Article: Tesla advertising Cybertruck can pull “Near Infinite Mass” — What Does That Even Mean?

[Cyberman]

The car hits a tie every 2 feet or so as it’s being pushed sideways down the track.

Tie Tie Tie …

Thump Thunk Smash…

Two alive, two dead. It's a tie.

Sponsored

 

[firsttruck]

//

.....
Texas Department of Insurance (TDI) - Railroad Crossing Safety Fact Sheet
HS04-070A (1-06)
https://www.tdi.texas.gov/pubs/videoresource/fsrailroadcross.pdf

.....
Unfortunately, commercially licensed truck and semi-trailer drivers were involved in 24 percent of train/motor vehicle collisions in 1998. After a tractor-trailer comes to a stop at a railroad crossing, it takes 27 seconds to cross the track at 2 mph. A train traveling at 41 mph covers 660 feet—in 11 seconds, which is as far up the tracks as the truck driver can see. Those who drive for a living must practice crossing safety.
.....
----------------------------------------

AAh OOh, even with slow U.S. train system (vs EU & Japanese high-speed systems) The amount of time to see a freight train coming could be much less.

In many places in U.S. where graded road/train crossings exist the freight trains could be traveling 60-100mph!!

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

Rail speed limits in the United States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_United_States


Freight trains

Class 4 Track type [us 2] 60 mph (97 km/h)
Chicago’s Metra & New England Central’s entire main line[11]

Class 5 Track type [us 3] 80 mph (130 km/h)
Union Pacific’s main line between Council Bluffs, Iowa, and North Platte, Neb and BNSF between Fullerton and San Diego, Calif.,[12] Brightline Capital Corridor San Joaquin

Class 6 Track type 110 mph (180 km/h)
Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor between New York and Washington, D.C.[13], Michigan

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

https://railroads.dot.gov/highway-r...programs/railroad-crossing-safety/engineering

.....
High-Speed Rail at Grade Crossings The FRA’s goal for high-speed rail grade crossings is to achieve an acceptable level of grade crossing risk. Regulatory requirements for high-speed grade crossings are: 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).

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

Even way back to 1966 there were U.S. freight trains going almost 80mph.

What is the fastest freight train in America?

Dubbed the "World's Fastest Freight Train," the all-TOFC (trailer-on-flatcar, or "piggyback") and COFC (container-on-flatcar) train ran about 2,200 miles (3,500 km) between Chicago, Illinois and Los Angeles, California on a 40-hour schedule.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_C_(freight_train)


.....
Santa Fe tried high-speed freight operations on its Illinois Division in late 1966. By year's end, passenger-geared GE U28CG locomotives took 19 piggyback cars from L.A.'s Hobart Yard to Chicago in 61 hours. On June 8, 1967 a joint run using New York Central's Flexi-Van container cars traveled from New York City to Los Angeles in 54 hours, 21 minutes. The Super C carried high-priority items such as auto parts and electronic components; the United States Post Office soon became a consistent customer. It was allowed 79 miles per hour (127 km/h).

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

 

[jqattan56]

Tesla Claimed Cybertruck Could Pull “Near Infinite Mass” — What Does That Even Mean?

https://cleantechnica.com/2023/01/1...-near-infinite-mass-what-does-that-even-mean/

But Is It “Near Infinite?”
As Jason Torchinsky at The Autopian mentions, there is a way to calculate drawbar pulls based on the torque of the vehicle. If you choose a towing target with low rolling resistance, and use a lot of torque (something Cybertruck will have), the pulling capacity (not towing, but pulling) should be in the millions of pounds. So, yes, the numbers will be very big (once we have them).

But the problem with “near infinite” is that it’s a meaningless term. It’s not just vague, but literally meaningless. Mathematically speaking, something can either be infinite or not. If there’s too many to possibly ever count because you’d never get to the end (because there is no end), then it’s infinite. If it’s countable at all, even if it’s a really big number, then it’s finite. In other words, something is either infinite or it’s not, kind of like someone can either be pregnant or not pregnant. If a person was “near pregnant,” then they’re just not.

