Post by: griz066 on August 07, 2014, 07:10:17 AM
Post by: Alfa12 on August 07, 2014, 07:16:18 AM
Post by: grafy82 on August 07, 2014, 07:17:21 AM
Post by: swanny on August 07, 2014, 07:18:37 AM
Post by: firefox on August 07, 2014, 07:19:56 AM
I don't believe its a specific type, it's just that the shackles and equipment need to be rated. I use 3.5t shackles with additional rated closed clip (don't know what is called they use it on big rigs for tying down). I needed the additional clips as the larger shackle would not go through the chain links.
I get scared some days seeing the chains thickness and shackles on campers. And in my travels now I've seen about 4 vans all have fallen of their tow all whilst driving.
Just worked out that those clips are called hammer locks.. I run two high strength chains rated at 3.5t, with hammer locks on each end rated at 5t with two bow shackles.The link I posted below has some good info in it.
Post by: firefox on August 07, 2014, 07:25:35 AM
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf)
Shackles and chains MUST be rated. You will see probably 90% of the shackles are not stamped and not rated as per compliance. This includes chains.
It's not about bow or d shackles it's about not being rated correctly. And most of the shackles out there do not comply as they are not stamped and more then likely not rated.
Post by: Jenko67 on August 07, 2014, 07:46:22 AM
Post by: Footy Shorts Shane on August 07, 2014, 08:09:56 AM
And most of the shackles out there do not comply as they are not stamped and more then likely not rated.
The way I read that, is the chain must be marked, but only advisable for the shackle. The shackle must be rated at 1.5 times ATM though.
Post by: firefox on August 07, 2014, 08:14:24 AM
http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/19646/vib13i-Light-Trailer-Safety-Chain-Shackles-Jan-2013.pdf (http://www.transport.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/19646/vib13i-Light-Trailer-Safety-Chain-Shackles-Jan-2013.pdf)
Definitely chain and shackles, this one only talks about inspection and a notice not a fine.
I've looked in vsb1 it refers to the entire connection and then calls the chain out.it also refers to specific requirements in AS standards i just don't have access, but have found the summary docs for example.
Post by: firefox on August 07, 2014, 08:39:02 AM
I think it looks like someone trying to get there head around it here..
http://caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50180&start=20 (http://caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=50180&start=20)
In a nutshell I thinks its advisable to definitely have rated chains and shackles..
Post by: ddr on August 07, 2014, 09:06:15 AM
In a nutshell I thinks its advisable to definitely have rated chains and shackles..
From what I have found, which included statements from Police. Its advisable, but not Law. The statements from the ADR etc only say that shackle should be strong enough but nothing about using a rated shackle.
Post by: Jakster1 on August 07, 2014, 01:30:21 PM
I was in the bunnings about a week ago and an old fella was beside me looking for rated shackles for his van.
He was raving on about how he just got booked and fined for using a regular non rated D shackle at a roadside checkpoint.
And I guess in the event of an accident that was caused by an unrated shackle which has failed, the owner will be in a lot of trouble.
Post by: Jakster1 on August 07, 2014, 01:36:08 PM
Page 7 & 8 spell it out
Post by: DaveR on August 07, 2014, 02:16:01 PM
The fun will begin when industrial rigging test standards get enforced and we all have to re-test the shackles every 6 months just like other certified rigging equipment.
Yep, OK, I'll now run away as I know your all looking for something to through at me, but, just wait and see, there will be someone, somewhere who will try to carry that regulation over. It will start with heavy transport and then filter down.
PS
When a link is welded, the chain is no longer rated. The alternative is a secured eye and a hammer lock to join the chain to the trailer.
Post by: ATC on August 07, 2014, 02:19:47 PM
Its all true folks.
The fun will begin when industrial rigging test standards get enforced and we all have to re-test the shackles every 6 months just like other certified rigging equipment.
Yep, OK, I'll now run away as I know your all looking for something to through at me, but, just wait and see, there will be someone, somewhere who will try to carry that regulation over. It will start with heavy transport and then filter down.
No we have stuff to throw at you, all the old shackles & non-rated chain that manufacturers supply with trailers & tow hitches.
If I paint it red does it make it load rated?
Post by: DaveR on August 07, 2014, 02:21:16 PM
No we have stuff to throw at you, all the old shackles & non-rated chain that manufacturers supply with trailers & tow hitches.
If I paint it red does it make it load rated?
Yep, and change the color every 6 months, sorted.....
Post by: RebsWA on August 07, 2014, 02:27:34 PM
I do not think these new "regs" apply retrospective to all trailers made before that date.
Bit like old cars made without seatbelts, you don't have to fit them to drive them.
But, all states are probably different anyway
Post by: Footy Shorts Shane on August 07, 2014, 02:34:56 PM
So if my trailer ATM is 1 tonne, I purchase a "1.5 tonne load rated" shackle from Bunnings with no markings, it's not stainless, then it is legal, isn't it ???
Shane. ???
Post by: Bird on August 07, 2014, 02:53:32 PM
Post by: Bad Scott on August 07, 2014, 02:55:42 PM
Sent from .................
Post by: ddr on August 07, 2014, 03:12:00 PM
It gives some recommendations, some examples, but there is no mention of the law where you MUST use a rated shackle.
Even the VSB doesn't go into specifics on the shackle. It just states that the shackle should be strong enough to handle the load.
Post by: Mace on August 07, 2014, 03:34:43 PM
For towing, a shackle should be seen as a device for extension of the safety chain to a rated mounting on the vehicle. Why anyone would want to have a rated chain then not ensure the rating of the coupling device (shackle) to the mount is adequate is beyond me!
In this case, IMO its an example of the enforcement agency finally catching up with game.
Post by: firefox on August 07, 2014, 03:40:29 PM
I walked along the front and we have 7 vans including mine.. All at least 2.5T+
Out of 7 vans...
2 vans grossly small chains, no rating and d shackles small as.. (i wouldn't hook them up to a 750kg trailer..)
2 vans with decent chains and stamped/rated shackles (mine is one of these)
the 3 others had reasonable sized chains (no stamped on them) and d-shackles with no rating on them..
Just goes to show people either don't know, don't care or just don't understand why a chain is there..
Post by: Suncruise on August 07, 2014, 03:55:52 PM
I have rated shackles on my CT however they are 1 tonne each so won't comply with the gross trailer mass of 1.5 tonne if the 1.5 times mass rule is correct (which I have my doubts).
Unfortunately the next size up shackle wont fit through a chain link.
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 04:01:24 PM
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf)
Page 7 & 8 spell it out
Geez, if my trailer had a single safety chain like the one pictured on p.5, I would be very, very worried!
It has two that are each at least double the link thickness of that - i.e. approx. 4x the breaking strain.
The D shackles I use are also at least double the diameter of the chain pictured.
Who are these idiots?
Oh, that's right - government ... Nuff said.
Oh, another minor detail - how does one cross over a single safety chain?
And yet another one ... The ball and coupling on my trailer are both stamped "5000 lb". Now that's only 2,272.7273 Kgs, not the required 2,300 Kgs ... .
I wonder if that's OK for a trailer that has (by law, as it is an un-braked trailer) a maximum ATM/GVM of 750 Kgs ... ??? .
DRONGOS!
Post by: Suncruise on August 07, 2014, 04:35:34 PM
The break strength of the shackles must rated at 1.5 times ATM.
Break strength is 6 times working load limit (WLL) which is stamped on the shackle.
