driver probably about 7m

same for a car.

[Judith]

On Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:28:25 -0800 (PST), graham...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>Anyone know how I calculate a 12 ton HGV doing 30KMPH (in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

Simon Mason who posts here may have an answer: he has some relevant personal
experience.

[Davey]

"doing 30KMPH" he said.

--
Davey.

[Norman Wells]

"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message news:o82tgi$asf$5...@dont-email.me...

Thirty thousand miles an hour?

[R. Mark Clayton]

No kilometres per hour.

[Davey]

That's what he says there. An asteroid, perhaps?

--
Davey.

[Norman Wells]

"Jeff" <je...@ukra.com> wrote in message news:o840q1$1v20$1...@gioia.aioe.org...

>
>>>> "doing 30KMPH" he said.
>>>
>>> Thirty thousand miles an hour?
>>
>> That's what he says there. An asteroid, perhaps?
>

> No; that would be 30kMPH.
>
> A capital K is the symbol for Kelvin, not a 1000X multiplier, which is a lower
> case k.

And the abbreviation for metre is a lower case m not an upper case one. You're just
playing pic'n'mix to get to what you want.

[burfordTjustice]

google.com

[dhen...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:58:07 UTC+5:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> "Ronald Tompkins" <%%@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:jhbkpl$639$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

> > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40

> > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
>
> According to the Highway Code 212 feet or ~65m. (V + V**2/20 feet) (V in
> mph)
>
> In reality an alert driver in a well maintained truck with an ABS system
> should get close to the theoretical minimum which would be about 40m. (0.3v
> + v**2/g) (v in any units/sec)
>
> It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight

If you're stating that the weight of the truck or how what that load is doesn't affect the stopping distance, you clearly are talking from your derriere. Liquid loads, high loads, steel pipes, how the load is positioned and the weight alone will increase your stopping distance and affect how the vehicle behaves under braking. Hope to god you don't drive trucks for a living

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 13 February 2012 18:29:09 UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:

> Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?

According to the 60 year old + figures in the highway code 212 feet. Assuming an alert driver, disk brakes and ABS (most if not all trucks have these now) then it can probably pull up in about 40m.

To answer the other question it should not matter whether the lorry is laden or not.

[R. Mark Clayton]

You haven't got physics CSE - have you? Whilst an unstable load could interfere with braking, for properly loaded vehicle with adequate brakes, it won't alter the stopping distance.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Tuesday, 23 December 2014 15:35:58 UTC, royp...@googlemail.com wrote:
> On Monday, February 13, 2012 6:29:09 PM UTC, Ronald Tompkins wrote:

> > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
>

> Nearly a kilometre if fully laden should be allowed

Rubbish.

> Trucks are very dangerous vehicles and I see them daily at less tahn 5 m behind a small family hatchback on the M62 travelling at 60mph [with all lights blazing].

Very silly and likely to get an FPN, however usual reason for this is the brain dead MLOC member in the hatchback who will NOT pull back into the inside lane despite doing just 50mph.

[Phi]

"R. Mark Clayton" <notya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9aaa5b79-3cf0-4a55...@googlegroups.com...

Here is a good one. https://imgur.com/gallery/2udtfPh

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I saw something like that outside my house once. A young boy cycled straight across the road in front of a tractor. The tractor stopped on a hair's breadth, and the boy stopped inbetween the tractor and the trailer.

--
A woman storms into her boss's office with this complaint:
"All the other women in the office are suing you for sexual harassment.
"Since you haven't sexually harassed me, I'm suing you for discrimination."

[James Wilkinson Sword]

You're out of your mind. If a lorry can stop in x distance when empty, it will take longer to stop if it's heavier. The same brakes and tyres have to dissipate a lot more energy/momentum.

--
Lord of the undone flies - the island of reluctant but inevitable homosexuality.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

A car shouldn't be doing less than 70 on a motorway in the first place.