 

[jqattan56]

As a lab tech I have a singular issue with the last statement. I understand your point that "near infinite" is a stupid catch phrase. But, The railroad system may disagree with you. The persistence of an electric motor's torque is why our rail system uses diesel over electric. The diesel engine cannot stall like electric. So even though the mass is overwhelming, given time, the electric motors of a locomotive will overcome the inertia, and those motors are nowhere near as advanced as what Tesla has innovated. As for the Lab tech issue, a person can, actually, be near pregnant in many ways. My industry tests for gradients of pregnancy to understand how a pregnancy is progressing. There are ectopic pregnancies (non viable), spontaneous miscarriage, and many disorders that end a fetus before it has a chance. Yes, the person is pregnant technically, but the practicality of all-or-nothing is rediculous.

The 30,000 Lbs. Solution​

Tesla, Presently, does not have a fully functional, light to medium capacity Trailer design division, and with the introduction of the CyberTruck, I believe it is the most opportune time to bring in the New CyberTrailer with self-steer system equipped trailer, as seen below. The image below was changed to illustrate the optional Self-Steer system explained below.

​

Please visit my YouTube “getafix56” channel for an old design from 2002 example of Front self-steer system in action.

The 30,000 Lbs. Solution​

The question to answer is “ How can we make the 30,000 Lbs. towing by a CyberTruck a possibility, and also improving the towing efficiency?”

The most common Tow vehicle/Trailer combination, below, shows that most general-purpose trailers loading, consist of a load bearing axle or axles located on the trailer to carry ~ 88 to 92% of Gross Trailer weight rating (GTWR), while 8 to 12% is tongue loading. This is carried on the Tow vehicle hitch. The added hitch loading is passed on to the vehicle’s rear axle loading, robbing it from useful vehicle payload.

The Tow vehicle weight limitations are attributed by:

• Tow vehicle traction, such as heavy, battery laden Tesla such as with Models S, X and CyberTruck.
• Standard Trailer Gross Trailer Weight (GTW = 5,000 Lbs.), when hitched to a tow vehicle, will result in weight transfer of up to ~ 12% to the tow Vehicle Hitch.

So, if say, model X, has a GVW of ~ 5,800 Lbs., with Rear Drive Axle loading at about 50% = 2,900 Lbs. This means that the Model X will experience extra hitch load of ~ 700 Lbs. which is also, Model X payload loss. This is the case with Standard Trailer design. Also, the Rear Axle Tires rolling Resistance is 24% higher.

In Pulling the plane scenario, not towing, it was only possible, with a Zero Hitch load setup. There would be no drawbar hitch load exerted on the rear suspension system, tires or axle components in the Tesla or any electric tow vehicle.

To allow electric cars, trucks and SUVs to take advantage of their true towing capabilities, trailers with Zero Tongue/Hitch Load is needed, such as the dolly Pop-trailers, (Wagon hitch set-up), or Self-steer zero tongue/ Hitch Loading trailers, as will be shown later.

Zero Tongue weight = Zero Tongue Load = Zero Hitch Load.

This also eliminates extra Tow vehicle Tires rolling resistance due to typical drawbar load transfer. This will produce a more efficient tow.

The idea that a Tow Vehicle, with excellent torque/ traction capability, can bumper-pull a Plane or a vehicle, with a Bumper mount Tow bar, as can be observed below.

The Tow Bar pull, shown above; is the kind you usually see. The Plane Tow is a Zero Hitch Load setup, and the other image is of a bumper mount tow bar setup. The steer axle, of towed vehicle, is self-steering, forward caster, and hence, must always travel forward, and the driver must have an exit plan when parking.

A patented Reversible Caster, Self-Steer Axle Equipped Trailers can be maneuvered in both forward and reverse directions, while maintaining tow vehicle tracking, with zero transfer load to tow vehicle.

​

The forward mounted reversible caster Self-Steer System eliminates:

• Fishtailing / Porpoising, Crosswind instability,
• Jackknifing, in both forward and reverse is greatly reduced.
• The Light Duty trailers, shown above, can be rated between 5K to 10K approximately, and all AWD Electric Vehicles can Pull/Tow twice their GVWR. Such as, TESLA, Models 3, S, X, and later the Tesla`s Cyber Truck.

The Heavy-duty Trailer Design would rate between 10K to 30 K. for use with CyberTruck and heavier.

For more information, Contact [email protected]

 

[CyberGus]

Tesla Claimed Cybertruck Could Pull “Near Infinite Mass”

Infinity feels like a really long time. Especially toward the end.

 

[Cyberman]

The 30,000 Lbs. Solution​

Tesla, Presently, does not have a fully functional, light to medium capacity Trailer design division, and with the introduction of the CyberTruck, I believe it is the most opportune time to bring in the New CyberTrailer with self-steer system equipped trailer, as seen below. The image below was changed to illustrate the optional Self-Steer system explained below.

