![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is there any reason that the units of measurement in this section are imperial followed by SI? i.e. US laws or some such? Otherwise it reads quite strange to have the entire article preceding this section in SI units (and no imperial figures), only to switch to imperial. It also contradicts wiki guidelines, unless the source reference uses imperial as well (no source quoted here though). If not could someone please change this? Steevm 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"The Swedish truck maker Scania claims they stay away from the US-market because of this third party tradition. Scania wants to sell a highly integrated product with proven interoperability and quality."
Scania did indeed sell trucks here in the USA from the mid 80's to early 90's. They failed due to not being able to establish a dealer network or partnership. Their trucks were also very heavy compared to similar North American trucks which was another blow against them. Mack trucks did offer a Scania engine as a light weight low power alternative to the Maxidyne series in the R model around the late 70's early 80's. That statement is not entirely accurate should be deleted or edited.
Thaddeusw 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the aricle:
Trucks have often had to pay higher tax rates, and have been subject to extensive regulation. Partly this is because they are bigger, heavier, and cause more wear and tear on roadways. This is one reason that UPS vehicles are called 'package cars', because that exempted them from certain tax-rates.
Rules are in place for tractor-trailer rigs, regulating how many hours a driver may be on the clock, and how much rest time/sleep time is necessary (11hrs on/10hrs off; 60hrs/7days; or 70hrs/8days). Many other rules apply. Violations of these laws are subject to large fines.
Notice that these hours are different in other jurisdictions. Always check up before you go.
Which jurisdication does this apply to? If you know could you please clarify the point. Arcturus 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
66.116.29.7 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a old saying "Truck driver has one foot in jail and one in grave" I'd not comment that any fool can be a truck driver because its grossly unfair. The job is a nightmare and only dedicated persons can do it and do it well.The governments around the world seem to be only too wiling to blame truck drivers for all the ills of the transport industry while conveniently forgeting who the real culprits are. Stonufka 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned on Webster, trucking means barting, changing
It should be mentionned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.9.173 ( talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Are automatic or semi-automatic transmissions in europe?
"The trend in Europe is that more new trucks are being bought with automatic or semi-automatic transmission. This may be due [...] to the fact that you can lower fuel consumption and improve the durability of the truck."
I can't say I've ever heard a claim that an automatic transmission is more economical than a manual (engine speed being equal)? Can anyone provide any evidence to support this claim? 60.242.154.34 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure some of you got the concept of auto and semi-auto transmissions correctly. Firstly most semi automatic transmissions are in fact manual boxes with automated gear changing and clutch control. All major nanufacturers produce ones today including options for converting existing manual transmissions to auto shift regime. Some of these have fully automated clutch control dispensing the need for a clutch pedal where some include clutch pedal which is only used during takeoff and stopping. Fully automatic transmissions do not use clutch instead utilising torque converter and seamless planetary gear ratios, primarily used in city buses , earthmoving machinery and perhaps some trucks namely in rubbish colection where frequent stop/start action is performed.Fuel consumption is actually improved with semi auto boxes due to the fact that most are electronically controled thus engine torque and gear ratios can be closely matched to driving enviroment. Stonufka 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Scania system but the other Swede (Volvo) got it perfect now
with their I-shift 12 speed range of transmissions for FH/FM trucks.
No clutch pedal, fully automated gearchanges or manual shifting via rocker switch on foldable gear lever which has R N A M positions ,incidentally same lever as on their fully automatic transmission Powertronic so the line is getting even more blurred. My only wish
is that the car manufacturers start doing the same and yes I know Tiptronic has it all but it costs $$$$.
Stonufka
12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In the South America part, three links - Renault, Troller and Matra, were followed by links to websites. Temporarily I invisibilized them, since I'm not sure it's the correct way to promote it. If that's the case, all manufacturers should have it in that list. G®iffen 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to a version without the para cited by http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=466 whose source is biased anti-truck. Care is needed with such sections and references to show balance, otherwise we are in danger of synthesising Original Research. I think the whole section needs a careful look with regards to OR synthesis. While trucks patently do have environmental effects we must record them, not draw conclusions from them. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the article that describes the trucking industry? In comparison, consider the article book and the article printing. There are two separate articles.
I dispute the accuracy of this line. I've taken up the habit of double-clutching, because the clutch is easier to replace than everything else that floating wear & tears, but I am able to shift gracefully enough with no clutch, and do so by feel and sound. I was able to do so even before I had gotten used to the truck and gotten a good idea of the ranges for each gear. I can also float in my light pickup, which is a lot more touchy, without reading the tach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus420 ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless its just a slang term for changing gears without the clutch , which had its origins perhaps in the lack of power assisted clutches fitted by North American truck manufacturers , where idea of pressing heavy clutch pedal on those trucks all day long is rather exhausting and slow so the man found the easy way out. If you've never driven such a vehicle I can tell you that by the fifth intersection in the city stop-start traffic stirring through 18 speed shifter you would have enough and the left leg the size of Mr Olympia body builder. To answer the question its not illegal whatever someone might mean by that.
