(MEWPS) for tree work - Urban Access

Table 2Site 1 scoresMEWPAccessto siteManoeuvrabilityaround tree/sTerrainReach toanchorpointsManoeuvrabilityin crownTotalsScan lift SL 240 5 5 3 5 3 21Teupen EuroB200 – – – - 0Basket RQG 18 5 5 5 4 3 22Aerial AD17T 5 5 3 2 3 18Dino 210 XT 0 – – – - 04.4.2 Site 2An open grown sycamore in a field. This tree was selected to simulate a parkland/ estateenvironment to test the off road capabilities, also the ability of the MEWP to access an anchor pointthrough an open grown dense crown.Access to siteThe RQG had to be tracked to the site and was the slowest of all the machines to reach the tree. TheAerial suffered the same problems as Site 1 but managed to access the site with no difficulty. TheScanlift had some difficulty in crossing the site, due to the soft conditions, however in 4WD in lowgear, the machine reached the tree. The Euro B20 and the Dino, again had no access to the site.Manoeuvrability around treesThe Aerial with its 4WD set up but improper spreader plates led to sinking and stability problems.The RQG had no problems on this site.TerrainAll the machines coped with the terrain.Reach to anchor pointsThe Scanlift and RQG machines reached the anchor points with no difficulty. The Aerial machinefailed to reach the anchor point on this site, again due to insufficient reach of the machine.Manoeuvrability in crownAs in Site 1, all the machines had branches snagged in the basket.19