Mn Raises Weight Limits, Mack Misses The Boat Again

[GearheadGrrrl]

Some while back I wrote about South Dakota's nearly wide open weight limits, and how I'd seen nary a Mack out there taking advantage of them.

This spring Minnesota's legislature further increased Minnesota's weight limits up to as much as 108,000 pounds. This was the latest in a series of increases over the last few years as Minnesota has issued permits for loggers, ag haulers, etc. for increasing weights over the previous 80,000 pound limit. But the regulations are complex- I talked to some state troopers at the Farm Fest ag show in july and even they were confused about them. The weight statute is now a confusing jumble of limits, with increase piled upon increase, and damn complicated to figure out. For example, if you're a farmer, should you go for 90,000 pounds on 6 axles, 97,000 on 7 axles, or 108,000 on 8 with restrictions on what roads you can use? and just to complicate matters, they didn't increase length limits at all and these new combinations have to comply with bridge formula "B". That means you'd need a 74 foot outer axle spread to gross the maximum 108,000 pounds on 8 axles, while overall lengths over 75 foot aren't allowed off of the "National Network" and "Twin Trailer" network.

Clearly there's a market opportunity here for Mack dealers from Minnesota and points west- MN is a common destination for ag shipments from the west that were previously held to MN's 80,000 pound limit despite the western states having higher weight limits. But to take advantage of this opportunity Mack needs to have axle forward versions of their applicable models available and wheelbases will have to be specced to the inch to take maximum advantages of the increased weight limits. But the response from Volvo/Mack? They're to busy trying to jam more Volvo parts into Macks to bother!

[HK Trucking]

Coming soon to a bookstore near you:

"Asleep at the switch"

A documentary of comatose management practices, behind the scenes incompetence and missed opportunities.

A look at Mack Trucks since the V*lv* takeover.

.

[RowdyRebel]

My CH has a forward axle. The Granite is also offered with a forward axle. If that's what you need, you have options in the Mack lineup. Wheel bases ought to be spec'd by the truck buyer, though, not the manufacturer...there's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all truck.

[GearheadGrrrl]

Thanks Rowdy, and I'm aware that Mack offers what they call "axle forward" models. But by "axle forward" I mean the front axle pushed as far forward as possible, which means a 28" or less bumper to axle dimension.

BTW, here in MN, as they say, "the plot thickens". I was at the Big Iron farm show in Fargo today and talked to a MN truck enforcement officer. He wasn't sure just exactly what the new law allows either, but his opinion was that added axles to the truck or tractor and trailer have to be factory installed to qualify for the new weight ratings. That's good news for Mack and the trailer builders if they can figure out the new weight law but bad news for the aftermarket shops that do tag axles, etc.. He also opined that the new weight limits are for ag products and sealed intermodal containers only, my read is that all comodities are eligible.

I also talked to about a half dozen trailer dealers and manufacturers reps. They vary from moderately to totally confused about the new law. I heard one tale of woe of a trucker who bought a new trailer to take advantage of the new law, paid for and received the proper overweight permit, and then received $2000 in overweight fines when he crossed the scales with the load and truck that Minnesota said was legal and permitted!

Suffice to say, truckers who could potentially take advantage of the weight increases are nervous and putting off buying new equipment until the state figures out what their weight limits are. I'll probably be seeing one of the legislators tomorrow and get her opinion of just what the "legislative intent" was in these new weight limits.