Tracks and the road...

[ArtistsRifles]

Having read through the latest edition of CMV - and the article on Neil Culhams T34/85 and AT-LM being road legal without rubber tracks.

In the article Neil refers to regulation 28 of the Construction and Use regulation which reads:

 

1) Every part of every track of a track laying vehicle which comes into contact with the road shall be flat and have a width of not less than 12.5mm.

 

2) The area of the track which is in contact with the road shall not at any time be less than 225 sq cm in respect of every tonne (1000Kg) of the total weight which is transferred to the road by the tracks.

 

3) The tracks of a vehicle shall not have any defect which might damage the road or cause danger to any person on or in the vehicle or using the road and shall be properly adjusted and maintained in good and efficient working order.

 

Which got me wondering about the OT-90's tracks. From memory the math goes this way:

 

Links in contact with the ground/side: 24

 

Track width: 30.00 Cm

 

Cleat thickness: 1.25 Cm (Min)

 

Cleats per track link: 2.00

 

Ground Pressure: 0.60 Kg/Cm2

 

Weight: 12500.00 Kg

 

Area per track link: 75.00 Cm2 min

 

Area per track: 1800.00 Cm2

 

Total track area: 3600.00 Cm2

 

Therefore the Ground Pressure (Kg/Cm2) = 3.47 Kg/Cm2

 

For comparison the regulations seem to give an acceptable ground pressure figure of (1000/225) = 4.44 Kg/Cm2

 

Which would seem to indicate the OT-90 could possibly be used legally on the road (with great care) without the tracks being retro-fitted with rubber pads.

 

Can anyone see if I've dropped any clangers here???? Bet I have... :-(

[TooTallMike]

I talked to the chap at W&P with the small Russian tracked truck and the T34. They're both registered and driven regularly on the road on steel tracks. He said they only scratch the road surface and that washes off.

[ArtistsRifles]

Thats pretty much what he says in the article in CMV Mike. Seems to me that as the OT-90 is one fifth the weight of the T34 I should be OK...

 

But it seems too easy.........

[Mark]

I believe that if you damage the road surface and get caught, you are liable to pay for the damage, which would work out more than a set of rubber pads.

[ArtistsRifles]

True Mark. Thats my understanding and hence my concern - it seems too easy...

 

But do not the Consruction & Use Regulations take this into account when stating the given ground pressure that they do in part (2) of Regulation 28????

[simon in a 432]

Is there anywhere that you can get a copy (or look on the internet) of all the construction and use regulations?

[TooTallMike]

Thats pretty much what he says in the article in CMV Mike.

 

- I've not seen the article so I didn't realise it was the same guy. Sorry! :banghead:

[Nick Johns]

I remember many years ago when living at Camberley Surrey the fighting vehicle research est. used to run steel track tanks on the road between test tracks but they did so much damage to kerbs and tear up tarmac especially at junctions they were then forced to transport them

[Mark]

Be best to talk to someone on here who has a tank etc. and see what their interpretation of the law is, but everyone I know with one has rubber pads.....................................bitch in the wet though :whistle:

[ArtistsRifles]

Is there anywhere that you can get a copy (or look on the internet) of all the construction and use regulations?

 

 

I can only find various amendments on-line, not the full regulations other than for Northern Ireland (there it;s section 33, not 28).

However - I did find this site: http://www.askthe.police.uk so tought "what the hell" and asked the question there.... Be interesting to see if they reply and if they do - what the reply is!!!

[andyroo]

Be best to talk to someone on here who has a tank etc. and see what their interpretation of the law is, but everyone I know with one has rubber pads.....................................bitch in the wet though :whistle:

 

 

So's steel, many a steam road roller has been court out on a wet road, the differance though is they tend to be 1 wheel drive.

[snowtracdave]

Does HMSO still exist ? (Her majesty's Stationary Office) C&U regs were available from there . We used to have a bookshop here that was a stockist but it's long since gone . Don't remember if you can buy each section separately - the whole thing consists of a number of booklets covering different sections .

[Marmite!!]

Does HMSO still exist ?

 

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/about/hmso.htm

[ArtistsRifles]

On-line stuff only goes back to 87 though - seems the last actual issue of the whole thing was 1986.

All thats online are the amendments to various its such as use of mobile phones etc. :-(

[R Cubed]

I believe that if you damage the road surface and get caught, you are liable to pay for the damage, which would work out more than a set of rubber pads.