Therefore is my case the shackles have a combined 12 tonne break strength and are legal ;D
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 07, 2014, 04:36:59 PM
They blitzed covers for loads a while back, booking every tinnie, box trailer, ute, you name it, they booked 'em.
So much so, i'll change my shackle in the morning before setting off to work.
The buggers come to here every few weeks, rape and pillage then go.
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 04:39:08 PM
Basically " ... imposition of ... trade, commerce and intercourse between States shall be absolutely free."
By requiring separate registration/insurance provisions for Interstate vehicles and their trailers ...
Just a thought ... ??? >:( .
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 04:57:14 PM
I get it now
The break strength of the shackles must rated at 1.5 times ATM.
Break strength is 6 times working load limit (WLL) which is stamped on the shackle.
Therefore is my case the shackles have a combined 12 tonne break strength and are legal ;D
Don't get confused between Breaking Strain (BS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)), Working Load Limit (WLL) and Safe Working Load (SWL).
The Wikipedia article here does not appear to be accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_load_limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_load_limit)
as it does not adequately differentiate between a rolling load (usually defined as the WLL) and dead (vertical) lift load (SWL).
My creeper winch has a WLL of 2,400 Kgs and a SWL of 1,600 Kgs, for example. It has a shear pin to ensure that the BS is limited to the weakest part of the device.
Post by: Suncruise on August 07, 2014, 05:05:26 PM
This is from the above linked Safe Towing Guide, Transport and Main Roads, August 2014.
Note:
• Rated bolts, chain shackles or other suitable fittings (i.e. hammerlocks) may be used as devices for
connection on safety chains providing the break load limit of the device is at least 1.5 times greater
than the ATM of the trailer
• Generally, the break load limit of a rated shackle will be six times greater than its work load limit.
• Pin diameter of shackle will be greater than the diameter of the main shackle body.
• Same size shackles of different quality grades will have a different WLL (i.e. 6mm “S” grade shackle
has a greater WLL than a 6mm “M” grade shackle
Post by: gordo350 on August 07, 2014, 05:32:56 PM
I still cant see in the QLD document where it says that a rated shackle must be used.The trouble starts when the coroner asks you how you knew the shackle would handle the load if it is not stamped :)
It gives some recommendations, some examples, but there is no mention of the law where you MUST use a rated shackle.
Even the VSB doesn't go into specifics on the shackle. It just states that the shackle should be strong enough to handle the load.
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 06:05:16 PM
The trouble starts when the coroner asks you how you knew the shackle would handle the load if it is not stamped :)
It doesn't actually.
The answer is really simple:
"Your Worship (or whatever Grand Title they apply to themselves these days ... ), when the relevant document at Page seven under the heading of "Safety Chain Connections (Shackles, Pins or Bolts)" states that the department " ... recommends ... ", am I to take it that this has somehow magically become law without the relevant recommendation being gazetted?".
I also note the following:
1) At p.4 of the relevant document it lists the legal requirements, and nowhere in this list does it mention either safety chains or shackles or such like; and
2) That this document appears to make almost all trailers with safety chains on the road unlawful, or attempts to do so, by requiring that the safety chains are marked in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards. Where has this requirement been gazetted? Even the chain in my lifting block and tackle was not so marked ...
While I do not disagree with the intent of the document, it is seriously flawed at both practical and legal levels, IMNSHO.
Post by: gordo350 on August 07, 2014, 06:11:37 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 06:19:38 PM
The document speaks for itself. Read the actual "Related documents and links" on p.12.
The fact that the relevant Australian Standard "AS 4177 Safety Chains" is not a published public document, prima facie excludes it from having legal effect.
The relevant VSBs and ADRs and "Load Restraint Guide" are all publicly available documents.
Punitive measures/legislation have no application whatsoever until such time as they are published in the relevant Government Gazette.
Post by: GeoffA on August 07, 2014, 06:31:49 PM
http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf (http://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/~/media/Safety/Vehicle%20standards%20and%20modifications/Loads%20and%20towing/Safe%20towing/Safe_towing_guide.pdf)
Page 7 & 8 spell it out
In that document, rated shackles are not mandatory, just a recommendation........
Post by: Symon on August 07, 2014, 08:50:53 PM
The fact that the relevant Australian Standard "AS 4177 Safety Chains" is not a published public document, prima facie excludes it from having legal effect
Rubbish. A standard does not need to be freely available for it to be legally enforceable. If the standard is prescribed in legislation then compliance with it becomes mandatory. In this case AS 4177 is referenced by the ADR, which is prescribed in legislation, so compliance with the standard is mandatory.
No different to AS 3000 or any other standard that is prescribed in legislation.
Post by: CRW on August 07, 2014, 08:58:03 PM
Rubbish. A standard does not need to be freely available for it to be legally enforceable. If the standard is prescribed in legislation then compliance with it becomes mandatory. In this case AS 4177 is referenced by the ADR, which is prescribed in legislation, so compliance with the standard is mandatory.
No different to AS 3000 or any other standard that is prescribed in legislation.
It is fact, that if you use any equipment or anything else that can be regulated, it is your responsibility as the end user to know, or should be expected to know of the requirements i.e. standards or regulations. You need to take the initiative and find out for your self, and with google it's so easy
Cheers
Carl
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
Post by: achjimmy on August 07, 2014, 09:06:13 PM
PS
When a link is welded, the chain is no longer rated. The alternative is a secured eye and a hammer lock to join the chain to the trailer.
And we have a winner.
Total wank of a rule while ever we keep welding chain to chassis.
Post by: Mace on August 07, 2014, 09:08:20 PM
I'm lucky, my employer subscribes to SAIGLOBAL. They cost us nothing.
Symon is correct, it's been discussed here before. Standards are there, some are referenced in legislation, others are called into law by the courts. Some have not been called into law yet, but if facing a magistrate I'd rather know I had complied with a standard than ignored it.
So, someone in QLD should try their luck in courts with one of these fines.
Good luck.
:cheers:
Post by: bluejay on August 07, 2014, 09:35:43 PM
Post by: Landyline on August 07, 2014, 09:58:46 PM
However my thoughts revolve around how the chain gets attached to the trailer. Mine has a rod welded under and between the a frame behind the hitch which passes through the first chain link.
What good is rating things if the attachment isn't rated?
I assume the towbar attachment point is rated but never looked into it.
I'm going to look into this tomorrow. Maybe get some rated chain, higher rated shackle and a hammer lock.
Fairly cheap peace of mind and compliance really.
Post by: Ratbag on August 07, 2014, 10:14:30 PM
Rat bag come to qld and do a test case for us so we can see what his lord ship concludes
I'll be there in about a month.
From my Batphone
Post by: Jasman on August 07, 2014, 11:01:06 PM
Anyone know where's a good spot to source these shackles? I checked my local supercheap and repco today and had no luck.
Post by: Bad Scott on August 07, 2014, 11:57:01 PM
Just went out and checked the Jayco and unfortunately the only stamp on the shackle says "Hayman Reece", I would assume being made by them they would be to spec but I guess that doesn't really matter!
Anyone know where's a good spot to source these shackles? I checked my local supercheap and repco today and had no luck.
Bolt company, Some tool shops
Post by: GGV8Cruza on August 08, 2014, 05:56:11 AM
Anyone know where's a good spot to source these shackles? I checked my local supercheap and repco today and had no luck.