--
I don't know how many of you have tasted authentic English Beer.
Once in London, I was asked what I thought of a particular brew.
I told my host that it really should be poured back into the horse.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Fill your car with heavy stuff. Brake.
Now empty your car. Brake.
Notice the difference.

--
Peter is listening to The Who - Behind Blue Eyes

[R. Mark Clayton]

And they do. True on a long descent relying on mechanical brakes a lorry or even a car (happened to me briefly once a third of a century ago - scary) can suffer brake fade, but a 21st century lorry can easily stop from its maximum legal speed without problem.

Kinetic friction is determined by the coefficient of friction and the normal force, and for any vehicle the normal force is its weight, so the braking force is proportional to the weight of the vehicle and consequently the stopping distance the stopping distance the same regardless of load.

Do read up before, out of your own ignorance, suggesting insanity in other posters again.


Other theories debunked, but still believed by those with very low educational attainment: -


Earth is Flat - debunked ~1492 by Columbus
Sun goes round the earth - debunked ~1532 by Copernicus
Brexit will be wonderful - debunked 2018 when pound fell below Euro

[R. Mark Clayton]

No.

Why don't you try it!

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 14:30:04 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, 24 November 2017 21:17:37 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:39:31 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:47:58 UTC, dhen...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:58:07 UTC+5:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>> >> > "Ronald Tompkins" <%%@invalid.com> wrote in message
>> >> > news:jhbkpl$639$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
>> >> > > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
>> >> > > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
>> >> >
>> >> > According to the Highway Code 212 feet or ~65m. (V + V**2/20 feet) (V in
>> >> > mph)
>> >> >
>> >> > In reality an alert driver in a well maintained truck with an ABS system
>> >> > should get close to the theoretical minimum which would be about 40m. (0.3v
>> >> > + v**2/g) (v in any units/sec)
>> >> >
>> >> > It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight
>> >>
>> >> If you're stating that the weight of the truck or how what that load is doesn't affect the stopping distance, you clearly are talking from your derriere. Liquid loads, high loads, steel pipes, how the load is positioned and the weight alone will increase your stopping distance and affect how the vehicle behaves under braking. Hope to god you don't drive trucks for a living
>> >
>> > You haven't got physics CSE - have you? Whilst an unstable load could interfere with braking, for properly loaded vehicle with adequate brakes, it won't alter the stopping distance.
>>
>> You're out of your mind. If a lorry can stop in x distance when empty, it will take longer to stop if it's heavier. The same brakes and tyres have to dissipate a lot more energy/momentum.
>
> And they do. True on a long descent relying on mechanical brakes a lorry or even a car (happened to me briefly once a third of a century ago - scary) can suffer brake fade, but a 21st century lorry can easily stop from its maximum legal speed without problem.

I've had car brakes smell funny on a long descent in the French Alps - the only time I've ever used engine braking.

> Kinetic friction is determined by the coefficient of friction and the normal force, and for any vehicle the normal force is its weight, so the braking force is proportional to the weight of the vehicle and consequently the stopping distance the stopping distance the same regardless of load.
>
> Do read up before, out of your own ignorance, suggesting insanity in other posters again.

I know all about friction coefficients, having a degree in Physics. I do admit I didn't think about the above in terms of Physics, but applied common sense - which would tell us that a heavy thing is more difficult to stop!

Anyway, if you're referring to the tyres perhaps you're correct [1]. But the coefficient of friction in the brakes is determined by the pressure the brake pads exert on the disks, which is nothing to do with the load. Unless you're claiming the brakes are powerful enough to (almost) lock up the wheels with a full load?

[1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.

--
Peter is listening to "Motley Crue - Chicks = Trouble"

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Have done. Handling sux with a heavy car.

--
Mary had a little skirt
With slits right up the sides
And everytime she crossed her legs
The boys could see her thighs

Mary had another skirt
With a slit right up the front
She never wore that one...

