Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per your request on my talk page, I made some minor adjustments - mainly to clean up the formatting and expand the picture captions for better explanation. (My theory is that, if it's not readily apparent to the average person, a caption should explain what exactly you're looking at.) I also fixed some minor spelling and grammar issues. Not much I can really do, though, so good work! Duncan1800 ( talk) 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! —
Rob (
talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Hmmm, I kinda like the thin ice analogy. I have seen it used multiple times while researching this topic. I'll have to recheck, but from what I remember the official wording of the law itself does not mention the reasons for this law. However, the reasons are mentioned multiple times in other areas of the DOT and FHWA websites.
2. There are plenty of bridge formula tables to be found. I did indeed copy this PDF file, and when I plugged in the shorter wheelbases this calculator from the FHWA told me "unrealistic configuration" which makes sense because you can't cram that many axles into such a short distance.
3. Yes, that point was mentioned at Peer Review. I can't remember where, but the only mention I found before 1975 was that the formula was invented in the 40s but wasn't enacted as law until 75. Yes, there were weight limits before then, however, there was no bridge formula which restricted the weight-to-length ratio, as far as I can tell. I'll see what I can dig up.
I'll work on the minor issues and wait for your response on these points. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I've been busy. I've crossed out a lot of things. Thanks! — Rob ( talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article; but I live in the UK where I don't believe such a formula exists; I have seen "Maximum Axle Weight" signs as well as "Gross Weight" but nothing relating length to weight:
GrahamHardy ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting article. Guess this finally answers Calvin's question. Shreevatsa ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC).
Ah, you beat me to it! Can't the article just say "They drive trucks of increasing size over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge". :P 172.162.31.91 ( talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit depressing that many people—in fact even many educated people—think this sort of thing is an example of what mathematics is.
I wonder if we should somehow rephrase the term "mathematical formula" in the first sentence of this article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"a mathematical formula in use in the United States by truck drivers and United States Department of Transportation (DOT) officials" sounds rather awkward, what with the double mention of "United States", but the first use makes it more precise, and abbreviating the second (via piped redirect) to "Department of Transportation" would raise questions of "which DOT?". I don't know how to fix this, just that it looks like it needs fixing. - The Bushranger ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The bridge weight limit sign caption includes a reference to a dead link on the Florida DOT site. I believe the current equivalent is http://www.fdot.gov/maintenance/STR/LR/2006_Load_Rating_Manual_10-19-06.pdf but I am not certain. I'm also not familiar with using the dead link template. Please advise how to update. -- Eplack ( talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This may sound silly but the term "consecutive axles" is used throughout the article without ever being defined. Does that simply mean each and every pair, ie a 5 axle vehicle has 10 sets of "consecutive axles" to consider. Are there such things as non-consecutive axles?
Gjxj ( talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Bridge formula 174.87.148.14 ( talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 16, 2010. | ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Per your request on my talk page, I made some minor adjustments - mainly to clean up the formatting and expand the picture captions for better explanation. (My theory is that, if it's not readily apparent to the average person, a caption should explain what exactly you're looking at.) I also fixed some minor spelling and grammar issues. Not much I can really do, though, so good work! Duncan1800 ( talk) 21:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.
At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan
Dank55 (
talk)(
mistakes) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Good luck! —
Rob (
talk) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
1. Hmmm, I kinda like the thin ice analogy. I have seen it used multiple times while researching this topic. I'll have to recheck, but from what I remember the official wording of the law itself does not mention the reasons for this law. However, the reasons are mentioned multiple times in other areas of the DOT and FHWA websites.
2. There are plenty of bridge formula tables to be found. I did indeed copy this PDF file, and when I plugged in the shorter wheelbases this calculator from the FHWA told me "unrealistic configuration" which makes sense because you can't cram that many axles into such a short distance.
3. Yes, that point was mentioned at Peer Review. I can't remember where, but the only mention I found before 1975 was that the formula was invented in the 40s but wasn't enacted as law until 75. Yes, there were weight limits before then, however, there was no bridge formula which restricted the weight-to-length ratio, as far as I can tell. I'll see what I can dig up.
I'll work on the minor issues and wait for your response on these points. -- ErgoSum88 ( talk) 23:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry - I've been busy. I've crossed out a lot of things. Thanks! — Rob ( talk) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Interesting article; but I live in the UK where I don't believe such a formula exists; I have seen "Maximum Axle Weight" signs as well as "Gross Weight" but nothing relating length to weight:
GrahamHardy ( talk) 10:37, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Interesting article. Guess this finally answers Calvin's question. Shreevatsa ( talk) 12:16, 16 April 2010 (UTC).
Ah, you beat me to it! Can't the article just say "They drive trucks of increasing size over the bridge until it breaks. Then they weigh the last truck and rebuild the bridge". :P 172.162.31.91 ( talk) 14:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
It's a bit depressing that many people—in fact even many educated people—think this sort of thing is an example of what mathematics is.
I wonder if we should somehow rephrase the term "mathematical formula" in the first sentence of this article. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
"a mathematical formula in use in the United States by truck drivers and United States Department of Transportation (DOT) officials" sounds rather awkward, what with the double mention of "United States", but the first use makes it more precise, and abbreviating the second (via piped redirect) to "Department of Transportation" would raise questions of "which DOT?". I don't know how to fix this, just that it looks like it needs fixing. - The Bushranger ( talk) 02:54, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The bridge weight limit sign caption includes a reference to a dead link on the Florida DOT site. I believe the current equivalent is http://www.fdot.gov/maintenance/STR/LR/2006_Load_Rating_Manual_10-19-06.pdf but I am not certain. I'm also not familiar with using the dead link template. Please advise how to update. -- Eplack ( talk) 02:31, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This may sound silly but the term "consecutive axles" is used throughout the article without ever being defined. Does that simply mean each and every pair, ie a 5 axle vehicle has 10 sets of "consecutive axles" to consider. Are there such things as non-consecutive axles?
Gjxj ( talk) 19:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Bridge formula 174.87.148.14 ( talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)