GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 07-03-2006, 20:07   #1
elgoatropo
Senior Member
 
elgoatropo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kenai, AK, U.S.
Posts: 2,124
Guys who put sandbags over their axles...

...for traction in their pickups in winter slay me. Put them as far aft as possible if you must use them.

Reminds me of the guy who puts the Algebra book under his pillow the night before finals.

Last edited by elgoatropo; 07-03-2006 at 20:13..
elgoatropo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2006, 22:49   #2
TKM
Lifetime Membership
Shiny Member
 
TKM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Just another ball of mud.
Posts: 3,278
It's 97 above during the day around here. Not really a problem.
__________________
Hey, I've been in a firefight before!
Well, I was in a fire.
Actually, I was fired from a fry-cook opportunity.
TKM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 08:33   #3
EUPHER49
Senior Member
 
EUPHER49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SEPA
Posts: 602
Seems to me that if the weight was aft of the rear axle that it would reduce traction on the front of the truck...if a 4X4, you'd be reducing traction on the most effective drive wheels...putting the weight right over the rear axles will increase rear traction without reducing front traction...

If 2WD, with the weight all the way back, seems that steering traction could be affected too...

I still agree about the Algebra book tho'...
__________________
A lot of people are afraid of other people's freedom. Keep a close eye on yours.

-- E. F. Nine

Last edited by EUPHER49; 07-04-2006 at 08:35..
EUPHER49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 10:58   #4
Asha'man
eat the eat!
 
Asha'man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 2,549
Quote:
Originally posted by EUPHER49
Seems to me that if the weight was aft of the rear axle that it would reduce traction on the front of the truck...if a 4X4, you'd be reducing traction on the most effective drive wheels...putting the weight right over the rear axles will increase rear traction without reducing front traction...

If 2WD, with the weight all the way back, seems that steering traction could be affected too...

I still agree about the Algebra book tho'...
The engine sits over the front axle; that's all the weight it needs up there. Sandbags aft just evens out the weight balance a little.

Brian
__________________
--Brian

I have no guns. Guns are bad. I know because the government told me so. The government knows ALL.
Asha'man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 12:15   #5
elgoatropo
Senior Member
 
elgoatropo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kenai, AK, U.S.
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally posted by EUPHER49
Seems to me that if the weight was aft of the rear axle that it would reduce traction on the front of the truck...if a 4X4, you'd be reducing traction on the most effective drive wheels...putting the weight right over the rear axles will increase rear traction without reducing front traction...

If 2WD, with the weight all the way back, seems that steering traction could be affected too...

That's why I used the osmosis metaphor. The weight does not get to the rear wheels through proximity. The ballast acts along the longitudinal axis, changing the net distribution of weight. To get the most change for the least added weight, move it aft. Put it on an outrigger if you want.
elgoatropo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 12:17   #6
1985 4Runner
Agitator
 
1985 4Runner's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Gulf Coast MS
Posts: 3,346
exactly what kind of boat are you guys talking about?
1985 4Runner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 16:17   #7
manonmars
Spaced Out
 
manonmars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Great Cosmos
Posts: 1,872
If you drive a 4x4 or a 2x, it does help.

If you think it doesn't TRY IT!

I spent a winter in N. Idaho, and found it helped tremendously in the snow....in my 4 cyl Sonoma......I went places a 4x couldn't go...although it does have something to do with the DRIVERS SKILLS...............

I now drive a 4x4, but am selling it & going back to 2x...
__________________
If 50% of the people did 25% of what they said they were going to do, my life would be 39% easier.
manonmars
manonmars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 22:39   #8
EUPHER49
Senior Member
 
EUPHER49's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: SEPA
Posts: 602
Quote:
Originally posted by elgoatropo
That's why I used the osmosis metaphor. The weight does not get to the rear wheels through proximity. The ballast acts along the longitudinal axis, changing the net distribution of weight. To get the most change for the least added weight, move it aft. Put it on an outrigger if you want.
I'm not sure I picked up on the osmosis metaphor...

The longitudinal axis is exactly what I was talking about. The truck with weight in the bed becomes a simple machine called the lever.

If you place weight behind the fulcrum (the rear wheels in this case) you are causing an upward force at every point forward of that fulcrum.

If the outrigger was far enough behind the fulcrum it could lift the front end right off the ground.

If a weight of 600 lbs was placed at the most rearward part of the bed which, for sake of example, is 3 feet behind the rear axle and the truck is a total of 15 feet long that means that the front end of the truck would be 150 lbs lighter in the front. It seems to me to be a signifigant reduction of weight on the front wheels. If the 600 lbs was placed right over the rear wheels the weight would be right at the fulcrum and would not reduce the weight on the front axle and place all the added weight on the rear. (To me the most effective spot for the ballast)

I used the 600 lb figure cuz that's what I put in my truck bed during winter.
Right OVER the rear wheels.
__________________
A lot of people are afraid of other people's freedom. Keep a close eye on yours.

