Jump to content

leyland daf 8x6 drops info


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 210
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Just like a previous encounter I will now bow out of this debate, and leave others to decide who's advice to take, as there is no place for arguments on a forum like this.

 

 

no need to bow out Paul, your input is great...and to be honest sometimes it takes a heads up for people to take notice...as I don't carry my 432 on the DROP's I have never been that concerned but checking the numbers which is the correct way means a 432 is very close to the maximums...it needs to be checked properly...and with a weighbridge.

 

its too close to be left to chance...so to say the DROPs is okay with a 432 is wrong, everyone needs to check their particular vehicle and loadings...the 432 is very close to limits..

 

and dont forget folks its the running weight, ie full tank in the daf driver on board..all tools etc...so do the checks.

 

I will get mine weighbridged and let you know...it is the responsible way and the way the forum can help us all...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said I will bow out I will just have a small addendum to the simple GVW issues outlined already, based on the Army assessment as I recall it:

 

Stability - both on the road and loading - are seriously compromised by the maximum payload with a CofG much higher than the design 0.5 m which was the case for 155mm ULC or MLRS SPL (which were the loads for which the system was designed and built). These things do not just lift an inside wheel, they fall over, very suddenly, very dramatically and very comprehensively, and sadly even the best drivers bum is no indication that the point of no return is about to be reached.

 

Load restraint. Even at the capacities advised in the HSE guidance securing a 432 properly onto a GS FR is problematic. Lashing points, such as they are, are only rated at 1.5t (and even then there is no certification paperwork). The dimensions also make it difficult to ensure that lashings are set at less than 60 degrees. Because of the additional stresses imposed by loading and unloading JSP71 (The Joint Service Loading and Restraint authority) specified that the standard restraint rules for DROPS were increased by a factor of 2 - that is to say that the restraint system should be capable of holding 2xweigh forwards, 1xweight sideways and 1.5x weight rearwards.

 

I am sure that there are other issues, such as second axle loading, but the above were the reasons why it never carried 423 in service.

 

And now, I promise, I will shut up!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having said I will bow out I will just have a small addendum to the simple GVW issues outlined already, based on the Army assessment as I recall it:

 

Stability - both on the road and loading - are seriously compromised by the maximum payload with a CofG much higher than the design 0.5 m which was the case for 155mm ULC or MLRS SPL (which were the loads for which the system was designed and built). These things do not just lift an inside wheel, they fall over, very suddenly, very dramatically and very comprehensively, and sadly even the best drivers bum is no indication that the point of no return is about to be reached.

 

Load restraint. Even at the capacities advised in the HSE guidance securing a 432 properly onto a GS FR is problematic. Lashing points, such as they are, are only rated at 1.5t (and even then there is no certification paperwork). The dimensions also make it difficult to ensure that lashings are set at less than 60 degrees. Because of the additional stresses imposed by loading and unloading JSP71 (The Joint Service Loading and Restraint authority) specified that the standard restraint rules for DROPS were increased by a factor of 2 - that is to say that the restraint system should be capable of holding 2xweigh forwards, 1xweight sideways and 1.5x weight rearwards.

 

I am sure that there are other issues, such as second axle loading, but the above were the reasons why it never carried 423 in service.

 

And now, I promise, I will shut up!!

 

Its the same with almost all eight wheelers, the suspension is so hard they don't give they topple, there is a roundabout on the a3 that is notorious for trucks tipping over....most people will use it on the way to overlord...it has loads of warnings but still trucks go in too fast and brake too late and try to take the roundabout just too fast and over they go...about once a month...a few years ago anyway, not so many these days I would guess but I have not checked in years...

 

crossing hatching the 432 works for sure, using 10 ratchet straps and 20 ton chains doubles you have ample strength, especially using the actual frame as the lashing point not any hook points etc..those that there are...