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.

--
If colouring wasn't added to Coca-Cola, it would be green.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

And, you're assuming the load is exactly even in the trailer. If one or more trailer axels have the same load over them (since the heavy thing has been placed elsewhere), those axels cannot brake any more than in the lighter lorry.

--
Many of the world's greatest runners come from Kenya because they have a unique training program there -- it's called a lion.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 18:09:47 -0000, pamela <inv...@nospam.com> wrote:

> On 14:30 25 Nov 2017, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
>>
>> .....

>>
>> And they do. True on a long descent relying on mechanical
>> brakes a lorry or even a car (happened to me briefly once a
>> third of a century ago - scary) can suffer brake fade, but a
>> 21st century lorry can easily stop from its maximum legal speed
>> without problem.
>>
>> Kinetic friction is determined by the coefficient of friction
>> and the normal force, and for any vehicle the normal force is
>> its weight, so the braking force is proportional to the weight
>> of the vehicle and consequently the stopping distance the
>> stopping distance the same regardless of load.
>>
>> Do read up before, out of your own ignorance, suggesting
>> insanity in other posters again.
>>
>>
>> Other theories debunked, but still believed by those with very
>> low educational attainment: -
>>
>>
>> Earth is Flat - debunked ~1492 by Columbus
>>
>> Sun goes round the earth - debunked ~1532 by Copernicus
>>
>> Brexit will be wonderful - debunked 2018 when pound fell below
>> Euro
>

> That last one is worrying! :)

There are more important things in life than worrying about values of pounds.

--
It is impossible to hold a sandwich between your elbows and eat it.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 15:29:35 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 14:30:04 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, 24 November 2017 21:17:37 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:39:31 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sunday, 19 November 2017 13:47:58 UTC, dhen...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> On Tuesday, 14 February 2012 18:58:07 UTC+5:30, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> >> >> > "Ronald Tompkins" <%%@invalid.com> wrote in message
> >> >> > news:jhbkpl$639$2...@speranza.aioe.org...
> >> >> > > Out of interest,anyone know the rough stopping distance of a 40
> >> >> > > ton HGV doing 56mph(in an emergency stop)on a dry surface?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > According to the Highway Code 212 feet or ~65m. (V + V**2/20 feet) (V in
> >> >> > mph)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > In reality an alert driver in a well maintained truck with an ABS system
> >> >> > should get close to the theoretical minimum which would be about 40m. (0.3v
> >> >> > + v**2/g) (v in any units/sec)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It won't matter how loaded the truck up to its plate weight
> >> >>
> >> >> If you're stating that the weight of the truck or how what that load is doesn't affect the stopping distance, you clearly are talking from your derriere. Liquid loads, high loads, steel pipes, how the load is positioned and the weight alone will increase your stopping distance and affect how the vehicle behaves under braking. Hope to god you don't drive trucks for a living
> >> >
> >> > You haven't got physics CSE - have you? Whilst an unstable load could interfere with braking, for properly loaded vehicle with adequate brakes, it won't alter the stopping distance.
> >>
> >> You're out of your mind. If a lorry can stop in x distance when empty, it will take longer to stop if it's heavier. The same brakes and tyres have to dissipate a lot more energy/momentum.
> >
> > And they do. True on a long descent relying on mechanical brakes a lorry or even a car (happened to me briefly once a third of a century ago - scary) can suffer brake fade, but a 21st century lorry can easily stop from its maximum legal speed without problem.
>
> I've had car brakes smell funny on a long descent in the French Alps - the only time I've ever used engine braking.
>
> > Kinetic friction is determined by the coefficient of friction and the normal force, and for any vehicle the normal force is its weight, so the braking force is proportional to the weight of the vehicle and consequently the stopping distance the stopping distance the same regardless of load.
> >
> > Do read up before, out of your own ignorance, suggesting insanity in other posters again.
>
> I know all about friction coefficients, having a degree in Physics. I do admit I didn't think about the above in terms of Physics, but applied common sense - which would tell us that a heavy thing is more difficult to stop!
>

Jeez. Walt Disney University?

