b101uk

CIS is NOTHING to do with the DVLA, VOSA or the HMRC with respect to red diesel or agri vehicles and road use etc, CIS's view/opinion of what is or isn’t Forestry/horticulture/agriculture holds absolutely NO value with regards to motor vehicles and fuel type used on the public highway & beyond. I would also suggest forestry is something significantly more than just “felling a tree/s” and is more what goes on after a tree/s has been felled or even on some cases “Pruned” and why, after all coppicing is just extreme pruning ware the “tree” is still living and will regrow, its still exactly the same tree and can be applied in both a Forestry & horticulture (arb) sense dependent on why it was done and the USE the resulting timber was put to if any. You say “Section 1 was revised in 2008” however statutes & statutory instruments all have to be formatted in a lawful way, therefore “section 1” is always the introduction which deals with definitions of “descriptive words” used in later sections (which are the actual laws), it also list other statutes which have relevance to this statute as well as revocations of statutes that no longer apply or are superseded by this new statute, therefore it would have to be at least a “Section >2” or higher that “was revised in 2008”, also you seam to offer no citation as to actually which statute you are referring that “section” whatever is in that revokes the 1.5km rule for forestry machines that are NOT agricultural, horticultural or forestry tractors operating under the grouping of agricultural motor vehicles (AMV).

that’s a Merc Zetros truck that come in 4x4 and 6x6 configuration. If you have a squire cab SBU/MBU Unimog you will recognise the doors and the general underlying cab structure

a lot of you seam to accept the fact he went threw a red light simply because a policeman said so, that is precisely the attitude and why some element of the police act as they do and what they rely on in minor cases that come before the courts. There are many ways at busy junctions with traffic lights to go past a light on green but be held up within the junction so the light behind you changes to red then as the blockage clears of “larger vehicles” for you then to be seen as going threw a red light when in fact you didn’t. If you know you didn’t go threw a red light yet were getting stopped for it then you would act in a similar way, I know I would because I have first hand court experience of how much police will lie to try and cover there backs and hide there own actions, if a policeman has a problem with you having a camera then he has something to hide

The history of the pneumatic tyre in agriculture along with the downfall of the steel wheel with grousers is well documented in history along with all the historic manufacture info and comparisons of fuel use and work done for the same tractors running on both types of wheel system. The footprint of a pneumatic tyre is always much bigger than the same diameter/width steel wheel so the former sinks less so offers less resistance and can also travel at a faster speed in field wile staying in contact with the ground, also there are another 9 moths in the year besides winter when cultivations and other operations etc take place ware sinking or compaction or wheel damage to seed beds is undesirable, as tractors got more powerful it was found that travailing faster in the field was not only obviously quicker but also helped some implements do a better job of cultivation etc as soil got thrown around more. So as I was implying given a 12 month year that a near ridged wheel with grousers is of very limited use for most of the year, so with respect to the OP’s question his $950 + P&P would be better spent on aggressive tread rubber tyres that can be used all year or as suggested by other some duels which also help with stability on side slopes. However that said if the OP is towing a trailer around on hills then really whatever he try’s is really going to be limited by the weight of the quad + rider vs. the weight of the loaded trailer weight vs. the angle of the hill and gravity @ 9.81m/sec trying to pull the whole lot down the hill, given for every 1deg of slope 1.111111R% of the trailers weight (and the quad + rider weight) will be trying to pull the whole lot down the hill, so given the weight of the quad & rider is quite fixed and its factor of adhesion (the conversion of that weight into tractive force) will be considerably less than that weight value so any gain from aggressive better tyres or duals is only rely going to equate to getting up hills a couple of degrees steeper than before when in fact there would be more to gain by using a smaller/lighter loaded trailer.

its it rated for hoisting duties, a Tirfor on the other hand have a SWL/WLL and can be used as hoist for lifting. The amount of winches that can be used as hoist and can get a SWL/WLL is quite small and are normally worm drives like the FW525 and the Superwinch H14 etc as you would find on ex-utilities land rovers

I haven’t seen a law that prohibits passengers in tractors on proper seats and with respect to tractor driving tests it says if it has a passenger seat then examiner will accompany you, that said I would make sure your insurance specifically covers passengers in the tractor on proper seats, I know my NFU cover dose.

