
| MARTIN PHIPPARD MAIN MENU | |||
| Click on the picture to bring up a larger image. | |||
Having recognised the need for large volumes of concrete for massive projects including dam building, the Americans had experimented with batching plants as early as 1913 and by 1926 were manufacturing purpose-built "transit mixer trucks".
While a lightweight chassis/cab may be considered desirable, if not essential, from the point of view of maximum payload, operational factors such as the requirement for both on and off-road capability mean that an acceptable compromise is usually sought. Mixer work is tough on equipment, the chassis having to cope with stresses imposed by the rotating drum, while the driveline is subject to high levels of wear and tear resulting from short journeys in largely urban areas. Add to this the extra weight and cost of multi-axle drive plus the need to strike a balance between good ground clearance and a low centre of gravity and one begins to glimpse the underlying complexity of the truck mixer.
From the driver’s point of view the priorities are often very different, the man behind the wheel - while acknowledging the need for good traction and ground clearance - not necessarily appreciating a small, under-powered engine, utilitarian cab and long climb into the seat. As with most trucks, mixers are often a bit of a compromise, it being almost impossible to produce one that would be perfect for the job and still driver-friendly enough to attract drivers and safe enough to fall on the right side of existing legislation.
The physical appearance of mixers has always varied considerably, the inevitable result of operating conditions, differing approaches in terms of engineering and, inevitably, local legislation.
Similarly while some countries have stayed with the traditional layout which discharges to the rear of the vehicle, front-discharge mixers are now hugely popular, particularly the United States. There chassis manufacturers are accustomed to building vehicles tailored to specific demands resulting from complex axle-weight laws, so building low-volume chassis for the mixer market is considered cost-effective.
At first glance, the front-discharge mixer would appear to offer the best possible solution to the challenge of carrying, mixing and discharging concrete. The direction in which the drum faces means that the bulk of the weight is carried over the rear of the vehicle when on the road, resulting in optimum load distribution, traction and stability. Meanwhile the chutes can be positioned more easily by the driver on arrival at the discharge site. In fact, the ability to position the truck exactly where required, together with improved visibility while unloading (invariably from a centrally-mounted cab) are significant benefits in terms of operational efficiency and safety.
The drawback is that front discharge mixer drums are necessarily mounted on specialist chassis, so cost is a major consideration. The installation of a standard rear-discharge drum requires little modification to an otherwise standard vehicle meaning that the drum and driving mechanism may be transferred from one conventional chassis to another. Conversely, most front-discharge mixer chassis produced today are designed and built to accept a specific drum. And more importantly most of these chassis feature rear-mounted engines, and centrally mounted, driver-only cabs, rendering them completely unsuitable for every other type of bodywork.
During the past twenty-five years or so there have been several attempts to determine the ideal configuration for a mixer chassis and in the mid 1970s, the use of "booster" axles on conventional chassis layouts gained wide acceptance in some regions of the world permitting high gross weights. Boosters are lifting rear axles tagged on to the back end of large rigid trucks which, as their name suggests, boosts the overall capacity while in the lowered position. In Canada and the USA booster axles are still frequently seen at the rear end of four axle mixers, increasing overall capacity from weights of around 80,000-lbs gross (36.36 tonnes) to 100,000-lbs (45.45 tonnes). The axles are raised and lowered hydraulically and it is hydraulic pressure that ensures the appropriate load is transferred from the rear driving axles to the tag axle booster. Indeed, as the axle is lowered to the ground it is possible to watch the rear end of the chassis rising as weight is re-distributed.
When it comes to vehicles custom-built for the job of hauling large amounts of concrete, few were more impressive than the imposing 12 x 10 Oshkosh rigids used extensively throughout Michigan State during the 1960s and ‘70s. Capable of grossing nearly 55-tonnes and achieving 55-miles-per-hour, the big trucks also benefited from a safe twin-steer front axle set-up and unequalled off-road performance. These vehicles were among the very biggest rigids ever produced and a few were still to be seen delivering their massive loads of concrete into the mid 1990s.
Meanwhile in Holland where legislation also allows the operation of 50-tonne multi-axle rigids, domestic manufacturers Terberg and Ginaf have offered their own versions of high mobility mixers for almost 20 years. Despite the fact that both of these Dutch truck builders established their businesses by converting and modifying US trucks left in Europe after WW11, their modern mixers differ from the American Oshkosh units in several respects. Most obvious is the fact that the Dutch trucks feature forward control cabs (from Volvo and DAF) whereas the Oshkosh units were normal control or conventionals. The big Ginaf and Terberg outfits offer 10 x 8 drive, and tyres are often "super singles" in the interests of traction and floatation in the sandy, reclaimed areas of the Netherlands. Where the big trucks are alike is in the power department, the Oshkosh vehicles generally featuring a big Caterpillar or Detroit Diesel rated at around 350-hp and the more modern Europeans having Volvo or DAF engines in the 400-hp bracket.
Articulated mixers are still used in some areas of Europe, but as the result of generous weight legislation, today these are most commonly found in Holland where 6x4 tractors coupled to tri-axle semi trailers can legally operate at up to 55-tonnes gross provided individual axle loadings are not exceeded. In North America, this concept is fully exploited by the use of extendable semi trailers which are "stretched" when the mixer drum is fully loaded in order that axle weights conform to state laws or Federal Bridge Formulae. These complex trailers may then be shortened or "snugged up" again when returning empty to the batching plant for the next load.
| E-Mail any comments to Martin Phippard | ||
| ||
| E-Mail any comments to The Web Master | ||
| ||
| Back to the Main Transportation Page | ||
| Back to the Trucks Page | ||