> I do admit I didn't think about the above in terms of Physics, but applied common sense - which would tell us that a heavy thing is more difficult to stop!

A heavy thing is more difficult to stop. Physics tells us that the frictional force available to stop it is proportional to how heavy it is.

> >
> > Anyway, if you're referring to the tyres perhaps you're correct [1]. But the coefficient of friction in the brakes is determined by the pressure the brake pads exert on the disks, which is nothing to do with the load. Unless you're claiming the brakes are powerful enough to (almost) lock up the wheels with a full load?

Disk brakes will routinely lock up the wheels under full load, which is why Dunlop invented the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxaret system to prevent skidding. It was put on planes first, then trucks (I remember the Tomorrow's world program on it) and famously about fifty years ago on the Jensen FF. Modern electronic ABS is even better.

> >
> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.

In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.

>
> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.

It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.

[R. Mark Clayton]

yet funnily enough the axles / wheels with more load on them brake more.

You are really have trouble getting your head around very simple ideas.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Dundee.

>> I do admit I didn't think about the above in terms of Physics, but applied common sense - which would tell us that a heavy thing is more difficult to stop!
>
> A heavy thing is more difficult to stop. Physics tells us that the frictional force available to stop it is proportional to how heavy it is.

Not my experience in cars, but then cars are probably not designed to carry heavy loads. And most people probably have brakes that are well under their deign specifications. Do lorries have stricter checks?

>> > Anyway, if you're referring to the tyres perhaps you're correct [1]. But the coefficient of friction in the brakes is determined by the pressure the brake pads exert on the disks, which is nothing to do with the load. Unless you're claiming the brakes are powerful enough to (almost) lock up the wheels with a full load?
>
> Disk brakes will routinely lock up the wheels under full load, which is why Dunlop invented the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxaret system to prevent skidding. It was put on planes first, then trucks (I remember the Tomorrow's world program on it) and famously about fifty years ago on the Jensen FF. Modern electronic ABS is even better.

I've never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load. The tyres give in first when the vehicle is empty, the brakes give in first if it's heavy.

>> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.
>
> In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.

I know nothing about tyre deformation, pleas explain.

>> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.
>
> It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.

Only if you have amazingly good tyres and brakes that can handle a huge uneven load.

--
My penis is 12 inches long, but I don't use it as a rule.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

You're oversimplifying. Uneven loads cause problems. Loads shift. Loads are more on one side than the other causing a swerve, etc, etc.

--
As the coffin was being lowered into the ground at a Traffic Wardens funeral, a voice from inside screams:
"I'm not dead, I'm not dead. Let me out!"
The Vicar smiles, leans forward sucking air through his teeth and mutters:
"Too late pal, I've already done the paperwork"

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:50:27 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:16:13 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 25 November 2017 15:41:43 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:32:15 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:29:30 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 14:30:04 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Friday, 24 November 2017 21:17:37 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:39:31 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

SNIP

> >> >>>> >
> >> >>>> > You haven't got physics CSE - have you?
> >> >>>> > Whilst an unstable load could interfere with braking,

====================================================

> >> >>>> > for properly loaded vehicle with adequate brakes,
> >> >>>> > it won't alter the stopping distance.

====================================
SNIP

>
> You're oversimplifying. Uneven loads cause problems. Loads shift. Loads are more on one side than the other causing a swerve, etc, etc.

Indeed they can which is why I qualified my assertion. You just didn't bother to read it. Why not read it now.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:13:33 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

SNIP

>
> I've never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load.

Seen it, everyone will have seen long black marks on the motorway from lorry wheel lock ups.

> The tyres give in first when the vehicle is empty, the brakes give in first if it's heavy.