Stonufka (
talk)
09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Images of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks near the bottom of the page are of low quality and should be removed. Asicmod ( talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert in trucks (I'll use this word intead of "Lorry" for the sake of simplicity) but I'm interested in military vehicles in general (trucks among them). I've noticed that there are WikiProjects for "Military Histoey" and "Automobiles", but could find none for "Trucks" (or "Lorries", "Vans" od "Wheeled Cargo Vehicles", or anything similar). Wouldn't it make sense to have a WikiProject specifically dedicated to these important automotive cargo vehicles? Just an idea. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Can some one reduce the size of this image?? Peter Horn 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
--Taken care of ....
Stonufka (
talk)
13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have two issues with the weight restriction statement made in the first section. First off, where is it the case that you need a special license to drive a truck weighing over 10000lbs? It's certainly not true in the US. Secondly, what unit system has 3.5 tons/tonnes equal to 10000 lbs? 3.5 short (standard/English) tons is 7000 lbs exactly, while 3.5 (metric) tonnes is just over 7700 lbs. - Athaler ( talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I used to drive a truck in Alaska, and in the winter it could get extremly dangerous. I would like to know if anyone else ever had the promblem of the suspension freezing completely while parked overnight. This made my truck incredibly unsafe. Please let me know if you has this problem. =]
Thankyou, kind regards,
Zesty Prospect
14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about air suspension? I can't imagine steel suspension freezing! Stonufka 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And you're asking because you want to add this to the article about Trucks? Or maybe This is a better question for a message board! Asicmod ( talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). -- 85.22.7.146 ( talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding a new article section called "Military trucks"; focusing on troop carrier. Include the example of the International Harvester Loadstar,
AM General M-35 A2, Alvis Stalwart and the Mercedes Benz Unimog S401 (with picture
. The latter is lighter, features are given at http://www.unimogsales.com/unimog-concept.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.175.166 ( talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got a possible conflict. The article credits Daimler 1898 with the first IC truck. I've seen Richard F. Stewart, using a 2hp Daimler motor, in Pocantico Hills, NY in 1895 credited, as well as with the first commercial truck sales, 1897. Can anybody clear this up? Also, the article omits mention of the first articulated (semi-trailer) truck, by Thorneycroft, & the first (or early) cabover, by Mack in the early 1900s (1905 Bulldog, sold to B.A.?) Trekphiler 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)oz
Yes, this article definitely needs to include some history. Globbet ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this would help, but we have an interactive 'map' of the components of a North American truck and are building a European truck. We could package something for use on wiki. The website is: www.partseek.com My email is: scott@partslink.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.192.200 ( talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason (trade barriers etc.) why the design of trucks - and, for that matter, busses - differs so greatly between the US and Europe while cars pretty much look alike everywhere?
Is it just that the US truck design in less modern or is it different?
thx. --
79.227.139.107 (
talk)
10:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A European project revealed the fact that the average city driver would step from 3 to 7 tons with his clutch-foot every day, depending on truck model, and these results made many companies buy trucks with automatic transmission, with the primary (but often untold) reason that they couldn't afford to pay compensation to drivers getting broken knees from the work.
This doesn't make any sense at all. It's like saying that a power plant generated over a million volts last year. I vote for removal. Fsiler 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In North America, both the Ford Motor Company and General Motors have a history of manufacturing large diesel engines for trucks - and they probably still do.
These diesel engines are made for their own trucks, and the companies also sell the diesel engines to any customer with the money to buy them with. Those enginers can be used in trucks, tractors, buses, etc., and they can also be used as stationary engines, such as for emergency electrical supplies.
98.67.166.209 (
talk)
18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the US is being underrepresented here (doesn’t happen often, we’re pretty egotistical). None of the images here, except maybe for components “Engine”, “Driveline”, and “Frame”, are of US vehicles. Even the interior shot of a Mack is right hand drive, probably Australia? It is a good shot of a high-buck model, but not really representative of the manufacturer. Shouldn’t it be LHD, use RHD for some English model?
Should someone at least put a Mack, and maybe a Navistar, in the gallery?
While I’m babbling, should an ALMA antenna transporter be here?
Thank you for your time. Sammy D III ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"Fire Engines" and "Fire Trucks" are separate vehicles, a poor example. An Engine provides power, mainly to pump, and is operated by an Engineer. A Truck is a transport, for ladders, hoses, other equipment, and personnel. They work together, supporting each other, and often the line isn't clear, but they have different names for a reason. Maybe "dump truck" vs "tipper"? Sammy D III ( talk) 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Down-under, our pumps are called "Fire Appliances", they are appliances used for the fighting of fires, implementing of rescue equipment and other such pump required tasks, as well as the carriage of staff to said incidents. In my opinion it is the lazy media that brands all fire appliances as fire trucks and other useless terms. Trumpy ( talk) 10:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I’m not sure about this conflict, but if the vandal is referring to the first line of “Engines”, he’s sort of right. Not all that strong a source, but Daimler does sound plausible. That line should be somewhere else, though.
History is weak, to put it mildly. Lots on the name, but little on the machines themselves. I can put a few dates together, but they would be the US from one source, at least to start. If someone could come up with some EU stuff, and writing talent, a “History” section might be an improvement. Or not, just a thought.
While I’m here, I have real problems with “Trucking accidents”. There is no source for a serious subject. Most of the first paragraph sounds like they are real numbers, but it could be rewritten.
