Well, I got a deal on a drum of chains (twenty 20’ pieces). I tried ordering a drum of 400’ bulk, but it seemed that everybody is backordered for many weeks. What I am thinking is (and maybe I’m wrong) that with the Reitnouer J-hook system, I should be able to use less chain to secure the same load as somebody who is chaining down by the rub rail. With the tracks running every couple feet in width, I have a lot more options on where and how to chain. What I’m thinking about doing with the chains I have is this:

Cutting six feet off eight of the twenty footers. That would give me eight six footers, eight fourteen footers and then I still have a ton of twenty footers if I need them.

Any ideas as to how well this might work?

I forgot to offer my congratulations. As I already know, it feels mighty good to pay off a piece of equipment.

As a public service announcement to those thinking about financing a new piece of equipment, both GE Capital and Old Republic are offering decent deals. GE is 0 down (with spotless credit) 8.7%. Only issue is they have an early pay-off penalty of one percent per year. Old Republic is 0 down, 8.46% with no early pay-off penalty.

How about how long before he changes tires size, gear ratios, etc.

You really have me confused with somebody else. In seven years of truck ownership I've never altered the gearing or tire size of the trucks I’ve owned. Changes like that always seemed like too much investment with little chance of any ROI. The biggest modification I’ve ever made was having the EGR programming removed from my ECM and having PSI Meritor tire inflators installed on my trailer when I bought it. I have experimented with different brands and treads of tires over the years and even once played with a set of retreads, but that’s about it. Anyone betting that I’m aspiring to follow in Tracer’s footsteps will lose their money.

If you’re simply trying to be funny, I can accept that. If you are seriously going to fault me for presenting questions for comment from guys with more flatbedding experience than I, then the only thing you are succeeding at doing is spotlighting your own insecurities. So far, besides asking if I’ve read a thread that chronicles one guy’s journey of racking up debt and squandering away money, you’ve added exactly zero to this thread. In six years of CAD membership I’ve rarely had the occasion to ask for advice because I usually don’t need any. I study a situation and figure things out for myself. It’s a shame that the one time I’m actually reaching out for experienced feedback, I’ve gotten only a few helpful responses when I know there are many more successful, experienced open deck trailer guys who are members of CAD. Clearly you’ve never read any of my past posts or you’d know that Tracer and I have different approaches to trucking and probably just about everything else in life.

One of the BIG differences between Tracer and me is that I generally don’t do debt. Yes, I’m financing this new trailer, but it is at 8.46% and while I could pay cash for the Reitnouer, it makes more sense to me to keep that cash invested where I have it, as it is in a liquid investment that is earning a higher return than what the trailer loan is costing me. In addition, given that I am moving into one of the few areas of trucking that I have little experience with (6 months pulling a curtain side and open flat, hauling pipe and fittings, lumber and steel), it makes sense to me to keep a large liquid reserve in the event that I find myself running leaner than anticipated. Unlike Tracer, I don’t blow huge amounts of money (or in Tracer’s case, huge amounts of credit) on modifications that will show little return. I find that working with what I have usually makes much more sense.

I really do appreciate the serious replies I’ve gotten from those who are truly trying to be helpful. Allan’s advice holds particular weight because he’s doing exactly what I’m looking at doing. I even appreciate the debate on aerodynamics and fuel consumption instigated by YerDaddy. Healthy debate is always a good. Sniping, however, is not particularly productive or flattering to the sniper, Bigmon. Perhaps you could take notes on THAT and learn something.

Keep us posted on your progress it seems like you pretty much have it figured out. I keep contemplating buying a truck, but I talk myself out of it. I hate to give up my kooshy company job that pays very well. The only reason I keep considering just to prove I can do it, I like a challenge. Sorry I don't have anything to add I have very little flat experience, almost none and that was strictly building materials for a home improvement store using a straight truck. I wish you good luck in your new adventure and defiantly watch those forklift drivers.

In theory yes,but will that require you to climb up on the deck to secure to the inboard tracks? A'int gonna happen very often I bet.

Sounds reasonable. Just keep in mind when they are cut they are done. You can't splice them.

BTW, if you chain by the letter of the law, you'll need twice as many short chains and twice as many binders for those chains as you will if you use chains that are long enough to go full width of the trailer.....say a 14 - 15' chain.

Chaining from trailer to load gets you 50% the WLL of chain.
Chaining from trailer, through, over or around load to opposite side of trailer gets you 100% of the WLL of chain.