Neither give in on vehicles used within plate limits.

>
> >> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.
> >
> > In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.
>
> I know nothing about tyre deformation, pleas explain.

If you put a big load on a tyre it flattens a bit. This is normal. On my car they recommend slightly higher pressure for a car full with luggage and / or high speed.

>
> >> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.
> >
> > It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.
>
> Only if you have amazingly good tyres and brakes that can handle a huge uneven load.

You may have noticed that lorries have more wheels and / or bigger tyres under the heavily loaded parts.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:59:29 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:13:33 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
> SNIP
>
>> I've never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load.
>
> Seen it, everyone will have seen long black marks on the motorway from lorry wheel lock ups.

I don't remember writing the above, what have you done with the context?

>> The tyres give in first when the vehicle is empty, the brakes give in first if it's heavy.
>
> Neither give in on vehicles used within plate limits.

And if the brakes are perfect. Brakes gradually get weaker with age.

>> >> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.
>> >
>> > In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.
>>
>> I know nothing about tyre deformation, pleas explain.
>
> If you put a big load on a tyre it flattens a bit. This is normal. On my car they recommend slightly higher pressure for a car full with luggage and / or high speed.

And you assume all lorries will have exactly the right pressure for the load?

>> >> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.
>> >
>> > It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.
>>
>> Only if you have amazingly good tyres and brakes that can handle a huge uneven load.
>
> You may have noticed that lorries have more wheels and / or bigger tyres under the heavily loaded parts.

If they're not up in the air.

--
This guy's in the rear of a full elevator and he shouts, "Ballroom please."
A lady standing in front of him turns around and says, "I'm sorry, I didn't realize I was crowding you."

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Since you've done two heavy snips, there's zero context left, so I can't.

--
All this "expressionism" in art, personally I think things ought to look like things. To me it's fairly easy to
tell what the artists are trying to say with their smears and swirls -- they're trying to say they can't paint worth a damn.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 27 November 2017 16:05:59 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:52:34 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:50:27 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:16:13 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Saturday, 25 November 2017 15:41:43 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:32:15 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 15:29:30 -0000, James Wilkinson Sword <imv...@somewear.com> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 14:30:04 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On Friday, 24 November 2017 21:17:37 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> >> >>>> On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 15:39:31 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> >> >>>> >
> >> >> >>>> > You haven't got physics CSE - have you?
> >> >> >>>> > Whilst an unstable load could interfere with braking,
> > ====================================================
> >
> >> >> >>>> > for properly loaded vehicle with adequate brakes,
> >> >> >>>> > it won't alter the stopping distance.
> > ====================================
> > SNIP
> >
> >>
> >> You're oversimplifying. Uneven loads cause problems. Loads shift. Loads are more on one side than the other causing a swerve, etc, etc.
> >
> > Indeed they can which is why I qualified my assertion. You just didn't bother to read it. Why not read it now.
>
> Since you've done two heavy snips, there's zero context left, so I can't.
>

Only after your comment about uneven loads so that the part referring to that was next to your comment ignoring what had already been stated.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 27 November 2017 15:50:20 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:59:29 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:13:33 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >
> > SNIP
> >
> >> I've never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load.
> >
> > Seen it, everyone will have seen long black marks on the motorway from lorry wheel lock ups.
>
> I don't remember writing the above,

Funny it was in your post of Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC

> what have you done with the context?

Snip the previous stuff - the statement that you had never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load stood alone.

>
> >> The tyres give in first when the vehicle is empty, the brakes give in first if it's heavy.
> >
> > Neither give in on vehicles used within plate limits.
>
> And if the brakes are perfect. Brakes gradually get weaker with age.

Ever heard of MOT tests? Brake efficiency a key part.

>
> >> >> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.
> >> >
> >> > In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.
> >>
> >> I know nothing about tyre deformation, pleas explain.
> >
> > If you put a big load on a tyre it flattens a bit. This is normal. On my car they recommend slightly higher pressure for a car full with luggage and / or high speed.
>
> And you assume all lorries will have exactly the right pressure for the load?