I HATE the last paragraph. Sounds good, maybe, but I don’t buy it. I am prejudged, and familiar with a specific area, though. I suggest that the most common cause for accidents is a smaller vehicle encroaching. In my world, most accidents were “not chargeable”. Sleep deprived may be a problem over the road, but not in local stuff, they go home at night. I cannot remember anyone driving drunk. After work, late at night, morning hangovers, but not on the clock. Drugs were different, but most drivers are subject to random screening, that may have changed things, or not.
I do not have numbers to prove it, but I wouldn’t mind if that last paragraph disappeared. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of numbers at [1]. Table 1 has yearly totals (para 1 good), table 56 is accident type and driver error. Sammy D III ( talk) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any figures, but, the idea shown on the article suggests that trucks cause their own accidents, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a truck driver as a Senior Fire-Fighter and the number of times I've seen people in cars try and race trucks to the end of a passing lane and come to grief, begs the question, who is the poorer driver? I've seen this coming the other way on the way to an accident, just because your car is small, doesn't mean you can speed to get out of some supposed trouble. Trumpy ( talk) 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as someone likes to keep changing this back, I would like to point out that a quick google search of "Use of the word Lorry in Australia" brings up several hits confirming that it is a word used here. So, stop changing it back. I don't particularly care if you think it's not a word still used here. It is, so end of story. BelziBhaal ( talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
http://andrewnoske.com/wiki/Lost_in_translation http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=902101 Two examples that took me 15 seconds to find. BelziBhaal ( talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The argument could be made that Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's "Fardier a Vapeur" was the first truck, rather than the first car. The term "fardier" means "dray", a low and sideless horse-drawn vehicle used for heavy loads. The phrase "fardier a vapeur" means "steam dray", essentially, a steam powered, low, and sideless wagon: one could call it a flatbed truck. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I am going to add a short section on autonomous trucks, e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27485-autonomous-truck-cleared-to-drive-on-us-roads-for-the-first-time/ Where should this section go? In the history section or as an entirely new section? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Amo f 15 3.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amo f 15 3.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | the results of this discussion were: 01:03, 18 May 2012 Zscout370 deleted the page commons:File:Amo f 15 3.gif (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amo f 15 3.gif) |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Engvar maintains that the same variety of English should be used throughout an article. This applies to picture captions as well. Since this article is in American English, please refrain from changing the captions of british trucks to 'lorry'. They are trucks in this article. For comparison, see Sidewalk where the pictures of British 'pavements' are of course called 'sidewalks' to maintain consistency throughout an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:8C18:72E9:2CD3:2E3F ( talk) 23:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{
rfc|econ|lang}}
In an article that has very national sections, should there be straight ENGVAR or should each section be in it's own language? This is very noticeable in picture captions. Thank you.
Sammy D III (
talk)
12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car ..... That can easily be applied to captions of pictures and the like. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 14:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I was very uncomfortable about putting the US first, I do believe that alpha is correct.
I am comfortable with a US truck in the lead. The one there is shiney, has a small name, and is not a semi. Something from the side might be better?
I think the space next to the table of contents should be filled, but not go longer, encroaching on History. The wood thing itself is good, but I think something else (Jeffrey Quad?) has to go.
I think the rest is pretty balanced, I found a flatbed from Myanmar.
"Image:Road Train Australia.jpg|thumb|A road train in Australia" needs to go somewhere. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Graham87, I am so sorry, that is the problems with the table, too. I thought you were stabbing me in the back, I am so sorry for getting angry.
On the Maximum size by country table, that break and period you removed pushes the weight convert up to the top line, instead of a centered line it is on now. On the ones with only a length that break before the length convert pushes that line down, but it does not work up, that is what the period is for. That makes all the weights on the top line, and all the lengths on the bottom line. The one one period is hardly noticible. I will put it back, not waring, you can disappear it again if you want. A similar problem came up when you spelled out "New South Wales".
The pictures below the lead go one under the other down the side of the table of contents. They are too tall, longer than the table, so they encroach on the first section. The NW 1st lorry2.jpeg is oversize. It is not the most useful picture, but looks good, a museum truck. The different pictures are not right, someone else has to come here.
I just put up a picture of a Road Train, a semi with 4 trailers, right under that Maximum size table. Then I cropped it, adjusting the background out, you only see the truck, not the sky. Then I made it bigger, so it is almost as wide as that table. The biggest road legal truck on the planet, and it has a short wide picture. It sort of underlines the section.
Again, sorry for the tantrum. If I can help or make things clearer, please ask. I don't know how translating works, what it sounds like. And I have done a lot very fast, that must be confusing. Please ask. Sammy D III ( talk) 06:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Someone just uncropped the Road train, now it is too tall. I do not know how to reach them, the link goes to a blank page. I will have to upload the cropped version somehow, it is just filling out license stuff. I hope. The number change you may notice is me trying to make it smaller. Sigh. Worked for a few minutes. Sammy D III ( talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Might it be appropriate to add a tiny section or mention of hand truck? I just added it to "See also". DavidMCEddy ( talk) 03:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
What does the m x n designation mean, e.g., 6×4 (drivetrain), 4x2, 8x4, 10x4, 6x6? I'm guessing that m/2 = number of axles, and n/2 = number of powered axles. Is this correct? Is there some documentation of this?