 

regarding strapping the thing is not going to go forward as there is a bloody great frame stopping it, we have fixed a wooden stop to stop rubbing of metal to metal on the MTLBso it isn't going forward. the load sliding sideways as I have said we have fitted a 2 inch strip of angle iron to the inside of each track on the frame,,it would have to lift 2 inches to get past them...chained down and basically very solid means there is absolutely no movement.

 

metal tracks as well no rubber pads to give it a bit of grip...the MTLB is only 11,900 kgs and mine is relatively stripped inside so not even that...plus it does not have the turret...has a lower centre of gravity than a 432, but I have to say they are not dissimilar and I have never had a single issue with my modified rack...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well now its started I have to do this...sorry guys...

 

the daf is 15,000 kgs with a rack, or thereabout.

 

the 432 can be up to 13750 kgs

 

the daf can legally only carry 30,000kgs. it has steel suspension.

 

so you could be very close to the legal limit..

 

I would have the combination weighed prior to driving...ideally you will need to

 

1. make sure you know the exact weight of your 432...if it is close to 15 tons you are heading into very tricky scenarios.

2. take the daf and have it weighbridged fully loaded with fuel...and everything you will normally carry including the said rack..i suspect this will be close to 15 tons or more.

3. make sure the combination does not exceed 30 tons. wheel loading should be checked but be aware that our tyres are classed as supper singles they are over 300mm wide...so the same as twin wheels...in most circumstances...so its unlikely you will exceed 19,000 kgs on the rear bogies, but you must have the load as far forward as possible.

 

however you may have to unload the 432 of any fuel, and removable parts and put them on a small trailer behind the truck...tools spare tyres etc

 

for my peace of mind I am going to the weighbridge next week, my daf is having a full service so is off the road at the moment. as soon as we have the new oil pressure switch sorted we will go test it and our 432 too..

 

i think paulnob1 is getting his gross and tare weights confused, rustytrucks is speaking from experience and knowledge of the facts, if you really fancy a drops thats fine, but dont justify it by asking it to do something that is unsafe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

told you it was a here we go again.

 

DROPS manufacturers GVW is claimed to be 32500 kg's, how ever its Authorised maximum weight in the UK is 30,000 kgs....it can carry including its own weight 30,000kgs legally....this is the GVW in the UK on UK roads...it is not the manufacturers GVW....

 

its Tare weight, is this unloaded but with a rack weight, or should we call the tare weight without a rack..hence my words...I think my explanation was clear enough and I was not getting my terms wrong...your comments were totally unhelpful.

 

generalities are now pointless as we are talking details and a DAF DROPs with a 432 on is not unsafe unless you drive it like a loon or use the wrong rack or mount it incorrectly but then that is the same for any truck...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is nothing to do with the current debate but it may be of interest to some as technically it is not a truck.

 

It was procured as a weapon system. MMLC looks like a truck and drives like a truck but it was designed and built for the sole purpose of delivering vast quantities of artillery ammunition and engineer stores (mostly anti tank bar mines) to support 1 (Br) Corps hold the advancing Soviet army until either a diplomatic solution was found or tactical nuclear weapons were used. In the early days MMLC and IMMLC were even considered as a candidate for C vehicle status (ie plant) because of the very limited role envisaged. It is not and was never a GS truck.

 

The design brief was very narrow indeed and a difficult one to achieve, a delicate balance (if you pardon the expression) of a determination by the MOD centre to comply with construction and use whilst a the same time meeting the ammunition throughput requirements; hence the caution consistently expressed by myself regarding its use as a GS vehicle. As I have said before, even putting it on the next sized tyres (insisted upon by MOD in order to improve the ground clearance to the levels demanded by the medium mobility design specification) caused the first-off model out on its maiden voyage to capsize in front of the assembled good and great at RARDE - and that was just driving in a lazy circle in front of them.

 

That's said it was quite clear that the vehicles could be used for other purposes, but in this regard, and noting the above, instead of MT staffs working it out for themselves in the time honoured fashion with trim sheets and a decent dose of common sense, each and every load and its associated restraint scheme for DROPS had to be designed, developed, if necessary trialled, then published in JSP71.