Most will have the right pressure. Extra wheels and tyres on heavily loaded axles provide fails safe in event of punture.

>
> >> >> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.
> >> >
> >> > It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.
> >>
> >> Only if you have amazingly good tyres and brakes that can handle a huge uneven load.
> >
> > You may have noticed that lorries have more wheels and / or bigger tyres under the heavily loaded parts.
>
> If they're not up in the air.

That's when they are empty and it DOESN'T matter.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

Just stop snipping so I can see what's talking about what.

--
People who live in glass houses should fuck in the basement.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 16:42:18 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 27 November 2017 15:50:20 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:59:29 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > On Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 25 Nov 2017 20:13:33 -0000, R. Mark Clayton <notya...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> > SNIP
>> >
>> >> I've never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load.
>> >
>> > Seen it, everyone will have seen long black marks on the motorway from lorry wheel lock ups.
>>
>> I don't remember writing the above,
>
> Funny it was in your post of Saturday, 25 November 2017 20:49:32 UTC

I can remember when to feed my cat, but why would I remember trivial conversations in newsgroups?

>> what have you done with the context?
>
> Snip the previous stuff - the statement that you had never experienced a vehicle skid with a heavy load stood alone.

Without context, the reader is not reminded of the conversation.

>> >> The tyres give in first when the vehicle is empty, the brakes give in first if it's heavy.
>> >
>> > Neither give in on vehicles used within plate limits.
>>
>> And if the brakes are perfect. Brakes gradually get weaker with age.
>
> Ever heard of MOT tests? Brake efficiency a key part.

And how often are those tests on lorries? My car is often extremely under the legal limit on the MOT test. And I do a lot less miles than some.

>> >> >> > [1] Although there could still be problems with the tyres distorting under heavy braking with a full load.
>> >> >
>> >> > In normal circumstances (as here) the coefficient of friction can not be greater than 1, so the force on any wheel cannot be greater than twice the normal load, the tyres will deflect, but not distort.
>> >>
>> >> I know nothing about tyre deformation, pleas explain.
>> >
>> > If you put a big load on a tyre it flattens a bit. This is normal. On my car they recommend slightly higher pressure for a car full with luggage and / or high speed.
>>
>> And you assume all lorries will have exactly the right pressure for the load?
>
> Most will have the right pressure. Extra wheels and tyres on heavily loaded axles provide fails safe in event of punture.
>
>> >> >> Also, you're assuming all the wheels have the load over them. The wheels under the cab don't have more load on them, so are now no longer as good at braking the whole weight of the trailer.
>> >> >
>> >> > It DOESN'T matter. The frictional force on each wheel will be proportional to the weight on it. Lorries don't fly, so the whole weight of the vehicle must be supported by the wheels and so the frictional force to stop it will ALL be available.
>> >>
>> >> Only if you have amazingly good tyres and brakes that can handle a huge uneven load.
>> >
>> > You may have noticed that lorries have more wheels and / or bigger tyres under the heavily loaded parts.
>>
>> If they're not up in the air.
>
> That's when they are empty and it DOESN'T matter.

Why do they do that? A google search provided lots of silly answers, manoeuvrability, and some nonsense about fiddling tax.

--
Viagra Lite
For people who only want to masturbate

Viagrallium
A mix of Viagra and Vallium: if you don't get to fuck, then you don't give a fuck.

[R. Mark Clayton]

On Monday, 27 November 2017 16:59:10 UTC, James Wilkinson Sword wrote:

You are just prevaricating now, you obviously know what you said is incorrect, but aren't prepared to admit it.

[James Wilkinson Sword]

I admitted earlier I didn't think of the original problem in terms of Physics, but guessed using common sense.

--
Suicidal twin kills sister by mistake!