"Big rigs will have to slash fuel consumption by 23 percent".

[p38fln]

The vast majority of drivers are paid by the mile, even drivers that own their own truck - but that doesn't mean they drive any slower, mileage based pay means the faster you go the more money you get.

You're not going to get 12-15 MPG out of an OTR tractor with this regulation - they're talking about a 23% increase. Since trucks are averaging 6 MPG right now, they're only talking about increasing to 7.38 MPG - which is VERY doable, and there are truck configurations on the road right now that can get this fuel economy (see my earlier post for some examples of trucks that are available today that I think will either meet or come very close to meeting the new standard).

Also, a big rig (from my own experimentation) gets about the best fuel economy at 55 MPH, dropping sharply off above 60. Of course, driving a big rig at 55 MPH in a state with a 75 (or 85) MPH speed limit is pretty much asking for a rather nasty accident. The rumor in the trucking world is that the state of Nevada actually sued Schneider National several years back for having their governers set to 55 MPH (and the state won). Not sure if that's true or not, since its something I heard in a truck stop.

Of course...
Some days just plain suck - this was the worst MPG I ever saw come out of the truck I was driving. Not sure if it was the cold weather or not, on a warm day the truck would get at least 5 MPG in the same mountainous area of PA.

[Brillig]

What you subsidize you will get more of.

We subsidize highway construction and maintenance from corporate and income taxes, less so from gas taxes (and other user fees - tolls etc.).

If roads were supported entirely from gas taxation, the price of gas would be more in line with European prices (double to triple what we pay) and reflect real costs of miles driven - and fuel economy would quickly mirror European numbers. Economics would compel it for the masses. The richer elements would still have the option of dissipating their wealth on conspicuous consumption (Giant daily use cars)

As it is we have a false economy which makes it artificially cheap to drive relatively less efficient cars - the Truck fleet is efficient, ton for ton, in comparison to the Hummer and SUV fleet - seems harsh to pick on the truckers, and subsidize the Hummers.

No way a 'federal mandate' will change laws of thermodynamics - and 8 or 10 mpg for a 40 ton vehicle beats the heck out of 20 mpg for a 2 ton one. Especially if the truck is bringing groceries to market, and the Hummer is the daily commuter, or shopping cart.

Tax subsidies create false economy and encourage waste.

And yes, I am prejudiced against the Hummer, and other tank like SUV's.

[p38fln]

Actually you are incorrect about fuel tax - I'm going to use Missouri for an example. We actually overpay for the highways.

A few years back, the voters in Missouri forced the state to spend any money collected with the fuel tax program on highways ONLY - not on railroads, not on public parks, not on public transit, and certainly not dumped into the state's general fund - Just on the highways that the fuel purchased was burned on, which was the original intention of the fuel tax program anyway.

The highway department wound up with so much money that they were able to repave every interstate highway in the state, finish several construction projects EARLY, and replace many bridges.

The legislature of the state eventually figured out a way to get the money diverted back into the general fund, but that's all the proof I ever needed that we more than pay for our highway systems. This was 2007 if I remember correctly, so it's not like it's from a bygone time or anything silly like that.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...they (Japan and Europe) are using mega-lift rails, as I recall, and are riding on a magnetic field with *no* physical contact--unlike our USA railroads...that's why!

Nope. Ordinary steel rails, just like US railroads, with rolling stock that in some cases looks like it dates back to the '50s. This is the normal railroads that carry local passengers & freight, not the TGV & other high-speed trains. Though the TGV that runs into Lausanne (the only one I have personal experience of) runs on the regular Swiss rail system.

[gone-ot]

Originally Posted by jamesqf

Nope. Ordinary steel rails, just like US railroads, with rolling stock that in some cases looks like it dates back to the '50s. This is the normal railroads that carry local passengers & freight, not the TGV & other high-speed trains. Though the TGV that runs into Lausanne (the only one I have personal experience of) runs on the regular Swiss rail system.

...then, I "stand corrected" as I was under the impression that Europe's highspeed trains (like Japan's and China's) were mega-lift.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by p38fln

Actually you are incorrect about fuel tax - I'm going to use Missouri for an example. We actually overpay for the highways.

A few years back, the voters in Missouri forced the state to spend any money collected with the fuel tax program on highways ONLY - not on railroads, not on public parks, not on public transit, and certainly not dumped into the state's general fund - Just on the highways that the fuel purchased was burned on, which was the original intention of the fuel tax program anyway.

The highway department wound up with so much money that they were able to repave every interstate highway in the state, finish several construction projects EARLY, and replace many bridges.

The legislature of the state eventually figured out a way to get the money diverted back into the general fund, but that's all the proof I ever needed that we more than pay for our highway systems. This was 2007 if I remember correctly, so it's not like it's from a bygone time or anything silly like that.

I couldn't have said it any better...

Sadly, as you pointed out, politicians will always find a way to divert that fuel tax money into the general fund...

>

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by p38fln

Also, a big rig (from my own experimentation) gets about the best fuel economy at 55 MPH, dropping sharply off above 60. Of course...

Same thing happens to me with my diesel suburban, anything much over 60-65 mph and fuel milage drops fast.

[rmay635703]

Originally Posted by Patrick

To infinity, and beyond!

We already had one and destroy'd it to be replaced by diesel bus's and semis

[superchow]

As someone that spent the last winter in the North Dakota oil fields helping to fix semi trucks OUTSIDE, aero considerations was pretty low in the priority list. I got to work on Freightliners, Kenworths, Western Stars and a Peterbilt. Note: I am not a mechanic by trade, I studied Landscape Architecture. Here the priorities of me helping to fix the trucks and the drivers and the owner:

1. Reliability
2. Accessibility of components when they do break or need maintenance
3. Power (because power = less time spent climbing hills with 100 barrels of dirty fracking water)

The faster and longer a truck can go without stopping for maintenance, the more money it can make for the driver and owner. And when incomes are in the 4 maybe 5 digits a week, fuel is just a necessary means to an end. And when it comes to replacing an air dryer (not cleaner) that is located on the inside of the truck frame in -30 degrees you really could care less about 1 or 2 mpg that could be gained from better aero.

That being said, when I was sitting inside drinking hot coffee the mind di cross my mind how to get the best of both worlds.

[jamesqf]

Originally Posted by Old Tele man

...then, I "stand corrected" as I was under the impression that Europe's highspeed trains (like Japan's and China's) were mega-lift.

Some may be. I don't know one way or the other. But there is the whole low/medium speed network, too. I used to see the TGV a lot when I lived in Lausanne, since there's a nice bike route that sort of weaves around the railway track north to Vallorbe, where it goes through a tunnel into France, and it runs on the same track as the regular traffic.