I'm not looking at the book, so give me a break if this example below it not exact, but it goes like this:
i.e. chaining a 5500 lb object from its' lifting lug to trailer will require two 3/8" chains and two binders. But chaining that same 5500 lb object from the trailer through it's lifting lug to the opposite side of the trailer can be done with one chain and binder.

The deck is only 35 inches high and I could use the exercise, so it might happen more than you'd think, but I get your point.


I didn't think I could, but can I use grab hooks to connect two if I had to? What about if I attached a short chain to an anchor point on the trailer, a short chain to an anchor point on the cargo and then joined them with a binder? I doubt it'd come to that, but it would be nice to know what my options are if the proverbial doo doo hits the fan and I run low on chains.

Rank, I’m not trying to be argumentative here, as you are one of the CAD members whose opinions I’ve come to respect. Perhaps I misunderstand what you are trying to say, but it would seem that Section 2.2.3 (page 29) of the drivers handbook on load securement found on the FMCSA website: (Look at the bottom the the linked page)

http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/safety-secu...nual-chap2.htm

seems to disagree with you. It states that Aggregate WLL is calculated by adding together “50% of the WLL of each section of a tiedown that is attached to an anchor point plus 50% of the WLL of each end section that is attached to the cargo.”

They include two examples of tiedowns. One image shows a single piece of chain going from an anchor point on the trailer and then attaching to a corner of the cargo. In the example 50% of the WLL is credited at both ends of the chain totaling 100% of the chain’s WLL. The second image shows one long chain going from an anchor point on the trailer through a piece of pipe and then back to an anchor point on the far side of the trailer. In the second example, 50% WLL is credited for the two anchor points with the trailer totaling 100% of the chain’s WLL.

It appears that according to this handbook, if I took four six foot chains and ran each from a J-hook on the trailer to a corner of the cargo, (assuming I’m using the 3/8” Grade 70 chain I bought - WLL 6,600) I would get credit for an aggregate WLL of 6,600 x 4, or 26,400 lbs. If I use two long chains and chained like the second example you gave, I’d have an aggregate WLL of 13,200.

Nope rank is right. The correct term is direct and indirect tiedowns. With a direct tie down going to a hook on the load, you get 50% of that tiedown. However if you keep reading at the end, you need the aggregate to total 50% of the cargo weight. So essentially the WLL of all direct tiedowns has to equal the cargos weight. I don't know why they divide your tiedowns and the cargo weight by 50%, doesn't make sense to me.

However with indirect tiedowns that attach to the trailer, pass through or over the cargo, and back down to the trailer you get credit for 100% of the WLL. Now since our aggregate WLL only needs to be 50% of the total cargo weight, you're essentially doubling the rating of that particular tiedown. The easiest way you can look at it is how many times the securement device touches the trailer. If only once then all of them need to equal cargo weight. If it is twice it only needs to equal half. A 48,000 lb load can be secured by 5x5400 WLL chains or straps using indirect method. However using a direct method you'd need at least 9 chains (48000/5400 = 8.8888~, rounded up to 9)

Allan, are you familiar with the images I'm talking about? No matter how many times I look at it, it still tells me that I get credit for 50% at each end of the short chain attached to the cargo and the trailer. Actually, they don’t have the images I’m talking about in the HTML version. If you download the entire handbook in pdf format and look at page 29, you can see what I’m talking about.

The text from the page reads as follows:


Containing, Immobilizing, and Securing Cargo
Aggregate Working Load Limit (Section 2.2.3)

What is the Aggregate Working Load Limit?

The sum of the working load limits of each device used to secure an article on a vehicle is called the aggregate working load limit.

How do you calculate Aggregate Working Load Limit for tiedowns?

To calculate Aggregate Working Load limit, add together:

50% of the WLL of each end section of a tiedown that is attached to an anchor point.
50% of the WLL of each end section that is attached to the cargo.



50% of the WLL of the chain, 6,600lbs at the trailer anchor plus 50% at the anchor point on the cargo would equal 100% of the chain’s WLL, or 6,600 lbs, no?

Allan and Rank, I’m certainly not trying to insinuate that I know more about chaining than guys who’ve been doing it every day for a living. I do want to be able to make sense of the FMCSA handbook though, and right now I don't see how it matches up with what you guys are saying. I’m sure I'm just missing something, because there's no way you guys could be wrong if you're putting this theory into action every day.