​

Please visit my YouTube “getafix56” channel for an old design from 2002 example of Front self-steer system in action.

The 30,000 Lbs. Solution​

The question to answer is “ How can we make the 30,000 Lbs. towing by a CyberTruck a possibility, and also improving the towing efficiency?”

The most common Tow vehicle/Trailer combination, below, shows that most general-purpose trailers loading, consist of a load bearing axle or axles located on the trailer to carry ~ 88 to 92% of Gross Trailer weight rating (GTWR), while 8 to 12% is tongue loading. This is carried on the Tow vehicle hitch. The added hitch loading is passed on to the vehicle’s rear axle loading, robbing it from useful vehicle payload.

The Tow vehicle weight limitations are attributed by:

• Tow vehicle traction, such as heavy, battery laden Tesla such as with Models S, X and CyberTruck.
• Standard Trailer Gross Trailer Weight (GTW = 5,000 Lbs.), when hitched to a tow vehicle, will result in weight transfer of up to ~ 12% to the tow Vehicle Hitch.

So, if say, model X, has a GVW of ~ 5,800 Lbs., with Rear Drive Axle loading at about 50% = 2,900 Lbs. This means that the Model X will experience extra hitch load of ~ 700 Lbs. which is also, Model X payload loss. This is the case with Standard Trailer design. Also, the Rear Axle Tires rolling Resistance is 24% higher.

In Pulling the plane scenario, not towing, it was only possible, with a Zero Hitch load setup. There would be no drawbar hitch load exerted on the rear suspension system, tires or axle components in the Tesla or any electric tow vehicle.

To allow electric cars, trucks and SUVs to take advantage of their true towing capabilities, trailers with Zero Tongue/Hitch Load is needed, such as the dolly Pop-trailers, (Wagon hitch set-up), or Self-steer zero tongue/ Hitch Loading trailers, as will be shown later.

Zero Tongue weight = Zero Tongue Load = Zero Hitch Load.

This also eliminates extra Tow vehicle Tires rolling resistance due to typical drawbar load transfer. This will produce a more efficient tow.

The idea that a Tow Vehicle, with excellent torque/ traction capability, can bumper-pull a Plane or a vehicle, with a Bumper mount Tow bar, as can be observed below.

The Tow Bar pull, shown above; is the kind you usually see. The Plane Tow is a Zero Hitch Load setup, and the other image is of a bumper mount tow bar setup. The steer axle, of towed vehicle, is self-steering, forward caster, and hence, must always travel forward, and the driver must have an exit plan when parking.

A patented Reversible Caster, Self-Steer Axle Equipped Trailers can be maneuvered in both forward and reverse directions, while maintaining tow vehicle tracking, with zero transfer load to tow vehicle.

​

The forward mounted reversible caster Self-Steer System eliminates:

• Fishtailing / Porpoising, Crosswind instability,
• Jackknifing, in both forward and reverse is greatly reduced.
• The Light Duty trailers, shown above, can be rated between 5K to 10K approximately, and all AWD Electric Vehicles can Pull/Tow twice their GVWR. Such as, TESLA, Models 3, S, X, and later the Tesla`s Cyber Truck.

The Heavy-duty Trailer Design would rate between 10K to 30 K. for use with CyberTruck and heavier.

For more information, Contact [email protected]

So I say we just take the Cybertrailer and fill it to the roof with batteries. We can then drive, according to my calcs (as a professional number cruncher since the 1980's) from LA to New York and back without topping off.

 

[cvalue13]

Also, the Rear Axle Tires rolling Resistance is 24% higher.

does this assume standard model X tires/PSI? Would this not be mitigated by better towing tires/PSI?

In Pulling the plane scenario, not towing, it was only possible, with a Zero Hitch load setup.

it’s also only “possible” if merely “pulling” and not “towing,” where with the latter safe performance is gauged not merely by resulting tongue weight, but ability to safely launch, accelerate, decelerate, maneuver at speed, etc.