Might it be appropriate to add something like this as a subsection of "anatomy"?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Forgive the placement of this here but I can simply find no reference anywhere and I've not yet had the chance to ask a truck driver about it (I surely will when the opportunity arises). On many rigs one sees these strange (and I think personally ugly, but fascinating nonetheless) curly designs on most available panels. They are often seen on horse floats as well. I was wondering - does this artwork have a name or a tradition associated with it? Update - Ok now I know its called Pinstriping, but what I really want to know is this particular type of curly Pinstriping, where the lines get thicker and thinner and there are lots of 'chandelieresque' type shapes. 218.214.138.11 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In Brazil, it used to be very common to have such 'pinstriping' with messages at the tail end asking for God's help. But the modern powerful lorries don't seem to have it. 12.146.221.194 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ANSWER: it's called scroll pinstriping and typically has a floral or leafy appearance similar to Victorian art. It's decorative artwork because who wants to see bland big rigs trucks on 15 hour cross country trips? www.curlyspinstriping.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysdalimit ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I want to know why the american semis have bonnets for the engine and in UK they have a flush front. The haul weights are more in UK. And apparently, the long nosed front has more wind resistance. What is the benefit then. 12.146.221.194 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Etymology section says that "truck" is "shortened from "motor truck", which dates back to 1916", but "motor truck" seems to be older. H.G. Wells in 1902 wrote about trucks "There will, first of all, be the motor truck for heavy traffic. Already such trucks are in evidence distributing goods and parcels of various sorts. And sooner or later, no doubt, the numerous advantages of such an arrangement will lead to the organization of large carrier companies, using such motor trucks to carry goods in bulk or parcels on the high roads." See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscaruzzo ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't know where you come from, but I'm British and believe your usage of truck is entirely colloquial; only other usage has come from Americans, "dump truck" and "fork-lift truck". I think what you mean is train carriage' for train-car. A quick check on http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ seems to confirm my belief for British English. Also, if you aren't going to put " "Truck" (American English) or "Lorry" (British English) " I don't see why "lorry" is given special treatment; I refer you to the colour debacle. mrhappyhour 18th Oct 2006
Since the United States Of America contains a majority of the native English speakers in the world, American usage of the English language is correct. To the majority of speakers of the language it is a "truck". Please refer to the articles on English and USA for references.( Drn8 ( talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC))
Just for the record we in Australia also use the word "truck", not "lorry". But like our British friends we say "Bonnet" for the front of the car that lifts up, and "Boot" for the luggage compartment at the back. Even if cars have rear mounted engines we say the engine is "in the Boot". 218.214.138.11 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As we seem to be on a bit of a theme today, thought I'd elaborate on my earlier edit summary.
In the UK for definite, and (judging by the Google results) elsewhere too, the following names are used (see traction engine for terminology):
EdJogg 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The usual word is Lastwagen (load wagon) or the abbrev. "Lkw" from the word Lastkraftwagen. Lastkraftwagen is official language. The word Kraft (in the abbrev. Pkw or Lkw) doesn't mean carrying. The translation of Kraft is power, here in the meaning of engine powered in opposite of horse pulled waggons. The word Kraftwagen came up with the mortorization to tell cars apart from waggons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.105.201 ( talk) 12:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything about trucks on wikipedia need a whole lotta restructuring. First, semi-trailer is more about highway heavy trucks than about semitrailers proper. Here's my understanding of the big world of trucks
So that would be the grand structure of this article, with sub-articles when section get too long. Céçaquiéça 07:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another thing that I think should be added is a better definition for British usage. The article says 'The British term is, however, only used for the medium and heavy types (see below), i.e. a van, a pickup or a SUV would never be regarded a "lorry"'
This creates the impression that an SUV (as it's not referred to as a lorry) would be called a truck. This is not the case. A van in the UK is a road vehicle with a roof and no side windows used to transport goods, or a closed railway wagon used to transport luggage, goods, or mail.
The word truck here will usually refer to a railway wagon for carrying freight, though it has come to describe any vehicle for moving goods. The specific names for the types of vehicles will usually be used rather than calling them trucks, though it's becoming more common for people to refer to lorries as trucks, due to Americanisation.
Someone else could probably do a better job than me at describing this (as I am long winded), but I think it would be a good idea for it to have its own section to deal with this, rather than the obscur reference it has.-- Jcvamp 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Michael H. Belzer to Truck. See former articles history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Truck to Telegraph Road Bridge, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Is there any reason that the units of measurement in this section are imperial followed by SI? i.e. US laws or some such? Otherwise it reads quite strange to have the entire article preceding this section in SI units (and no imperial figures), only to switch to imperial. It also contradicts wiki guidelines, unless the source reference uses imperial as well (no source quoted here though). If not could someone please change this? Steevm 01:06, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
"The Swedish truck maker Scania claims they stay away from the US-market because of this third party tradition. Scania wants to sell a highly integrated product with proven interoperability and quality."
Scania did indeed sell trucks here in the USA from the mid 80's to early 90's. They failed due to not being able to establish a dealer network or partnership. Their trucks were also very heavy compared to similar North American trucks which was another blow against them. Mack trucks did offer a Scania engine as a light weight low power alternative to the Maxidyne series in the R model around the late 70's early 80's. That statement is not entirely accurate should be deleted or edited.