I picked up my last four from ARB and they were around the $5 mark for each, pretty cheap for something that may hold back disaster
GG
Post by: Aaron Schubert on August 08, 2014, 07:58:28 AM
They shouldn't be more than a few bucks each
Aaron
Post by: DaveR on August 08, 2014, 09:42:00 AM
Failing that, truck spare part places, they sell a fair bit of kit to.
Post by: doc evil on August 08, 2014, 10:04:06 AM
Don't get confused between Breaking Strain (BS) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(mechanics)), Working Load Limit (WLL) and Safe Working Load (SWL).
The Wikipedia article here does not appear to be accurate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_load_limit (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_load_limit)
as it does not adequately differentiate between a rolling load (usually defined as the WLL) and dead (vertical) lift load (SWL).
My creeper winch has a WLL of 2,400 Kgs and a SWL of 1,600 Kgs, for example. It has a shear pin to ensure that the BS is limited to the weakest part of the device.
Several things..........SWL is no longer a term used. Was a big court case in the US and resulted in the word "safe" being removed from all load created work equipment.
Secondly, ALL rated "lifting" equipment is for just that. Lifting!
horizontal load force cannot be applied to vertical "lifting/rigging" rated equipment!
Likewise, Hoist and Winch ratings ARE different.
Post by: Green rv on August 08, 2014, 10:54:54 AM
bow shackle is rated at 750kg (WLL) its (BLL) is 6 times greater (as stated by main roads) = 4.5t
does this look right to you (see pic)
this is what it states in main roads info
Rated bolts, chain shackles or other suitable fittings (i.e. hammerlocks) may be used as devices for
connection on safety chains providing the BREAK LOAD LIMIT of the device is at least 1.5 times greater
than the ATM of the trailer
• Generally, the BREAK LOAD LIMIT of a rated shackle will be six times greater than its work load limit.
• Pin diameter of shackle will be greater than the diameter of the main shackle body.
• Same size shackles of different quality grades will have a different WLL (i.e. 6mm “S” grade shackle
has a greater WLL than a 6mm “M” grade shackle).
• Stainless steel shackles are unsuitable for trailer use due to the material’s general low resistance to
bending stresses.
• S” or “6” grade “D” Shackles bear similar characteristics to “S” or “6” grade Bow Shackles
• Bow shackles provide for greater angular usage compared with “D” shackles.
note this is on the front of a 2.5 t supreme that has two chains
ADS
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 11:17:06 AM
Several things..........SWL is no longer a term used. Was a big court case in the US and resulted in the word "safe" being removed from all load created work equipment.
Secondly, ALL rated "lifting" equipment is for just that. Lifting!
horizontal load force cannot be applied to vertical "lifting/rigging" rated equipment!
Likewise, Hoist and Winch ratings ARE different.
Sorry, I didn't realise that the sometimes crazy decisions made by USA courts were even treated as obiter dicta in Oz courts, let alone as precedents, even when the ratio decidendi can be ascertained ...
BTW, I can assure you that the winch I have is designed for both lifting and rolling loads. Perhaps that might be why the manufacturer gives different safe working numbers for each type of load?
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 11:41:13 AM
note this is on the front of a 2.5 t supreme that has two chains
ADS
Struth, mate! I am surprised that you can even fit that dinky little thing through both the chain link and the tow bar attachment point!
Maybe I will stick with using the D-shackles that I have been using for a long time now. They have an 8mm D, with a 9mm pin, attaching unmarked 8mm welded link chains (2x) that are welded to the towing A-frame. These should be adequate for my (un-braked) trailer that cannot legally weigh more than 750 Kgs!!
Interesting the comment about not welding the chains to the A-bar. Having done the odd bit of welding during my life (oxy and arc), I was always taught that a good weld should not be able to be broken at the weld, if done properly. When I was being taught, my welds were put in a vice and belted until something broke. They didn't tear at the weld.
Now, no one in their right mind is going to silver braze the chain on, or even braze it on. I also understand that some grades of steel are not weldable, or not easily weldable. Stainless steels are a perfect example of this, but there are others. I find it difficult to believe that a chain maker making general purpose, welded link chain would choose such a steel grade for the purpose. I can easily see that a company making hoist and lifting chains may well choose to do so. This is where this whole document comes badly unstuck, IMNSHO. It attempts to apply extremely simple "rules" (simplistic, perhaps?) to a complex subject. Making "rules" that cannot apply generally.
Almost every domestic trailer I have ever seen, of whatever kind, has the safety chains welded to the A-bar. Barring the combination of two bad welds, a break-away accident (how often are these seen on the news, or anywhere else?), and grossly inadequate D-shackles or bow shackles (just about anything that's big enough to fit is likely to be strong enough to hold ... ), what does this document actually achieve? What will it prevent? A million-to-one, or billion-to-one accident? Maybe. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
As I said before - their heart is in the right place, their intentions are good and pure, the document is a joke, technically speaking.
Post by: doc evil on August 08, 2014, 11:56:02 AM
Sorry, I didn't realise that the sometimes crazy decisions made by USA courts were even treated as obiter dicta in Oz courts, let alone as precedents, even when the ratio decidendi can be ascertained ...
BTW, I can assure you that the winch I have is designed for both lifting and rolling loads. Perhaps that might be why the manufacturer gives different safe working numbers for each type of load?
I'm going on documentation issued by engineers aust. and it all revolves around the word "safe".
some interesting reading.....
http://cica.com.au/docs/default-source/technical-information/working-load-limit-information.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (http://cica.com.au/docs/default-source/technical-information/working-load-limit-information.pdf?sfvrsn=2)
http://www.irata.org/uploads/healthandsafety/WLLSWL.pdf (http://www.irata.org/uploads/healthandsafety/WLLSWL.pdf)
http://www.centraloverland.com/2011/04/working-load-limit-wll-safe-working-load-swl-minimum-breaking-strength-mbs/ (http://www.centraloverland.com/2011/04/working-load-limit-wll-safe-working-load-swl-minimum-breaking-strength-mbs/)
Also, as I've stated, the most important issue is ALL rated equipment is for vertical "lifting" NOT horizontal "pulling"..........
Post by: jetcrew on August 08, 2014, 12:02:24 PM
If they want compliance as someone said early on ....it starts with manufacturers This country amazes me sometimes, old mate works hard his whole live pays tax saves up to buy a caravan/camper hands over said hard earned $$$ drives away and 6 mths later gets fined for chains that are to small or d-shackles that are not rated or specd correctly ..However these are the chains placed on there and shackles supplied by the the manufacturer.
If the GOVT is really keen about safety not $$$ raising they will immediately introduce mandatory compliance for all manufacturers and hefty fines for non compliance BY THE MANUFACTURER. NOT sting the end user.
If it is a home made trailer then by all means sting the builder himself. Spending 50K on a van to then get fined for a chain ect is a joke and should be rectified.
one could very well argue that the lawfull defence of "mistake of fact" could be argued in that the end user was mistaken in the belief the van meet the required standards as it was registered by the state authority and the manuf had the relevant licences to manufacture such a product. Furthermore the builder was reckless as to the likelihood that their fail to comply could cause an accident or death.
If a car manuf has failed to meet a safety standard in their process the cars are recalled at the expense of the car manuf ..
if they are really keen to have this stuff implemented set a date xx/xx/xxxx .......from this date on ALL trailers registered MUST have chains applied with hammerlocks to chassis and rated shackles used. failure to do so will be a breach of the act or whatever to which the manufacture can/will be held liable in the event of an accident relating to the failure of said equip. I declaration is made at point of registration ..why not make it worth something. a safe towing placard or something just like the elec and gas cert in a van.