To do those things, much of that tongue weight you’ve just eliminated along with ”inefficient” tire friction, is the exact same weight and tire friction needed by the truck to create sufficient contact to utilize any fraction of its available torque. Put a 30,000lb trailer behind a 8,500lb CyberTruck, and launches or decelerations alike become more of a tire-smoking show?

since you’ve raised the pulling stunt of the car and 747 to show what a vehicle is capable of pulling if relieved of fatal hitch load, I’ll inject a different but similar stunt to show what a vehicle is incapable of towing absent sufficient weight and so tire contact:



As initially impressive as the 747 stunt, double clicking on the physics of the CT vs F150 stunt shows that the result has little to do with torque (or hitch weight), but instead comes down to the physics of a 2WD (with single powered wheel) that weighs 20% less than another vehicle with AWD. The CT could have had 1/4 of the torque as the F150 and still dragged the F150 like a rag doll based purely on the CT’s superior weight/contact/friction.

Meanwhile, back to your trailer: even assuming the friction you’ve taken away from the back tires isn’t needed for towing performance, the entire “Zero Hitch Load” setup fails to address the predominant efficiency issue with BEV towing: aero drag.

A hitch mounted bicycle rack with a bicycle on the back of a Model X has almost zero effect on its payload/hitch load, but at highway speeds decreases range by 20% due to drag.

With the Ford Lightning, I’ll admit to having no controlled studies to rely upon, but dozens of anecdotal datapoints all point toward the same dynamic that is consistent with the physics: the weight of the trailer has almost no perceptible effect on range, but the drag/frontal plane has the effect of towing a similarly sized parachute. This issue of aerodynamics, not hitch load, is the primary source of BEV towing limitations.

Range limitations implicate driving contexts where, in cartoon simplicity, weight is a negligible factor. The truck only briefly needs to “pull” the weight up to speed, but once at speed it’s the driving 2 hours at 75mph towing a parachute that accounts for probably 80-90% of relative inefficiencies.

The cumulative result of all the above, if you’ll forgive some dramatic license, I find myself hypothetically choosing between two competing theoretical products:

• a record-breaking 30,000lb trailer (presumably filled with gold bullion?) shaped like a breadbox, being towed by a 8,500lb vehicle with no weight over the rear wheels for towing performance
  vs
• a 10,000lb trailer with reasonable hitch load for towing performance, and record-breaking aero-engineering

Being a bit more serious, I know your proposal does not require the trailer to weigh 30,000lb, but the lighter it gets the less I understand the “problem” we’re solving for? And I’m still left with no solution for the drag issue?

that said, you’ve clearly thought about this quite a lot, so I’m not intending to set up a critique that stumps you, but instead would expect the comments to prompt ready responses from someone who’s thought about it this much

 

[PES_CT]

With Ethernet connectivity now possible between the Cybertruck and a trailer, Tesla should build their own steerable trailer with a built-in battery pack. Add drive motors to help push up hills and regen going down. With built-in solar panels, it can charge while moving. The batteries would provide normal trailer operation as well. Clever Tesla could use heat pumps to move energy from the refrigerator or AC to the water heater or room heater.

 

[jqattan56]

Infinity feels like a really long time. Especially toward the end.

I am sure it was not literal, just making a point.

 

[jqattan56]

So I say we just take the Cybertrailer and fill it to the roof with batteries. We can then drive, according to my calcs (as a professional number cruncher since the 1980's) from LA to New York and back without topping off.

That is a thought, could be tested later.

 

[jqattan56]

it’s also only “possible” if merely “pulling” and not “towing,” where with the latter safe performance is gauged not merely by resulting tongue weight, but ability to safely launch, accelerate, decelerate, maneuver at speed, etc.

- Pulling like a train or pulling a trailer with a Dolley, you pull as you pick up speed, fast acceleration is not a factor with pulling a trailer. No safety concerns there.

 

[jqattan56]

o do those things, much of that tongue weight you’ve just eliminated along with ”inefficient” tire friction, is the exact same weight and tire friction needed by the truck to create sufficient contact to utilize any fraction of its available torque. Put a 30,000lb trailer behind a 8,500lb CyberTruck, and launches or decelerations alike become more of a tire-smoking show?

does this assume standard model X tires/PSI? Would this not be mitigated by better towing tires/PSI?




it’s also only “possible” if merely “pulling” and not “towing,” where with the latter safe performance is gauged not merely by resulting tongue weight, but ability to safely launch, accelerate, decelerate, maneuver at speed, etc.