Thaddeusw 01:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The following statement appears in the aricle:
Trucks have often had to pay higher tax rates, and have been subject to extensive regulation. Partly this is because they are bigger, heavier, and cause more wear and tear on roadways. This is one reason that UPS vehicles are called 'package cars', because that exempted them from certain tax-rates.
Rules are in place for tractor-trailer rigs, regulating how many hours a driver may be on the clock, and how much rest time/sleep time is necessary (11hrs on/10hrs off; 60hrs/7days; or 70hrs/8days). Many other rules apply. Violations of these laws are subject to large fines.
Notice that these hours are different in other jurisdictions. Always check up before you go.
Which jurisdication does this apply to? If you know could you please clarify the point. Arcturus 19:39, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
66.116.29.7 18:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a old saying "Truck driver has one foot in jail and one in grave" I'd not comment that any fool can be a truck driver because its grossly unfair. The job is a nightmare and only dedicated persons can do it and do it well.The governments around the world seem to be only too wiling to blame truck drivers for all the ills of the transport industry while conveniently forgeting who the real culprits are. Stonufka 12:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned on Webster, trucking means barting, changing
It should be mentionned — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.9.173 ( talk) 16:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Are automatic or semi-automatic transmissions in europe?
"The trend in Europe is that more new trucks are being bought with automatic or semi-automatic transmission. This may be due [...] to the fact that you can lower fuel consumption and improve the durability of the truck."
I can't say I've ever heard a claim that an automatic transmission is more economical than a manual (engine speed being equal)? Can anyone provide any evidence to support this claim? 60.242.154.34 12:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure some of you got the concept of auto and semi-auto transmissions correctly. Firstly most semi automatic transmissions are in fact manual boxes with automated gear changing and clutch control. All major nanufacturers produce ones today including options for converting existing manual transmissions to auto shift regime. Some of these have fully automated clutch control dispensing the need for a clutch pedal where some include clutch pedal which is only used during takeoff and stopping. Fully automatic transmissions do not use clutch instead utilising torque converter and seamless planetary gear ratios, primarily used in city buses , earthmoving machinery and perhaps some trucks namely in rubbish colection where frequent stop/start action is performed.Fuel consumption is actually improved with semi auto boxes due to the fact that most are electronically controled thus engine torque and gear ratios can be closely matched to driving enviroment. Stonufka 12:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with Scania system but the other Swede (Volvo) got it perfect now
with their I-shift 12 speed range of transmissions for FH/FM trucks.
No clutch pedal, fully automated gearchanges or manual shifting via rocker switch on foldable gear lever which has R N A M positions ,incidentally same lever as on their fully automatic transmission Powertronic so the line is getting even more blurred. My only wish
is that the car manufacturers start doing the same and yes I know Tiptronic has it all but it costs $$$$.
Stonufka
12:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
In the South America part, three links - Renault, Troller and Matra, were followed by links to websites. Temporarily I invisibilized them, since I'm not sure it's the correct way to promote it. If that's the case, all manufacturers should have it in that list. G®iffen 21:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I reverted to a version without the para cited by http://www.aar.org/getFile.asp?File_id=466 whose source is biased anti-truck. Care is needed with such sections and references to show balance, otherwise we are in danger of synthesising Original Research. I think the whole section needs a careful look with regards to OR synthesis. While trucks patently do have environmental effects we must record them, not draw conclusions from them. Fiddle Faddle 20:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Where is the article that describes the trucking industry? In comparison, consider the article book and the article printing. There are two separate articles.
I dispute the accuracy of this line. I've taken up the habit of double-clutching, because the clutch is easier to replace than everything else that floating wear & tears, but I am able to shift gracefully enough with no clutch, and do so by feel and sound. I was able to do so even before I had gotten used to the truck and gotten a good idea of the ranges for each gear. I can also float in my light pickup, which is a lot more touchy, without reading the tach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phaedrus420 ( talk • contribs) 19:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Unless its just a slang term for changing gears without the clutch , which had its origins perhaps in the lack of power assisted clutches fitted by North American truck manufacturers , where idea of pressing heavy clutch pedal on those trucks all day long is rather exhausting and slow so the man found the easy way out. If you've never driven such a vehicle I can tell you that by the fifth intersection in the city stop-start traffic stirring through 18 speed shifter you would have enough and the left leg the size of Mr Olympia body builder. To answer the question its not illegal whatever someone might mean by that.
Stonufka (
talk)
09:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
The Images of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks near the bottom of the page are of low quality and should be removed. Asicmod ( talk) 06:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm no expert in trucks (I'll use this word intead of "Lorry" for the sake of simplicity) but I'm interested in military vehicles in general (trucks among them). I've noticed that there are WikiProjects for "Military Histoey" and "Automobiles", but could find none for "Trucks" (or "Lorries", "Vans" od "Wheeled Cargo Vehicles", or anything similar). Wouldn't it make sense to have a WikiProject specifically dedicated to these important automotive cargo vehicles? Just an idea. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 06:21, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Can some one reduce the size of this image?? Peter Horn 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
--Taken care of ....