Just my 2c ... I am all for increased safety but it means nothing if 2000 trailers are day are getting registered without the correct gear.
Jet ;D ;D
Post by: ScottT on August 08, 2014, 12:09:03 PM
What a crock.....
If they want compliance as someone said early on ....it starts with manufacturers This country amazes me sometimes, old mate works hard his whole live pays tax saves up to buy a caravan/camper hands over said hard earned $$$ drives away and 6 mths later gets fined for chains that are to small or d-shackles that are not rated or specd correctly ..However these are the chains placed on there and shackles supplied by the the manufacturer.
If the GOVT is really keen about safety not $$$ raising they will immediately introduce mandatory compliance for all manufacturers and hefty fines for non compliance BY THE MANUFACTURER. NOT sting the end user.
If it is a home made trailer then by all means sting the builder himself. Spending 50K on a van to then get fined for a chain ect is a joke and should be rectified.
one could very well argue that the lawfull defence of "mistake of fact" could be argued in that the end user was mistaken in the belief the van meet the required standards as it was registered by the state authority and the manuf had the relevant licences to manufacture such a product. Furthermore the builder was reckless as to the likelihood that their fail to comply could cause an accident or death.
If a car manuf has failed to meet a safety standard in their process the cars are recalled at the expense of the car manuf ..
if they are really keen to have this stuff implemented set a date xx/xx/xxxx .......from this date on ALL trailers registered MUST have chains applied with hammerlocks to chassis and rated shackles used. failure to do so will be a breach of the act or whatever to which the manufacture can/will be held liable in the event of an accident relating to the failure of said equip. I declaration is made at point of registration ..why not make it worth something. a safe towing placard or something just like the elec and gas cert in a van.
Just my 2c ... I am all for increased safety but it means nothing if 2000 trailers are day are getting registered without the correct gear.
Jet ;D ;D
Agree
Otherwise why bother with a VIN plate ?
Post by: DaveR on August 08, 2014, 12:14:06 PM
For this to be fixed correctly, it must start with the licencing folk who then has a bit of a crack down on the manufactures and retailers of these products. This wont happen unless we send a note to the local authority about this concern, such has been done by many about the Hitch and compliance issue etc etc.
Post by: firefox on August 08, 2014, 12:37:58 PM
Went into the local caravan supplier parts and new sales.
Load and behold on the floor of their dealership is a HUGE BOX (i mean huge) of rated shackles.. (probably about 200 shackles)
Got talking with them, and they had been hit by inspectors a few weeks ago, querying rating of shackles (this is in NSW).. Although they did not get in trouble as they are selling new jayco's etc... They ARE... replacing all of their shackles (not marked) with new rated shackles..
Had a good chat with him for about 20 mins. Aparently this is starting to happen around the trap's he had received 7 phone calls in the last few weeks from people with their vans that had been pulled over in NSW.. So it's not just QLD..
However as we were talking i said to him the biggest joke is the fact that JAYCO are supplying them with unrated shackles (at least they are not stamped..) Sounds like they are stuck in the middle.
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 12:41:47 PM
I'm going on documentation issued by engineers aust. and it all revolves around the word "safe".
some interesting reading.....
http://cica.com.au/docs/default-source/technical-information/working-load-limit-information.pdf?sfvrsn=2 (http://cica.com.au/docs/default-source/technical-information/working-load-limit-information.pdf?sfvrsn=2)
http://www.irata.org/uploads/healthandsafety/WLLSWL.pdf (http://www.irata.org/uploads/healthandsafety/WLLSWL.pdf)
http://www.centraloverland.com/2011/04/working-load-limit-wll-safe-working-load-swl-minimum-breaking-strength-mbs/ (http://www.centraloverland.com/2011/04/working-load-limit-wll-safe-working-load-swl-minimum-breaking-strength-mbs/)
Also, as I've stated, the most important issue is ALL rated equipment is for vertical "lifting" NOT horizontal "pulling"..........
Thanks for the links. Interesting reading, particularly the second one.
However, they merely reinforce the point I was making.
The first is basically stating that the "new" system is a dog's breakfast.
The second states that WLL can apply to either a dead lift or rolling/supported loads.
The third is stating that the whole thing has become a mess ...
Sorry for the very rough analysis and précis, but I haven't the time to be more precise than this. The documents speak for themselves as to what a mess this has become, all because some USA court doesn't like the word "safe"! Well, here's some news for them - There's no such thing as "safe". Being alive is inherently dangerous. One can take reasonable care, however. This is a legally defined concept.
It is up to the manufacturers and government to ensure that we are properly informed so that we can all exercise that reasonable care that the Law of Torts requires of us. The document under discussion does absolutely nothing to further that cause, IMO. That is the point I have been trying to make all along.
Post by: Mallory Black on August 08, 2014, 01:09:28 PM
having said that... anyone who has had to fend off litigators (who want your money hook or crook) and insurance investigators some of who will try anything it seems avoid payin' a claim and try layin' the blame... I would prefer to just avoid the hassle if that kind of junk is going on out there so regardless I'll be onto some rated shackles and show them all my middle finger.
This sounds A LOT LIKE the thread we had a while ago where there was talk of some enterprising coppers here in SE QLD who thought they could book car owners for having unroadworthy vehicles whilst they are up on trailers or in workshops etc. many people paid the fines, only a few fought them and got the tickets torn up.
it's called using the rules and not following the rules..........
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 01:16:08 PM
http://www.goseeaustralia.com.au/article/901/National_rules_short_on_specifics_but_South_Australian_police_urge_rated_shackles_for_towing_safety/ (http://www.goseeaustralia.com.au/article/901/National_rules_short_on_specifics_but_South_Australian_police_urge_rated_shackles_for_towing_safety/)
Senior Constable First Class Paul Bryant South Australia Police Road Safety Centre said:
“I have received a determination from DPTI (Transport SA) in relation to D Shackles when they are used to attach a trailer safety chain to a motor vehicle as prior to this determination it was suggested by the Vehicle Standards Section of DPTI that, as the actual D shackle forms part of the safety chain when attached, then that D shackle must also comply with Australian Standards", Senior Constable First Class Paul Bryant said.
Seriously endorsed shackle.
"As you are aware, the safety chains themselves (on trailers manufactured after August 1989) are required to meet the requirements of AS 4177.4 Caravan and light trailer towing components -
Safety chains up to 3500 kg capacity and therefore must be stamped with the rating information, but it seems that the D Shackles are not covered by this standard. They are actually covered by AS 2741 Shackles", he said.
"Those who have read the SAPOL Traffic Information Page Tip 11 would be aware SAPOL have stated that the public should fit rated shackles. DPTI agrees that this is good advice, but it is not law. Unfortunately the rules regarding D shackles are not explicit".
"Neither ADR 62 Mechanical Connection Between Vehicles or rule 158 of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Standards) Rules 1999 do any more than require shackles to be strong enough to meet the specified loads. DPTI suggests that several websites, including some of the other state transport authorities, call up this standard, although this is advice and not law in all of these jurisdictions".
"A shackle complying with this standard will be stamped with rating information and this is sufficient proof that the shackle complies with the law. However, the lack of such stamping is not proof that the shackle fails to meet the law".
Safety chains on GSA Blue Sky caravan
"DPTI also state that there are mixed views nationally as to whether karabiners are shackles in this context. They suggest that (a) the various laws and standards refer to either ‘shackles’ or ‘D shackles’ and nowhere mention karabiners or other like devices and (b) they very much doubt that a karabiner that would pass through a properly rated safety chain would have sufficient strength to support the required loads. They would therefore strongly advise against the use of karabiners in place of D shackles".