-- E. F. Nine
EUPHER49 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2006, 22:48   #9
Rob1035
Skeet Surfer
 
Rob1035's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Charlotte NC
Posts: 2,073
about 100 or so lbs in my trunk (pretty much right over the rear diff) give me pretty impressive traction in the snow. Of course, 100lbs is a bigger deal in a 2500lb car than whatever trucks weigh
__________________
Rob
Rob1035 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2006, 09:51   #10
elgoatropo
Senior Member
 
elgoatropo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kenai, AK, U.S.
Posts: 2,124
Quote:
Originally posted by EUPHER49

If a weight of 600 lbs was placed at the most rearward part of the bed which, for sake of example, is 3 feet behind the rear axle and the truck is a total of 15 feet long that means that the front end of the truck would be 150 lbs lighter in the front. It seems to me to be a signifigant reduction of weight on the front wheels. If the 600 lbs was placed right over the rear wheels the weight would be right at the fulcrum and would not reduce the weight on the front axle and place all the added weight on the rear. (To me the most effective spot for the ballast)

[/B]
Whatever weight is taken away from the front will be added to the rear. I thought the whole idea of lugging heavy sandbags around was to bias the center of gravity aft, since pickups are relatively too heavy up front and too light in the rear. You wouldn't need as much sand if you put it in the far back, and your MPG would not suffer as much.
elgoatropo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2006, 10:25   #11
manonmars
Spaced Out
 
manonmars's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The Great Cosmos
Posts: 1,872
I decided to move my engine to the middle.......

Although putting the engine in the cab makes for a noisy, hot ride, putting sandbags under the hood and in the bed makes for great traction............

You can also make a case for putting sandbags in front of the rear wheels, because as you move forward, the weight is "transferred" rearward.

.......or at least that is what someone told me long ago, in a far away place............
__________________
If 50% of the people did 25% of what they said they were going to do, my life would be 39% easier.
manonmars
manonmars is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2006, 10:28   #12
lethal tupperwa
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Virginia
Posts: 11,338


any of you theorists ever drive a truck?

My brother could go to amazing places on ice with 2000 lbs. of logs on his pickup.
__________________
Correctional and Therapeutic Mayhem Administrator EMERITUS

----------------------------------------

GLOCK CERTIFIED ARMORER
lethal tupperwa is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2006, 10:35   #13
One Ragged Hole
Dis ain't funny
 
One Ragged Hole's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Just hangin around
Posts: 2,269


When I had my '96 Astro Van (2WD) I used to put 300lbs of bagged gravel in against the rear doors to allow me to drive it in the snow. Without the weight you just couldn't drive up the icy hills here in PA.
O-R-H
__________________
"For Life, Liberty and Little Lizzie"
NRA Life Member, GSSF Member
A Buncha Glocks
"It's a Shoulder thing that goes up..."
One Dumb Broad!
One Ragged Hole is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2006, 17:41   #14
elgoatropo
Senior Member
 
elgoatropo's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Kenai, AK, U.S.
Posts: 2,124
Re: any of you theorists ever drive a truck?

Quote:
any of you theorists ever drive a truck?[/B]
No, but I hope to be afforded the opportunity one day.
elgoatropo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-13-2006, 18:11   #15
wizzi01
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Detroit,MI
Posts: 1,852
Send a message via ICQ to wizzi01 Send a message via AIM to wizzi01
What fun is traction in winter time? I have had 2 pickups since 96 both rwd and have not used any kind of traction aid.
wizzi01 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-14-2006, 23:36   #16
Bushflyr
ʇno uıƃuɐɥ ʇsnɾ
 
Bushflyr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Western WA
Posts: 4,465
Sand bags, schmand bags. Just fill the back with snow. Saves you the trouble of lifting the bags out when it warms up. While the sand all the way in the back does increase rear wheel traction, it also reduces front traction and makes it harder to recover from a spin than witih it further foreward.
__________________
...the secret is to bang the rocks together, guys.

That which does not kill you has made a tactical error. --Tayler
Bushflyr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2006, 19:02   #17
spober
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: wendel n.c.
Posts: 4,805
Quote:
Originally posted by Asha'man
The engine sits over the front axle; that's all the weight it needs up there. Sandbags aft just evens out the weight balance a little.

Brian
Do you really believe that?how old are you?
spober is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 19:59.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,375
421 Members
954 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31