Trailer lash down points.

[Agrismith]

I am curious. Do you mean movement in the tyres or movement in the suspension?

If the tyres are touching the bed of the carrying vehicle, what method is there of strapping something down that bypasses their movement? Let the tyres down so the rims are touching the bed? Block solid between the axle and the bed? Does it apply only to pneumatic tyres and not solid ones as found on forklifts and scissor lifts?

It's the pneumatic tyres as the reports are all about jcbs cranes and dumpers which don't have suspension although suspension may be a factor as if you look at most car transporters the cars are secured by the wheels rather than the chassis.
For jcbs you have to transport them with the jack legs down and the bucket down. For mobile cranes again recommended to transport with jack legs down. For bigger tyred kit then yes wooden blocks are used to stop the movement. It's only a problem on big vehicles that movement could apply all the force to a single chain in excess of that it's rated. It's not a problem for small kit like site dumpers as they are far lighter

 

[fizzy]

I will never forget the tragic accident where a recovery lorry carrying a minibus and passengers who were on a stag night crashed into the back of an artic. 6 of the 7 people on board the recover lorry were killed.
Ironically if they had been allowed to stay in the minibus they would have been fine. The poor driver certainly lashed his load properly. The mini bus was fine but the whole crew cab had gone.
I won't post the piccy here it is too grim.

 

[Mick Annick]

It's the pneumatic tyres as the reports are all about jcbs cranes and dumpers which don't have suspension although suspension may be a factor as if you look at most car transporters the cars are secured by the wheels rather than the chassis.
For jcbs you have to transport them with the jack legs down and the bucket down. For mobile cranes again recommended to transport with jack legs down. For bigger tyred kit then yes wooden blocks are used to stop the movement. It's only a problem on big vehicles that movement could apply all the force to a single chain in excess of that it's rated. It's not a problem for small kit like site dumpers as they are far lighter

Car transporters - if you’re easily bored look away now.

Until the late 1980’s cars were normally tied down by chains or straps using the towing eyes (all Austin Rover Group stuff) or suspension components (everyone else), but then Ford introduced the T hook, which went into a slot in the underside of the car put there for the purpose. The only problem with all of these was all the shocks of travelling on the back of a truck over our lovely smooth roads was transmitted to the car - even more so with the T hook as it was directly connected to the monocoque.

This hitherto hadn’t been too much of a problem, but around this same time ECU’s and other delicate electronics were becoming more commonplace in cars, and these do not like mechanical shocks, witnessed by rising component failures and warranty claims - the MkIII Granada / Scorpio was from memory badly affected - and this led to the introduction of over-the-wheel (not around the wheel so beloved of recovery operators) tie down, which combined with chocks meant the car was free to float on its suspension thus reducing the shock loading.

Thanks for reading.

 

[fizzy]

Car transporters - if you’re easily bored look away now.

Until the late 1980’s cars were normally tied down by chains or straps using the towing eyes (all Austin Rover Group stuff) or suspension components (everyone else), but then Ford introduced the T hook, which went into a slot in the underside of the car put there for the purpose. The only problem with all of these was all the shocks of travelling on the back of a truck over our lovely smooth roads was transmitted to the car - even more so with the T hook as it was directly connected to the monocoque.

This hitherto hadn’t been too much of a problem, but around this same time ECU’s and other delicate electronics were becoming more commonplace in cars, and these do not like mechanical shocks, witnessed by rising component failures and warranty claims - the MkIII Granada / Scorpio was from memory badly affected - and this led to the introduction of over-the-wheel (not around the wheel so beloved of recovery operators) tie down, which combined with chocks meant the car was free to float on its suspension thus reducing the shock loading.

Thanks for reading.

Didn't some cars have something inserted into the coil or attached to the axle to limit suspension travel during transport? Supposed to be removed at the pdi. Can't remember the name of them now. I had a brand new Focus hire car which was rather firm to say the least. Had to take it back to free up the suspension. This was around 2002 ish.

 

[Mick Annick]

Didn't some cars have something inserted into the coil or attached to the axle to limit suspension travel during transport? Supposed to be removed at the pdi. Can't remember the name of them now. I had a brand new Focus hire car which was rather firm to say the least. Had to take it back to free up the suspension. This was around 2002 ish.

Yes you’re right - lots of manufacturers used them to prevent the car from bouncing - a particular problem in the UK as we use triple deck transporters unlike the rest of Europe who have a 4m height limit, the extra deck means there’s less tolerance and more risk of roof damage through hitting the deck above, so anything to reduce the bounce was thought good, but yes, very often forgotten at PDI.

I forgot to mention above - the driving factor for the introduction of the T hook was standardisation - drivers were causing too much damage to suspension components and brake pipes because the tie down points were loosely defined - at least for once Austin Rover got something right!