slight OT: truck hauling capacity

Page 1 of 3  

Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Perhaps you should post to rec.woodhauling. Those guys know their stuff. :-P
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug wrote: Planing on picking up some large logs (black walnut 20" by 6-8 ft lengths) as per my other post. I'm starting to wonder if I can even haul one of those with a Nissan Frontier (2004 4by4, 6 cylinder) Can't seem to finds its hauling capacity anywhere. Anyone know?
As you're loading, check under the axle for those rubber bumpers mounted on top of the leaf springs. Stop when they're about 1/2 inch from the bumperstops. That thing will drive a little funny.... Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug wrote:

either in the glove box or the drivers door jam ( or thereabouts.) Most vehicles typically have it on a plate in the drivers door area. Definitely should be in the owners manual!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So, let's see. Density of Black Walnut, according to "Pocket Ref" by Thomas J. Glover, is 38 pounds per cubic foot. So, each foot of log at a diameter of 20" is pi*10^2*12 cubic inches, (3770 C.I.), which is 2.18 cubic feet, which weighs 82.9 pounds. So, a 6' log will weigh ~500 pounds, an 8' will weigh ~660 pounds. Give or take, unless I screwed up. So, one at a time should be fine, two would be pushing it. Three, is right out.
Dave Hinz
P.S. I think this is a drive-by gloat as well, yes? In which case, I'm obliged to contribute a "you suck".
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

If it were me, I would just haul two at a time. It's a one time job and probably won't affect the vehicle any. The extra 200 lbs would most likely be within the test load limits that were engineered into the truck. If you were to haul 1200 lbs plus on a daily basis ( even 1000 lbs ) eventually your suspension would sag, "U" joints wear, trans and clutch wear, engine along with everything else and the life of components reduced. Like the owners manual would tell you, you'll want to change the oil more often in dustier / rougher conditions as opposed to metro driving. This is because constant rough conditions will cause more wear. So two or three trips with a 1200 lb load probably won't affect the vehicle any. You will want to take into consideration stopping distances, though.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave, I think that is extremely funny: "A drive-by gloat!" Yeah I suppose it is. Yet it won't be if I snap a leaf spring... Thanks for the laugh and the valuabe feeback though!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I assure you, that's not my original term by any means, but it seemed especially appropriate in this case.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's a reference to the Book of Armaments, is it not?
" I soiled my armour I was so scared..."
Tom
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Well spotted, noble sir.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

A Reading from the Book of Armaments, Chapter 4, Verses 16 to 20:
Then did he raise on high the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch, saying, "Bless this, O Lord, that with it thou mayst blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy." And the people did rejoice and did feast upon the lambs and toads and tree-sloths and fruit-bats and orangutans and breakfast cereals ... Now did the Lord say, "First thou pullest the Holy Pin. Then thou must count to three. Three shall be the number of the counting and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither shalt thou count two, excepting that thou then proceedeth to three. Five is right out. Once the number three, being the number of the counting, be reached, then lobbest thou the Holy Hand Grenade in the direction of thine foe, who, being naughty in my sight, shall snuff it."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 09 Jun 2005 20:23:24 GMT, Patrick Conroy

(snip)
Yes, well, sorry, I have a cold.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

Isn't it amazing how amazed some people are by such simple back-of-the-envelope math?
Only thing I'd caution him on is that the density given is for dry wood. Wet, as the logs will be, it'll be much heavier. So one log at a time may be his max.
Overloading a truck can have some surprising consequences. I remember putting 16 or 18 bags of concrete mix in the back or my 88" wheelbase Land Rover once, and discovering as we left the lumberyard that it would hardly steer. We quickly draped about four of those bags on the hood instead, and got home OK.
John Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yes. Also amazing is when someone will do it, muff it badly, and pronounce that Oak weighs 300 pounds per square inch, without applying the sanity check. I was mentally hefting chunks of firewood while mentally checking my figures, before posting them. Because this is Usenet, after all, and if I got it wrong I'd be called on it ;)

Right; the book doesn't specify wet or dry. Even still the moisture content between green and dry hardwood probably doesn't change the weight by more than 30-40% at most, I would think?

Yup, that's why I suggest one at a time rather than two.

Well, this makes...eight John Martins who I have met. You're just behind John Olsen/Olson.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dave Hinz wrote:

Could be even a bit more than that 30-40%. I think that green walnut can be 80% or so moisture content, which is based on the oven dry weight. I'm guessing your 38 pound figure is based on 10% moisture or thereabouts, so oven dry would be 34, and 80% moisture would add 27 pounds to that.
Eight, huh? You're my first Dave Hinz, but I guess that doesn't come as much of a surprise.
John Martin
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In fact, the specific gravity of walnut when green is *lower* than when kiln-dried to 12%MC [*] -- remember that it shrinks in volume as it dries -- and the OP is making his volume measurements on green wood. He'll be OK.
[*] 0.51 green, 0.55 KD12. And it's not just walnut. This is generally true of nearly all North American woods, that the green MC is about 90% that of the KD-12 MC.
--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in wrote:

OK, so what I thought I understood is all screwed up now. Why wouldn't wet (or more accurately, 'green' or 'fresh') wood weigh more than that with 12% MC at equilibrium?
The green wood I've moved is heavier. Drying turned objects relies on measuring weight loss until it stops. What am I missing here?
Patriarch
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Simple, really. The piece *shrinks* as the moisture content goes down.
Total weight goes down, *but* depending on rate of shrinkage, weight per _unit_of_volume_ does 'something different'.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Patriarch wrote:

Not much, I don't think. Green wood certainly weighs more seasoned wood, and it's also less dense (AFAIK - there may be some exceptions, but I doubt it).
I don't doubt Doug's SG numbers at all, but there are several flavors of SG when dealing with wood. Some don't reflect the change of weight between green and dry wood, but only the change in volume.
E.g., http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-156.html lists the specific gravities for walnut as .51 / .56 (oven dry / green). The weight used to calculate those particular SGs is oven dry in _both_ cases.The volume used is oven dry volume & green volume, respectively. IOW, those different SGs reflect the change in volume but not the change in weight. I don't know how the SG figures that Doug quoted were derived, but I suspect that it was similar to this example.
"The Encyclopedia of Wood" has a few pages that discuss density measurements of wood. Also, online:
"Specific Gravity, Moisture Content, and Density Relationship for Wood" http://www.woodweb.com/knowledge_base/fpl_pdfs/fplgtr76.pdf
and
"Wood handbook--Wood as an engineering material" http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/fplgtr/fplgtr113/fplgtr113.htm
specifically chapter 3, but the other chapters are good, too.
Too much information? <g>
R, Tom Q.
--
Remove bogusinfo to reply.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.