 

It is further worth noting that the flatracks were designed and built to be used once for a one-shot delivery of said ammunition, from the depots, through the DROP system, to the guns/launchers/minelayers, where, like pallets, they would simply be abandoned. As such they were not subjected to any sort of reliability, battlefield day of life-cycle testing, and neither were they expected to be used again and again in peacetime except in certain controlled training circumstances. I rather like the one-way street of racks in the event of war because as presumably the abandoned empty racks would double up as decent obstacles to thwart the progress of the advance of 3rd Shock Army.

 

All of this design, development and procurement was a quarter of a century ago. Since then, of course, elements of the DROP system have been used extensively all over the place and many have suffered the ravages of time; at times over the years the fleet has even been subject to "track mileage" constraints. During my last few years in service (including my time as the chap responsible for the training of every single DROPS operator and instructor across the 3 services) the fleet were routinely grounded for one reason or another, including lots of cracking of various structural components.

 

So you will forgive my caution I am sure. I should, of course, do what I said I would do and shut up, but having lived DROPS quite literally from pre-cradle to pretty much grave I just like to ensure that history and hard won experience is not lost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of the structural problems arise around the t-box mountings either through a lack of greasing the props or loose bolts, working with these trucks there is always 2 grease points always forgotten and that is the ones inside the swivel joints on the front axle, these then dry up and cause heavy steering.

 

Flatracks - these are given am inspection every 2 years on a 932(I) and check for:

 

1. Straightness of frame

2. Frame bars that the planks secure to are straight and there

3. Planks are secure, not rotten and don't prove to be a trip hazard (level at joins etc)

4. Locking bars in place

5. A frame is straight and in damaged with all welds examined

6. Bail bar checked for wear with a gauge (size unsure I shall get back to you) if undersized is welded up by metal smiths

7. General nicks/burs to be ground off

8. Load lashing rails secure and not damaged (little bends in rod sections are accepted)

9. Paint of frame and white centre line

10. ISO fixing points if applicable to the rack as there are multiple styles including an engineer style for carrying rocks/soil

 

Just a little bit of info for owners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have four racks,

one 15 ton rack std, used to haul hay.

One 10 ton welded with extra supports, ramps and filled in with steel mesh instead of wooden boards.

one 15 ton rack modified to carry the MTLB....it has a 2 inch upstand on the inside edge of each track and an extra wide strip of flat plate upon which the tracks sit. It is a wider load but not over the legal limits for marker boards. we do use marker boards anyway...

one ten ton with loads of bits on it awaiting preparation.

 

I will take her off to the weight bridge and have a check on the weights once I have the oil pressure switch sorted.

 

I have heard about these grease nipple points and Andy has checked they are all good.

 

I know the difference between stable and tipping over is very close but I have never felt the DAF was ready to go, ever and I have played with this one on slab common with a stalwart on the back...

 

I was reading about the problems the army had with logistics in some of the cold war material I am amassing for the COld War museum. the sheer logistical effort, it was clear that after 6-8 days of fighting there would be no stores left in BAOR, and resupply a real issue. Trucks only fodens and similar trucks just could not be loaded quickly enough using forklifts. The DROPS system was supposed to reduce the delay by not having trucks waiting to have their loads forklifted on...so reducing loading time and waiting time...all good.

 

lets hope we never need them in anger in Europe....

 

its why in my opinion every single one should be given to us collectors with a grant to keep them in tip top working order, much cheaper than keeping them in the army. then if a war every started we have a couple of thousand spare army trucks to help with the resupply...do you think I should propose this to the government...

 

we could set up civilian reserve groups, just like the TA but different.

 

using old kit but still useable kit...the racks for the latest man trucks are no different I presume...? anyone know if this is true or not...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will never feel whether its about to fall over, when the centre of gravity steps outside the baseline it tips over. That's physics!

I have been lucky enough to have had experience of roll over awareness training (in a 44tonne truck with outriggers)

There is no warning and we were getting it to roll at speeds as low as 8mph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You will never feel whether its about to fall over, when the centre of gravity steps outside the baseline it tips over. That's physics!

