difflock

BUT, why would one make mechanical changes to the vehicle if one is willing to state that one is going to operate within the new weight limit. And risk a conviction if caught running over the plated weight. Unless in some way to save a few kg in self weight as some fractional payback. I can see absolutly no reason to down rate. Or rather the suggestion that one can down rate but not down plate? But my understanding, per a very cordial phone call a few years ago to the gentleman who "took" the overweight proscutions here in Northern Ireland) The plate is the weight. Its ALL about the plate. Which is easily checked back against the DVLA registeration docs. By downrating as I understand it, from contributions above, one would merely be making the vehile needlessly less safe? And yes our 7500kg Iveco is a down rated/down plated 11,000kg truck. IN that the engine, transmission and chassis are exactly the same as the 11000kg varient. But the 7500kg was factory fitted with smaller/lighter axles and wheels, this to allow a measly 3050kg of tipper payload. Wheras a purpose designed from the drawing board tipper 7500kg, (without a needlessly heavier chassis good for 11,000kg,) could have nearer 4000kg payload. gibber mutter an twitch

Yes Nick and wrong Peter NOT all except CDV's IS absolutly dependant on plated weights (as far as I clearly recall) So a Fiesta Van prob OK A`heavier/larger payload van, whether car derived or not, is treated as a VAN. Even though the same car type with 5 rugby players on board could well be heavier, but still legal. As far as I clearly recally but is all from memory.

(i) Absoluyly proper jealous (ii) Guessing a widely over-specced EX Gritter chassis?. (iii) How few miles:lol: and when/where where did you source it. PS How does one go about the "Ag" registeration of a HGV as was? marcus

Explain the difference(s) then. Legal and or practical Down-plating against down-rating. I suspect a question of semantics.

I HAD noted that, lack of Dodge front wheel involvment. But regardless of that. Ballast Tyres Difflocks etc etc Would all make the difference

I suspect that is bollocks (in the nicest possible way) Cos when we bought a 5.2 tonne Iveco, I asked for it to be plated at 4750kg (in order to tow 3500kg, under the 8250 GTW limit pertaining to older drivers) It was delivered still plated at 5200kg. I made a phone call and the supplier simply supplied another 4750kg plate, which we swopped over ourselves. Simples. My understanding was if you choose to downplate, no problem, but you are sticking your neck in a tighter noose in respect of a likely future overloading comviction.

A bit like the origional poster. We had a guy done, and yes 3 points convicted done, for doing 60 in a Transit. By a camera van. Sorry Sir but you were restricted to 50. Both the other Supervisor and myself were spitting blood, until we thought to check "der computer" Well Doh! I presume a combination of (perhaps GPS to establish location), linked to the correct limit for that location, or road type manually entered on each site by the operator, and combined with ANPR (to establish veh weight) would be easily configured.. Not sure about Ranger Pick-up type vehicles. BUT for absolute sure CDV (car derived vans) are treated as vans and not cars. Though the plated weight does come into it. So the two payload varients of the older Peugeot Partner, one was "in scope" the other, lighter by 200kg, got treated like a car.

Is that not rather a Beach lounger?

For some of use, that would indeed, be putting the Cart before the Horse.

Avant! you landlubbers. Still pricy though

Rust "proofs" the band blade as well Ingenious solution Dr. Watson. I am liking the thinking cough! cough! Cheers, Marcus

Yes it bloody would! Wanna try mate. Yes that was beautifully straight grained wood. But with the Mass that gadget is packing, I reasonably suspect it could be surprisingly effective on tougher stuff. Essentailly a flywheel effect, but alternately being reversed by gravity on the upstroke, and the car spring on the down stroke. Perhaps not on the first strike, but with repeated strikes. PS The handle design and orientation is incorrect/ not optimum. Should be a "D" handle obviously. Much more ergonomic. cheers marcus A slightly lighter design would be brilliant for splitting kindling methinks.