 

 

Just to through another track pad in the works, if you had rubber track pads like a 432 has, and the weather was hot, you carry out a turn and as the rubber pads are grippy on the tarmac it rips it up surley you are still liable, where as steel tracks could just scrap over the surface :dunno:

[R Cubed]

I can only find various amendments on-line, not the full regulations other than for Northern Ireland (there it;s section 33, not 28).

However - I did find this site: http://www.askthe.police.uk so tought "what the hell" and asked the question there.... Be interesting to see if they reply and if they do - what the reply is!!!

 

 

 

I have a copy of the above dated 1986 No 1078

 

The Road Vehicles (Construction and use) Regulations 1986

 

184 pages of contradictions !!!!

[ArtistsRifles]

Of course - it's a Gov't publication!!!!! :-)

 

Interesting point about the rubber pads in summer - how do the operators of those 3-axle artics get on then as they tend to churn the tarmac up in hot weather (well - around here they do) when turning into narrow openings or around 90 deg bends???? Never heard of our local authorities sueing the pants off them for road repairs.....

[Marmite!!]

Just to through another track pad in the works, if you had rubber track pads like a 432 has, and the weather was hot, you carry out a turn and as the rubber pads are grippy on the tarmac it rips it up surley you are still liable, where as steel tracks could just scrap over the surface :dunno:

 

 

Steel tracks can do a lot more damage when the tarmac is soft...

[AlienFTM]

Steel tracks can do a lot more damage when the tarmac is soft...

 

When the tarmac is soft, a Honda CB200B motorcycle can do nasty things to the tarmac.

 

In the long, hot summer of 76 I rode mine back from Sunderland to Tidworth one Sunday afternoon. Somewhere in Oxfordshire, my chosen route crossed a derelict railway line at a disused level crossing. The road ran parallel on one side, crossed, then parallen on the other. The line through these esses ought to have been a walk in the park, except that my front wheel didn't stick (despite Avon high-hysteresis tyres) and oops, tarmac rash. The tarmac laid over the railway tracks was not very deep and did not stick terribly well to its base in the heat.

 

Of course in those non-litigious days, it was all my own stupid fault.

[ArtistsRifles]

Steel tracks can do a lot more damage when the tarmac is soft...

 

 

But surely this is the crux of the whole discussion - if a vehicle does not exceed the ground pressure figure given in the C & U Regs it should not -(in theory) do any more damage than any other vehicle that requires a pivoting moment to turn such as a tri-axle artic!!!!

 

Or have I got hold of the wrong end of the stick here???? :dunno: :dunno:

[General Mayhem]

Steel tracks can do a lot more damage when the tarmac is soft...

 

 

Best to just bounce along on the turret then!

 

 

[ArtistsRifles]

OK - to try and get a definitive answer I've emailed the DVLA tonight. Lets wait and see what, if anything, they reply with!!

[ArtistsRifles]

Got a response from the DVLA tonight.. Really helpful.....

 

Thank you for your email.

 

I am afraid we cannot answer your enquiry at DVLA. Please contact:

 

 

Department for Transport (DfT),

 

:dunno: :dunno: :dunno: :dunno:

[TooTallMike]

I'll bet a tenner you won't get anyone in any department anywhere who'll put down in writing what you can and can't do with this. The DVLA, VOSA, DfT etc. all end their emails with something along the lines of "this only represents our opinion and it's ultimately down to you to choose". It sucks because the only way to truly find out is to be a test case, which may hurt. It therefore encourages people to exercise extreme caution 'just in case'.

 

It would appear from your research into this particular case that there's nothing in law to say you can't drive this vehicle on the road. If you tear the road up you can expect to have to pay for repairs in the same way as if a truck is caught ripping up a kerbstone or whatever. The only thing is, in a tank you're more likely to be identified and traced than a truck which can do a runner much more easily. So I'd say it's up to your judgement whether to do it or not. I doubt a copper will be impressed if you've just ripped up the tarmac and your only defence is to say "...but Kevin at DfT said it was ok".

[ArtistsRifles]

True Mike. The theory is the ground pressure on the tracks is substantially less than that given in the C&U Regs - and roads should be laid using methods and materials in line with these Regs.

 

When I worked at the Ford plant in Aveley the road outside the entry gate for HGV's was always beng torn up by the 40 tonne artics coming in from Europe. The local council got fed up with trying to get the money from them so started sueing Fords instead - as part ofthat the then equivalent of VOSA set up a checkpoint and 9 out of 10 of the Europeans was found to be overweight hence the road damage.

 

Anyways - I've now forwarded my query to the Vehicles directorate of the Dept of Transport and we'll see what they say if anything. DVLA promised a reply in 3 days, DoT reckon on 20 days...