Dougster

Assume (for purposes of the question) that the pulley is plenty strong enough and that the cables are too. Assume that the cables have been winched tight and can hold constant tension. Now... what is your answer? By DOT rules, would that one tiedown/chain equivalent??? Or two???

Dougster™

Edster

Still only ONE. But IF I were a Creeper Cop I would have issues with the fact that the load could be able to shift due the use of a pully. In my mind it just doesn't work.

Dougster

You are a tough customer here today!

Okay... one last qualification for purposes of this hypothetical question: suppose the tractor/machine was restrained from lateral motion by other means... perhaps raised steel edges or something similar... just to remove the question of adequate downward tension.

Now... what is your answer? No more hedging old Edster!!!

One tiedown/chain equivalent??? Or two???

Dougster™

Edster

Edster

There is a way to make one chain count as two chains.But you're gonna have to figure that one out on your own.

Dougster

Ha!!!!!

The "real world" answer is that I'd be sitting there rotting in jail and calling you to come bail me out!

But the theoretical/philosophical/legal (appeals court?) world answer is supposedly that it would be considered the equivilent (working load-wise) of two tiedowns... the reported reason being that while the nature of chain is that it can "catch" on the equipment edges/corners/etc. and thereby theoretically see the full load on either side... a cable on a pulley with those same two tiedown points in the same circumstances (same tractor weight, same rated working strength, etc.) can only see half the load on each side.

It's all meaningless mental gymnastics, of course, since we both know that everything really depends more on what the cop had for breakfast that morning and how he was getting along with his wife/GF and boss.

Dougster™

Dougster

Only with two binders and two fixed attachment points on the tractor.

Interestingly (to me), DOT rules do not appear to consider any sort of "single failure" criteria or the need to protect against same. It still amazes me that they allow single chain tiedowns (i.e., one front and one rear) wherein a single operator error or component failure could lead to disaster.

If I had written the damn rules, there would be an "ability to withstand a single failure" criteria. Then again, that would have been far from the only change!

Dougster™

PaulChristenson

Paul in VT

I used to own an ant farm but had to give it up. I couldn't find tractors small enough to fit it.
-- Steven Wright

Dougster

Now you know I don't do Chinese Paul... other than occasional Chinese food, of course... but I gotta tell you that it may not be much longer before I have no choice. I was rather disheartened to see than my friends at St. Pierre Chain up in Worcester, MA are now starting to carry Chinese-made ratchet binders for the very first time. I was also told by my friends up at Chappell Tractor that they sell up to 50 times as many Chinese-made ratchet binders as they do CM or Crosby American-made ratchet binders. No real surprise I guess when you see that they are 57% lower in price than American-made.

Dougster™