Emphasis added - RB
My trailer was manufactured before the relevant date, 1 September, 1989, so the AS 4177 does not apply to it ... Just another little hiccup, folks ... ;) .
I also just got off the phone to ARB Brighton, and the lightest rated shackle they have is something around 4.5 tonnes. He was most interested in the issue ...
Post by: jetcrew on August 08, 2014, 01:23:51 PM
Jet ;D ;D
Post by: Footy Shorts Shane on August 08, 2014, 01:35:02 PM
This sounds A LOT LIKE the thread we had a while ago where there was talk of some enterprising coppers here in SE QLD who thought they could book car owners for having unroadworthy vehicles whilst they are up on trailers or in workshops etc. many people paid the fines, only a few fought them and got the tickets torn up.
it's called using the rules and not following the rules..........
Did that actually happen? I did hear a lot about it, but have never found a single person that was fined. This is why I had interest in this thread. If people are being fined for these issues, then that is so wrong.
Shane
Post by: Green rv on August 08, 2014, 01:43:52 PM
and yes i am still going to use my rated shackle
while putting this post on a fella came in and told me his mate just got pinned in redcliffe qld for $600.00 but could not remember the finer details of the infringement (something to do with the hitch is all he could remember)
MYTH – CHANGES TO REQUIREMENTS FOR SHACKLES USED WHEN TOWING A TRAILER
For response to Customer Enquiries regarding this matter. There has been no change!
Recently, information has been circulating on social media about changes that require the
i still cant believe this shackle fitted on the chain lol
Ads
shackles used when towing a trailer to be rated as well as enforcement of this requirement
in the Gympie area.
Vehicle Standards can advise that under the current legislation, while the safety chains
that are used to connect a trailer to a towing vehicle are required to comply with Australian
Standard AS 4177.4 Caravan and light trailer towing components, there is no legal
requirement for shackles to comply with a particular Australian Standard.
However, in the interest of road safety, the Department of Transport and Main Roads strongly
recommends that vehicle operators use shackles that are either certified to AS 2741-2002
Shackles or are identifiable as having a suitable design for the trailer and towing vehicle
combination.
These requirements are not new and have been consistent across most States and Territories
for many years.
TMR has:
• responded to the media about this
• put out social media about it
• worked with the TMR Call Centre to provide scripting for staff to advise customers
appropriately
•
Paul Hawkey
Senior Advisor (Product Delivery)
Procedures and Training
Post by: Jenko67 on August 08, 2014, 01:48:01 PM
Glad it has been sorted....
Post by: Dexter_1 on August 08, 2014, 01:49:47 PM
Post by: jetcrew on August 08, 2014, 02:09:33 PM
I was actually hoping that this would begin to drive some change in the industry targeted at the right end of it all..import and manufacturers.
Oh well , still a worthwhile thread as for less than $5 I know where to find rated shackles.
Typical Australia, make half a law and just hope that people will comply with it. ;D ;D ;D ;D
jet ;D ;D
Post by: gordo350 on August 08, 2014, 02:13:22 PM
Post by: firefox on August 08, 2014, 03:20:14 PM
https://www.facebook.com/TMRQld?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/TMRQld?fref=nf)
It's as we have all said. THERE IS NO Legislation that anyone can find or they have or has changed that says shackles are required..
HOWEVER......
(Direct copy from their facebook site)
"Shackles that are used do not have to meet any particular Australian Standard, but we strongly recommend you use shackles that meet the Australian Standard AS2741-2002 Shackles or are identifiable as having a suitable design for the trailer and towing vehicle combination."
They must be identifiable.. Suitable design..
I have no idea on whether people getting fined is true or not..
But the local (HUGE) caravan shop had people transport in NSW talk with them about it.. I doubt they would make that up, and i doubt they would spend $$ putting new shackles on.
In all to be honest i think this is a great thing. It educates people of the problem and it's a very simple fix.. I've seen way to many trailers out there with terrible setups that are dangerous.. Not that hard to get it right..
EDIT:
And there offical post/response from TMR..
Department of Transport and Main Roads (Queensland) David, as your D shackles are unmarked, we cannot give you any advice on their rating or capabilities. That is why we recommend that you use D shackles that are marked, so you can determine if they are suitable for your trailer.
Like · 13 minutes ago
Post by: weeds on August 08, 2014, 03:27:22 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 04:11:37 PM
Then there's this one:
http://www.bunnings.com.au/romak-8mm-galvanised-d-shackle_p2260234 (http://www.bunnings.com.au/romak-8mm-galvanised-d-shackle_p2260234)
0.75T rated
$3.62 each ... I might even buy a couple of extras.
It weighs 82 grams. My existing galvanised (un-rated) D-shackles weigh 94.39 grams. Guess which is likely to be stronger
(https://2ecffd01e1ab3e9383f0-07db7b9624bbdf022e3b5395236d5cf8.ssl.cf4.rackcdn.com/Product-800x800/e5e33054-da89-4616-9244-b532d5295a73.jpg)
[EDIT]
Here is a comparison of the Bunnings offerings:
http://www.bunnings.com.au/compare?products=2260235,2260233,2260236,2260234, (http://www.bunnings.com.au/compare?products=2260235,2260233,2260236,2260234,)
[end edit]
Actually jump onto their facebook page and have a look. They are being very clear..
https://www.facebook.com/TMRQld?fref=nf (https://www.facebook.com/TMRQld?fref=nf)
It's as we have all said. THERE IS NO Legislation that anyone can find or they have or has changed that says shackles are required..
HOWEVER......
(Direct copy from their facebook site)
"Shackles that are used do not have to meet any particular Australian Standard, but we strongly recommend you use shackles that meet the Australian Standard AS2741-2002 Shackles or are identifiable as having a suitable design for the trailer and towing vehicle combination."
They must be identifiable.. Suitable design..
I have no idea on whether people getting fined is true or not..
But the local (HUGE) caravan shop had people transport in NSW talk with them about it.. I doubt they would make that up, and i doubt they would spend $$ putting new shackles on.
In all to be honest i think this is a great thing. It educates people of the problem and it's a very simple fix.. I've seen way to many trailers out there with terrible setups that are dangerous.. Not that hard to get it right..
EDIT:
And there offical post/response from TMR..
Department of Transport and Main Roads (Queensland) David, as your D shackles are unmarked, we cannot give you any advice on their rating or capabilities. That is why we recommend that you use D shackles that are marked, so you can determine if they are suitable for your trailer.
Like · 13 minutes ago
I totally agree with you, FF. Education is never a bad thing, regardless of the subject.
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 08, 2014, 04:15:55 PM
So, regardless of the tech side of it etc., no rated shackle and ya get a ticket it would appear.
Now, the trailer place I got mine from, said it was only for 2010 and later builds. My box trailer, was bought brand new by my Dad in 1966, so should fall just outside on that, but its got a rated shackle now, just to save me the stress of doing my nut and getting arrested.... again. (Its been a while now)
At the end of it all, it only takes one person to be booked or even given a warning and social media will do the rest from there. ;D
Post by: GUEY on August 08, 2014, 04:55:02 PM
This is my chain. Stamped on every link and hoop through chain link and hoop is welded to frame.
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii491/guey12/Swag/20140808_161613-1.jpg)
And shackles 2t 13mm S rated.