Stonufka (
talk)
13:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I have two issues with the weight restriction statement made in the first section. First off, where is it the case that you need a special license to drive a truck weighing over 10000lbs? It's certainly not true in the US. Secondly, what unit system has 3.5 tons/tonnes equal to 10000 lbs? 3.5 short (standard/English) tons is 7000 lbs exactly, while 3.5 (metric) tonnes is just over 7700 lbs. - Athaler ( talk) 02:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I used to drive a truck in Alaska, and in the winter it could get extremly dangerous. I would like to know if anyone else ever had the promblem of the suspension freezing completely while parked overnight. This made my truck incredibly unsafe. Please let me know if you has this problem. =]
Thankyou, kind regards,
Zesty Prospect
14:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
Are you talking about air suspension? I can't imagine steel suspension freezing! Stonufka 12:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
And you're asking because you want to add this to the article about Trucks? Or maybe This is a better question for a message board! Asicmod ( talk) 00:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
In some countries, there are vehicles which are half bus and half truck. How are they called? Are there special names for them, like e.g. the Norwegian word "Kombibuss"? (Not the original names are important for me, but the English translations.) Please answer here, or on de:Diskussion:Skvader_(Nutzfahrzeug). -- 85.22.7.146 ( talk) 20:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
I suggest adding a new article section called "Military trucks"; focusing on troop carrier. Include the example of the International Harvester Loadstar,
AM General M-35 A2, Alvis Stalwart and the Mercedes Benz Unimog S401 (with picture
. The latter is lighter, features are given at http://www.unimogsales.com/unimog-concept.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.175.166 ( talk) 09:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I've got a possible conflict. The article credits Daimler 1898 with the first IC truck. I've seen Richard F. Stewart, using a 2hp Daimler motor, in Pocantico Hills, NY in 1895 credited, as well as with the first commercial truck sales, 1897. Can anybody clear this up? Also, the article omits mention of the first articulated (semi-trailer) truck, by Thorneycroft, & the first (or early) cabover, by Mack in the early 1900s (1905 Bulldog, sold to B.A.?) Trekphiler 06:38, 9 December 2005 (UTC)oz
Yes, this article definitely needs to include some history. Globbet ( talk) 23:27, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure this would help, but we have an interactive 'map' of the components of a North American truck and are building a European truck. We could package something for use on wiki. The website is: www.partseek.com My email is: scott@partslink.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.53.192.200 ( talk) 17:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there any reason (trade barriers etc.) why the design of trucks - and, for that matter, busses - differs so greatly between the US and Europe while cars pretty much look alike everywhere?
Is it just that the US truck design in less modern or is it different?
thx. --
79.227.139.107 (
talk)
10:13, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
A European project revealed the fact that the average city driver would step from 3 to 7 tons with his clutch-foot every day, depending on truck model, and these results made many companies buy trucks with automatic transmission, with the primary (but often untold) reason that they couldn't afford to pay compensation to drivers getting broken knees from the work.
This doesn't make any sense at all. It's like saying that a power plant generated over a million volts last year. I vote for removal. Fsiler 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
In North America, both the Ford Motor Company and General Motors have a history of manufacturing large diesel engines for trucks - and they probably still do.
These diesel engines are made for their own trucks, and the companies also sell the diesel engines to any customer with the money to buy them with. Those enginers can be used in trucks, tractors, buses, etc., and they can also be used as stationary engines, such as for emergency electrical supplies.
98.67.166.209 (
talk)
18:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
I believe that the US is being underrepresented here (doesn’t happen often, we’re pretty egotistical). None of the images here, except maybe for components “Engine”, “Driveline”, and “Frame”, are of US vehicles. Even the interior shot of a Mack is right hand drive, probably Australia? It is a good shot of a high-buck model, but not really representative of the manufacturer. Shouldn’t it be LHD, use RHD for some English model?
Should someone at least put a Mack, and maybe a Navistar, in the gallery?
While I’m babbling, should an ALMA antenna transporter be here?
Thank you for your time. Sammy D III ( talk) 18:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
"Fire Engines" and "Fire Trucks" are separate vehicles, a poor example. An Engine provides power, mainly to pump, and is operated by an Engineer. A Truck is a transport, for ladders, hoses, other equipment, and personnel. They work together, supporting each other, and often the line isn't clear, but they have different names for a reason. Maybe "dump truck" vs "tipper"? Sammy D III ( talk) 03:43, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Down-under, our pumps are called "Fire Appliances", they are appliances used for the fighting of fires, implementing of rescue equipment and other such pump required tasks, as well as the carriage of staff to said incidents. In my opinion it is the lazy media that brands all fire appliances as fire trucks and other useless terms. Trumpy ( talk) 10:02, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I’m not sure about this conflict, but if the vandal is referring to the first line of “Engines”, he’s sort of right. Not all that strong a source, but Daimler does sound plausible. That line should be somewhere else, though.
History is weak, to put it mildly. Lots on the name, but little on the machines themselves. I can put a few dates together, but they would be the US from one source, at least to start. If someone could come up with some EU stuff, and writing talent, a “History” section might be an improvement. Or not, just a thought.
While I’m here, I have real problems with “Trucking accidents”. There is no source for a serious subject. Most of the first paragraph sounds like they are real numbers, but it could be rewritten.
