On March 18, 2007, Canuck wrote:
> Well, given that it's a Maple Leaf, I think that it can only be a 2 Ton or maybe
> 21/2. I still don't get how a truck manufacturer rates them though. Is it the sizing
> of the springs or something? THis truck has a 131" wb and yet it is rated heavier
> than a longer wheelbase truck with very similar appearance. Beats me.
Heel low Canuck:
I think some of your question may be answered in the information I just transcribed out of the “Sales Brochure on 1935 Chevrolet Maple Leaf Trucks.” Yes, yes…too bad we do not have a copy of the 1936 sales brochure, but no matter! :-(
There is a table with information on dimensions and weights (pasted text below) that refers to the formula used to determine “payload,” which I presume (shrug!) is capacity/tonnage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Sales Brochure on 1935 Chevrolet Maple Leaf Trucks -
{Table of information}
DIMENSIONS AND WEIGHTS
Model 16-42 Model 16-43
Wheelbase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141” 165”
Overall Length of Chassis (including
Front Bumper) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 1/16” 234 1/16”
Back of Cab to centre line of Rear Axle 61 ¼” 85 ¼”
Back of Cab to end of Frame . . . . . . . . 108 1/8” 132 1/8”
Front of Dash to end of Frame . . . . . . . 161 1/8” 185 1/8”
Maximum Body Length Back of Cab. . 9 feet 12 feet
6.50x20” 6.50x20”
Standard Front Tire Equipment . . . . . (6-ply) (6-ply)
6.50x20” 6.50x20”
Standard Rear Tire Equipment . . . . . . (6-ply) (6-ply)
Duals Duals
Front Tread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 55/64” 56 55/64”
Rear Tread—Dual Tires . . . . . . . . . . . 64 ¾” 64 ¾”
Recommended Gross Weight . . . . . . . 11,500 lbs. 11,500 lbs.
Approx. Shipping Weight with Cowl—
Front . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,650 lbs. 1,725 lbs.
Rear. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,670 lbs. 1,700 lbs.
Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,320 lbs. 3,425 lbs.
Nominal Body, Cab and Equipment
Weight . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 lbs. 1,200 lbs.
Payload—Approximately . . . . . . . . . . 7,180 lbs. 6,875 lbs.
Formula: Gross weight—chassis weight—body weight = Payload.
The gross allowable weight must not exceed 11,500 lbs. which includes chassis, cab, body, gas, oil, water, driver and payload.
Note:—The above table shows standard tire Equipment for each wheelbase. A wide range of tire options is available for either wheelbase. Accurate chassis weights with various types of tire equipment available upon request.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Worth noting is that in 1935, the shorter wheelbase (Model 16-42, 141” wheelbase) is rated for a payload of approximately for 7,180 lbs. while the longer wheelbase (Model 16-43, 165” wheelbase) is for LESS at 6,875 lbs. of approximate payload. Recommended gross weight for both wheelbases (and what you saw on the one plate on your firewall) is 11,500 lbs. How they come up with the recommended gross weight for a vehicle, well someone is going to have to answer that…probably something to do with the breaking point of some key component or a combination formula where you take stress measurements on a whole bunch of components.
1935 ML Model 16-42 / 141”wb
Total shipping weight with cowl (F 1,650 + R 1,670 = 3,320 lbs.) +
Nominal Body, Cab and Equipment (1,000 lbs.) +
Payload—Approximately (7,180 lbs.) =
Recommended Gross Weight 11,500 lbs.
1935 ML Model 16-43 / 165”wb
Total shipping weight with cowl ((F 1,725 + R 1,700 = 3,425 lbs.) +
Nominal Body, Cab and Equipment (1,200 lbs.) +
Payload—Approximately (6,875 lbs.) =
Recommended Gross Weight 11,500 lbs.
I guess if you use the same components on two models of trucks with different wheelbases, it goes without saying that more components would be required to make up a LONGER wheelbase and thereby, more components equals more WEIGHT. More weight given that the components were meant to handle the same stress factors (breaking under the tension of more and more weight/stress), it seems logical that unless the components used in the longer wheelbase had higher ratings to handle more weight, you don’t get more payload capacity by adding length which would have equaled more weight/stress to the unit with the same kind of components.
I get the feeling that Chev used identical components to make up both wheelbases, 141” and 165,” especially the wheels and tires as they do state they are interchangeable (front and rear) on the same truck, and the specs given above are identical for both models. Probably a safe conclusion.
Now do note, at the bottom of the table the mention of a “wide range of tire options is available for either wheelbase” so I would assume that if you changed to a different “tire” option you may then alter the payload capacity of your truck.
I do know that there were changes made to the wheels between 1935 and 1936 (we mention this in our first post, listed above in the Chev Vs. Maple Leafs – Tonnages section). In 1935, all the weight rode on the wheels which were of a heavier construction than the 1936 editions. In 1936, the way the weight was distributed was changed with the full floating rear end and the fact that the hubs bore the weight, allowing for them to make the rims lighter. Recall, Maple Leaf trucks rode on their own special wheels for the 21-years that they were made.