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii491/guey12/Swag/20140808_161447.jpg)
I have been doing some interior design work and manufacture with a caravan manufacturer for a while.
Now during a semi- drunk conversation the topic of chains came up.
He had been going for certification with the Queensland caravaning governing body, ( can't remember what they are called) and I think RVMMA.
From memory to get certification, stamped chains are mandatory. The fixture of the chains must be done in the correct manner aswell.
So any caravan carrying the RVMMA ( I think that's the letters) should have no issues on this side.
If they aren't they could be in breach.
Post by: Symon on August 08, 2014, 07:05:13 PM
It weighs 82 grams. My existing galvanised (un-rated) D-shackles weigh 94.39 grams. Guess which is likely to be stronger
The rated one. If you think the heavier one is stronger you would be wrong.
Post by: Jenko67 on August 08, 2014, 07:11:25 PM
Some useless info regarding chains and shackles.
This is my chain. Stamped on every link and hoop through chain link and hoop is welded to frame.
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii491/guey12/Swag/20140808_161613-1.jpg)
And shackles 2t 13mm S rated.
(http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii491/guey12/Swag/20140808_161447.jpg)
I have been doing some interior design work and manufacture with a caravan manufacturer for a while.
Now during a semi- drunk conversation the topic of chains came up.
He had been going for certification with the Queensland caravaning governing body, ( can't remember what they are called) and I think RVMMA.
From memory to get certification, stamped chains are mandatory. The fixture of the chains must be done in the correct manner aswell.
So any caravan carrying the RVMMA ( I think that's the letters) should have no issues on this side.
If they aren't they could be in breach.
yes, rated chains are mandatory... but not shackles, seems an anomaly, oh well, i have checked mine on my coromal pop top and they aren't rated. i have been towing for many many years and never had an issue, bought 3 new campers/vans over 5 years and they didn't have rated shackles.
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 07:34:06 PM
The rated one. If you think the heavier one is stronger you would be wrong.
And if you think that it is, purely on the basis of being "rated", you would also be wrong.
However, that is not what I said. What I said was: "Guess which is likely to be stronger" {emphasis added - RB}.
There is an essential presumption which may, or may not, be valid that all other things are equal. They rarely are. However, as my original D-shackles were made by ROMAK, and the new rated ones are also made by ROMAK, it is a fair assumption that they might (please note that I have said "might", not "will") be using the same metallurgy as they were set up to use for previous manufacturing. This assumption is also reasonable because in order to make something out of essentially the same material that is both smaller and lighter and is also substantially (please note that I have said "substantially", not "marginally", nor "a bit") stronger, it needs to be radically altered in some way. Galvanised steel is pretty much the same strength regardless, unless one starts looking at exotic and usually very expensive materials. These materials generally contain substantially different metallurgy, most of which will also dispense with the need for galvanising ... Or they require special manufacturing techniques, such as shot peening or chemical hardening, or whatever to achieve the desired characteristics.
However, I do not pretend to be any kind of expert in these things, I just happen to know a little about chemical and physical processes, and mechanical devices.
IOW, I already knew that my statement has the possibility of being wrong, but that it was unlikely to be wrong by the required 15% or greater difference in material strength or other necessary characteristics.
Perhaps I am not wishing to go into this sort of tedious qualification of what I say with each and every word I might write on an Internet forum.
In a court case, yes, if it is warranted and central to the matter before a court; otherwise, no.
I try to be helpful when and where I can, wherever that might be.
Sometimes I will be wrong, and welcome correction when I am.
There is not the slightest intention on my part to be or become argumentative about this, or anything else here.
If it becomes apparent to me that this is part and parcel of interactions on this site, then I will not frequent this site.
Sorry to be so blunt, but it's been a long week.
Post by: D4D on August 08, 2014, 07:38:20 PM
Perhaps I am not wishing to go into this sort of tedious qualification of what I say with each and every word I might write on an Internet forum.
You could have fooled me ::)
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 07:43:30 PM
You could have fooled me ::)
Ah, I see, maybe .
Would you please clarify what you mean by that?
Or have I misinterpreted what you said, or how you said it.
Post by: Jenko67 on August 08, 2014, 07:44:37 PM
I also heard that if you don't have a myswag sticker on the back of your car and camper/caravan you can be fined also..... Talk about revenue raising.... ;D
Post by: Swannie on August 08, 2014, 07:45:20 PM
I got no idea what anyone is saying on this topic!!!
Swannie
Post by: D4D on August 08, 2014, 07:46:58 PM
I got no idea what anyone is saying on this topic!!!
That's ok, neither do they :)
Post by: Jenko67 on August 08, 2014, 07:47:31 PM
I was informed by Cub Campers when I picked my new Cub Daintree LE about 10 weeks ago of this very issue. I therefore assumed that this was correct and that rated shackles are required now and I gather are being enforce in some jurisdictions. I have since done a search on the web and found many pages confirming the requirements for RATED shackles.
Hey dexter, you are right, there are standards for rated shackles but the regulations don't require you to have one connecting the safety chain to the towbar... Probably should be though...
Post by: JD-120 on August 08, 2014, 07:50:15 PM
That's ok, neither do they :)Doesn't matter. It's cheap entertainment
Post by: D4D on August 08, 2014, 07:53:35 PM
Would you please clarify what you mean by that?
(http://blkmav.com/stuff/anothernewbie.jpg)
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 07:57:45 PM
(http://blkmav.com/stuff/anothernewbie.jpg)
Am I to take it that the rest of you is smart as well?
Post by: Mace on August 08, 2014, 08:19:08 PM
:cheers:
Good on you pal, worthwhile debate.
Post by: D4D on August 08, 2014, 08:19:59 PM
Ratbag, are you related to ProdigyRF?
I was actually thinking Barry
Post by: Swannie on August 08, 2014, 08:20:39 PM
Post by: GeoffA on August 08, 2014, 08:21:42 PM
What happened to prodigyrf?
Unrated shackles got him.......
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 08:25:47 PM
Ratbag, are you related to ProdigyRF?
:cheers:
Good on you pal, worthwhile debate.
Not that I know of. It's been a very long time since I lived in Adelaide, assuming his location is accurate. In fact, I haven't even visited there for some years now. Too long. My sister and a few very good friends live there and in the general vicinity.
Post by: Mace on August 08, 2014, 08:27:43 PM
Ratbag, well done mate, you sustain a great argument in the face of adversity, Prodigy e would be proud of you.
:cheers:
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 08:29:48 PM
What happened to prodigyrf?
According to his user profile, he was last active on 6 August this year. So it would appear that nothing's happened to him, AFAICS.
Being an admin on another forum, one does get rather used to checking things out as a matter of routine.
Post by: Swannie on August 08, 2014, 08:31:23 PM
Cheers
Swannie
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 08:35:01 PM
Sorry, still laughing my guts out at the last few posts!
Ratbag, well done mate, you sustain a great argument in the face of adversity, Prodigy e would be proud of you.
:cheers:
Thank you. I try to stay on topic, and try to ignore the wilfully ignorant.
Unfortunately, I am not a crossing of Mother Theresa and the Dalai Lama ... ;) .
One of our close friends has me listed as "Mr Grumpy" in her mobile phone ...
At 65+, and with what has been done to me to keep me alive (for which I am extremely grateful to all concerned, I might add ;D ), I reckon that I've earned the right to be a little curmudgeonly at times. I try not to be, but sometimes things just get up one's left nostril ... ;) :o .