I HATE the last paragraph. Sounds good, maybe, but I don’t buy it. I am prejudged, and familiar with a specific area, though. I suggest that the most common cause for accidents is a smaller vehicle encroaching. In my world, most accidents were “not chargeable”. Sleep deprived may be a problem over the road, but not in local stuff, they go home at night. I cannot remember anyone driving drunk. After work, late at night, morning hangovers, but not on the clock. Drugs were different, but most drivers are subject to random screening, that may have changed things, or not.
I do not have numbers to prove it, but I wouldn’t mind if that last paragraph disappeared. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:56, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
There are lots of numbers at [1]. Table 1 has yearly totals (para 1 good), table 56 is accident type and driver error. Sammy D III ( talk) 00:21, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't have any figures, but, the idea shown on the article suggests that trucks cause their own accidents, which couldn't be further from the truth. I'm a truck driver as a Senior Fire-Fighter and the number of times I've seen people in cars try and race trucks to the end of a passing lane and come to grief, begs the question, who is the poorer driver? I've seen this coming the other way on the way to an accident, just because your car is small, doesn't mean you can speed to get out of some supposed trouble. Trumpy ( talk) 10:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Seeing as someone likes to keep changing this back, I would like to point out that a quick google search of "Use of the word Lorry in Australia" brings up several hits confirming that it is a word used here. So, stop changing it back. I don't particularly care if you think it's not a word still used here. It is, so end of story. BelziBhaal ( talk) 20:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
http://andrewnoske.com/wiki/Lost_in_translation http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=902101 Two examples that took me 15 seconds to find. BelziBhaal ( talk) 21:30, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
The argument could be made that Nicolas-Joseph Cugnot's "Fardier a Vapeur" was the first truck, rather than the first car. The term "fardier" means "dray", a low and sideless horse-drawn vehicle used for heavy loads. The phrase "fardier a vapeur" means "steam dray", essentially, a steam powered, low, and sideless wagon: one could call it a flatbed truck. — Rickyrab. Yada yada yada 15:12, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
I am going to add a short section on autonomous trucks, e.g. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn27485-autonomous-truck-cleared-to-drive-on-us-roads-for-the-first-time/ Where should this section go? In the history section or as an entirely new section? Absolutelypuremilk ( talk) 12:30, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Amo f 15 3.gif, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Amo f 15 3.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 01:35, 27 April 2012 (UTC) |
![]() | the results of this discussion were: 01:03, 18 May 2012 Zscout370 deleted the page commons:File:Amo f 15 3.gif (Per Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amo f 15 3.gif) |
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabartus ( talk • contribs) 17:27, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Engvar maintains that the same variety of English should be used throughout an article. This applies to picture captions as well. Since this article is in American English, please refrain from changing the captions of british trucks to 'lorry'. They are trucks in this article. For comparison, see Sidewalk where the pictures of British 'pavements' are of course called 'sidewalks' to maintain consistency throughout an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA36:5800:8C18:72E9:2CD3:2E3F ( talk) 23:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
{{
rfc|econ|lang}}
In an article that has very national sections, should there be straight ENGVAR or should each section be in it's own language? This is very noticeable in picture captions. Thank you.
Sammy D III (
talk)
12:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
the trunk (American English) or boot (British English) of a car ..... That can easily be applied to captions of pictures and the like. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 14:59, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I was very uncomfortable about putting the US first, I do believe that alpha is correct.
I am comfortable with a US truck in the lead. The one there is shiney, has a small name, and is not a semi. Something from the side might be better?
I think the space next to the table of contents should be filled, but not go longer, encroaching on History. The wood thing itself is good, but I think something else (Jeffrey Quad?) has to go.
I think the rest is pretty balanced, I found a flatbed from Myanmar.
"Image:Road Train Australia.jpg|thumb|A road train in Australia" needs to go somewhere. Sammy D III ( talk) 22:21, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Graham87, I am so sorry, that is the problems with the table, too. I thought you were stabbing me in the back, I am so sorry for getting angry.
On the Maximum size by country table, that break and period you removed pushes the weight convert up to the top line, instead of a centered line it is on now. On the ones with only a length that break before the length convert pushes that line down, but it does not work up, that is what the period is for. That makes all the weights on the top line, and all the lengths on the bottom line. The one one period is hardly noticible. I will put it back, not waring, you can disappear it again if you want. A similar problem came up when you spelled out "New South Wales".
The pictures below the lead go one under the other down the side of the table of contents. They are too tall, longer than the table, so they encroach on the first section. The NW 1st lorry2.jpeg is oversize. It is not the most useful picture, but looks good, a museum truck. The different pictures are not right, someone else has to come here.
I just put up a picture of a Road Train, a semi with 4 trailers, right under that Maximum size table. Then I cropped it, adjusting the background out, you only see the truck, not the sky. Then I made it bigger, so it is almost as wide as that table. The biggest road legal truck on the planet, and it has a short wide picture. It sort of underlines the section.