To do those things, much of that tongue weight you’ve just eliminated along with ”inefficient” tire friction, is the exact same weight and tire friction needed by the truck to create sufficient contact to utilize any fraction of its available torque. Put a 30,000lb trailer behind a 8,500lb CyberTruck, and launches or decelerations alike become more of a tire-smoking show?

since you’ve raised the pulling stunt of the car and 747 to show what a vehicle is capable of pulling if relieved of fatal hitch load, I’ll inject a different but similar stunt to show what a vehicle is incapable of towing absent sufficient weight and so tire contact:



As initially impressive as the 747 stunt, double clicking on the physics of the CT vs F150 stunt shows that the result has little to do with torque (or hitch weight), but instead comes down to the physics of a 2WD (with single powered wheel) that weighs 20% less than another vehicle with AWD. The CT could have had 1/4 of the torque as the F150 and still dragged the F150 like a rag doll based purely on the CT’s superior weight/contact/friction.

Meanwhile, back to your trailer: even assuming the friction you’ve taken away from the back tires isn’t needed for towing performance, the entire “Zero Hitch Load” setup fails to address the predominant efficiency issue with BEV towing: aero drag.

A hitch mounted bicycle rack with a bicycle on the back of a Model X has almost zero effect on its payload/hitch load, but at highway speeds decreases range by 20% due to drag.

With the Ford Lightning, I’ll admit to having no controlled studies to rely upon, but dozens of anecdotal datapoints all point toward the same dynamic that is consistent with the physics: the weight of the trailer has almost no perceptible effect on range, but the drag/frontal plane has the effect of towing a similarly sized parachute. This issue of aerodynamics, not hitch load, is the primary source of BEV towing limitations.

Range limitations implicate driving contexts where, in cartoon simplicity, weight is a negligible factor. The truck only briefly needs to “pull” the weight up to speed, but once at speed it’s the driving 2 hours at 75mph towing a parachute that accounts for probably 80-90% of relative inefficiencies.

The cumulative result of all the above, if you’ll forgive some dramatic license, I find myself hypothetically choosing between two competing theoretical products:

• a record-breaking 30,000lb trailer (presumably filled with gold bullion?) shaped like a breadbox, being towed by a 8,500lb vehicle with no weight over the rear wheels for towing performance
  vs
• a 10,000lb trailer with reasonable hitch load for towing performance, and record-breaking aero-engineering

Being a bit more serious, I know your proposal does not require the trailer to weigh 30,000lb, but the lighter it gets the less I understand the “problem” we’re solving for? And I’m still left with no solution for the drag issue?

that said, you’ve clearly thought about this quite a lot, so I’m not intending to set up a critique that stumps you, but instead would expect the comments to prompt ready responses from someone who’s thought about it this much

Both Kinds of trailers will experience same air Drag, the difference is that the tow vehicle suspension system will experience no extra loading due to trailer tongue loading. Also, there is No such a thing as ”inefficient” tire friction, there is pulling tire traction, and if you gun the engine, you can still lose traction with any auto-truck combination. Will attach docs to explain all points.

 

[cvalue13]

- Pulling like a train or pulling a trailer with a Dolley, you pull as you pick up speed, fast acceleration is not a factor with pulling a trailer. No safety concerns there.

this is, respectfully, patently incorrect

There used to be a time manufacturers tested their own max tow ratings, variously using different metrics of actual towing capability - as distinct from pulling.

More recently, there have developed standardized testing qualifications by independent bodies - whose test metrics are reflective of the substance of towing capability

Take for example the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) who developed the J2807 “Performance Requirements for Determining Tow-Vehicle Gross Combination Weight Rating and Trailer Weight Rating” - which are procedures of rigorous real-world challenges to determine the Gross Combined Weight Rating (GCWR) of a vehicle and trailer combination, which is then used to calculate a maximum trailer weight rating, and that can be used to compare with any other truck that’s also tested using the J2807 standards.