I have been lucky enough to have had experience of roll over awareness training (in a 44tonne truck with outriggers)

There is no warning and we were getting it to roll at speeds as low as 8mph

 

 

I told you it was a here we go again moment.

 

the centre of gravity is the static load, ie if you tip a vehicle over to a point where the center of gravity, pointing vertically down, points outside of the width of the base or outside of the wheels of the truck it will tip over, no forward or reverse motion needed, However if you take the same vehicle and drive it around a flat bend with no camber angle at a given speed the reaction to the centripetal force can induce a roll over...the roundabout on the a3.

 

Most people drive the roundabout at a speed that does not induce a roll over...some don't..anyone driving a vehicle around a bend will feel the forces involved. if those forces are great enough to topple the vehicle he is in trouble....the only safe thing to do is not to put yourself at the risk in the first place...ie don't drive so fast, such that the truck will roll over with the forces involved...the sharper the bend the more risk of rollover...

 

just like any truck car bike etc etc...so slow into the bend and drive out of it...don't enter an unknown bend with too much speed, brake well before the bend, etc

 

don't do anything drastic mid bend...etc etc...

 

if you do find your in a bad place turn out of the bend, not into it, remove the speed as gently as you can, if you have a trailer the trailer will go well before you in the tractor unit will...and this is more dangerous that a rigid truck...

 

if your load is high and the CofG consequently high you will need to drive that much slower...simple...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I told you it was a here we go again moment.

 

the centre of gravity is the static load, ie if you tip a vehicle over to a point where the center of gravity, pointing vertically down, points outside of the width of the base or outside of the wheels of the truck it will tip over, no forward or reverse motion needed, However if you take the same vehicle and drive it around a flat bend with no camber angle at a given speed the reaction to the centripetal force can induce a roll over...the roundabout on the a3.

 

Most people drive the roundabout at a speed that does not induce a roll over...some don't..anyone driving a vehicle around a bend will feel the forces involved. if those forces are great enough to topple the vehicle he is in trouble....the only safe thing to do is not to put yourself at the risk in the first place...ie don't drive so fast, such that the truck will roll over with the forces involved...the sharper the bend the more risk of rollover...

 

just like any truck car bike etc etc...so slow into the bend and drive out of it...don't enter an unknown bend with too much speed, brake well before the bend, etc

 

don't do anything drastic mid bend...etc etc...

 

if you do find your in a bad place turn out of the bend, not into it, remove the speed as gently as you can, if you have a trailer the trailer will go well before you in the tractor unit will...and this is more dangerous that a rigid truck...

 

if your load is high and the CofG consequently high you will need to drive that much slower...simple...

 

You obviously have all the answers and the driving experience to cope with all situations so crack on and just hope that you keep it pointing the right way up

Link to comment
Share on other sites

fingers crossed....having the answers doesn't mean I know it all, that's why this forum is so good, someone out there always knows a bit more and has more experience on a topic than one of us... and that builds on all of our experiences without us having to necessarily have the bad experience ourselves...we can learn from everyone.

 

the 432 issue keeps coming around with the DROP's but many many people use them for exactly that....roll over will always be a risk in any vehicle if you drive like a loon...these are our toys now, drive them like they are precious and I am sure all will be fine...

 

This forum has some of the most knowledgeable people on our hobby that i have ever known, please don't ever stop posting because of some know it all... as I said there is always someone who knows just that bit more...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that there is always someone who knows more, very true, so why not listen to the wise advice you have been given.

There is a good reason why the army didn't use them for this purpose, it's dangerous, end of story. Paulbrook has explained chapter and verse. Not if but when it rolls over the chances of seriously injuring or killing people must be pretty high and when your insurance co. look into it I don't fancy your chances. With the plans you have in hand it seems to me you would be much better advised to get yourself a lowloader,you can't put a price on peoples lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

her we go again...someone who reads part of the post not it all...peoples opinions and ideas are what they have. some people know more than others about things it doesn't mean they are the only choice and it does not mean they are right..it just means they know a bit more...