Again, sorry for the tantrum. If I can help or make things clearer, please ask. I don't know how translating works, what it sounds like. And I have done a lot very fast, that must be confusing. Please ask. Sammy D III ( talk) 06:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
EDIT: Someone just uncropped the Road train, now it is too tall. I do not know how to reach them, the link goes to a blank page. I will have to upload the cropped version somehow, it is just filling out license stuff. I hope. The number change you may notice is me trying to make it smaller. Sigh. Worked for a few minutes. Sammy D III ( talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Might it be appropriate to add a tiny section or mention of hand truck? I just added it to "See also". DavidMCEddy ( talk) 03:02, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
What does the m x n designation mean, e.g., 6×4 (drivetrain), 4x2, 8x4, 10x4, 6x6? I'm guessing that m/2 = number of axles, and n/2 = number of powered axles. Is this correct? Is there some documentation of this?
Might it be appropriate to add something like this as a subsection of "anatomy"?
Thanks, DavidMCEddy ( talk) 02:52, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Forgive the placement of this here but I can simply find no reference anywhere and I've not yet had the chance to ask a truck driver about it (I surely will when the opportunity arises). On many rigs one sees these strange (and I think personally ugly, but fascinating nonetheless) curly designs on most available panels. They are often seen on horse floats as well. I was wondering - does this artwork have a name or a tradition associated with it? Update - Ok now I know its called Pinstriping, but what I really want to know is this particular type of curly Pinstriping, where the lines get thicker and thinner and there are lots of 'chandelieresque' type shapes. 218.214.138.11 00:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
In Brazil, it used to be very common to have such 'pinstriping' with messages at the tail end asking for God's help. But the modern powerful lorries don't seem to have it. 12.146.221.194 01:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC) ANSWER: it's called scroll pinstriping and typically has a floral or leafy appearance similar to Victorian art. It's decorative artwork because who wants to see bland big rigs trucks on 15 hour cross country trips? www.curlyspinstriping.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysdalimit ( talk • contribs) 08:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
I want to know why the american semis have bonnets for the engine and in UK they have a flush front. The haul weights are more in UK. And apparently, the long nosed front has more wind resistance. What is the benefit then. 12.146.221.194 01:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The Etymology section says that "truck" is "shortened from "motor truck", which dates back to 1916", but "motor truck" seems to be older. H.G. Wells in 1902 wrote about trucks "There will, first of all, be the motor truck for heavy traffic. Already such trucks are in evidence distributing goods and parcels of various sorts. And sooner or later, no doubt, the numerous advantages of such an arrangement will lead to the organization of large carrier companies, using such motor trucks to carry goods in bulk or parcels on the high roads." See http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19229/19229-h/19229-h.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oscaruzzo ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
Don't know where you come from, but I'm British and believe your usage of truck is entirely colloquial; only other usage has come from Americans, "dump truck" and "fork-lift truck". I think what you mean is train carriage' for train-car. A quick check on http://dictionary.cambridge.org/ seems to confirm my belief for British English. Also, if you aren't going to put " "Truck" (American English) or "Lorry" (British English) " I don't see why "lorry" is given special treatment; I refer you to the colour debacle. mrhappyhour 18th Oct 2006
Since the United States Of America contains a majority of the native English speakers in the world, American usage of the English language is correct. To the majority of speakers of the language it is a "truck". Please refer to the articles on English and USA for references.( Drn8 ( talk) 19:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC))
Just for the record we in Australia also use the word "truck", not "lorry". But like our British friends we say "Bonnet" for the front of the car that lifts up, and "Boot" for the luggage compartment at the back. Even if cars have rear mounted engines we say the engine is "in the Boot". 218.214.138.11 00:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
As we seem to be on a bit of a theme today, thought I'd elaborate on my earlier edit summary.
In the UK for definite, and (judging by the Google results) elsewhere too, the following names are used (see traction engine for terminology):
EdJogg 01:26, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
The usual word is Lastwagen (load wagon) or the abbrev. "Lkw" from the word Lastkraftwagen. Lastkraftwagen is official language. The word Kraft (in the abbrev. Pkw or Lkw) doesn't mean carrying. The translation of Kraft is power, here in the meaning of engine powered in opposite of horse pulled waggons. The word Kraftwagen came up with the mortorization to tell cars apart from waggons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.172.105.201 ( talk) 12:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Everything about trucks on wikipedia need a whole lotta restructuring. First, semi-trailer is more about highway heavy trucks than about semitrailers proper. Here's my understanding of the big world of trucks
So that would be the grand structure of this article, with sub-articles when section get too long. Céçaquiéça 07:20, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Another thing that I think should be added is a better definition for British usage. The article says 'The British term is, however, only used for the medium and heavy types (see below), i.e. a van, a pickup or a SUV would never be regarded a "lorry"'
This creates the impression that an SUV (as it's not referred to as a lorry) would be called a truck. This is not the case. A van in the UK is a road vehicle with a roof and no side windows used to transport goods, or a closed railway wagon used to transport luggage, goods, or mail.
The word truck here will usually refer to a railway wagon for carrying freight, though it has come to describe any vehicle for moving goods. The specific names for the types of vehicles will usually be used rather than calling them trucks, though it's becoming more common for people to refer to lorries as trucks, due to Americanisation.
Someone else could probably do a better job than me at describing this (as I am long winded), but I think it would be a good idea for it to have its own section to deal with this, rather than the obscur reference it has.-- Jcvamp 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Michael H. Belzer to Truck. See former articles history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 14:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Text and references copied from Truck to Telegraph Road Bridge, See former article's history for a list of contributors. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 18:08, 12 January 2020 (UTC)