Talk:Federal Bridge Gross Weight Formula

Looks good!
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)

Survey
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.


 * Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?


 * If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?


 * Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

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)

Response

 * Of course, I'm always looking for more feedback about my writing style. Pretty much all of the articles I have created (as new, original articles) have been solely edited by myself, save for a few minor copyedits by other editors. I've already listed this article for peer review, however only one other editor gave any recommendations. A lot of my articles are of special interest, and not many people have the knowledge to give proper criticism outside of Wikipedia policies and guidelines.


 * I don't write a lot outside of Wikipedia.


 * Not really, I just try to follow the Manual of Style and other guidelines as much as I can. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 05:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

GA review

 * GA review (see here for criteria)


 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:

Good luck! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 15:50, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Response
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! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 21:49, 2 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Whew, it took a lot of digging but I finally found it! According to this FHWA report the first weight limits were enacted by a few states in 1914, however, federal weight limits were set in 1956 at 73,280 lbs. In 1964 the Highway Research Board recommended to congress that weight limits be set based on a bridge formula table. Not until 1974 was the limit raised to 80,000 lb in conjunction with the federal bridge formula limits. I will incorporate this info into the article. --ErgoSum88 (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That was exactly what I was waiting for. Thanks for being patient! &mdash; Rob (  talk  ) 00:49, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Worried from the UK !
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)
 * Are UK bridges built extra tough to obviate the need for such a formula ?
 * Do UK lorries cross bridges on tippy-toe ?
 * Are we in the UK living on borrowed time ?

Calvin
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)

"mathematical"
It's a bit depressing that many people&mdash;in fact even many educated people&mdash;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)


 * If this isn't "mathematical" then what is it? -- ErgoSum • talk • trib  00:23, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening phrasing
"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)
 * This looks to have been fixed GrahamHardy (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080124194531/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/what-we-do/strategy/strategy.htm to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/about/what-we-do/strategy/strategy.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://vsw.fhwa.dot.gov/qa/qa.jsp?category=23%20CFR%20658.17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Florida DOT Dead links
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)

External links modified
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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090324233721/http://www.mne.psu.edu/ifrtt/ConferenceProceedings/ISHVWD_9_2006/docs/pdfs/session%2011/s11-2%20152.pdf to http://www.mne.psu.edu/ifrtt/ConferenceProceedings/ISHVWD_9_2006/docs/pdfs/session%2011/s11-2%20152.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305123637/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.5&section_toc=2129 to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.5&section_toc=2129
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625110812/http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/EA/policy_notes/03_policy_notes/0603_New_Resrch_on_Pavement_Damage.pdf to http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/EA/policy_notes/03_policy_notes/0603_New_Resrch_on_Pavement_Damage.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625110814/http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/proceduraldocuments/procedures/bin/850010035.pdf to http://www2.dot.state.fl.us/proceduraldocuments/procedures/bin/850010035.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070818022735/http://www.komotv.com/news/9187062.html to http://www.komotv.com/news/9187062.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104024439/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135 to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104024439/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135 to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080104024439/http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135 to http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/administration/fmcsr/fmcsrruletext.asp?rule_toc=778&section=658.17&section_toc=2135

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

consecutive axles?
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)

Weight
Bridge formula 174.87.148.14 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)