View Single Post
Old 12-10-2011, 08:41 PM   #43 (permalink)
Frank Lee
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
This reminds me of the "Aerodynamic Bugattis" thread.

Yes, they are sleek.

They are swoopy.

They are beautiful.

But they aren't aero and those things don't make them so.

That said:

Pointyness doesn't automatically mean more aero.

Roundiness doesn't automatically mean more aero.

Covers and flares don't automatically mean more aero.

Wings and fins don't automatically lower aero.

Tipping windshields back don't automatically lower aero.

Cylindrical body cross-section doesn't automatically mean more aero.

************************************

In the real world trucks need to haul stuff. It's often big and heavy, and sometimes irregular shaped.

More often than not (for enclosed trailers) the stuff is on pallets.

It is loaded and unloaded via forklift on a loading dock. Docks are fairly standardized, such that they work for almost all trailers.

That means the trailer needs a flat floor, probably standard width, because that is how pallets and loads are sized.

The trailer floor needs to be at or near standard height so that the forklifts can go on and off. It is not realistic to expect forklift drivers to lug a heavy bridging ramp of some sort to cover a gap between a non-standard trailer and a dock. It is not realistic to expect the driver to throw ramps under the trailer tires to make up for height differences. It is not realistic to expect loading docks to be retrofitted with moveable ramps.

It could be somewhat realistic to fit trailers with adjustable height suspensions, if the cost/benefit ratio worked out. Then they could be lowered to some minor extent. Minor, because the trailer tires really are the limiting factor to a minimum load floor height, as unlike other vehicles, they can't intrude into the floor space (remember the forklifts). And also minor, if any, because the hitch on the truck and/or the truck suspension would need to go up and down accordingly to keep the trailer floor level.

The loading dock is the biggest reason huge stationary tailcones can't be fitted to box trailers. Oh, there are legal length restrictions too. But the main thing is to be able to quickly and easily swing open the trailer doors ALL THE WAY as in, 270 degrees swung open, so they are alongside the sides of the trailer, so the trailer can be backed into the more or less enclosed loading bay. Let me tell you, there oftentimes is not much for excess width in these bays. Any trailing device has to quickly and easily collapse or otherwise fold out of the way. Don't expect the driver to piddle with tools, or climb on top of the trailer, or any such thing. Don't expect the owner to pay for fancy hydraulics or servos or what-have-you either, unless the aero improvements are so great that it is money in his pocket.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Frank Lee For This Useful Post:
aerohead (12-20-2011)