[aerohead]

Originally Posted by elhigh

I was hoping you'd show up, Shepherd. I didn't think that 12.2 number was right for the Bullet.

Frankly any improvement on those fuel suckers is good, since they rack up more miles in a month than some cars do all year. Modest savings on big trucks means a huge reduction in fuel usage, period.

It's worth pointing out that the costs associated with modifying the Bullet are for MODIFYING. That's starting with a truck that was already built and then dropping more money into it. That cost is completely out of line with what it would take to build the truck more in line with aerodynamic and efficiency ideals on the assembly line, there are enormous economies of scale to be realized which aren't present in the Bullet.

$115M, really? Somebody got jobbed. Seriously, if we, the taxpayers, are paying for this research, $115M is pretty damned expensive considering a lot of the data already existed and a perfectly viable example had already been built by independent research and then posted on an open forum.

I look forward to seeing more about the Starship! Great things coming down the pike - literally.

Thanks, Shepherd.

It cost each man,woman,and child in the USA 36-cents to finance the govt. portion.