Are you not in Ireland? in which case if its Northern Ireland though its UK based laws there are some differences as statutes (laws) are generally done specifically relating to “Northern Ireland” or for the UK as a whole and well southern Ireland (ROI) is self governing and makes its own laws like it has done for many years. e.g. Northern Ireland has its own specific construction and use regulations that have slight differences to the construction and use regulations used in the rest of the UK relating to agricultural vehicles. As for here agricultural, horticultural and forestry vehicles have NO distinction made between them so the if the 1.5km limit applies or the carrying of load is prohibited then it applies equally to all regardless of if they are used in either agricultural, horticultural or forestry use. Here load imposed on a vehicle is load imposed on a vehicle, there is little difference between woodchip in a chip box imposing load, or woodchip in a trailer imposing load via the tow hitch or for that mater woodchip in a box in the 3pt linkage, it is all imposed load from woodchip which the “tractor” is carrying to a lesser or greater degree. “agricultural machine” is a grouping of machines which include tractors, agri engines, Limited use vehicles (agri), etc etc all of which will say “agricultural machine” on the tax disk, its only when you look at the logbook that you get the subtype of “agricultural machine” it is, I.e. agri tractor, agri engine and so on. Last point, arboriculture is not forestry its technically horticulture I.e. glorified gardening on big plants, only when you start using the timber produced from arboriculture as per you would for wood produced from forestry dose it actually become nearer forestry than horticulture, also the Confederation of Forest Industries has disavowed arboriculture as being anything to do with forestry & both the National Farmers Union & National Association of Agricultural Contractors have disavowed arboriculture as being anything to do with agricultural activity and no one from the horticulture user groups was part of the Memorandum of Agreement in respect of the use of agricultural vehicles on the road as outlined in HMRC notice 75 - section 10 (Appendix)

I have been to Shepperton Studios twice on separate unconnected jobs, the first time wasn’t arb related but was taking an Aga cooker from the factory in Telford that was for use in a film with Omar Sharif in but I was young and didn’t pay much attention, the second time was to remove a tree witch also took me over to pinewood studios and some trees there. Other than that I don’t think I have been to any other film sets though I have delivered Aga & Rayburn cookers to a raft of minor film stars, some of which thought its clever to have a farmhouse type kitchen on the 3rd floor of Kensington townhouse flats etc

agricultural machines: Limited use vehicles only have a 1.5km range and only when passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person. Agricultural engine cannot be used on the road for any other purpose than going to or from the site of agricultural operation BUT they may not carry any load or tow anything other than e.g. a header on a trailer as with combine harvester, beet harvester etc or a browser in the case of e.g. self propelled crop sprayer. As far as I am aware there is absolutely NOTHING in HMRC notice 75 subsection 8 (excepted vehicles) or 10 (Appendix) which prohibits tractors form carrying load wile using red diesel If load being superimposed on an agri tractor was illegal (as it is for locomotives) then you would be prohibited from towing unbalanced trailers which include muck spreaders and trailed sprayers, you wouldn’t be able to use 3pt mounted sprayers on the road unless they were empty, you wouldn’t be able to carry granular fertiliser in fertiliser speeders or a long list of other items and of course there would have been no point in fastracs having a load platform for sprayers etc etc etc.

that is nothing new either in design which they have basically copied or in application an a land rover that was done >40 years ago. however this rises obvious questions of suitability on a disco as you would damage bodywork/tracks in short order.

Have you ever wandered why tractors shifted from steel wheels with tall grousers to pneumatic tyres with more but shorter grousers? Wile you may think it was so they could be used on the road which was a benefit, it however was actually because pneumatic tyres in a field would produce more pulling power and save fuel as the tyre can conform to the undulation of the ground and offers a larger footprint. Looking at the ‘21” growser paw’ with its triangular shaped relatively hard grousers they are not going to produce traction on tree roots and if you get near a made up track it will be a bit of a bone shaker and reduce speed, also tyres have a smooth finish beneath the tread blocks so there is the minimum surface area for mud to stick to so along with the deformation of the tyre and the pinching together of the tread blocks helps with self cleaning, however with the ‘21” growser paw’ it had corrugations effectively increasing the surface area for mud to stick to coupled with limited deformation to help brake the mud’s stiction, so I wouldn’t want to go near a damp clayey soil.