Post by: MarkGU on August 08, 2014, 09:26:16 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 08, 2014, 09:50:48 PM
You should know better than to allow the facts to get in the way of some really hot BS, backed up by "the social media" as 'evidence' ... ;) :o ROTFL ... .
At least it's better than one forum I am more than a little familiar with, where one of the most egregious trolls ever whelped quotes himself as a reference - now that takes a pathological personality with delusions of grandeur and he also has more than just a smidgeon of paranoia thrown in for good measure. It also takes more than just a little chutzpah! :laugh: :-X
Post by: grafy82 on August 08, 2014, 10:07:06 PM
Post by: Wunderlust on August 09, 2014, 12:20:59 AM
Now here's the bit that makes no sense what so ever.. The chain weld to the aframe. This should also be specified to a minimum specification (australian standards) on the weld quality, length, inspection etc.. and tested to meet the equivelent 'all connectors to be rated'.
Have I missed something?
Post by: gordo350 on August 09, 2014, 07:28:16 AM
Post by: Jenko67 on August 09, 2014, 07:39:20 AM
Being Saturday can we all go and buy new shackles from your preferred supplier and shut this thread down. my head hurts
I agree mate, had enough of it all...but I'm not buying new shackles... ;D
Post by: kylarama on August 09, 2014, 07:56:52 AM
Yet people are unsure if the shackles connecting the load rated chains to the load rated tow bar need to be load rated?
Post by: D4D on August 09, 2014, 07:59:12 AM
So... A tow hitch on a trailer legally needs to be load rated, a tow ball legally needs to be load rated, a tow bar on a car legally needs to be load rated and safety chains legally needs to be load rated.
Yet people are unsure if the shackles connecting the load rated chains to the load rated tow bar need to be load rated?
The question nobody has answered is, do I need rated shackles to keep the wife chained to the kitchen?
Post by: scarps on August 09, 2014, 08:11:56 AM
The question nobody has answered is, do I need rated shackles to keep the wife chained to the kitchen?yes, they should possibly be X rated, but more likely you're going to get a whack for suggesting it:-)
Post by: MarkGU on August 09, 2014, 08:37:28 AM
Post by: Bad Scott on August 09, 2014, 08:40:48 AM
They told me these shackles were rated :angel:They are its the chain that wasn't >:D
Post by: MarkGU on August 09, 2014, 08:41:47 AM
They are its the chain that wasn't >:DApparently the shoes are classified as safety boots 8)
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 09, 2014, 08:45:07 AM
Post by: MarkGU on August 09, 2014, 08:47:32 AM
Whoops, time a for a tablet and a lie down now after seeing that. >:Djust take 1/2 blue pill Jeepers, will stop you rolling out of bed mate :cup:
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 09, 2014, 09:19:41 AM
Post by: dazzler on August 09, 2014, 10:17:33 AM
Post by: Jenko67 on August 09, 2014, 10:24:43 AM
So... A tow hitch on a trailer legally needs to be load rated, a tow ball legally needs to be load rated, a tow bar on a car legally needs to be load rated and safety chains legally needs to be load rated.
Yet people are unsure if the shackles connecting the load rated chains to the load rated tow bar need to be load rated?
You are right mate. But it is a bit of an anomaly that the shackles don't have to be rated...QPS Facebook page makes it clear.
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10201889607875810&id=1652065012
Post by: Ratbag on August 09, 2014, 10:44:34 AM
Being Saturday can we all go and buy new shackles from your preferred supplier and shut this thread down. my head hurts
So does mine, mate.
Good thinking, and I intend to do exactly that.
However, I will buy the next size up from what I currently have (they will fit my chains), rather than just replacing something that I already have with something that's smaller, but stamped as rated.
Post by: scarps on August 09, 2014, 11:32:07 AM
[/quote]my swmbo just agreed with your statement............
Post by: Ratbag on August 09, 2014, 11:46:37 AM
Love your avatar of "Blinky" from the Simpsons ... ;D 8) :cup: .
Post by: scarps on August 09, 2014, 11:48:21 AM
^ Yeah, Scarps, the extra couple of bucks will hardly break the bank ... ;) .she was actually intimating that size and rating are important considerations.......lol......
Love your avatar of "Blinky" from the Simpsons ... ;D 8) :cup: .
Post by: grafy82 on August 09, 2014, 01:08:15 PM
Gidday Gordo
So does mine, mate.
Good thinking, and I intend to do exactly that.
However, I will buy the next size up from what I currently have (they will fit my chains), rather than just replacing something that I already have with something that's smaller, but stamped as rated.
Good to go up in size if you can, but don't for a second think that the size has anything to do with strength when comparing a rated shackle to a garden variety gal one. Its all in the material and rated shackles will most likely be an alloy grade steel as opposed to the unknown quality of mild steel used in the garden variety shackles which I would not even use to tie my dog up with.
Post by: Swannie on August 09, 2014, 03:20:15 PM
Swannie
Post by: Jeepers Creepers on August 09, 2014, 03:27:13 PM
Can you use either the D or Bow shackle?Yes, as long as they are not used on a Tuesday.
Swannie
Post by: Ratbag on August 09, 2014, 04:18:11 PM
Yes, as long as they are not used on a Tuesday.
Or on Swan Upping Sunday ... ;D .
I bought two of the 10mm ROMAK 1 Tonne rated galvanised D-shackles at Bunnings today. They just fit through the end link of my safety chains.
I also drilled an 8 mm hole through the link/s that are welded to the A-bar, and fitted an 8mm HT steel bolt through the link and A-bar on each side. Probably weakens it rather than the opposite, but there it is.
While at Bunnings, I bought a set of 8x 3.5m rated tie-down straps - 4x ratchet, 4x cam buckle for $2.50!! The lass scanned it twice, then said "Grab it and run!". I had to replace some old drill bits that I finally buggered completely fitting my tent. 32 years of careful use ... I also picked up a 140A "proper" arc welder (It's a choke type, heavy transformer welder. I don't really like the baby MIG/TIG ones for anything heavier than about 16 ga. sheet metal and the like - I'll put my flame-proof suit back on now ... ;) ). At $98 plus another $18.50 for a proper helmet and $6 for 25 2.5mm mild steel welding rods, I reckon it was an OK deal, even if it has got "Ozito" on the box ...
All in all, a succesful day. The way I figure things, I all but got the welder for nothing, as the tie-down straps were going to cost me around $60 just for 4x 2.5m ones.
Post by: Garfish on August 09, 2014, 06:49:46 PM
yes, they should possibly be X rated, but more likely you're going to get a whack for suggesting it:-)
No that's the bedroom chains your thinking of
Post by: adrian on August 09, 2014, 09:28:20 PM
MYTH – Changes to requirements for Shackles used when Towing a Trailer
http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/townsville/2014/08/08/myth-changes-requirements-shackles-used-towing-trailer/ (http://mypolice.qld.gov.au/townsville/2014/08/08/myth-changes-requirements-shackles-used-towing-trailer/)
Post by: Ratbag on August 09, 2014, 09:43:32 PM
If you look a bit further into this, it isn't really an Internet myth.
However, it does only apply to trailers with a compliance plate of around 2010 and later, apparently.
Post by: Bad Scott on August 09, 2014, 10:11:59 PM
I also drilled an 8 mm hole through the link/s that are welded to the A-bar, and fitted an 8mm HT steel bolt through the link and A-bar on each side. Probably weakens it rather than the opposite, but there it is.
Don't want to be starting anything here
FYI - The weld is always stronger of the two metals you want to join.