Not to belabor the details but to give a flavor of just some of t max towing capacity standards that determine SAR accredited max tow ratings:

Launching:

To test the ability of a truck and trailer to get moving from a dead stop the SAE uses a “Launch on Grade” test. To pass, while on an incredibly steep 12 percent grade, a truck must be able to launch and travel 16 feet (5 meters) uphill, five times in a row, in 5 minutes or less. Then, the truck and trailer has to be able to complete the same test while launching up a 12 percent grade in reverse.​

Acceleration:

Three tests are used to determine if a truck/trailer combination has sufficient acceleration on flat sections of road. One is a test that measures the 0-to-30-mph time, with single-rear-wheel trucks needing to reach that speed in 12.0 seconds, while dual-rear-wheel models get 14.0 seconds. There is also a 0-to-60-mph acceleration test that allows SRW trucks 30.0 seconds to reach that highway speed while DRW models get 35.0 seconds. To measure passing capability, the 40-to-60-mph time of single-rear-wheel trucks must be 18.0 seconds or less, and dual-rear-wheel trucks are allowed up to 21.0 seconds.
​

Grade:

The J2807 “Highway Gradeability” tests take place on lthe 11.4-mile-long Davis Dam Grade. (If trucks are not tested on this specific stretch of steep road, they can be run in a simulation using a “climactic” wind tunnel.) Ambient temperature plays a significant role in this test with a minimum temperature of 100 degrees required at the base of the grade. In addition to a hot climate outside the truck, the test requires the air conditioning system to be set at maximum cold, with outside air selected (not recirculating) and the fan running at full blower speed.​

Once those criteria are met, to pass this test, a truck-and-trailer combination must be able to drive at 40 mph (35 mph for dualies) and never drop below that speed until the end of the test segment at the peak of Union Pass. Under “drivetrain system performance,” the J2807 standard requires there be no component failures, along with no “check engine” lights or any other alerts or warnings for the driver. The “cooling system performance” requirement also requires zero part failures, no error codes, no driver warnings of any other kind, and no loss of coolant fluid during the test.
​

Control:

The truck-and-trailer “Combination Handling Requirements” of J2807 specify minimum performance for understeer and trailer sway response. The tests are designed to determine the limits of the weight carrying, weight distributing, and stability of a fifth-wheel/gooseneck trailer, with the combo at its maximum GCWR. Understeer is measured at three different levels of Front Axle Load Restoration (FALR). The procedures are designed so you can be assured your truck will not be steered by the weight of the trailer under typical driving conditions even while pulling the maximum tow weight. For example, with a fifth-wheel or gooseneck hitch, the truck/trailer combination is allowed 0 degrees per g of understeer when there are 0.4 g or less of lateral acceleration and an FALR of 0 percent. In addition to the understeer tests, there is a measurement for the maximum sway damping that requires the trailer to move at a ratio of 0.10 or less at 62.1 mph (100 km/h).​

Stopping:

The J2807 standards also have requirements for the braking performance of the truck-and-trailer combination at its maximum GCWR. Combos with a maximum tow rating of more than 3,000 pounds are required to stop completely from 20 mph in 80 feet or less. During this stop test, the trailer must remain within an 11.5-foot-wide lane throughout the entire stop. In addition to the active testing, the parking brake must be able to hold the truck and trailer firmly in place both upward and downward on a 12 percent grade when it is at the maximum GCWR.​

Math:

Once testing has been completed and a truck model meets all of the criteria, the basic calculation for the SAE maximum Tow Weight Rating is: TWR = GCWR – TVTW. By subtracting the total weight of the tow vehicle (the TVTW includes the weight of the driver, passenger, and additional equipment) from the tested GCWR, the result is the SAE J2807-compliant Tow Weight Rating. This rating is the number buyers can use to cross-shop against other J2807-compliant trucks.​

Which brings me back to this:

- Pulling like a train or pulling a trailer with a Dolley, you pull as you pick up speed, fast acceleration is not a factor with pulling a trailer. No safety concerns there.

Either I misunderstand the intent of this comment, or you’re saying something that is inapposite to any towing layperson’s understanding of towing, and 180° from the realities of the difference between “pulling” something heavy and towing a load with a passenger vehicle in real world conditions with minimum safety standards.

A single human can “pull” a 44 ton airplane on a runway - that doesn’t mean DOT will allow that person on a highway with an airplane.

 

[jqattan56]

My good man, I agree with you all the way, but that was not the point I was making.
Both the standard style and SS-trailer styles are both effective and productive. I am comparing the standard 3 point trailer with, say, dolly style trailer, they both must pass certain standards, but the difference is that the dolly driven trailer will not have an exerted tongue load like a three point setup.

The SS-Trailer would have a 5 point setup. The trailers that were produced and used in Texas and east coast worked very well, as you can see the images. check " getafix56 " YouTube channel.

The trailers have brakes and work well with tow vehicles. This trailer does not jackknife, both in forward and reverse.

It was really fun to use. Lost financing, thus is on hold.

Sponsored