 

if you had read the thread I might be inclined to discuss it but since you haven't its really pointless me responding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the sub-topic of rolling over - a lorry is not like a car or a Landrover in that there is all too often little or no warning the unit is going to go. And when it does go there is absolutely nothing you can do stop it. RL's and Knockers were stable load platforms but I've been in an RL that rolled and seen a Knocker go over. Both were loaded with palletised shipments and were loaded and lashed by the book.

The RL was being driven by an older, experienced NCO so no excessive speed etc. yet on a bend on a back road in Germany it rolled. One moment all was normal the next the horizon was describing a slow arc. Luckily neither of us were hurt bar cuts and bruises. Accident investigators could only assume the slight negative camber on the road was the cause. Neither of us had felt any abnormal bumps and the driver said he felt nothing through the wheel etc. till gravity made its presence felt.

Road was blocked for hours whilst the army cleared the load and then the truck.

 

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am still doing the here we go moment...

 

as I said all vehicles given the right incentive will topple over, simple as, speed is and always will be the most significant factor on a normal road...loading and type of vehicle will always be a factor but a stable truck when stationary can only be made unstable if a force acts upon it...movement is the major force. Combine that movement with an additional force, ie a change in directions, and you get newtons first law a body will continue in a straight line until a force is applied to it...if the only force is the friction of the wheels turning said vehicle the top will continue straight, hence the topple..its pretty basic physics...slow down...

 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=EG4VtbRpfyo

 

 

the second series is very interesting....

 

I should add that there is no such thing as centrifugal force, it is newtons first law of motion that causes the roll over...

Edited by paulob1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

her we go again...someone who reads part of the post not it all...peoples opinions and ideas are what they have. some people know more than others about things it doesn't mean they are the only choice and it does not mean they are right..it just means they know a bit more...

 

if you had read the thread I might be inclined to discuss it but since you haven't its really pointless me responding...

 

For your information I have followed this thread from its inception and have had a lifetimes experience of LGV's.

You are attempting to defend the indefensible so I have no intention of getting into an argument and will post no more on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have at times given advice /views and been castigated for it in deed banned for it. I have given this advice/ views when things are not as they seem and really think I am right. But I have learnt when people don't hear what they want to hear you are wrong. So my only and last comment on this subject

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and on we go

 

now teaching the world the rights and wrongs of individuality. We all have views, we all have opinions, which is right and which is wrong is an interesting debate..because the first thing we have to do is debate what is right and what is wrong...

 

I will try it like this.

 

DROPs plus 432 dangerous, some people say, they say it is because the army felt the truck was too unstable for their needs. SO good advice don't drive like the army planned to drive them... good advice. thanks for that...

DROPs plus 432 in civilian hands that have rolled over NON REPORTED as there has been no major backlash as warned due to this...I suspect this to be the truth.

 

who is right and who is wrong.

 

so the good advice from Paul and others has been well heeded and safety ensues...

 

lessons learned and life goes on...

 

Peoples opinions and knowledge are helpful and add to ones individual knowledge. It makes us all that bit safer in all we do. It does not mean we don't listen it means we take in the advice and act according to our new knowledge and drive maybe a bit more carefully...or strap it on a bit more securely or double check the limits to make sure we are within them.

 

It shouldn't mean we have to take assaults upon our integrity as the likes of some feel they have to do...and especially from people who shoot the messenger without actually reading the message....but I believe in a free speech world so keep them coming is all I say. Just don't expect me to be quiet. I will always defend my place..

 

Driving is a risky business no matter what you do....I am not sure if you are aware that there were just 1700 deaths in 2013, the lowest number of deaths on the road since 2026 when records were collated...we must all be doing something right...keep up the good work...still 138,000 accidents were reported to the Police. thats 378 accidents a day. there are 22 million cars on the road, that relates to a 0.0000017% chance of any of us having an accident. when you add this to 303 billion miles per year by all the vehicles it is a tiny proportion....

