New trends in European truck efficiency

[BrianAbington]

That tear drop trailer looks like it is a normal height at the rear.

It is probably just like a normal trailer all the way through from back to front with extra trim and aero pieces in a shell on the outside.

If it does have a bulge in the roof adding more room inside this would help a bit, companies will figure out how to load it...and its been my experience that somebody will always figure out how to cram everything in there so it is impossible to pull anything out without making the stuff stacked next to it fall over.

[BrianAbington]

What I want to know is why don't they take the shape of the bullet trains and incorporate that into semi truck/trailer combos. Could easily make a tapered front like that in about the same length as the current long nose trucks.

Wrap a steel bumper around the front and it will still be deer proof.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by BrianAbington

That tear drop trailer looks like it is a normal height at the rear.

It is probably just like a normal trailer all the way through from back to front with extra trim and aero pieces in a shell on the outside.

The height is normal, so they use smaller wheels to keep within the overall height restrictions.

The trailer then gets lifted to match standard-height loading docks.

The same lifting mechanism could be used to get the trailers over big potholes or anything that may damage the sideskirts.

[slowmover]

Good thread. Thanks for posting.

As to what truck companies want and don't want, well, those same entities tend to forget how heavily subsidized they already are. What lack of aero costs all of us is not a small consideration (or just big trucks) in any ten year period. A discussion of direct and indirect subsidies would have to ensue, (not to the point), yet it is safe to say that crying over labor and repair costs is a part of adapting new technology. It is more to the point that some sort of floor for adaptation is needed by all entities.

.

[Piwoslaw]

I found a presentation by the ACEA (European Automobile Manufacturers Association) on improving commercial vehicle efficiency and reducing their emissions:
COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, FUEL EFFICIENCY AND CO2, Challenges & Possible solutions
On page 4 it suggests that fuel efficiency for cargo hauling vehicles shouldn't be measured in liters per 100km as this is very misleading. A much better unit would be liters per 1000tonkm, which factors in the amount of cargo that can be carried. For large-volume cargo and passengers, m3-km and pass-km should be used, respectively.
Also, the testing procedure should be changed to better fit different types of duty cycles for different types of trucks.

Also, slide #7 shows that current European long-haul trucks already produce 30% less CO2 per ton-km than EPA's 2010 baseline for Heavy-Duty Vehicles (42 vs 61 gCO2/tkm @ 75% utilisation of loading capacity), and are still better than the US 2017 target (49 gCO2/tkm).

[Vekke]

The only real way to calculate heavy truck fuel consumtion is that liters/ton/100km. If you add one tonn more cargo fuel consumtion rises on 0.8 - 0.9 liter/100km.

Here is new article on mercedes benz aerodynamic truck.



Aero trailer design study from Mercedes-Benz: drastically cutting wind resistance and fuel consumption of semitrailer tractors | Daimler Global Media Site > Daimler Trucks > Mercedes-Benz CVs > Special Topics > Concept Vehicles

Biggest suprise is that there is nothing new on MB truck. Don`t they have any engineers there who can think out of the box? If so they should call me .

[user removed]

Ah dear Vekke, you must realize that the gradual progress of the industrial manufacturing complex is much preferred by those in power to your inventive character that might produce something that was disrrespectful to all of those vehicles that now populate the highways, and could cost people jobs.

After all we would not want to make the existing vehicle population obsolete overnight and drive a pump jockey at a filling station into poverty, would we?

regards
Mech

[bondo]

This is a nice design. I am trying to figure out how the tractor trailer interface allows for any turning radius.

Aerodynamic Truck Could Cut Fuel Costs In Half | TechVert

Bondo

[Sven7]

Very cool. I was thinking the same thing, as there doesn't seem to be a panel that moves out of the way during turns. There are also no steps for the driver to get into the vehicle and likely not enough airflow through the radiator. Not to mention panel gaps for the cab suspension. However, with such a cursory (and even condescending) overview, it's hard to tell what is actually happening.

Another problem, and I've been told this by those in the industry, is that they keep the basic cab form for decades and just restyle the nose cone. The nose in turn has to fit over the engine and cooling package, which makes it boxy. Anyway the point is they have a lot invested in these platforms and it would take millions of dollars just to retool for the manufacture of that cab, not counting design expenses and actually convincing companies to use it. That's why just buying new trailers is cost effective for the companies- the drivers can keep their trucks and the trucks don't cost any more. It's a challenge that can be overcome but it's not going to be easy.

I've got some ideas for a truck... hmm. Transportation Design senior looking for work

[bondo]

Sven7,

You must be a student at CCS. I have worked with many graduates from there. Good Trans program. You are very right about heavy truck manufacturers only redesigning the nose of an existing truck for aero. The costs are way high for a complete redesign as you state. I have done alot of work in the Peterbilt Motors design studio. We did a series of aerodynamic trucks in scale model form. The wild stuff was rejected.

I may well be up in your neck of the woods working at Ford in Dearborn soon. Good luck to you in your studies and I am sure there will be a job for you in the industry. You may have to be patient but it will come.

Bondo