Gentlemen! All so yesterday. One simply buys a plug in electronic kit that picks up the engine revs via the alternator signal. And regardless of the number of cylinders under the bonnet. Plays back (through a high end ICE system oviously) The straight 8/ V eight/ straight 6 / V 10 engine exhaust noises of choice. There was a clip on Youtube of a guy in Austrailia "gunning" a Hayundi I10 through an urban area. To a big-block V8 straight through burble sound track. Stop lines and traffic lights. And endless needless revving. It was pure hysterically funny.

Locally the 390T is reckoned to be twice the tractor the 390 is. The turbo making it a proper "pocket rocket" Or so the farming brother avows. So, yes the "T" makes all the difference, especially in 4WD configuration.

Sniff! But no, if the chipper was a self contained unit powered via a PTO stub. All one needs is an engine permenantly attatched to the PTO stub. The hydraulic pump etc is still part of the chipper. Simples!

And actually since someone stated most chippers run at 1000rpm. Direct drive from a slightly oversized engine throttled back to run at 1000rpm. Quieter too. Interestingly most of the serious big diesel engine manufacturers appear to be bringing operating revs down to both increase mtbf and reduce noise. Trucks excavators etc. etc.

So classically a 7.5 tonner engine c/w gearbox and clutch. Connect prop shaft stub to PTO splines an hey presto. Might have to spin it around and use belt drive to reverse the direction of rotation. Simples, though weight could start to be an issue. Or a cast off donkey engine from a road sweeper or premix truck. Or a scrap combine engine. Generally low hours, though now usually super sosphistacted and high HP forby. Or a scrap "G" Wagen, and run the ledgendary 617 lump on anything oily. It will also last for ever.

Sniff! Please remove somewhat mis-leading:001_tt2: avatar pic please then Lyncombe-climber:biggrin:

Erm, The PTO housing or somewhere near on the machine should quote the required PTO rpm's. Almost certainly 540, I dont think I have seen one rated higher, and some recommend odd PTO rpm's (to UK users leastwise) of 350. Probably a tractor with selectable speed PTO, then run the tractor on the higher speed PTO at lower engine revs. I have found that if a PTO powered implement sounds "right" it probably is. I.E. for the rotary mower I tune it by ear, listing for the correct "hum" off the rotors. Regardless of stated requirments. good luck Marcus EDIT More pertinently, most tractors only reach correct PTO speeds at surprisingly high engine revs, my old DB requires 2100 rpm, I doubt any are much less than 1800, well, leastwise on the older stuff we are likely to be using to drive a firewood processor.

But, john p, you haint got a FENDT tractor to keep, unlike some. Do keep up!

(i) I was unaware that facility existed, and would have thought it more likely they would have been entered in an appropriate Classic car auction, by the MoD. (ii) I cannot figure how their age and low miles and storage history tallies with private ownership. So it smelt to me like these were ACTUALLY Government Ministry owned vehicles. Perhaps sourced for undercover work, back "in the day", then parked up and forgot about.

Chevrolet , Corvette Stingray Convertible, #58089 - MOD Sales, Military Vehicles & Used Ex MOD Land Rovers for Sale Why? 006 not need it any longer. m

Erm, another thought. I understood that the hire trade usually worked a system of term decling payments. i.e. A daily rate. nominal 3 days pays for a week. Then a weekly rate. 3 weeks pays for a month. etc. Which makes it cost effective for firms to keep stuff on hire long term. But with perhaps surprisingly low utilization. But allows the hire company to bilk poor saps like me that only ever hire for a day at a time. But then I take the full value out of the hire.

It could be worth diplomatically asking furthur up the chain of command. Could be no-one "knows", or cares. Some bod sitting at a desk routinly singing routine invoices, only taking time to scrutinize the oddball ones. Or the hire company could be owned by the same parent company and this could be some "wheeze" to move funds sideways.

Hmmm 3300 plus 150 for 2 ave bods plus kit and piece boxs say min 100kg =50kg overloaded already. A work of pure genius. PS A lot like the very very high spec Fire Alliences recently purchased. They came in just under the GVW/MAM............................when empty. So hey ho, fill the several thousand litre (I'm guessing )water tanks. And erm ...............................................we aint are going nowhere. Designed by a Committee I believe.