 

BUT the more we learn the less likely we are to have accidents...so to everyone who has given up on the debate, understand that your words are your words, what an individual does is his right to do, don't be offended if not everyone agrees with you because that is the way of the world, don't be put off because you think no one listens some do some don't, if by saying something you raise awareness and reduce the risk that is a great thing that has been done...be proud of it....

 

I for instance am amazed that anyone can actually think this country was better off under labour. the pain we have now is all because they very nearly bankrupted us...the Cons are doing their very best to save us from a fate like Greece where Germany is dictating the show for them...I am sure we would love to be in that boat, if labour get back in they will do exactly the same as they have been doing for years...ruining the country...why on earth cant people see this...the truck WILL fall over if they vote labour...hmm I wonder why they don't see this. I wonder....

 

Perhaps truth isn't quite what it seems...

 

I hope I have made myself clear...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the polarizing issue in this thread that DROPs may be unsafe with 432's due to the weight and height of the load carried or that carrying any armored vehicles (say lighter ones) using DROPS is still not a good idea? I am pondering whether DROPs would be a nice solution to move Saracen or Fox, which I just bought and working to import to US. I own a 5 ton (m923a2), but hauling either Saracen or Fox would require a trailer, which means yet another piece of equipment to store, register, maintain, etc. For me, driving a combination would be much more difficult, especially backing up and parking, vs. a rigid body DROPs platform. Especially the guys that are anti DROPs, what are your opinions whether Saracen or Fox is a viable use? Fox is lighter, but it does have a sizeable turret, which makes it top heavy!

 

I realize that I could simply drive Fox and Saracen, but I want to have options if I go longer than 50 miles and seems like hauling longer distance would be easier than driving armor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oh no, this will never end...

 

The Fox won itself a reputation for rollovers, some say unfairly some say not....on the back of a DROPS its combined centre of gravity will be even higher...however I go back to the basics...

 

drive a drops at speed around a bend unloaded and it will topple, drive a ford racing puma at speed around a bend and it will roll....if you drive like a loon both can become dangerous...

 

driven carefully any load can be accommodate. Those anti-DROPs are generally non users of them. There appear to be some historical data that related to the Army and how they used them. There are a hell of a lot of DROPs out there and a hell of a lot of them carrying 432's and other such machines.

 

You do not need a DROPs to effect a roll over just drive anything like a loon...however driven carefully you are highly unlikely to encounter a roll over event...nothing is impossible but facts say that they are safe...

 

however to clarify beyond all the emotion.

 

GVW (authorised on UK roads) is 30,000 kgs

a DROPS with the rack is 15,250kgs to be confirmed.

a FV432 is at least 13,700 kgs. and may be over 15,000kgs

 

this is very close to a fully loaded vehicle and could actually be over in the UK....that's big trouble in the UK.

 

I will take my drops this month to the weigh bridge and then take a 432 on my Foden to do the same, it will be an interesting exercise...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Datadawg - The debate is specifically about 432 but the principles are much the same.

 

Fox at just under 7 tons and relatively small in relation to the size of the loadbed (and therefore allowing a decent tie-down scheme) is likely to have a CofG of 1.2m or thereabouts (just over half the overall height) will impose an overturning moment broadly similar to twice the weight at half the height of C of G (which is the case for 155mm ULC) and would therefore in my considered opinion be an acceptable load.

 

Saracen at 11 tons and a similar height CofG to the Fox would, however impose a much greater overturning moment. Not as bad as a 432, but still outside the design parameters.

 

Both loads, however, would be unlikely to cause any one axle to be overloaded depending on US rules and regulations. With that in mind I leave you to make your own determination!

 

As well as the road situation it must also be remembered that the flatrack and load have to be hoisted on and off the vehicle, during which the potential for issues is much magnified, yet seems to have been forgotten thus far in this exchange. The idea of marginal loads being loaded or unloaded in the vicinity of the general public by untrained and unqualified operators makes me shudder!

Edited by paulbrook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...