My first reaction to knowing that the longer wheelbases hauled less weight or payload was, “Why bother?” I have concluded that the benefits to a longer wheelbase would be like when someone says, “What weighs more; a pound of feathers or a pound of gold.” Both WEIGH the same, but the volume or area is different. Depends what you want your Maple Leaf Truck to be hauling. If you were a grain farmer, you would not need as much “volume” (grain is heavy and compact) as a freight liner that hauled light boxes of larger sized goods.
This brings to mind that I had been wondering why in 1931 does the Chevrolet and Maple Leaf truck (HS-LT, 112-114-119, 131” wb) go down to the 1½ ton capacity, when the year prior, 1930, the Maple Leaf truck (HR, 114-116, same sized wb @ 131”) was rated at higher 2 ton capacity. Then I recalled that the Chevrolet and Maple Leaf (C&ML) used Chev wheels, not the Maple Leaf wheels…ah, now this makes sense. Chevrolet wheels would have been meant more for the Chev pickup line, and the wheels would not have been expected to accommodate the loads for the bigger Maple Leafs.
So Bob, I suppose you can blame the ½ ton smaller capacity of the C&ML trucks in ’36 because of those Chev wheels they used. Certainly far easier to find Chev wheels over Maple Leafs tho! As we have mentioned, we have easily collected more than enough for our two C&ML’s. From our records, the C&ML’s were only made in 1931 and 1936…did they run out of Maple Leaf wheels, or gull wing bumpers or did they have too many Maple Leaf parts left over and mixed them up with Chev parts to get rid of the excess??? I just question why they would combine the two?
I wonder if they could have kept the heavier 1935 wheels and had an even larger payload capacity…but I am no engineer, so there was probably some item that inhibited this train of thought from seeing the light of day. If anyone is an “engineer” and has further insight to my conclusions in regards to payloads/tonnage, please post so I may learn further. Remember, I am only drawing these conclusions from what I read in the 1935 Maple Leaf Truck Sales brochure and the stats on differences between Maple Leafs in models/years. There is probably something wrong in what I have deducted from just referring to these and not sure I have gotten the whole picture right.
Curious, the difference between the two wheelbases 165” & 141” is 2 feet (24”) yet the table says, that the maximum body length back of cab is 12 feet and 9 feet, difference of three feet (36”). I guess if you make the wheelbase two feet longer, this allows you a longer deck of three feet, the extra foot does not compromise the vehicle’s stability/safety?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Sales Brochure on 1935 Chevrolet Maple Leaf Trucks -
REAR AXLE—General Motors Full Floating. Spiral bevel drive with 6.33 ratio (5.83 optional). Pinion shaft is straddle mounted. All gears and shafts are supported on large roller bearings. Dual Performance Axle providing 8 speeds Forward and 2 speeds Reverse—optional at extra cost.
FRONT AXLE—Drop-forged heat-treated I beam. Reverse Elliott type knuckles. New Departure ball bearings in wheels.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
In the ’35 brochure, I see “new” is the departure ball bearings in the wheels. Not sure if those would also help increase capacity, maybe they were put there gearing up for the 2-2½ ton potential seen in 1936 Maple Leaf but maybe these were scrapped?
Worth noting too is that the dual performance axle (what we have in one of our ’36 Maple Leafs) was offered optional in 1935, at additional cost.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- Sales Brochure on 1935 Chevrolet Maple Leaf Trucks -
COMPARE POWER AND TORQUE
Torque is the measure of pulling ability. And the Chevrolet engine gives you higher torque throughout the normal speed range than any other truck engine in its field.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Another item I found interesting in the brochure, is the fact that at the time, so many items would have been new to the market. Explanations would have been a given in 1935 simply because you cannot “rah rah rah” a product when the public didn’t know what the heck you were flogging or going on about. Horse anatomy would have seemed more comfortable than the automobile, I guess “horse” power would not have been too hard to grasp. :-)
BTW Torque, isn’t that what one uses to drive screws? So following the above definition, you are “pulling” a screw? Sadly, Physics was never my forte, especially when the prof said, “The table was pushing back.” “HUH? The dudes in white coats are coming for you…”
Anyway, above is an excerpt with an explanation as to what “torque” means. I highly doubt one would see a definition of that in a vehicle sales brochure today. Yet another interesting thing about the older Stovebolts, the industry was brand spanking new and things we take for granted were in their infancy. Good thing for people like myself to cut their teeth on. If I learn the basics here, maybe I can come up to speed quicker on the new models and all their new fangled innovations.
More surprising is that so many technological advances where made back then (astronomical since they were limited even by the kinds of basic materials at their disposal). In reality, we have not greatly changed the basic way of doing things much since then. Course with the hybrids, yes, these are way out there compared but I suppose the gas combustion engine has not been that dissimilar over the decades. New materials to make lighter/stronger components and much better efficiency, say fuel wise.
Doggone,
Tara – wife and tabulator for Too Old to Part Out