EN 358 - Personal protective equipment for work positioning and prevention of falls from a height EN 813 all of which are newer standards than when I climbed

If no falling was involved or no shock loading was involved then it would be pointless in putting KN values on them when just a weight limit would do. Granted its been 17 odd years since I climbed but I seam to recall my Willans t22 was 30KN and a maximum drop of 2m

true, but it was parted out after everyone and his dog did the Bedford export trick, so its parts went to keep ones in the UK running and the chassis went for good money as the logbook/Q reg number was used to “legitimise” another “agri” Bedford MJ

I had a Bedford MK I classed as an agri tractor for forestry. This is it just before I parted it out on eBay and got more for it than I paid for it 15 years earlier.

see: Unimog - Benzworld.org - Mercedes-Benz Discussion Forum You will find lots of info looking threw the forum

Harnesses are to arrest falls, A 100kg person falling a couple of meters or so on a static rope with little stretch will rapidly exceed 15KN, given as speed doubles kinetic energy quadruples and the shorter the stop the higher that peak KN loading will be. So assuming a fall is given as a standard drop of x distance, the design factor is known e.g. at 10:1 of WLL with a peak MBL of e.g. 15KN then its easy to arrive at a maximum weight for a person in the harness who then WONT brake the harness from a standard drop of x distance given as this thread proves very few people understand how kinetic energy ramps up vs. speed or KN ratings hence the weight limits now on harnesses.

because 99% of tractors sold after 2005 are NOT Fastrac or Unimog and given almost all FWA (front wheel assist) tractors have rigid rear ends with NO rear axel sprung suspension what so ever.

So what was the engine out of? Was it originally in a mog or in something else? As for 5 days, are they waiting for some parts? as I cannot believe it will take 5 days labour to remove parts from 1 engine and refit them to the other engine properly including removal & refitting in the mog, 3 days maybe if they were a bit slow but even then that would give them >1.5 days time for swapping things between engines.

IMO a recon engine would normally not come with all the ancillaries and manifolds etc etc that would be reused from your engine, so the injector pump timing would need doing as that would have to come off your engine as would your oil filter housing so it would need a new filter/s. There can be a big difference between short engines or long engines either if they have been reconditioned, remanufactured or are a full crated recon/reman engine which just drops in which you would probably just reuse your old starter motor and maybe alternator. After all genuine Merc oil & fuel filters are NOT by any stretch of imagination expensive

in a nut shell no. Saying a u16## is just a u1000, u12## or u14## with more power is like saying men are built just like women simply because they have a head, 2 arms, 2 legs and an a**hole wile ignoring the obvious other differences! A u16## has totally different axels, a heavily strengthened chassis, a heaver/stronger steering system, stronger springs, piston crown coolers in the engine, different engine mounted oil cooler (plate vs. disk type), a 10000kg to 11300kg GVW, bigger brakes, different wheels and a few other minor differences. Really a u16## is a bastardisation between a 424 type MBU (u1000, u12##, u14##) and 425 type SBU (u1300, u1500, u17##) to yield something a little smaller than an SBU but a bit bigger than an MBU which results in a relatively powerful, strong and relatively compact package.

Complete and utter twaddle of the highest order.

The reclaim system has been in place for many years for users who wish to only keep DERV in stock as they have a very mixed fleet, it was also the same system used to claim the duty back on petrol when use for off-road purposes like in saws, mowers etc, so it works in a similar fashion to how VAT is claimed back if you are VAT registered (I.e. the duty MUST be paid in advance then claimed back post use) At lest with the reclaim system you will always have DERV in your tank so there is no duty evasion like if you are found to be using red diesel illegally in a vehicle.

err 3.5 tonner is 3.5 tonnes which is 3500kg it is NOT 3.5 tons which is ~3556kg if using long tons or ~3175kg if using short tons (AKA: Ton US) Vehicle weights in the UK will normally be expressed in KG, Tonnes or Ton (long) generally rounded to the nearest whole 10kg in the case of long ton so e.g. 18 ton when expressed in law instead of being 18288.84438kg would be 18290kg. That is why some vehicles and trailers seemingly have odd maximum gross weighs when expressed in KG given there law is relating to them is old and based on “ton” ware as newer laws or ones relating to Europe use tonnes & KG.

a bit of time lapse inspiration from Mike Flores (go full screen with the volume up ) Timelapse Montage on Vimeo Baja California Timelapses on Vimeo FYI: in the ones with what appears to be the sun with stars still in the sky is a moon rise!