Comments by "John Cunningham" (@johncunningham4820) on "" video.

Yeah . True . The Mack's and Kenworth's were more adaptable to OUR conditions . What with the Length restrictions Nationally .
2
@larrylongprong5219 With a 19 metre Overall limit , there would be problems complying to Length regs I reckon , even with an Integrated Sleeper , which I doubt it was on a 389 . You don't get Arrested for it , just Parked up for Towing . A 41 foot/12.5 metre Trailer MIGHT be Compliant , but would Restrict your Loads . Everyone else is using 45 and 48 foot trailers these days . You got a Photo ? With a link ?
2
@stuarthancock571 . Kenwoth also assemble Conventional Trucks , locally , that MEET the Length restrictions . Peterbilt's VERY long Bonnet makes that difficult . Basically the same reason you rarely see a Ford LTL model these days either .
1
@larrylongprong5219 . And WHERE was that ? The U.S.A. ?
1
@larrylongprong5219 . Big rigid , or a Prime-Mover ? PM would be restricted on Trailer Length to 41 ft type I would think . How big was the Sleeper on it ?
1
@larrylongprong5219 Not an answer to the question . Was it operating as a Long Rigid Truck , say like a Furniture Van , or was it a Semi Truck ? AND how long was the Sleeper Cab ?
1
@chrisrabbitt . Yeah good , Nice . That was 27 trucks , from varying eras Lots of Repeat shots . Two Wreckers . One R/T double . Three 26 metre B-Doubles . A Motor-Home multiple times . I never said Pete's were NOT here , I said they were VERY Rare . Your video proves it .
1
@chrisrabbitt . Well ACTUALLY , you are trying to win an Argument that doesn't exist . Except in your mind . So who's the F'wit , Hmm ?
1
@chrisrabbitt . OK . Fair enough . However , I saw Only ONE 55 inch sleeper in the bunch and that was the Modern Integrated cab model . The rest were 36 or 48 inch , with Aero kits all pulling shorter Trailer types , to stay within length . I never said I disbelieved that Peterbilts were here , in Australia . Just being a retired Heavy Haul Trucker I do know a thing or two about the Size constraints . Anything to say in contradiction ? Any " Special Knowledge " ? They were all Nice Trucks . A couple of genuine Antiques , still working . Good .
1
@chrisrabbitt . OK . Thank you for the Video link . Sorry to get snarky , BUT , I have run into way too many people on this Platform that carry on like " Experts " until such time that you " 20 questions " , as it were , that the don't understand in the least , and they start Cussing you out for it . Call things like "f%&kwit" etc . I will ALWAYS reply in kind . Anyways , peace to you .
1
@Theyadayada . Yep . Rare in Australia .
1
@nedkelly9688 . I never said that Peterbilt was NOT used in Australia . Just quite Rare . For 26 metre B-Double work using a 10 pallet A-trailer would certainly meet the Length specification . Especially with a 24 pallet B-trailer . For Single work they would likely be stuck using 20 pallet , 41 foot , Trailers to meet the 19 metre Specification . Fine as a Flatbed , but most Tautliners and Pans are 48 or 45 . That was why the Ford LTL's largely disappeared too .
1
@nedkelly9688 . You are Clearly misinterpreting the Regulations . Or is that deliberate , to try to win the argument ? A Rigid Vehicle has a Length Limit of 12.5 metres . Buses have up to 14.5 . However , the discussion here , involves Combination Overall Length . I am a Retired COMBINATION DRIVER . I certainly understand these regulations , quite well . On Private Land , any configuration desired can be used , but NOT on public roads . To make my point , A Rigid Truck can pull a Trailer , Pig or Dog , but must not exceed 19 metres in overall length in combination . Ergo . A LONG Prime-Mover is going to require a SHORT TRAILER to comply . Whereas , a Short Day-cab can pull a 48 footer and be under Max length . I used to run around in a Scania T-cab with integrated sleeper , pulling a 48 foot fridge with a Set Back Trailer Pin . Required a Permit . The Bullbar made the Vehicle 2 inches too long . THAT is how serious the " Powers that be " are , about these Dimension Regs . I would scrape under the wire pulling a 34 pallet B-double . And No problem with an A-Double . Highest that truck was rated for . Understand what I am " going on about " yet ?
1
@nedkelly9688 . So post a Photo of the one YOU own then . I challenge you . Not a keyboard warrior , " Old Mate " , I'm someone who spent 34 years in Heavy Transport , in Australia , all over the place , doing anything and everything . I believe You to be the Keyboard Warrior , resorting to PERSONAL ABUSE to attempt to intimidate a Win in a Lost Argument . We clear on that ?
1
@nedkelly9688 . Never used Nose Candy . Errant accusation . Nor did I say ANYTHING at ANY TIME about stretched " Show Trucks " . You are the one with problems . Go see a neurologist .
1
@nedkelly9688 . You show your genuine ignorance . I NEVER said they were not LEGAL . Your big long nose Peterbilt and your Kenworth 909/950 Prime-movers are perfectly Legal in terms of Wheelbase , BUT , that size of Truck tends to be relegated to pulling 40 foot containers , when operating in URBAN areas . The Combination length is the problem . Easier to work around in Multi-Combination configurations . That was my point all along BTW . I used to see the RMS frequently checking Overall Length on those category of Prime-mover around the Port Area , when running Single trailers . A 20' +40' B-Double is just inside specs . A 32 Pallet B-Double is too long . Running such equipment around the City is uneconomic and not very profitable . Can be LEGALLY DONE , but not sensible to do so . The BIG GEAR is for the Bush . Road-Trains are easy enough to keep in Spec in terms of Length . Weight becomes the Major issue with those , hence all the Tri-axle Dollies and even Triple Drive Prime-Movers .
1