When you weld it puts a lot of heat into the two bits, this then changes the metal properties being welded (heat treatment).
The two metals around the weld are hardened (brittle/weaker)
Post by: Ratbag on August 09, 2014, 10:41:49 PM
Where I have drilled is on the inside of the link (obviously ... ), and the weld is around the outside of each link, so about 8-10 mm away from where I have drilled. I reckon that this should be outside of the "heat treated" zone, at a rough guess.
However, that end of the chain now 'complies'. There is nothing that says that it can't be welded as well as bolted ... Anyway, as I keep saying, the trailer is a pre-September 1989 build, and this is evidenced by the "R" number stamped on the draw bar, so it doesn't have to comply with any of this stuff. However, I also see the sense in these things, and want it to be as safe as possible, consistent with reality ...
Post by: Bad Scott on August 09, 2014, 10:45:45 PM
Sent from .................
Post by: Garfish on August 10, 2014, 06:28:38 AM
Gidday AdrianMaybe in Victoria, but not In Queensland. I am not saying that it isn't stupid that you can use a $2 key ring holders to attach your safety chain and comply, just that in Qld it's not illegal
If you look a bit further into this, it isn't really an Internet myth.
However, it does only apply to trailers with a compliance plate of around 2010 and later, apparently.
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 09:15:08 AM
I think you'll find that the relevant ASs even apply in Qld, mate ... ;). The one under discussion came into effect sometime in 2010.
From my Batphone
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 11:01:17 AM
Fully agree Ratbag.
Sent from .................
Fascinating subject, materials science. I have been following the tremendous advances in a whole range of areas of this since the early 1970s (in a dilatory way).
Have you ever come across a book called "Cat's Paws and Catapults" by Steven Vogel that explores the differences in how Nature and humans tackle the same "engineering" problems? It makes for a good read, IMO. Not too heavy, but enough depth to make it interesting. Particularly explores composites in nature - like fingernails and stuff ;).
Post by: scarps on August 10, 2014, 11:10:47 AM
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 11:39:24 AM
Hey ratbag, that looks like a great read. Have ordered a copy. Thnx
You're more than welcome, mate. I have enormous respect for all the "popularisers" of science. It takes a certain skill and talent both to understand the thing in the first place, then to communicate it to us all in comprehensible terms. While I have a little science education at university level (among a whole lot of other things ... ), I certainly don't lay any claim at all to being anything special in this regard, but I do read widely.
Glad that you think it will appeal to you ... ;D .
I am always very aware of the fact that the very first chronometer was made by a journeyman carpenter who didn't really trust metals (John Harrison). He made a clock for the local church with a going train made entirely from wood that was taken out of service for maintenance for the first time in 1884, some 122 years after it was built! It is still running to this day, to the best of my knowledge (see "Longitude" by Dava Sobel). No one has any kind of monopoly on knowledge, even in their own field of specialisation ...
Post by: bluejay on August 10, 2014, 06:55:56 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 07:07:56 PM
I've been in one of those while it was 'walking around'. Fantastic!
It seems to me that one's trailer and coupling has to comply with whatever standards applied at the time of manufacture. IOW, don't replace rated shackles with anything but another one of the same rating as originally supplied. Ditto for anything else involved.
Just like modifying a car to which the ADRs apply. You have to continue to comply with the ADRs that applied to that particular make/model when it got its compliance plate.
IMHO, doing the above would give one a reasonably arguable case at law, if one were to be dudded by the boys and girls in blue.
Post by: gordo350 on August 10, 2014, 07:27:42 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 08:01:44 PM
But you are disagreeing with something that I certainly have not said.
What I did say was:
It seems to me that one's trailer and coupling has to comply with whatever standards applied at the time of manufacture. IOW, don't replace rated shackles with anything but another one of the same rating as originally supplied. Ditto for anything else involved.
IOW, that one should comply with the laws that apply to one's vehicle. If one chooses to do so, then one can always upgrade whatever something is to something better, but you had better be very certain that you are allowed to do that by the law and your insurers as well! It may seem counter-intuitive, but either the law or your insurer may have objections to what one is proposing to do, even though it appears to be an "upgrade" in one's own eyes.
As merely one very simple example:
The standard tyres on my car are OEM 6.5x16" alloy rims with 215/60 16 tyres. The placard states "95H" load/speed rating.
I have spoken to my insurer about rims and tyres. They do not have a problem with me reducing the speed rating by one notch. They do not have a problem with me fitting 215/65 16" tyres. They have a huge problem with me fitting non-OEM rims, whether alloy or not. They also have a huge problem with me fitting 225/55 16" or 225/60 16" tyres. For "huge problem" substitute the words "I have just voided my insurance policy, including third party property damage".
OTOH, the law (ADRs) couldn't give a fig about non-OEM rims, as long as they are no bigger or smaller than the largest/smallest fitted as OEM for my make and model. It also has a problem with me fitting 215/65 16"; but not with me fitting 225/55 16" or 225/60 16" tyres. The law also allows me to cut the speed rating back a notch, as long as it equals or exceeds a 180 kmh speed rating (IIRC), but will not allow me to fit lower load rating tyres under any circumstances.
See how quickly these things can get complicated?
My advice is to check ALL proposed modifications from stock with both one's motor registration department, and one's insurer. Preferably get such approval as is indicated in writing, otherwise it isn't worth the paper it's not written on ... This applies equally to both cars and trailers.
Post by: gordo350 on August 10, 2014, 08:43:07 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 08:48:05 PM
Just try to understand that none of this stuff is simple ;)!
Post by: D4D on August 10, 2014, 08:49:41 PM
I give up
I don't blame you, from shackles to tyres to mining, what next particle physics?
Post by: Symon on August 10, 2014, 08:51:29 PM
I give up
Mate just let it slide. He's right in his own mind, that's all that matters apparently.
Post by: D4D on August 10, 2014, 08:52:19 PM
He's right in his own mind, that's all that matters.
Better not get him started on 12V then :)
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 08:54:30 PM
Post by: Ratbag on August 10, 2014, 10:01:41 PM
I don't know why you both have such a problem dealing with the fact that the ADRs, ASs and other legislative instruments govern what is permissible with cars, trailers, buses, trucks, etc; and that insurance companies have their own rules; then the various police forces have own their interpretation/s of what those laws mean (usually pretty basic, and often wrong, IME). Then there are the interpretations courts put on things; then various State and Federal governments legislate again, extending or clarifying laws in the light of all these things and more. So the cycle continues ...
If you think that this leads to a consistent and sensible set of rules, good luck.
What it does lead to is a set of relevant dates, as they are generally known legally (whether applying to Superannuation laws, or any other, such as motor vehicles and the like). What one is legally obliged to do is to keep one's vehicle in a roadworthy condition, and this requires one to ensure that it complies with the laws pertaining under the rules that applied at the relevant date that is applicable to the compliance plate affixed to the vehicle, be it a car, light truck, trailer, or anything else that comes under the governing laws and regulations made under those laws.
The laws and regulations are what they are. We all need to be mindful of what they require, and abide by that. Venturing outside of those requirements, even if it seems to be "better" can be fraught, which is why I implore people to check with the authorities and their insurer/s (and not take my word for it!). They make the final decisions, and better to get it out of the way before anything unfortunate occurs than try to argue the toss in court after the event. I always check with both the authorities and (specially) my insurers about anything and everything. This leads to far fewer problems in the long run.
br to you both, RB.
Post by: jeeps on August 12, 2014, 11:32:04 PM
cheers